Nsryjdtyk

I don't know if this is something that is established in the discipline of literature. However, I have found that in any fiction, with all else being equal, the more the characters behave like real humans, the more I enjoy it. Perhaps because I find it easier to feel invested.

What I'm not saying is that I enjoy fiction more if it has more plausible or realistic scenarios in which we would typically find humans. For example, I don't, prima facie, enjoy a scene of humans fighting in the trenches during WW1 more than a scene of humans fighting an army with magic and dragons.

However, I would enjoy a story where characters respond to dragons and magic in a similar manner as I would expect real humans to respond to these things, more than I would enjoy one in which characters respond to these things with unnatural valor or indifference. Even if the characters are some fictional non-human species, like elves.

For example, it was well known that, in WW1, many soldiers had such anxiety in the face of heavy artillery that they would often avoid confrontation if they could get away with it, to the dismay or ignorance of their commanding officers. Live and Let Live is a good illustration of this. I would find it quite jarring and contrary to human nature if, in a battle with wizards that can unleash devastating magic that can kill entire squads in a matter of seconds, every single conscripted soldier was using every opportunity they had to be the best soldier that they could be.

At the same time, I understand that it's entirely plausible for characters in a fictional world to not have similar behavior to us. All of our anxieties, susceptibility to cognitive biases, etc., are a result of a very specific way our brains have evolved. Why should we expect elves, ghost-aliens, or even humans that evolved in a different world, to have those same traits? As long as deviations from human nature are consistent, shouldn't we be just as tolerant of them as we are of the existence of magic and dragons? Yet I find that I'm not.

I should clarify that my preference for human nature is entirely based on psychological and behavioral traits, not on other physical traits. For example, my enjoyment of Animal Farm is in no way diminished by a character's lack of ability to scratch their snout using their front hooves.

Should I expect my readers to share my preference towards characters that accurately portray human nature, even in a fantasy setting or if they're not human? Can unnatural deviations from human nature be useful for the purpose of entertainment in literature?

"Factual realism" is just a style, and an inclination towards it is just a personal preference. But "emotional realism" is everything in fiction. We'll forgive any kind of factual implausibility (or flight of fancy) if the emotions read true. The reason is simple: One of the main reasons we read fiction is for non-didactic learning. The fictional scenario puts us in the place and mindset of another person, and we learn, in a very natural, emotion based way, from what that person does or fails to do. It's not necessary for the circumstances to be realistic, or naturalistic, but if they are unrealistic to the point that we can neither emphasize nor learn anything, it greatly diminishes our pleasure and immersion.

Some of this is individual to the specific reader. But some of it is not. A wholly alien protagonist would be frustrating and off-putting to most readers. But so would an otherwise realistic protagonist who makes unjustifiable mistakes no reasonable person would make. On the other hand, reading about a person who is coping with special, idiosyncratic challenges (as in Room or The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time or Lord of the Rings) can be extremely compelling, even we don't share those particular challenges, because we all have our own personal challenges we have to face. (The key here is making the challenges believable and consistent.)

There's quite a bit more room to be "alien" with the antagonist, or even with the protagonist's allies. Most of us can identify with at least occasionally dealing with other people whose behaviors we find odd, inscrutable, or flat out insane. So the writing can still be relatable even if the villain isn't. (A villain of this sort, however, is more of a "condition of nature" than a three-dimensional character.)

What you need from your characterisation is not scientific accuracy, but that the characters are relatable. It's easy to mistake this for what you've asked about, since characters need to be somewhat like us to be relatable. I'll say more about why accuracy is the wrong way to think about it in a moment.

I recently watched a video explaining that a lot of writing goes awry due to thinking it needs to be more or less dark, or serious, than something that went before, because that something failed. But in the examples cited, it is argued the problem, not only with the earlier work but also a failed attempt to improve on it, is that the characters were never relatable enough. I wholeheartedly agree with many of the video's points, including the point that the darker parts of a plot "work" because we relate enough to the affected characters to care about the problems they face.

Right, about accuracy. The first issue is most people don't really know what human nature is like anyway (and may overestimate how stable it is across time and places, as in pessimism about the possibility of a progressive future, or underestimate how much different peoples have in common, as in xenophobia). So do you need to be accurate to actual facts, or believed alternatives? The second issue is you can get away with things believed-while-consuming conventions. Conflict occurs far more readily between people who could easily get along, even more so in fiction than in real life, because you need something to drive the story.

Let's look at a few ways, in no particular order, that fiction often deliberately gets human nature "wrong" for the better:

• When you say a cool enough line, the other person is speechless.


• In a fight, at least one person says something witty, and the greatest wit wins.


• When you go on an adventure, you'll change your nature, or your opinion about something important to you in a short time (or if you won't, others around you will).

As for non-human peoples in fiction, that's always tricky because you'll need to think carefully about how inventive you want to be. I recommend studying examples of this trope to see what happens when aliens are, well... alien in their ideas or behaviour. The "likely candidates" paragraph will help you, but so will how well you think specific examples of this trope worked. But if they don't work, I suspect it's because they're not relatable enough.

A great example, in my opinion, of a relatable alien morality - for villains, no less - is that of the Sontarans in Doctor Who. Their morality is one they can consistently apply to other peoples, rather than a simple "we're best" attitude. They wage war, not necessarily because they hate the opponent or want their resources, but because they think war itself is a good thing. (Their ongoing war with the Rutans is a product of that species feeling the same way.) They can be stunned from the back, but don't see this as a weakness because it means they'll always nobly face their enemies. They think death in battle, of a Sontaran or otherwise, is honourable. They sometimes punish their own kind by forcing them to care for the sick.

That's all very unlike humans, isn't it? But be honest, it's relatable. Not only does knowing one or two facts about them make sense of the others; you can really get inside their head, and imagine how they'd feel and why. You won't agree, but you'll relate, which is what really matters. You could argue their thoughts are not so much alien as like those of certain militaries before World War I. But the Sontarans are just as relatable whether or not that's true, or you think it is, or it occurs to you.