# The likeability of the main character



## luckyscars (Feb 25, 2020)

I feel like a lot of stories I read don't really nail the importance of making a main character like-able. Or they misunderstand what 'likeable' really means.

A lot of them do try, but there's usually something that isn't quite right. I think a big part of this is that people try and go for the easy routes. They focus on making their main character _inoffensive_, which often has the unwanted side-effect of making them dull as hell, a cardboard cut-out with some half-assed backstory that checks all the boxes but doesn't quite seem genuine, for one reason or another. It's the Luke Skywalker type, essentially, and it doesn't work very often. At least not in stories that are trying to say something new.

I think it's really important to remember that readers don't care so much about what your main character does so much as understanding why they do it, giving them some source from which to root for the person. Going the whole antihero route and having a main character act like an asshole doesn't necessarily work either. What matters is understanding why, and having that reason -- that motivation -- itself feel both authentic and interesting. 

Thoughts? What kind of things make a character likeable, or empathetic at least, to you? Any widely-known examples?


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 25, 2020)

I approach them same as I do real people, by asking the simple question: do I want to spend some time in this person's company? Likeable is a bit of a nebulous term, and empathetic perhaps a little too limiting. Take for example Patrick Bateman in _American Psycho_; he's not exactly likeable, and pretty hard to empathise with, but yet there's something about him and his life. It's like he's a conduit to a more exciting world, the world of high finance, sharp suits, and dinners at Dorsia. And he's pretty funny in his way, banging on about 80s culture and being all manic. When I was at university, one of my closest friends there was, I can see now in hindsight, probably a sociopath. But we had great times. He was funny and crazy and knew all the cool people. I miss him actually. My god, though, he had an ego and eventually our lives became incompatible. So someone like that makes a compelling MC if not a warm, cuddly one.

Another one I've mentioned before is Charlie Decker in _Rage_. A little worryingly, I empathised quite strongly with him as a teen, and I completely understand why SK let that book fall out of print in the wake of Columbine. I watched that film, _Joker_, the other day too, and had a similar reaction. _Catcher in the Rye, Fight Club_ - same. I think when you have a troubled character and troubled readers, you create something of a brewing obsession, and that kind of disaffected, alienated, often male reader is primed for such things. In crafting a MC, we build a relationship.


----------



## Bayview (Feb 25, 2020)

I agree that being likeable isn't as important as being intriguing. Sherlock Holmes, in almost all incarnations, is a dick, but we're intrigued by him anyway. We want to be in his club. Anna Karenina is a self-pitying pain in the ass, but I can see how she's trapped so I sympathize with her. Alex from Clockwork Orange is absolutely horrible, but I want to read about him because he's unique and because there are glimmers of what he could have been. etc.

I think "memorable" is more important to me than "likeable". But also quite a bit harder to achieve!


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Feb 25, 2020)

Bayview said:


> I agree that being likeable isn't as important as being intriguing. Sherlock Holmes, in almost all incarnations, is a dick, but we're intrigued by him anyway. We want to be in his club. Anna Karenina is a self-pitying pain in the ass, but I can see how she's trapped so I sympathize with her. Alex from Clockwork Orange is absolutely horrible, but I want to read about him because he's unique and because there are glimmers of what he could have been. etc.
> 
> I think "memorable" is more important to me than "likeable". But also quite a bit harder to achieve!



A recent one for me is the lead in “The Irishman.” It’s a 3.5 hour gangster movie. I gave up on it when I just didn’t care anymore, but I liked the main character enough to carry me 2 hours deep. If it was an ordinary length movie, I would have finished it.

Sometimes when I betaread, the stories feel more like screenplays. One part is this thing a lot of people do where they try to make the MC likeable by describing them as physically attractive and then say witty things. That’s okay, I guess, but it’s a lot easier if you are casting a charismatic actor who will be entertaining. In a novel, it just isn’t enough for me.

Anyway, I think some of the flat MC business is the affect on writing from film.


----------



## DennisP (Feb 25, 2020)

A comedy writing course I took many years ago surprisingly summed up for me the essence of building a functional main character by looking at three elements of that character.

First, the character needed a *unique perspective* on life and the world. It's the equivalent of "if all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". Every time your character acts upon the stage, his actions and thoughts should be informed by that unique perspective. If the world is your character's oyster and someone joins him on the elevator, he'll believe that person could well be a pearl. But if your character sees the world as a threatening sea of sharks and someone joins her on that same elevator, your character starts fingering the switchblade in her pocket because she'll probably need it before the ride's over. Same elevator, same new arrival.

Second, the character needs a major *flaw*. It's what gets her into grief through most of the story. It's the beginning of his character arc. It's how the reader can believe this is a real human and not some two-dimensional, all-powerful superhero.

Third, the character must exhibit some *humanity*. He might be an axe murderer, but he keeps the blade honed super sharp so that his victims feel less pain. He's not a monster! It's often the character's humanity that saves her from her major flaw, but it's also what draws in the reader, creating empathy and interest in that character.


----------



## CyberWar (Feb 25, 2020)

I think an MC should be all about relatability rather than likeability. Personally, I'm all about anti-hero characters with deep personal flaws and questionable ethics, and if anything, often find myself rooting for the villains while reading or watching movies simply because the protagonists are too bland and one-dimensional for my tastes. A do-gooding Mary Sue surrounded by one-dimensional pathetically-inept and cartoonishly-evil villains whose sole reason of existance is to provide some (futile) resistence for the protagonist is unfortunately all too common in film and literature.

I think it's personal flaws and vices, not virtues, that really make a character relatable. I certainly find it much easier to relate with a scoundrel who doesn't give two craps about morality and simply pursues his own selfish agenda, yet finds the strength to do the right thing, or even an outright villain with motivations more complex than to be able to rub fingers and cackle sinisterly about how evil he/she is.


----------



## Foxee (Feb 25, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I feel like a lot of stories I read don't really nail the importance of making a main character like-able. Or they misunderstand what 'likeable' really means.
> 
> Thoughts? What kind of things make a character like-able, or empathetic at least, to you? Any widely-known examples?


