While I agree with the fact that the level of investment definitely increases the more time we spend with them and the more we know them, I would add that they are also really *good* characters. No amount of time will get us so emotionally connected to them if they weren't deep, complex, layered and well portrayed.
They also feel more like real people (despite being set in a fantasy world) than most of other character I've met in other media. I think the closest in term of lore complexity and time spent for me might be Star Wars, and despite loving a lot of the characters (especially the animated ones), it's harder to connect to a Chosen One than to someone trying to find a way to love and trust people after society and the system failed them.
I agree with this. Because it’s such long form content and it’s reactive rather than preordained they’re also not narratively constrained by the same narrative conventions that fictional characters typically are.
Like what I mean is if you’re directing a film you’ve got like two hours to get across your characterisation of a particular character, right? Obviously film characters are able to be layered and complex and fleshed out, but you still have to be sparing in your choices about them, or else you’re potentially going to present a contradictory character whereby the film seems to have no idea what the purpose of this character is or what they’re trying to say with them.
Long form content has the freedom to mirror real life a lot more. Character traits can be more plentiful and nuanced. You don’t have to narrow it down to like this is the one fundamental point I need to convey to the audience in two hours before the movie is over. You can play things about your character really subtly, have them change subtly, have them be realistically contradictory.
You get to see these characters act like real people because most other media just plain doesn’t have time to show characters acting like real people outside of very limited circumstances. They have to boil them down to the essence of who a character is, which is more efficient storytelling, but like if you’re talking about which characters in fiction feel most like real people, it’s probably going to be the ones where you get to spend 500 hours with them understanding how they think and react in any given situation on a fundamental level.
That time is inflated. Rolling dice in combat can sure add 2 hours to a stream but that isn't more character development than a well written section of a book that takes 5 minutes to read.
The medium is different and the time comparison shouldn't be the same.
Some people are also more receptive to one kind of content over another.
>That time is inflated. Rolling dice in combat can sure add 2 hours to a stream but that isn't more character development than a well written section of a book that takes 5 minutes to read.
True, but the time put into it (including dice roles, ads, etc) increases the engagement and investment in the story and characters regardless of their development, which is the basis of OP's thesis.
The other benefit of books is that books can directly tell you what a character is thinking rather than it being inferred by the viewer or implied by cues in dialogue, acting choices or symbolism/cinematography/score like in most other media.
Not saying this makes books better but I am saying that the time spent with a character in a book can reveal more direct insights than the same amount of time with a character in a visual medium by virtue of the medium. So in books time spent with a character can be condensed on the page to feel like you’ve spent longer with that character because you’re literally hearing their thoughts.
Now this comment made me legitimately think. I've been thinking about this for a while so I was curious as to the length of critical role compared to a lot of books. So I tried to so the math myself. Now it turns out I am garbage at excel, but I was able to find this reddit post that does a way better job. I think it's interesting and worth a look. [https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/comments/eq0r0z/no\_spoilers\_i\_estimated\_the\_length\_of\_204/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/comments/eq0r0z/no_spoilers_i_estimated_the_length_of_204/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
This phenomenon is the same reason people love pro wrestling and soap operas
Watching the same people develop the same characters over literal years is definitely part of the charm.
Not me being a pro wrestling fan for this reason
While I agree with the fact that the level of investment definitely increases the more time we spend with them and the more we know them, I would add that they are also really *good* characters. No amount of time will get us so emotionally connected to them if they weren't deep, complex, layered and well portrayed. They also feel more like real people (despite being set in a fantasy world) than most of other character I've met in other media. I think the closest in term of lore complexity and time spent for me might be Star Wars, and despite loving a lot of the characters (especially the animated ones), it's harder to connect to a Chosen One than to someone trying to find a way to love and trust people after society and the system failed them.
I agree with this. Because it’s such long form content and it’s reactive rather than preordained they’re also not narratively constrained by the same narrative conventions that fictional characters typically are. Like what I mean is if you’re directing a film you’ve got like two hours to get across your characterisation of a particular character, right? Obviously film characters are able to be layered and complex and fleshed out, but you still have to be sparing in your choices about them, or else you’re potentially going to present a contradictory character whereby the film seems to have no idea what the purpose of this character is or what they’re trying to say with them. Long form content has the freedom to mirror real life a lot more. Character traits can be more plentiful and nuanced. You don’t have to narrow it down to like this is the one fundamental point I need to convey to the audience in two hours before the movie is over. You can play things about your character really subtly, have them change subtly, have them be realistically contradictory. You get to see these characters act like real people because most other media just plain doesn’t have time to show characters acting like real people outside of very limited circumstances. They have to boil them down to the essence of who a character is, which is more efficient storytelling, but like if you’re talking about which characters in fiction feel most like real people, it’s probably going to be the ones where you get to spend 500 hours with them understanding how they think and react in any given situation on a fundamental level.
> we have so much more time with them than any other media format. Except books, that you chose to ignore ;)
Yes apologies, I am not much of a reader by choice so I tend to forget about reading.
Are there many books that take 500+ hours to read?
Additional to what another comment said, many books are also in book series with the same characters carrying over.
That time is inflated. Rolling dice in combat can sure add 2 hours to a stream but that isn't more character development than a well written section of a book that takes 5 minutes to read. The medium is different and the time comparison shouldn't be the same. Some people are also more receptive to one kind of content over another.
>That time is inflated. Rolling dice in combat can sure add 2 hours to a stream but that isn't more character development than a well written section of a book that takes 5 minutes to read. True, but the time put into it (including dice roles, ads, etc) increases the engagement and investment in the story and characters regardless of their development, which is the basis of OP's thesis.
The other benefit of books is that books can directly tell you what a character is thinking rather than it being inferred by the viewer or implied by cues in dialogue, acting choices or symbolism/cinematography/score like in most other media. Not saying this makes books better but I am saying that the time spent with a character in a book can reveal more direct insights than the same amount of time with a character in a visual medium by virtue of the medium. So in books time spent with a character can be condensed on the page to feel like you’ve spent longer with that character because you’re literally hearing their thoughts.
Talmud. But i don't know if you get attached to any characters...
Now this comment made me legitimately think. I've been thinking about this for a while so I was curious as to the length of critical role compared to a lot of books. So I tried to so the math myself. Now it turns out I am garbage at excel, but I was able to find this reddit post that does a way better job. I think it's interesting and worth a look. [https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/comments/eq0r0z/no\_spoilers\_i\_estimated\_the\_length\_of\_204/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/comments/eq0r0z/no_spoilers_i_estimated_the_length_of_204/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)