Are loser protagonists really relatable?

[BlackKnightX]

Too often we've seen protagonists from novels/web novels/movies/anime as losers. I get it. Having the character starts at the lowest point creates an opportunity for them to learn and grow. But if we're talking about relatability—which is very important—does it really work?

Whenever I hear someone speak against a cool or perfect character (only as perceived by most people; no human is perfect), they often say they're not relatable. And when asked why the loser protagonists, they'll say because they're relatable.

But, really? Does that mean most of the audiences are losers in real life? By that, I mean, just like the protagonists, they're at the bottom rung, the absolute worst. How many people in real life are like that? I don't think it's the majority at all. Most audiences are at worst just ordinary people who have friends and an acceptable social skill and are neither underachieving or overachieving; in other words, they're not really losers. In fact, I suspect lots of people among that audience are slightly above or above average in all those respect. Put simply, they're normal, everyday people.

So why makes the protagonists losers, outcasts, and sometimes bullied? Personally, when I see this kind of protagonist, I can't relate to them at all, rather, I'd feel pity for them. It evokes sympathy rather than empathy.

Yes, seeing someone worse than we are can evoke sympathy, thus makes us want to root for them, but we all know empathy is way more powerful than sympathy.

When we feel empathy, we see ourselves in the character and put ourselves in their shoes instead of pitying them from the superior standpoint. And when we're in their shoes, what they feel, we feel, what they experience, we experience as if we're there. Isn't that better? What's your thought on this?

 

[TheEldritchGod]

Does that mean most of the audiences are losers in real life?

Seriously? Do... we even need to answer this question?
YES.
People have LOST far more than they won. There is the 1% and we call them the 1% because only 12% of us will ever be 1%ers.
(in America. The more socialist your country, the lower your chances.

So, America, where 54% of americans will be in the top 20% of the wealthest people in the US, most Americans identify with WINNERS.

In the rest of the world, like china, where 3% of people will be in the top 1% and 28% will reach the top 20%, then those people mostly identify with losers. Because they lose more. Socialism sucks.

 

[Cipiteca396]

I think your definitions of sympathy and empathy are reversed, lol. Sympathy is a sense of rapport with someone who's experienced something similar to yourself, while empathy is just an understanding of how somebody else's feelings feel to them.

That aside, you're probably right. People love to mock 'loser protagonists' because they can't relate to them. Most of the time, when someone says a loser protagonist is more relatable, it's because they look down on readers as sweaty cave weabs who can't string two words together. It's a bit of 'know your audience' that backfired too badly.

I do think there's some merit to it though. You say that most people are just average folk, or even above average, but I don't think it's so cut and dry. Most people have a range of talents and flaws that make them 'losers' in some ways, and exceptional people in others. A good portion of those people will see an absolute loser struggle with everything, and feel sympathy for the things that they also struggle with.

So it could go both ways, really. An absolute 'loser' can start to feel unbelievable, but a bit of bad luck or dysphoria can bring similar situations to mind for the reader.

 

[NotaNuffian]

To me, it is less of them being a loser than makes them relatable, it is them being losers but still has the will to fight and bite that makes them relatable.

It is not about relating to them, it is more like seeing an underdog rising. We all love the underdog.

If the loser is just whining and useless, no one would want to read him.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

It's probably better to invoke empathy by having something unjust happen to the MC. That way readers can root for justice and take the side of the MC.

 

[BlackKnightX]

Seriously? Do... we even need to answer this question?
YES.
People have LOST far more than they won. There is the 1% and we call them the 1% because only 12% of us will ever be 1%ers.
(in America. The more socialist your country, the lower your chances.

So, America, where 54% of americans will be in the top 20% of the wealthest people in the US, most Americans identify with WINNERS.

In the rest of the world, like china, where 3% of people will be in the top 1% and 28% will reach the top 20%, then those people mostly identify with losers. Because they lose more. Socialism sucks.

Sure, but why can't we just make them ordinary people? No need to start at the top. Just make them ordinary, everyday, decent people who we might wanna hang out with in real life?

I think your definitions of sympathy and empathy are reversed, lol. Sympathy is a sense of rapport with someone who's experienced something similar to yourself, while empathy is just an understanding of how somebody else's feelings feel to them.

Here are Oxford's definitions:

- Sympathy: feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.

- Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

That said, I think I already got it right. Sympathy is pity, empathy is rapport.

I do think there's some merit to it though. You say that most people are just average folk, or even above average, but I don't think it's so cut and dry. Most people have a range of talents and flaws that make them 'losers' in some ways, and exceptional people in others. A good portion of those people will see an absolute loser struggle with everything, and feel sympathy for the things that they also struggle with.

So it could go both ways, really. An absolute 'loser' can start to feel unbelievable, but a bit of bad luck or dysphoria can bring similar situations to mind for the reader.

That's a really good point.

It is not about relating to them, it is more like seeing an underdog rising. We all love the underdog.