Great discussion topic! And I'll add the question IS it actually important that the protagonist be like-able? I used to think so but I no longer do.

If the protagonist had to be like-able then crime fiction like James Lee Burke's wouldn't work. Neither would stories like Riddick where you have a sort of antihero (thinking specifically of Pitch Black) who is very admirable in his abilities but isn't a very like-able guy. As much as I like James Bond there are times that if staying in the story depended on liking the guy, I'd be out but I don't fall out of it because I get the 'necessity' of what he's doing. Same with Jack Reacher.

There is a great book called _Story_ by Robert McKee that goes into all the nuts and bolts of storytelling, mostly for screenwriting but it's a good resource for any kind of storytelling. On page 141 I was bowled over when I read this:

*"The protagonist must be empathetic; he may or may not be sympathetic."*

_Sympathetic_ is the term for like-able. Tome Hanks and Meg Ryan are typically like-able in the roles they choose, for example.

_Empathetic_ means "like me", the recognition of a certain shared humanity between the protagonist and the audience. Something strikes a chord and instinctively the audience roots for the protagonist to achieve whatever it is that he/she desires.

He goes on to write, "An audience may, if so moved, empathize with every character in your film, but it must empathize with your protagonist. If not, the audience/story bond is broken/"

We talk a lot as fiction writers about the suspension of disbelief, creating that for the reader. Empathy with your protagonist, sympathetic or not, is an essential piece of that.


----------



## Phil Istine (Feb 25, 2020)

I've always had a soft spot for a rebel who doesn't quite play by the rules, but has a semblance of moral code intact.  I think back to the Dennis Wheatley books I used to read and some of the MCs were quite capable of murder if the situation warranted, and were even capable of withholding a fatal blow in wartime if they saw something in the enemy that they deeply respected.  Gregory Sallust (the MC in the WW2 works) was known to [SPOILER ALERT]








leave poison in a traitor's (whose name I've forgotten) smoking pipe  and share a bar of chocolate with his arch enemy (Grauber) when they were stuck on a ledge together with nowhere to go and Grauber badly injured.  The war stopped for a few hours for those two.  He even spared a Czech who was spying for the Germans when he realised she did it from patriotism.


----------



## Amnesiac (Feb 25, 2020)

I'm writing an antihero who is NOT likable in the least, but eh... perhaps relatable and understandable. And anyway, he gets his comeuppance in the end. LOL


----------



## hvysmker (Feb 25, 2020)

Amnesiac said:


> I'm writing an antihero who is NOT likable in the least, but eh... perhaps relatable and understandable. And anyway, he gets his comeuppance in the end. LOL



Been there, done that. Also anti-heroes that win in the end, as in real life. I'm even working on a story series of such a prick, in third person POV, putting the reader in his head.


----------



## hvysmker (Feb 25, 2020)

Phil Istine said:


> I've always had a soft spot for a rebel who doesn't quite play by the rules, but has a semblance of moral code intact.  I think back to the Dennis Wheatley books I used to read and some of the MCs were quite capable of murder if the situation warranted, and were even capable of withholding a fatal blow in wartime if they saw something in the enemy that they deeply respected.



I loved that series as a kid.


----------



## KenTR (Feb 25, 2020)

There's a relationship between the reader and the characters he reads. It's often a secret one, and on many levels, it's subconscious. Let's say a reader is haunted by something they've done in their past and sees it reflected in a character. He might take comfort in that. It's certainly going to propel his interest in not only the character, but the story; _how does this person deal with what he's done? How does he handle the repercussions? Is he going to be punished for it? 

_We compare ourselves to the characters we read even when we're not aware of it or are unwilling to admit it.

Reading a book may be a physically passive act, but I'll bet if you did a PET scan on someone who was in the middle of a book they are thoroughly engrossed in, the scan image would be lighting up all over the place. 

If a writer familiarized his or herself with the location of all the emotional centers of the brain and then had their beta readers undergo a PET scan while reading, no verbal feedback would be necessary.:smile:


----------



## indianroads (Feb 25, 2020)

Like the OP, I've read a lot of books where I didn't much care for the MC(s). Yes, the story has to be intriguing, but if I don't relate to the characters, I don't care how it turns out. The book I'm currently reading is a good example - good story (small black hole moving through our solar system), but one MC is sort of blah, and the second I definitely don't like. I'm almost done with the book and am hurrying to the end just to get it over with.

IMO, like or relating to the MC is more important in close POV's - close/limited third or first person, because if I'm going to be inside a character's head, I need to enjoy what I find there.


----------



## KenTR (Feb 25, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Like the OP, I've read a lot of books where I didn't much care for the MC(s). Yes, the story has to be intriguing, but if I don't relate to the characters, I don't care how it turns out.



The MC in Chuck Palahniuk's "Lullaby" was the most boring person ever. Despite being intrigued by the book's premise, finishing it became a chore, and if you put a gun to my head I couldn't tell you how it ended.


----------



## Irwin (Feb 25, 2020)

For me, there needs to be somebody in the story that I care about, and that person doesn't necessarily need to be the MC; it could even be the narrator. I just need to connect with something to get the oxytocin flowing. Good writing or good characters can do that.


----------



## Amnesiac (Feb 25, 2020)

Speaking of screenplays: By the end of "Kill Bill," I hated everyone and wanted all of them to die. The movie, "Open Water," was such a colossal turd, by the end of the movie, I was rooting for, yea, _PRAYING_ for, the sharks!


----------



## KenTR (Feb 25, 2020)

Irwin said:


> For me, there needs to be somebody in the story that I care about, and that person doesn't necessarily need to be the MC; it could even be the narrator. I just need to connect with something to get the oxytocin flowing. Good writing or good characters can do that.



True. The MC in the movie _Nightcrawler _was pegged as a sociopath from the get-go but I was hooked nevertheless. 



Amnesiac said:


> "Open Water"



Ugh. 90 minutes of my life I will never get back.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 25, 2020)

I do NOT like when an author makes a character unlikable and doesn't seem to realize he or she is doing that. Unlikable can be okay, in my reading or writing.

I want my characters to come alive and feel real. My formula is to make them consistently in character (and all changes have a reason).

