…to demand that a work be \u201crelatable\u201d\u009d expresses a different expectation: that the work itself be somehow accommodating to, or reflective of, the experience of the reader or viewer. The reader or viewer remains passive in the face of the book or movie or play: she expects the work to be done for her. If the concept of identification suggested that an individual experiences a work as a mirror in which he might recognize himself, the notion of relatability implies that the work in question serves like a selfie: a flattering confirmation of an individual\u2019s solipsism.<\/p>\n
To appreciate \u201cKing Lear\u201d\u009d\u201d\u201dor even \u201cThe Catcher in the Rye\u201d\u009d or \u201cThe Fault in Our Stars\u201d\u009d\u201d\u201donly to the extent that the work functions as one\u2019s mirror would make for a hopelessly reductive experience. But to reject any work because we feel that it does not reflect us in a shape that we can easily recognize\u201d\u201dbecause it does not exempt us from the active exercise of imagination or the effortful summoning of empathy\u201d\u201dis our own failure. It\u2019s a failure that has been dispiritingly sanctioned by the rise of \u201crelatable.\u201d\u009d In creating a new word and embracing its self-involved implications, we have circumscribed our own critical capacities. That\u2019s what sucks, not Shakespeare.<\/p>\n