Is it better to have an MC you can relate to or one you can look up to?

Is it better to have an MC you can relate to or one you can look up to?

Attached: 898766545.png (1196x600, 1.04M)

I love ken but I dont look up to ken. Hes had a life where destiny constantly fucks him over at every turn. Yet, he still is the greatest perpetrator of its design. HnK is a divine tragedy.

Why not both?

Attached: hero.png (338x600, 133.1K)

Why would I ever look up to deku?

If you cannot relate to the protagonist, then he's a shit protagonist and you won't enjoy the story.

The question only arises because you don't understand what that even means.
You can't even look up to people that you can't relate to.
How would you?
>Man, this boulder is so big. I wish I became that big too. This boulder is my hero.
That doesn't work (unless you project human attributes onto the boulder and then relating to the fictional anthropomorphized version of it).

tldr:
OP is stupid.

>You can't enjoy a protagonist without self-inserting into them
Genuine mental illness.

Attached: cringe.png (780x439, 259.77K)

The first case idealize the reader, the second case idealizes the character, and in both the story ends to become secondary.

Start former, and become latter as he goes through character growth

>If you cannot relate to the protagonist, then he's a shit protagonist and you won't enjoy the story.
Absolute giga-brainlet take. Holy fuck you're so stupid. Oh my God. I don't know how to start displaying your idiocy. Just read any of the classic novels. Don Quixote, Moby Dick, Ulysses, etc. Huge chances are: you are not gonna relate to the main characters, but that has zero fucking bearing on the quality of the character or the narrative, and it SHOULDN'T have any bearing on your enjoyment either. If you do, you are quite literally child-brained, and I genuinely mean that. Children, due to their undeveloped brains, have little empathy and understanding of others afford. So they prefer to follow stories with characters that remind them of themselves. Adults, with their much bigger neural capacity for empathy and understanding people, have no issues following the stories of people that do not reflect them. Now put two and two together: you're a manchild, Harry.

> you can't relate to someone unless you are literally them
> different humans have nothing in common
whew get a load of this midwit

>If you cannot relate to the protagonist, then he's a shit protagonist and you won't enjoy the story.
Personally I agree for the most part.

Reading comprehension, retard. Acquire it. You're agreeing with me.

>equating relating to self-inserting
>assuming you can only do this with people who you think are exactly like you
You are sad little fucks.

>. Don Quixote, Moby Dick, Ulysses
But all of those have reletable mcs?

It's quite a different and enjoyable experience if you can't relate to the protagonist at all. Of course that itself doesn't make a story good or bad, the storywriting is what makes the story good or bad

Attached: 1648489479893.jpg (400x400, 16.13K)

My point is that people that seem like they do not reflect still share human traits that will get you to care about them. Yes, even Don Quixote

I see, you're misinterpreting what OP meant by relatable. Is it on purpose or autism?

Not to the average person, no. All of these have a common denominator: sheer madness. You'd have to be mentally ill (and I mean that in a completely neutral, non judgemental way) to relate to them.

My entire point of my post was that OP was mistaken in how he assumes associating with characters works.

People don't equate themselves with characters.
People are different from each other. They are not all the same.
If you needed to find a character that was identical to you to make a connection, then fiction would fail in general.
OP is simply wrong.

Okay, it's autism. Thanks for clarifying.

Do you have an example of a completely alien protagonist that you were unable to relate to?