# Unlikeable MCs



## OurJud (Jul 29, 2013)

I'd be interested to hear how others feel about unlikeable main characters.

Personally, I think it would be unwise to make your MC _deeply_ unlikeable, but by the same token I can't stand Mr Perfects either. It's easy to say make your character 'flawed but interesting', but to what degree do you do this?

For me, whatever your MC's flaws and traits might be, your reader must relate to them in some way and identify at least something in them that they 'get' or understand. I think it can be a tricky thing to pull off successfully.

Now that I've switched from 3rd person to 1st, for the rewrite of my story, I find I can 'hear' by MC much better. He's going to be a good man at heart, but grouchy, sometimes nasty, and someone who has very little time for others. I need to be careful, both that he isn't too unlikable, and that I don't make it too obviously autobiographical.

I read a book once called _The Sandman_. It was about a serial killer, told in 1st person and from his POV, and while I didn't 'like' him - for obvious reasons - there were still elements of him that I understood and, somewhat worryingly, recognised.

Thoughts?


----------



## Jeko (Jul 29, 2013)

When drafting I try to write my characters as normal people in an enjoyable way, centering them around a select few traits that are most prominent in them overall. In don't try to have my readers have an in-depth relationship with any of them, but I aim for the reader to enjoy the characters. Thus, a really nasty kind of character can be as enjoyable as a on-purpose Mr Perfect, as long as I work hard enough on making them enjoyable.

Though I am writing for children, so I keep things simple on purpose.


----------



## OurJud (Jul 29, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Though I am writing for children, so I keep things simple on purpose.



So no serial killers, then?


----------



## Jeko (Jul 29, 2013)

> So no serial killers, then? :grin:



Actually, yes. But enjoyable serial killers.

Basically, I approach everything with a light touch.


----------



## gmehl (Jul 29, 2013)

I'm not sure I could care very much for a serial killer, but the MC you are describing (good at heart, grouchy, sometimes nasty, no time for others) has historically been a popular concept throughout literature and I'm certain you could add to the endless variations on the theme, especially when you take us to how he came to this particular position in life.  Go for it!


----------



## Jeko (Jul 29, 2013)

> I find I can 'hear' by MC much better. He's going to be a good man at heart, but grouchy, sometimes nasty, and someone who has very little time for others.



Reminds me a little of Luther.


----------



## Sam (Jul 29, 2013)

gmehl said:


> I'm not sure I could care very much for a serial killer



Dexter Morgan is a perfect example. The television show is top-notch, but the books (Jeff Lindsay) are even darker and a terrific read.


----------



## BreakingMyself (Jul 29, 2013)

I don't like the MC to be flat and boring, kind of an obvious one. If I'm not interested in the MC, I'm usually not interested in their story and never finish the book.

Serial killers are fine, I can hate them sure, but if it's still a good read, why not? The Pawn by Steven James is a good example, although it has two MCs, the other being an agent chasing the killer.


----------



## Govinda (Jul 29, 2013)

Hmmm...  I've had this chat at other times, and forgive the pedantry, but I guess it boils down to what what means by "likable".

Hannibal Lecter is a frightening person whom I loved immensely as a character.  The book I'm reading at the moment, The_Sparrow, contains two side kicks, Anne & George, who are so unflappably nice and good natured that I want to strangle them just to see them do something mildly ugly so that I can think of them as humans.  The MC in the book is intriguing to me, though I can't say he would be the kind of person I would befriend in real life.  Amiable people who get my contempt when on the page, heinous individuals who steal from me nights of sleep as I fervently turn the page, and ambivalent people who make for a good read, but who have more drama than I am willing to deal with were they flesh and blood.  *shrug*   Go figure.


----------



## Kehawin (Jul 29, 2013)

Jud, I am glad to hear that switching to first person has helped with some of the roadblocks you were experiencing.  (Funny, I have actually been considering doing the same!)  I don't think that "autobiographical" leanings are a problem at all - unless you are writing a really perverted or sadistic character.  I often wonder if other authors who have made memorable characters didn't make those characters quite autobiographical themselves.  For example, I am convinced that G.R.R. Martin is merely a taller Tyrion Lannister.  I am absolutely convinced of it!  Imagine the warm fuzzies, if that is indeed a mostly autobiographical character, Mr. Martin must feel whenever he reads fan sites that gush about how much they love Tyrion!!