True. But it's also one flavor, though. Seeing a cool, badass dude takes down bad guys is also fun and cathartic. John Wick, for instance, or Ainz Ool Gown, or our good ol' Goku. (I still remember one of my favorites scenes I read when I was young. It was the scene where Goku took down the entire enemy base on his own, and he's still pretty young at that point. Goku is highly flawed, but I wouldn't call him a loser, in a typical sense.)

 

[Alfir]

Yes, they were relatable especially if the Character Development was good, because most often, that was the source of most audience's identification with the protagonist and not the 'Loser' label actually.
When I see something a loser protagonist overcomes, I often remark. "Wow, I actually had the same problem, but I solved it in a different way."

 

[NineHeadHeavenDevouringSerpent]

what they experience, we experience as if we're there. Isn't that better? What's your thought on this?

I tend not to put myself in protag shoes, I'm much more of a god complex guy who likes watching him acting stupid, crying when his girl dies and cringing at his heroic deeds.

Ofcourse I'll contemplate what I would have done in his place, and most of the times I feel i could have done it better (like I said, god-complex).


Or I'm just too old and jaded to feel any attachments to feeble, weak coming of age MC's.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

But if we're talking about relatability—which is very important—does it really work?

Sure, but why can't we just make them ordinary people? No need to start at the top. Just make them ordinary, everyday, decent people who we might wanna hang out with in real life?

You didn't ask if you could make them ordinary people. I quote your original post. You are talking about relatability. Americans like Soap opera TV shows about characters on average 2 Standard Deviations above them in wealth as characters to watch. In England, their soap operas have most people be, economically, AVERAGE.

The American market LOVES winners, because we see ourselves as winners, because over half of us will spend at least one year of our lives in the top 20% by wealth.

THESE ARE STATISTICAL FACTS.

If you want to write a story based on your audience's ability to relate, know your audience. If the MC starts poor, but becomes rich and powerful, always moving forward, Americans can relate. If he's poor, stays poor, and never strives and always loses, Americans will tend to avoid that story, but England might eat it up.

Know your demographic.

If you wanna do a slice of life, then do a slice of life, but don't expect the power fantasy crowd to batter down your door.

 

[TotallyHuman]

But, really? Does that mean most of the audiences are losers in real life? By that, I mean, just like the protagonists, they're at the bottom rung, the absolute worst. How many people in real life are like that? I don't think it's the majority at all. Most audiences are at worst just ordinary people who have friends and an acceptable social skill and are neither underachieving or overachieving; in other words, they're not really losers

But people never think objectively. Nobody thinks they are good enough. Many think they are not good enough, that they could be better. If you're ordinary then you're a loser. I will not say if that mindset is bad, but that's how a lot of people think. And if you look at those "loser" characters, they aren't that bad objectively speaking either a lot of times. But they could be better.

Seriously? Do... we even need to answer this question?
YES.
People have LOST far more than they won. There is the 1% and we call them the 1% because only 12% of us will ever be 1%ers.
(in America. The more socialist your country, the lower your chances.

So, America, where 54% of americans will be in the top 20% of the wealthest people in the US, most Americans identify with WINNERS.

In the rest of the world, like china, where 3% of people will be in the top 1% and 28% will reach the top 20%, then those people mostly identify with losers. Because they lose more. Socialism sucks.

This is very retarded and I'd think it was sarcasm if I didn't know people who legit think this way.

 

[PeacefulMyst]

This is very retarded and I'd think it was sarcasm if I didn't know people who legit think this way.

Same lmao

 

[Daitengu]

It's a generic catch-all imo. Can't be a loser if you're the best at something, but you sure as hell can be a loser just by being middling and you piss off the top tier by just existing.

 

[Lloyd]

They are relatable to everyone on scribble hub, especially the people on these forums.

 

[SailusGebel]

Personally, when I see this kind of protagonist, I can't relate to them at all, rather, I'd feel pity for them. It evokes sympathy rather than empathy.

Bruh.

 

[TotallyHuman]

Personally, when I see this kind of protagonist, I can't relate to them at all, rather, I'd feel pity for them. It evokes sympathy rather than empathy.

I'm just a poor boy
I need no sympathy
Because I
easy come easy go
little high little low
Anyway the wind blows
Doesn't really matter
To me
To me

 

[MintiLime]

I think that rather than BEING a loser, I think FEELING like a loser is relatable.

Most humans will have something they are good at and something they are bad at. Usually, the things they are good at aren’t things that suddenly make them rich and powerful.

“Abilities” can take something like “relatively good” like “mediocre cooking skills” and turn you into a number one top chef demon hunter warlord superstar. Which is reallllyyyyy attractive to people that feel like they’ve reached a dead end in their lives.

 

[BlackKnightX]

I'm just a poor boy
I need no sympathy
Because I
easy come easy go
little high little low
Anyway the wind blows
Doesn't really matter
To me
To me

It's okay. Life has only just begun. Don't go and throw it all away now, got it~?

 

[Redadam04]

I think we shouldn't think too much of it.

 

[BlackKnightX]

I think we shouldn't think too much of it.

It's pretty fun to think about, though. There's gotta be a reason why it's so ubiquitous, right?

 

[Redadam04]

It's pretty fun to think about, though. There's gotta be a reason why it's so ubiquitous, right?

Maybe~~~