They Aren't Real

Ashton Garcia 

2nd Lit Post, They Aren't Real 

July 30th, 2015 

As we all know, characters make a story. Or, at least, they help make one. They're odd though, because no matter how much we can relate to them, they aren't actually real. Some are relatable because they have so many prominent traits, while some have very few. We can still understand and connect to both types of characters. Typically, the one with the strongest traits, because they're quite often the main character. But if they aren't real, how come they have real traits and concepts that we understand? 

When Foster first said that characters aren't real in any way, shape, or form, I felt like I strongly disagreed. We read books and watch movies with such relatable characters, and they seem to feel the same way that we as real humans do. How can they not be real when we are so familiar with the character ourself, or know someone exactly like that character? Then I really started thinking about it. I really started to think about even real, human actors. They might be real people portraying the character, but that character is part of our imagination. They are nothing more than a piece of literature and writing. Someone took words from a piece of paper, and created a character of their own. Even when a movie or a book reflects the life of someone, they still aren't real. Even in the movie "Lincoln," late President Abraham Lincoln isn't real. He was a real person, but at that time, he was a character made from a script. 

We can usually relate to the main character, or the round character, who has very strong traits, and has a tasteful personality. The other characters are static characters, usually having a more bland character or having one prominent characteristic. The main character also usually goes through some sort of change, which we don't quite realize until it's explained what exactly the character went through. Take Simba from the Lion King, for example. He "Just can't WAIT to be kiting!" But to do that, he must grow up. He's a very immature and childish character, not being able to wait for the throne, when he hardly even knows how to manage a kingdom. He doesn't think everything through, something that he has to do in order to be a great king. Now, Scar killed Mufasa, Simba's father, but Mufasa also died because Simba trusted the wrong person. Simba leaves then because he doesn't feel welcomed or deserving of being in his kingdom. He goes through a long and eventful journey where he grows as into a man (per se),and changes into a free and fun-loving lion. The static characters around him, Timone, Pumba, Rafiki, and even his father who appears in a cloud, are all responsible for Simba's growth, yet he is the one we relate to and follow. 

Even though We can relate to Simba and feel his pain and joy and everything else in between, he is far from a real character. We understand his pain to an extent, we understand his freedom, and we can totally relate to having or knowing friends like Timone and Pumba. Even if they made The Lion King a movie with real, human actors, Simba would still never be real. Neither would any of the cast, for they are simply just characters made from literature, from words on a page. Not matter how much you try to make them human, no matter how hard you try to get your audience to relate, they'll still be a character from words, and words just simply aren't living, breathing things. They're made to feel so real because if they weren't, who would be interested in the story? Whether it's a book or a movie or a play, if the character isn't relatable, no one would want to waste their time with that. The author and director want people to feel something, and to understand something ad have a familiar feeling. People want drama. We know how much the world loves drama.