Anyway, my point is, unless you need the character to be very different from your own personality for plot reasons, I don't see a problem with "writing what you know" character-wise as well.  Much more consistent and believable, I would think!  But, as mentioned, make sure the character has a reason for being the way he is, so that people can sympathize with his faults rather than get distracted by his unfounded grouchiness.

Can't wait to read some of it!


----------



## OurJud (Jul 29, 2013)

Kehawin said:


> But, as mentioned, make sure the character has a reason for being the way he is, so that people can sympathize with his faults rather than get distracted by his unfounded grouchiness.



Thanks, Kehawin. I have been mulling over the reason for him being like he is, but I've only written the opening scene and he needs a lot of developing. I'm kind of blindly hoping it will just come to me during the telling of the story.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jul 29, 2013)

I agree, characters, especially the main protagonist, need some flaws - finding out which flaws are appropriate to the character can be tricky.  I know some things that I've done, especially in my early novels, i discovered later were cliches. On the other hand, no matter what you do someone is not going to like it.  I remember someone complaining (in a critique group) that my protagonist didn't seem to learn from his mistakes.  Well, heck, I thought everybody did stuff like that at least one point in their lives (I married once, divorced, got married again).  Seriously, flaws can - and often should - move the story along and keep the reader interested in what happens to the main characters - even to the antagonist.  

I like to do character biographies before i start.  It helps me work out plot as well as develop character.  You might go back and do that if you haven't already - it might spark some ideas.

midnightpoet


----------



## OurJud (Jul 29, 2013)

Yes, you're probably right, midnightpoet. I think I do need to look at who my character 'is' a little more closely.


----------



## Sintalion (Jul 29, 2013)

This question is tricky. For the most part I don't consider a protagonist unlikeable by their actions or profession. Most narrators I dislike, I dislike because of the voice the writer chose. If the voice is fine, then I probably dislike the character because they are one dimensional. For me, that's the worst thing you can do to an MC. If your character has different dimensions, whether they be slimy or angelic, I find them much harder to dislike. (Please realize that by dimensions, I do not mean the broad term "flaws" that is frequently referenced. Dimensions are not always flaws.)

Don't forget about your ability to edit! First drafts are great because you can write however you want to- and go back and adjust where your voice gets too out of line, too grumpy, etc. I wouldn't worry about sounding one way or the other until after my story is done and I can see the entire thing. Depending on what kind of a writer you are, you might dig yourself a hole by trying to follow strict voice parameters (example: no, I can't say this because it sounds too mean). You can always edit things out, but you can't always remember that line you left out at two o'clock on a Thursday morning.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 29, 2013)

Third person isn't for me. I like writing a book as if I was there with the person experiencing every sight, smell, experience and so forth. I like to try to convey that story from that an angle that you are actually there experiencing it. Third person seems to take away from that in the manner of how its written at least to me that is.


----------



## Sam (Jul 29, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> Third person isn't for me. I like writing a book as if I was there with the person experiencing every sight, smell, experience and so forth. I like to try to convey that story from that an angle that you are actually there experiencing it. Third person seems to take away from that in the manner of how its written at least to me that is.



You can experience all of that in third person, if it's done well.


----------



## Govinda (Jul 29, 2013)

Sam said:


> You can experience all of that in third person, if it's done well.




Agreed. I've never understood the premiss that this kind of dynamic is unavailable in 3rd person.


----------



## Myers (Jul 29, 2013)

Novels with "unreliable narrators" often come up in these conversations. While that kind of MC can be very unlikeable, it's more about the reader being aware that the narrator's interpretation of events is skewed for some reason. Hence the name. Humbert Humbert in _Lolita_ would be an example. I'd say he's not exactly a likeable guy.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 29, 2013)

Sam said:


> You can experience all of that in third person, if it's done well.



True, I just find it easier to portray in first person.


----------



## Sam (Jul 29, 2013)

Why not challenge yourself and see if you can do it in third, then?


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 29, 2013)

Sam said:


> Why not challenge yourself and see if you can do it in third, then?



I have but when I read it over, I feel like I'm taken out of the action compared to the first person view. I guess I'm just a stickler for first person.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 29, 2013)

I think the reader should be rooting for the MC to do the right thing while accepting that he can (and often might) do the wrong thing.  Still, know your limits; if the reader hates the character, that's fine, but if he hates the author, you've got a problem.