I deliberately put in flaws to make the story interesting for me! Usually, like, everyone has flaws and making the character real.

Past those cheerful aphorisms, in a way we are mostly thinking of ourselves and yet want to be nice to other people. And understanding someone usually takes away an inclination to hate them. So just building a character usually creates a reasonably nice person who is not overly nice.


----------



## Amnesiac (Feb 25, 2020)

No one is 100% good, nor is anyone 100% evil. Sometimes, people do all the wrong things in the name of the right reason. (Religious extremism, "for their own good," violent abuse, etc., can all be justified in this way. This gives you some of your most horrible villains.) 

Everyone has to be the hero of their own story. No one ever sets out to purposely do evil things. Not even serial killers.

People who set out to do amazingly good things can end up committing evil acts because, after all, the end justifies the means.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm reminded of Michael Douglas in, "Falling Down." "How did _I_ become the bad guy?!"

So..... You see how things can spin one way or the other. Some other motives: Unrequited love, jealousy between siblings or love rivals, class warfare, etc.


----------



## Sir-KP (Feb 25, 2020)

Personally for me I want to see a main character that develops. Or even zero-to-hero types.

I'm sure everyone can like and empathize different type. I've seen some people only like badass main character, not dumb one.


Example, my local TV soap drama post 2005 always offer a similar protagonist: weak, dumb/dimwitted, poor, religious, cannot do anything other than cry and pray. Meanwhile the antagonists usually are: smart, rich, good looking, cunning, work more, never pray. 

Why do they use this settings though? Because research says the audience that watches TV in the afternoon are Class-C people or the less intellectuals, so to speak, that only can *relate to such characters.*


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 26, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> Likeable is a bit of a nebulous term, and empathetic perhaps a little too limiting. Take for example Patrick Bateman in _American Psycho_; he's not exactly likeable, and pretty hard to empathise with, but yet there's something about him and his life.





Bayview said:


> I agree that being likeable isn't as important as being intriguing. I think "memorable" is more important to me than "likeable". But also quite a bit harder to achieve!





CyberWar said:


> I think an MC should be all about relatability rather than likeability.





Foxee said:


> Great discussion topic! And I'll add the question IS it actually important that the protagonist be like-able? I used to think so but I no longer do.





Amnesiac said:


> I'm writing an antihero who is NOT likable in the least, but eh... perhaps relatable and understandable.





EmmaSohan said:


> I do NOT like when an author makes a character unlikable and doesn't seem to realize he or she is doing that. Unlikable can be okay, in my reading or writing.
> 
> I want my characters to come alive and feel real. My formula is to make them consistently in character (and all changes have a reason).



I feel like whenever this kind of topic comes up there's always this disagreement over the terminology used. I think that may be because the English language doesn't exactly have a term for what we mean when we talk about a strong reader-writer connection. We always end up using terms that are too vague.

It's certainly true that in other contexts outside of writing we don't refer to things that impact us as necessarily 'likeable'. For example, 9/11 was a fascinating, intriguing, memorable event but, of course, it isn't something we would describe in positive language. Same deal with murder, war, etc. So yeah, it's pretty difficult to use the term 'likeability' in evaluating a main character that does terrible things.

But I do think just because it is difficult to admit it, doesn't make it untrue. We are talking here strictly in the context of writing a _main _character, and I would argue that 'likeable' is as good a word as any. On the understanding, of course, that liking a character doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as thinking they are a good person, agreeing with what they do, etc. 

Why? Because we are spending a lot of time with them. You _have_ to like somebody to voluntarily spend time with them, don't you? There is no other instance in life where I can imagine spending an extended period of time with a person for no purpose or reward other than to get to know them and their life...all the while swearing to NOT liking that person in some manner or to some extent, even if I may despise them in other ways. There has to be a reason. We have to own our feelings. I think it is a little disingenuous (though understandably so...) to substitute the term 'likeability' for less controversial terms like 'intriguing' or 'memorable'. Feels like avoiding the moral responsibility or whatever.

More importantly, I don't even think those other words are all that accurate. I don't think a character needs to necessarily be memorable -- no doubt I have certainly forgotten most, in some cases all, aspects of many major characters I have read and enjoyed over the years. It is possible (not necessarily common these days, but possible) for an intriguing book to have a primary character who isn't especially intriguing. The Great Gatsby could be an example of that. Does anybody give a shit about the narrator? Does anybody remember his name or anything important about him? Nick or something, isn't it? And who cares? But that's strange! He's a main character! In a 'great book'! Yeah, but...another character happened to dominate proceedings. But it doesn't make the book (nor the character in question) _necessarily_ weak because the main character (or one of them) was sort of an everyman. Who cares about Ishmael in Moby Dick? Nobody. Ahab is the person of interest. Does that make Ishmael a bad character? Not necessarily. They're still likeable enough. And that's the point. The likeability had to be there. There has to be an interest in their perspective AND some sort of investment in their fate. Otherwise the narrative can't be sustained, the perspective becomes irrelevant, the book may not be worthless but it often would be.

I think this really comes down to the basic moral conundrum -- the guilt, maybe -- that is part of being a writer. A lot of times we find ourselves writing in a way that feels a little like it might be interpreted as condoning terrible people doing terrible things -- your Patrick Bateman, etc. A lot of times we don't feel comfortable with that, which can of course be part of the intent if the character is supposed to make the reader uncomfortable, and so we don't necessarily want to use terms like 'like' in the context of, I don't know, a rapist or a puppy killer. But that's tough. We have to own it. Whatever semantics we use, we have to accept and embrace the truth that we do _like _our characters (or we should) even if they are murderers, and that we need to try to win the reader over into 'liking' them to. When that doesn't happen, I think more often than not the story falls flat.


