First, read Rebecca Mead's "The Scourge of Relatability." Done? OK.

Mead's central argument is her own interpretation of what she believes "relatability" is in the 21st century. She states that much of what people think of relatable today has to fit into the criteria "that the work itself be somehow accommodating to, or reflective of, the experience of the reader or viewer."

However, she believes that "to reject any work because we feel that it does not reflect us in a shape that we can easily recognize — because it does not exempt us from the active exercise of imagination or the effortful summoning of empathy — is our own failure." I agree with Mead's stance because much of what people claim to be "relatable" nowadays, seems to have to reflect how connected something is to an individual. Otherwise, a piece of work may be looked down upon or it may be something people may be less interested in them.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with a piece that is not so relatable. Someone may produce a book, production, or a piece of art for the purpose to share their story and reflect on their own implications and not solely for the purpose of everyone being able to "relate" to them completely. Rather than having "relatability" as a criterion, a better way to evaluate something would be to analyze how the work impacts people the most. In other words, how much insight it brings to an audience, the kinds of impacts it makes on people, what the purpose of it is, and how well it represents what its purpose is. In that way, things can be more appreciated not solely based on whether or not we can fully connect to it, but based on how it may affect everyone as a whole.

There is always something that can be taken out of things that are not so "relatable" to ourselves. There is always a new lesson to learn.