----------



## OurJud (Jul 29, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> I have but when I read it over, I feel like I'm taken out of the action compared to the first person view. I guess I'm just a stickler for first person.



We're straying slightly off-topic here, but I know where bookmasta is coming from. I find first easier to write in because you don't have to worry about the narrator. You still need the narrator, of course, but in first person your MC _is_ the narrator.


----------



## Sam (Jul 29, 2013)

OurJud said:


> We're straying slightly off-topic here, but I know where bookmasta is coming from. I find first easier to write in because you don't have to worry about the narrator. You still need the narrator, of course, but in first person your MC _is_ the narrator.



[ot]Your MC can also be the narrator in third person. It's called 'third-person subjective'.[/ot]


----------



## OurJud (Jul 29, 2013)

Sam said:


> [ot]Your MC can also be the narrator in third person. It's called 'third-person subjective'.[/ot]



Well maybe it's just that I cannot do it that way, then. It feels alien to me and as though I have two people telling the same story. I know you've just said this doesn't have to be the case, but I personally cannot write in the same voice when writing in 3rd.

For instance:



> I opened the door and desperately tried to hide my surprise at seeing her.



Is obviously a line of narration from a single voice, i.e. the MC.

Whereas:



> He opened the door and desperately tried to hide his surprise at seeing her.



Is obviously a line of narration _about_ the MC; the 'he' character, and the person telling the story. Isn't it?


----------



## Jeko (Jul 29, 2013)

> Third person isn't for me. I like writing a book as if I was there with the person experiencing every sight, smell, experience and so forth. I like to try to convey that story from that an angle that you are actually there experiencing it. Third person seems to take away from that in the manner of how its written at least to me that is.



In my experience, better understanding of the nuances of the various 3rd person perspectives helps enrich any 1st person perspective attempted.



> Is obviously a line of narration _about the MC; the 'he' character, and the person telling the story. Isn't it?_



No. As we are made aware of his surprise, the story is clearly in his perspective.

I love a good 3rd person narrator. It feels confident but less in-your-face.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jul 29, 2013)

Sherlock Holmes is not a likeable character, in fact, if you knew him socially you would think him a arrogant tosser, but he has a redeeming feature, he solves crimes. If you write it well your protagonist can be repugnant, but you need to give him something the reader can forgive him for...


----------



## Sam (Jul 29, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Well maybe it's just that I cannot do it that way, then. It feels alien to me and as though I have two people telling the same story. I know you've just said this doesn't have to be the case, but I personally cannot write in the same voice when writing in 3rd.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> ...



[ot]It's a line about the MC, who happens to be the 'he' character. It has nothing to do with the narrator. Third-person narrators tell the story from an unattached viewpoint. Depending on the type (objective, subjective, omniscient) their knowledge can be limited to the MC's knowledge, or they can know things that the MC doesn't. That's what makes it, for me, more exciting to write. You can't achieve that level of suspense with first person. You're the character. You can only know what the character knows. With third-person omniscient, the narrator can know that the MC is walking into a trap.[/ot]


----------



## OurJud (Jul 29, 2013)

Cadence said:


> No. As we are made aware of his surprise, the story is clearly in his perspective.



I have no issue reading 3rd person, but the more I think about and discuss it, the dafter and more unnatural writing in this way seems... at least in the way you see it.

You say that the example I gave is clearly in the MC perspective, but it isn't. We never refer to ourselves in the 3rd when telling others about our day, so why does everyone accept it in a book?

I can fully accept the notion that reading a 3rd person narrative is like watching a film, in which the narrator explains each scene and what is happening to the characters, but I simply cannot accept a 3rd person narrative is which it is proposed the MC and narrator are the same person. I just don't se how this works at all.


----------



## Sam (Jul 29, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I have no issue reading 3rd person, but the more I think about and discuss it, the dafter and more unnatural writing in this way seems... at least in the way you see it.
> 
> You say that the example I gave is clearly in the MC perspective, but it isn't. We never refer to ourselves in the 3rd when telling others about our day, so why does everyone accept it in a book?



Because it's a valid literary technique used by virtually every writer who ever put pen to paper.