----------



## Bayview (Feb 26, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> More importantly, I don't even think those other words are all that accurate. I don't think a character needs to necessarily be memorable -- no doubt I have certainly forgotten most, in some cases all, aspects of many major characters I have read and enjoyed over the years. It is possible (not necessarily common these days, but possible) for an intriguing book to have a primary character who isn't especially intriguing. The Great Gatsby could be an example of that. Does anybody give a shit about the narrator? Does anybody remember his name or anything important about him? Nick or something, isn't it? And who cares? But that's strange! He's a main character! In a 'great book'! Yeah, but...another character happened to dominate proceedings. But it doesn't make the book (nor the character in question) _necessarily_ weak because the main character (or one of them) was sort of an everyman. Who cares about Ishmael in Moby Dick? Nobody. Ahab is the person of interest. Does that make Ishmael a bad character? Not necessarily. They're still likeable enough. And that's the point. The likeability had to be there. There has to be an interest in their perspective AND some sort of investment in their fate. Otherwise the narrative can't be sustained, the perspective becomes irrelevant, the book may not be worthless but it often would be....



Nick Carraway really isn't a main character in The Great Gatsby. He's the narrator, obviously, but a book centred around him would be incredibly boring because, while he's likeable enough, he's really not intriguing. And Jay Gatsby, the actual main character, really isn't likeable at all, to me.



> Whatever semantics we use, we have to accept and embrace the truth that we do _like _our characters (or we should) even if they are murderers, and that we need to try to win the reader over into 'liking' them to. When that doesn't happen, I think more often than not the story falls flat.



It's a bit hard when we aren't agreeing exactly what we're talking about, and I think that's where the semantics comes into it. I certainly don't accept that characters have to likeable in the traditional meaning of the word (ie that most readers will like the character) and I'm not sure what the other meaning you're shooting for is. But then you go back to "like" in this closing, so... no. I disagree. We've had too many examples of successful books with main characters nobody likes.

But I think I would agree with Emma Sohan's idea that if the character is MEANT to be likeable, then we should like him/her. That is, if the author has decided to make this character appeal to readers through the quality of likeability, then that needs to work. Fair enough. I just don't think it's the only way to make characters appeal to readers.

If the author decides to make a character appeal to readers through other qualities (intriguing psychopathy, unbelievable brilliance, desperate-but-misguided love, or whatever) then THOSE qualities need to come through.

Lots of different choices, but they all need to be carried out well.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 27, 2020)

Bayview said:


> It's a bit hard when we aren't agreeing exactly what we're talking about, and I think that's where the semantics comes into it. I certainly don't accept that characters have to likeable in the traditional meaning of the word (ie that most readers will like the character) and I'm not sure what the other meaning you're shooting for is. But then you go back to "like" in this closing, so... no. I disagree. We've had too many examples of successful books with main characters nobody likes.



How about, for the sake of simplicity, we use the dictionary definition?

'a feeling of regard or fondness'.

For further simplicity, let's dispense with 'regard' because it's pretty vague -- even by the standards of this conversation. So, to focus on fondness. What does _fondness _mean? 

We know what it doesn't mean. I'm not fond of filing taxes, of standing in line, of doing dishes, of getting a tooth pulled. These things are obvious, and probably pretty universal. What is maybe a little less obvious is _why. _

Lack of fondness for (or _dislike_) of things is complex, because it doesn't necessarily mean we don't like what the result of that thing is (all the examples of things I just said I dislike have good or at least neutral outcomes), nor does it mean we even find them unpleasant. Getting a tooth pulled sucks, but standing in line is mostly just boring. So are taxes. 

So, my proposition is, that a lot of the time the things we are not fond of, the things that we dislike, does not necessarily come from any sort of moral judgement (though it can) but because the thing of which we are not fond is dull, mundane, uninspiring, etc. 

It is therefore more correct (more _frequently _correct) to say we like things that are interesting or exciting more than we like things that share our moral values -- after all, the subject of morality doesn't really come into the question of whether I like ice cream or roller coasters. But I can still say I like those things. Because they're exciting, pleasurable, etc. 

The obvious response to that is that characters in stories are supposed to be different, that the question of whether we like them -- as opposed to merely enjoy what they say and do -- needs some sort of shared moral path, should be measured on the scale of a real life person, some kind of 'this person, if they were real, is somebody I could be friends with -- or at least feel okay about knowing'. 

And...I don't agree with that at all. I think it's perfectly fine to like Patrick Bateman or Hannibal Lecter as people in the world of their story, and for that affection to be pretty genuine and powerful, perhaps even as genuine and as powerful as real-life affection would be (though it's quite rare to find a book written that well, and the stakes ARE higher for a cannibal than a saint no doubt), and to simultaneously know that I would NOT 'like' them if they were real...because duh. 

I think the whole point of books is, actually, to allow exactly that, for want of a better word, contradiction. And I believe (can't prove it, obviously) that whether or not people choose to admit it or subscribe to the terminology of 'I am fond of that character' versus 'that character is interesting, the dynamics are the same. I think characters should be likeable, yes. And I think all good ones, all effective ones, are.


----------



## Bayview (Feb 27, 2020)

Which dictionary is that definition from?

When I look up like on dictionary.com I get "find agreeable, enjoyable, or satisfactory." When I look up likeable I get "readily or easily liked; pleasing:"

But I guess when we get to battling dictionary definitions, you're right, we are into semantics. So I bow out.


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 27, 2020)

I think, fundamentally, the character must have some degree of persuasiveness about them. Whether they are good, bad, pleasant, attractive, or what-have-you is secondary. If they can convince you - the reader - to go along with them, then to my mind they can work as a main character. They must be in some way charismatic. I don't think that needs to be the sort of overpowering charisma people might expect though; while tall, good looking people might do the job, often fragility can work too. Something that compels us.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 27, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I feel like whenever this kind of topic comes up there's always this disagreement over the terminology used. I think that may be because the English language doesn't exactly have a term for what we mean when we talk about a strong reader-writer connection. We always end up using terms that are too vague.



Could there be different things to usefully accomplish in a character? Achieved in different ways?

I happened to read the start of one of Bayview's books (Breakaway). The main character *came alive*. I have trouble describing what I mean by that, and I don't know if Bayview can say how she did that, but she worked to get that effect and it adds a lot to that book.

Her MC isn't impressed by hockey, which I would rate as typical. Bayview places the story in a small town rabid about hockey, creating a really *interesting* situation. Which she uses. I know she worked hard at that.

Her MC is also *likable*, but I don't imagine Bayview working too hard at that. But the reality is, we would not like the character of James Bond if he worked for a bad guy.

I think *empathy *comes just from knowing a character. I can't see how anyone would call Nick likable except that they just read a story from his point of view. We root for the fox in a story about the fox; we root for the rabbit in a story about the rabbit.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 28, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> I think, fundamentally, the character must have some degree of persuasiveness about them. Whether they are good, bad, pleasant, attractive, or what-have-you is secondary. If they can convince you - the reader - to go along with them, then to my mind they can work as a main character. They must be in some way charismatic. I don't think that needs to be the sort of overpowering charisma people might expect though; while tall, good looking people might do the job, often fragility can work too. Something that compels us.



I agree with this, but I also think this falls under the definition of likeable, illustrated in my last post. I don't think people are often persuaded by people they don't like. Therefore, a character who persuades us -- irrespective of their place on the moral compass -- is by necessity somebody we like. It may not be convenient (or necessary) to admit we like a serial killer. But we do.



EmmaSohan said:


> Could there be different things to usefully accomplish in a character? Achieved in different ways?



Of course, but they're still different versions of the same thing -- in my opinion.

Harry Potter is a very different sort of character to, say, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. Harry Potter is 'nice'. It's hard to not 'like' Harry Potter (it's also, at least for me, hard to find him particularly interesting, which is why I don't actually like him or his books very much, but that aside...) Harry Potter is likeable in the easiest way a character can be, and it took a certain degree of genius from Rowling to manage that, given how closely he strays into the territory of being a bore so often (which would not make him likeable...) 

Heathcliff is an asshole by almost any measurable standard. He is a bully, manipulator, sexual predator, and conman. He is all of these things and yet he is likeable. He is likeable because...we like him. Liking him is essential to liking the book, because there is  no other character who is nearly as important, who experiences the same degree of transformation. He feels alive, as you point out, and his character is exciting. Nerve-wracking, even. More than that, we can understand his reasons, his motives, his desires and fears. He is, in many ways, very human -- sociopathic, sure, but human. Somebody who feels 'very human' to me is always likeable. The dislikeable people are the ones we find ourselves disconnected from. Hence we use terms like 'monsters' to describe _really _dislikeable people.

So what? Well, so nothing. Both characters 'work' in their respective stories, in their respective worlds, for their respective audiences. But the attachment the reader feels to each is identical in potency, because they are both well-received books. We may feel more uncomfortable about our affection for Heathcliff than Harry, of course, and that affection will give rise to differing emotions, but at the center it is the same basic _connection _to these two _different _characters. 

There may be a better word for that connection that 'likeable' -- but I'm not sure what it is. As mentioned, all the alternatives on here either seem too vague, too squirmy, to mean anything real or they hone in on specifics that are not applicable across the board. But that's a semantic thing, again. 

My preference is simply to dispense with the beating-around-the-bush and admit that, yeah, sometimes bastards are likeable and they don't necessarily need a heart of gold. They just need...a heart.


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 28, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I agree with this, but I also think this falls under the definition of likeable, illustrated in my last post. I don't think people are often persuaded by people they don't like. Therefore, a character who persuades us -- irrespective of their place on the moral compass -- is by necessity somebody we like. It may not be convenient (or necessary) to admit we like a serial killer. But we do.



I think about this a lot, and I don't actually know what the answer is. Things are multifaceted, I guess. I mean, if someone persuaded me to do something I didn't really want to to (and it has happened; I am eminently persuadable), why would I do it? Do I like them? I think part of me wants want the dopamine hit of their approval to my centres. I would be perhaps fearful of what would happen if I didn't comply. What _would _happen? Social exclusion. Being deprived of their otherwise very colourful company and impressive shenanigans. Let's take Hannibal Lecter. If I knew him, ooh, hmm, would I like him? I think I might like things about him - his culturedness, his erudition. I might be secretly thrilled by his cunning and persistence and general bad-guy-ness - but if I found myself or a loved one on the receiving end of his consumings, I might reconsider. But this is very much why I say it's nebulous - because, to my mind, there's a lot going on that comes under the umbrella term "like", and which is where the real interesting meat lies


----------



## Amnesiac (Feb 28, 2020)

In Camus', "The Stranger," the protagonist is kind of a turd, at least, until he's imprisoned and has some great epiphany. Ditto for Salinger's, "Catcher in the Rye." He was kind of a foppish, smug, indolent, arrogant prick. Dr. Frankenstein, like Captain Ahab, was crazed, out of control, and thoroughly obsessed. What's more, he was a grave-robber; absolutely ghoulish and disgusting.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 28, 2020)

Suppose someone read the advice to make their character likable. What would they do?

And would that make you like that character? I am thinking not.



luckyscars said:


> Somebody who feels 'very human' to me is always likeable.



I think you have accused that of being vague, and I agree. I am unhappy with the vagueness of "making a character come alive".  But I like that a little better as advice.



luckyscars said:


> But the attachment the reader feels to each is identical in potency.



So potency, vague as it is, is important? Can we talk about how to make a character potent? I assume Anne of Green Gables is very potent. Same for Dorothy?


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 29, 2020)

Amnesiac said:


> In Camus', "The Stranger," the protagonist is kind of a turd, at least, until he's imprisoned and has some great epiphany. Ditto for Salinger's, "Catcher in the Rye." He was kind of a foppish, smug, indolent, arrogant prick. Dr. Frankenstein, like Captain Ahab, was crazed, out of control, and thoroughly obsessed. What's more, he was a grave-robber; absolutely ghoulish and disgusting.



"The Stranger" is an interesting example because at a glance the protagonist is really dislikeable. I mean, he's a weirdo who does at least one objectively terrible thing. Hard sell.

But I would still argue that he is likeable. You may describe him as kind of a turd and you would likely be correct. Except I don't think your conclusion was that straightforward while you were reading the book. If anything, I would bet in that moment you became an asshole, too.