----------



## Kehawin (Jul 29, 2013)

I find it much easier to write in the first person... but much more engrossing to *read* something written in the third - especially if it is multiple characters or a character of a different gender than I.  I think it is really just a matter of personal preference.  If you don't feel comfortable writing in 3rd person, don't do it (for now).  When you have some time and inspiration, practice it.  And vice versa - if you don't feel comfortable writing in first, try it sometime.  I don't think either one is right or wrong - and I certainly think there are enough examples of each out there that neither one should be deemed more mature or less.

Reminds me of Freud, and some of his theories... very authoritarian in his declarations, but not really accurate for *everyone*


----------



## Grape Juice Vampire (Jul 29, 2013)

In this case, I think balance is key. Certainly it can be tricky what with all the variables, but that's the fun of it. Especially for me with my two MC's. They both are, in essence, monsters...animals (what vampires should be, imho) but at the same time, there is humanity however little in one and fading in the other. So, I'll see how it pans out in the end, but the challenge of it excites me. 

In the discussion about first and third, I like both and originally started my current work in first, but it just didn't work with the way I have the story set up.


----------



## Tiamat (Jul 30, 2013)

I think there's something to be said for unlikeable MCs.  I don't have to like the person I'm reading about; I just have to care whether they succeed or fail.  I read a chick lit book by Sophie Kinsella (in 1st person, by the way).  Maybe it's because I'm not a big fan of chick lit, but I couldn't stand the MC.  I spent the entire book wanting to shake her and say "STOP DOING THAT!!!"  That's not an exaggeration.  She was dumb, impulsive, and spent too much time running at the mouth when she would've been better served to shut up.

But I did care what happened to her.  I was so frustrated with her that I just _had_ to know how it all turned out.  And that kept me reading, which is all that matters in the end.


----------



## Myers (Jul 30, 2013)

Tiamat said:


> I think there's something to be said for  unlikeable MCs.  I don't have to like the person I'm reading about; I  just have to care whether they succeed or fail.



I agree  with that. I think short stories can be an exception, however. Maybe  because you're not asking that readers really get invested in a  character in the same way that you would with a novel. 

One of my  favorite themes isn't far off from what you're talking about when you  said "stop doing that," and that is a character who won't or can't  change. It's satisfying when characters come to a realization of some  kind and they make a change or set new course, but most often that's not  how it is in real life. 

I think we can often relate because most of us  have someone in our lives who won't change despite the havoc or  heartbreak it causes, or maybe we can recognize that about ourselves on  some level. So we can empathize or even sympathize, even if that  character is somewhat unlikeable. And while intriguing, that's the  kind of character who can be draining, who you can only take for a short while. Not too far off  from real life either.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 30, 2013)

> You say that the example I gave is clearly in the MC perspective, but it isn't. We never refer to ourselves in the 3rd when telling others about our day, so why does everyone accept it in a book?



As Sam said, and it makes perfect sense, unless your narrator is God. If your narrator isn't God then he must have telepathic powers, else he would not know of the surprise the character was hiding. If your narrator is God I believe that's referred to as 'third-person omniscient' and is another possible perspective (albeit one I can't do well at all, and often fail to notice when reading it).

To get this back on topic, I would say that a character presented poorly in the third person can bore me, while a character presented badly in the first person can repel me, and I am more easily repelled from first-person than I am bored by third-person. Hence why I prefer reading and writing in the third person.

On another note, I find it hard to present a likable male protagonist. I usually stick to writing in the perspective of girls, which I sometimes worry is unhealthy (me being male).


----------



## OurJud (Jul 30, 2013)

Sam said:


> Because it's a valid literary technique used by virtually every writer who ever put pen to paper.



I think I must just be odd then. I've probably read as many books written in 3rd as I have 1st, and I don't think I've ever imagined the narrator and the MC are the same person. They are always separate entities in my head.

Third-person = telling a story about someone else.
First-person = telling a story about yourself.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 30, 2013)

Third-person = telling a story about someone else, possibly from their perspective.


----------



## Kehawin (Jul 30, 2013)

Jeez, will one of you *please* cede to the other?  I mean, one of you *must* be right, which obviously makes the other dead wrong!

/sarcasm

As I said, and have others, to each his own.  If there weren't strengths in both, one would have died out a long time ago.  Honor other opinions as being valid for that person.

OurJud, how is your characterization coming along?


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 30, 2013)

For me, first  person seems most natural to read.  When I'm talking to someone, it'd be very weird  if they referred to themselves in third person.  First person stories feel like I'm conversing with someone who is talking about themselves (or maybe have been permission to read their private journal).  Third person is like conversing with somebody who is talking about somebody else.  It is so removed from the action as to feel like I'm interacting with the action via one of those robotic arms epidemiology labs use.