Consider the first paragraph:

_*MOTHER died today. Or, maybe, yesterday; I can’t be sure. The telegram from the Home says: YOUR MOTHER PASSED AWAY. FUNERAL TOMORROW. DEEP SYMPATHY. Which leaves the matter doubtful; it could have been yesterday.
*
_There's something going on there. On the surface, the point of the above sentences (and much of the book) is to illustrate just how void of recognizable human emotion this character is. The irony is, that 'void of human emotion' is actually...a form of human emotion. I have personally experienced this kind of ambivalence, antipathy even, toward bad events and I betcha most people do as well. There is a strange dual-face in depression and despair and a lot of times only the 'so sad' part gets covered. A character like Meursault, therefore, not only covers an aspect of humanity but one that is relatively ignored. I would argue that these kinds of characters, done well, can actually be the more likeable characters there are. Because they can be very human, reading them therefore becomes a form of temporary alliance. 




EmmaSohan said:


> So potency, vague as it is, is important? Can we talk about how to make a character potent? I assume Anne of Green Gables is very potent. Same for Dorothy?



Potency of character is important, IMO. But that isn't the same as extroversion or flamboyancy or anything like that. It's potency of life, which you mentioned, but also potency of _truth. _

Dorothy is a good character (a simplistic one, but that's OK) because we feel what she is feeling, we see her, we feel like her struggles are our own, and so on. I can't remember Anne of Green Gables well enough but what I do half-way remember was a part early on where she meets the old couple and wants to be called another name (Cordelia?) and when they say no she insists on having her name spelled 'Ann...with an E'. Hopefully I'm not totally screwing that up. But if that's halfway correct, I'd say the likeability of Anne could be formed right there, in that one exchange. It would not be enough for her to simply be a poor little girl with no character. Nor, however, would it necessarily be enough for her to be a richly spun character in ways that are over-engineered with lots and lots of backstory and so on. The 'I like her' can -- and if I remember right, is -- formed in one not-so-major act of agency, and more specifically it is a _form _of agency that almost anybody can relate to. I think almost all of us go through weird phases about our names or some other aspect that we are oddly insistent or even combative about -- "I _always _have my sandwiches in squares!" and it is these silly, obnoxious even, traits that create the resonance and therefore the likeability.

I don't suppose there is much to be disagreed with in the above (?) but what I am trying to say is that all of that is true even of characters that are assholes -- that the 'they're a bad person' thing just isn't that important while we are reading, though it might become something we reflect on afterwards, of course. So I think it is just as important when writing a serial killer to try to get the audience to "feel what she is feeling, we see her, we feel like her struggles are our own, etc." It's exactly the same process, which means the result is the same. Whether or not we feel _good _about that result, that affection for the 'monster', whether we would own it or replicate it in real life, is not relevant. It's OK to 'like' an asshole in a story and, if that asshole is the protagonist, it is necessary. Otherwise there is no reason to read it, is there?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 29, 2020)

I am now agreeing with Luckyscars that liking the MC is a plus for reading.

I found the MC of _Shopaholic_​ to be annoying. You asked, why would I read the book if I didn't like the character? My memory is that the annoyingness was constantly a reason to stop reading. But there are other reasons to read a book, and I guess other things were good. In fact, I think we would give that character high marks for "coming alive" or "potency of life" or "potency of truth"

Sir-KP mentions seeing development. It's really nice in _Shopaholic _when the MC does something generous at the end. Amnesiac mentions "comeuppance", and I think that can be nice too. But that's a long haul until the end, something else still has to carry things.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 3, 2020)

Likability is such a moving target; what one reader likes, another might hate. Some people like chocolate milk. Others hate it. There's no single approach that will please everyone.

Name any character who has a lot of fans, and there will be other readers who despise that character with every inch of their soul.

For that reason, I think audience (and, by extension: genre) should be considered. Does the character possess traits that readers of _this kind _of story will like?

An unapologetic bad-ass with a secret, tender side, for example, will probably prove extremely likable in certain genres. In others, not so much.

Of course, there are universal traits that are (for the most part) considered likable. Being protective of loved ones. Helping others in need. Struggling bravely against unfair circumstances. (Stuff like that.)

But even then, there are readers for whom that kind of stuff induces immediate eye-rolling.

For me, my main goal is consistency. Is this character thinking and behaving _consistently_ with who I've established them to be? Would they say this, here? Would they do that, there? Am I bending them to the plot, or am I staying true to their character?

This approach, I find, might not always produce the most likable character—but at least they feel fleshed out and true. And if the reader _does_​ like them (hopefully!), then all the better! :encouragement:


----------



## Theglasshouse (Mar 3, 2020)

People dream about how to pull of likeability. In execution it is going to change. Writing is accidental. I think psychologically though we tend to like certain characters we identify like ourselves, than others. There's nothing that attributes to their success it's like a formula for soda. It's like taste you can't describe it. You cannot put it into words I mean so easily.

I think it's a very hard topic to easily pin down an answer to which has eluded many seeking an answer. In animation too the rage of likeness is a mystery. Imagine mickey mouse. It took a man with enigmatic talent. Sure he probably had no idea how he did it. While others simply idealized what it could be. All we have that sounds good to me as a reader is that a character has heroic qualities. Then you have to show rather than tell those qualities. Whatever they may be such as harry potter was nice and brave. It's all a matter of perception. It's not easy to do. Most of the books appealed to kids for many reasons. 

Still some qualities should be taken in mind. It should be encouraged. No one likes emotionless characters. That's what I call a test. To determine whether a person likes your character.  All you have do I when I read something is that you make me feel them suffer (schadenfreude). 

You put a character in danger. How? They make decisions that have consequences. But that's just me. Most entertaining characters that have endured run into danger. While I like contradictory characters it is hard to pull off. How about a healer that wants to harm people for example?

However, I agree that flawed characters need to be likeable because if not no one will care. I don't know but this part makes sense to me. Flawed characters are a thing. They are what writers like to use.


----------



## BornForBurning (Mar 4, 2020)

Likability fluctuates between readers, as some in this thread have already noted. Perhaps _engaging _is a better, and more tangible thing to aim for. An engaging main character pulls you in and holds you regardless of if you like them or not. Example (from something very dumb): I hate Sundowner from Metal Gear Rising. Most people would. He's a psychopathic, racist, merciless child-killer with the mindset of a poorly-socialized twelve-year-old boy. Yet when he's on the screen, I'm glued. Why? He's _engaging. _He forces the other characters to question their moral predispositions because despite being a total psycho, he's actually highly intelligent and articulate. Not only that, he has a clear moral code that he _never _abandons, in contrast to an MC who is constantly questioning his own morality. In other words, he's a good foil. Perhaps, if he was a protagonist, he might be a foil for the audience themselves. 

Now if you are intentionally aiming for likability, because that's the kind of story you are writing, that's another question entirely.


----------



## Amnesiac (Mar 4, 2020)

Enjoyed your thoughts on, "The Stranger," Lucky.  I agree: There _is_ a certain likability; or if not likability, at least, the MC is... relatable.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 6, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> Likability is such a moving target; what one reader likes, another might hate. Some people like chocolate milk. Others hate it. There's no single approach that will please everyone.
> 
> Name any character who has a lot of fans, and there will be other readers who despise that character with every inch of their soul.
> 
> ...



I see genre as mostly important because it regulates the kind of audience and therefore allows targeting of characteristics (or tropes) to play off what we suppose a certain reader might find more _interesting_. It allows a kind of equation: *Younger men tend to make up the majority of action and science fiction audience + This book contains lots of action in a science fiction environment = the book needs to have a main character who is appealing to teenage boys = my main character will be younger, most likely male OR female but with a male-friendly disposition. *That's obviously over-simplified, but it's basically that for a lot of books.

Anyway, point is, I think finding a character interesting is the key to finding them likeable. I can't really say I agree about 'universal traits'. A character struggling bravely against unfair circumstances is only appealing to me if I feel invested in the nature of their struggle, which means I had to like them first. 

For example, I always had a great deal of 'liking' for Walter White, even though I could simultaneously agree he was a terrible human being. Liking him wasn't a moral or ethical judgment. It wasn't that I felt he was right or justified or approved of his murderous psychopathy or really thought about it that much (not while I was watching the show, anyway). It was simply that he was, in some sense, playing in the jersey of 'human being', even though what he did was absolutely inhumane. I feel that way about a lot of unpleasant characters -- even real douchebags. I feel that way about Heathcliff. I feel that way about Jack Torrance. And, of course, I feel that way about a lot of 'nice characters', too! The point is that I don't think 'likeable' is a moral judgement but a literary one and, in the context of literature, I think it is essential. You've got to burrow that character under the skin.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 9, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Anyway, point is, I think finding a character interesting is the key to finding them likeable.



Ah, but what makes a character interesting? Because that, too, could be entirely subjective.



			
				luckyscars said:
			
		

> The point is that I don't think 'likeable' is a moral judgement but a literary one and, in the context of literature, I think it is essential.



I like your distinction between "moral" and "literary" likability here, as it seems like an important distinction to be made, though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. Do you mean likability in a technical sense? (As in: literary ingredient A, plus literary ingredient B = likable character?)

Technically, Walter White could be called interesting (and/or "likable") because he's always getting into worse and worse situations, and the viewer wants to see how he'll get out of it. (At least, that's what I remember from the show . . . but I didn't watch too much of it. I'm guessing the structure of the show changed as his character evolved.)

In a moral sense, though, the show all began with him being dealt a fatal diagnosis (_struggling against unfair circumstances_), then trying to put aside money for his family after he's gone (_being protective of loved ones_).

Would Walter's character have been as interesting/sympathetic/likable from the start had he, instead, simply wanted to make a lot of money, for no reason other than greed? I'm guessing not. Which, I'd argue, would imply that morality plays some role in creating a likable character (at least, at the start of the story).

Sure, we can still make morally bankrupt characters interesting, and perhaps even likable, but I'd argue that it's more difficult to do so. Even popular antiheroes are usually punishing _worse_ characters, on the morality scale.


----------



## RWK (Mar 9, 2020)

IMHO, you make a character likable by giving them depth, a purpose, and the sort of quirks that everyone has.

Walter White is an excellent choice: taken as a whole, he is a terrible person. But watching the series (highly recommended) you see his as a fallible Human being up against desperate odds and complications. You quickly want to see how the situation 'plays out', and as the pacing of the story was brilliant, you ride that curiosity right to the bitter end. And at the same time you begin to see beyond the violence and betrayals, and see the flawed Human being fighting terrible odds.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 9, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> I like your distinction between "moral" and "literary" likability here, as it seems like an important distinction to be made, though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it. Do you mean likability in a technical sense? (As in: literary ingredient A, plus literary ingredient B = likable character?)



I think our moral compass switches off when we read. Not entirely, necessarily, but enough. We all accept the suspension of disbelief part of reading and writing a book. What we don't so readily accept, it seems, is the notion of suspension of self. 

For example, when I read a (good) book about a serial killer, told from the point of view of a serial killer, I am not merely reading -- I am a serial killer. The act of processing those thoughts through my head makes me a vessel for them. 

Temporary, of course, and something that ends the moment I stop reading -- something I am able to be conscious of and in control of. But something that nevertheless happens. I recall vividly reading a novel some years back told from the point of view of a Jihadist who becomes a suicide bomber. Despite the fact that reality is a trillion miles removed from anything close to my own, despite the fact I could hardly say I agree with any of the 'arguments', the very fact it was a compelling book meant that _in the moment _I was that character and shared his beliefs. To me, this is a central part of reading. 

It's also something, conversely, that doesn't necessitate much conscious thought or existential conflict or anything like that -- which is, in my opinion, why this might sound unfamiliar, because we don't think about reading in terms of being a direct relationship with character. Because (most of us) can flex between the two 'states' and our true beliefs win out and no big deal. But in terms of the moment where that character lives, our moral lives mean little or nothing.


----------



## Annoying kid (Mar 10, 2020)

I like a main character that doesn't outstay their welcome and hog the story. That knows when to leave the stage. That gets out of a scene early  after having made their point. One that obeys the internal logic of their universe, one who doesnt cause plot holes. One with entertainment value and excitement. One who displays a certain creativity and imagination behind them.  