----------



## Sam (Jul 30, 2013)

How can a pronoun remove you from the action?


----------



## OurJud (Jul 30, 2013)

Kehawin said:


> OurJud, how is your characterization coming along?



It isn't. I haven't touched my story in days.



Justin Rocket said:


> For me, first  person seems most natural to  read.  When I'm talking to someone, it'd be very weird  if they  referred to themselves in third person.  First person stories feel like  I'm conversing with someone who is talking about themselves (or maybe  have been permission to read their private journal).  Third person is  like conversing with somebody who is talking about somebody else.  It is  so removed from the action as to feel like I'm interacting with the  action via one of those robotic arms epidemiology labs use.



That's exactly how I see it, except that I don't feel as detached as you obviously do when reading in 3rd person.

Let me make it clear; I enjoy _reading_ books written in 3rd, just as much as I do those written in 1st. It's just that I can't get my head around a third-person narrative when trying to write it.


----------



## gmehl (Jul 30, 2013)

First?  Third?  Makes no difference.  What makes a difference is what is most comfortable for you; if you love writing first, write first.  If you prefer third, for whatever reason, go with third.  They're both valid, both have limits, both have opportunities.  As I think a couple people said, sometimes it's a good idea to write where you're not comfortable, if only to expand your repertoire or perspectives, but when it comes down to producing, use the tools that feel most comfortable in your hand... well, brain.

Insofar as poor Jud's character (the original subject of the thread, I believe), perhaps a few sketches off to the side might help?  I'm learning that when I really get stalled on a new character, I try writing totally unrelated scenes, descriptions, narrative, dialog, whatever, with the character in focus...no plot pressure.  Sometimes I adjust the character, but these devices (which always succumb to the delete key) help focus on a _feel _for a character.  So perhaps you might let your grumpy guy rant about a few things, explain why he rants, that sort of thing... or perhaps you might experiment with third person and have someone else explain why he's grumpy or unlikeable or whatever.  Just play around a little, get to know your guy.

I do it for scenes, too -- a day in the life of a seedy little bar, what went on all day at a baggage claim area, the lobby of a hotel, that sort of thing.  Then when the real scene plays out, I know the _feel_ of the place.   

Works for me, anyway!  Good luck with your character.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 31, 2013)

Great post gmehl, and thank you for introducing me to the word 'insofar'. :cookie:


----------



## gmehl (Jul 31, 2013)

Thanks and you're welcome.  I store that word on a shelf near _albeit_ and dust it off now and then.


----------



## KarlR (Jul 31, 2013)

I think writing and cooking have a lot in common.  Main character=main dish.  It ain't the piece of chicken that draws the raves.  It's all about the spice, the presentation and the sides.  So my MC's usually end up being the straight-man.  Every-man is probably a more accurate statement.  Sure, the have flaws, probably boring ones, just like the rest of us.  But when surrounded by over-the-top characters thrown in to keep things popping, they are the base of sanity to which the reader gratefully returns.

To further mingle metaphors, Seinfeld's neighbor Kramer was an awesome, unforgettable character.  But the character could never hold his own show--waaaay too much of a powerful thing.

Likabilty?  Enough to keep the readers' interest through 350 pages.  Don't overdo the cayenne.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 31, 2013)

KarlR said:


> I think writing and cooking have a lot in common.  Main character=main dish.  It ain't the piece of chicken that draws the raves.  It's all about the spice, the presentation and the sides.  So my MC's usually end up being the straight-man.  Every-man is probably a more accurate statement.  Sure, the have flaws, probably boring ones, just like the rest of us.  But when surrounded by over-the-top characters thrown in to keep things popping, they are the base of sanity to which the reader gratefully returns.
> 
> To further mingle metaphors, Seinfeld's neighbor Kramer was an awesome, unforgettable character.  But the character could never hold his own show--waaaay too much of a powerful thing.
> 
> Likabilty?  Enough to keep the readers' interest through 350 pages.  Don't overdo the cayenne.



The flip side is often true.  You can have a cayenne dish next to some refried beans (such as occurs in Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin movies where Lewis is the MC) or Chris Farley and David Spade movies (where Farley is the MC).


----------