Alot of my advice with fantasy writers is to simply make it more exciting. 

Quoted from a different forum: 


> ----'s stuck in the starting blocks here.  It's a 12 page script and  she only starts to leave the clearing on page 12. I got the impression  you were stalling.
> This is your first issue, so it's got to hook the reader. Maybe ----'s  attacked by wolves or wild men and ---- comes to the rescue. Maybe ---- is angry at being naked in the middle of a forest and watched by a  strange lecherous seeming man and attacks him.  Do something, -----, or ----. Don't just stand and talk.



Regarding a different story:



> . What's his brothers doing in all this?  Maybe I missed that or you put  it in elsewhere in your story. But why not have a race to the goal  between brothers? It just seems more exciting that way. Or maybe he's on  his own and we get more fear and anxiety over what may be his  end.That's even if he survives to get there. Maybe there's some riddles  he has to solve to get there, or some monster guarding the thing.  Whatever you decide I say it could be spiced up a bit.



This is what I see most often. Characters leisurely walking to the goal. Standing and talking. Full of exposition. Basic perfunctory encounters. I feel like I want to shove a rocket up the ass of these characters to give them some urgency.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 10, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I think our moral compass switches off when we read. Not entirely, necessarily, but enough. ... For example, when I read a (good) book about a serial killer, told from the point of view of a serial killer, I am not merely reading -- I am a serial killer. The act of processing those thoughts through my head makes me a vessel for them.



Sure, if it's written well, we can certainly empathize with a character who we probably wouldn't have, otherwise. I agree with you there. :encouragement: But I'd still argue that a reader's sense of morality plays a role in how willing we are to do so.

A serial killer who targets bad guys, such as _Dexter_? Morally justifiable, in a dark way. A monster hunting monsters.

A pedophile who abducts children, on the other hand? I can see such a character working through the lens of a "villain"—one who the reader hopes will receive his terrible justice in the end—but I have a hard time imagining such a character being likable in the role of the protagonist.

You'll see it all the time in reader reviews: morality plays an issue in how readers perceive the character's choices and actions. How many Romance novels receive bad reviews because the readers found the male love interest's behavior to be "controlling and abusive", despite the fact that the author worked hard at portraying that behavior as "brooding and sexy", instead? Especially if said readers have been in abusive relationships in the past.

I agree that one's moral compass becomes a lot more fluid when reading from new POVs, but I don't believe it shuts off completely. There are certain things that some readers simply won't tolerate, and it varies from reader to reader.


----------



## Amnesiac (Mar 10, 2020)

I agree. Look at the insane popularity of, "50 Shades of Grey." If that shit happened in a trailer park, it wouldn't be sexy at all. Never mind the fact that child development psychologists put the woman's age at around 12. But, oh, because the man is rich and good looking, people in Europe and the United States threw a crap-ton of money at it. Meh... Whatever.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 11, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> Sure, if it's written well, we can certainly empathize with a character who we probably wouldn't have, otherwise. I agree with you there. :encouragement: But I'd still argue that a reader's sense of morality plays a role in how willing we are to do so.
> 
> A serial killer who targets bad guys, such as _Dexter_? Morally justifiable, in a dark way. A monster hunting monsters.



I always had a problem with Dexter (in fairness, I only watched a couple seasons). I have a fundamental problem with what I call 'Ted Bundy Syndrome'.  

I loathe characters like Dexter who play hard on the 'nobody quite understands me' bullshit while simultaneously looking like a Hanes underwear model, or some teenage goth girl's masturbatory pin-up. The whole 'dangerous but alluring' thing. Characters who get away with things purely through being superficially acceptable -- things that id an uglier or less 'charismatic' version did would receive an entirely different reaction. There's a show called 'You' my wife is watching that is much the same way.

Arguably there are crossovers -- Heathcliff might fall into that band, I'm fairly certain he was supposed to be some kind of uptight Victorian women's fantasy. But he is at least a far more compelling character than Dexter. Again, it comes back to the 'playing in the jersey of a human being' thing. There's a difference I can't quite define between a character who is likeable and one who is merely acceptable.



Kyle R said:


> A pedophile who abducts children, on the other hand? I can see such a character working through the lens of a "villain"—one who the reader hopes will receive his terrible justice in the end—but I have a hard time imagining such a character being likable in the role of the protagonist.



It's funny,  I remember when I was a student at a Creative Writing club we used to have this ongoing debate -- a kind of challenge that was never acted on -- in which we would theorize on whether it was hypothetically possible to write a story about a pedophile, from the point of view of the pedophile, which was so insanely well-written that somehow it managed to convince a reader to take the pedophile's side. That is, to make it so that _even the abduction of children could be made palatable_. 

I'm not saying it is possible, but I don't know if it's entirely impossible either? The aforementioned Ted Bundy thing kind of proves that even serial killers who are also rapists can be presented in a way that makes them oddly appealing. I mean, a serial killer isn't exactly 'better' than a pedophile, right? Society does have this weird cognitive break where we are generally more angered by pedophilia than murder and, as a parent, I can sort of understand that...but it isn't exactly rational. 

Maybe ironpony will manage it.



> You'll see it all the time in reader reviews: morality plays an issue in how readers perceive the character's choices and actions. How many Romance novels receive bad reviews because the readers found the male love interest's behavior to be "controlling and abusive", despite the fact that the author worked hard at portraying that behavior as "brooding and sexy", instead? Especially if said readers have been in abusive relationships in the past.
> 
> I agree that one's moral compass becomes a lot more fluid when reading from new POVs, but I don't believe it shuts off completely. There are certain things that some readers simply won't tolerate, and it varies from reader to reader.



I don't think it shuts off completely, either. If it did, it would be just as easy to write about the hypothetical pedophile hero as it would any other character.

What I do think is that there is a kind of trade-off. I have written about it on here before. Basically, that the *more immoral the character/subject matter, the more important it is to write well & the greater the blowback for fucking it up.

*We see this in action when we look at common children's books (children as in under 8's). Most children's books are poorly written, they just are (and 20 pages of them usually retails at the same price as a 300 page adult novel!). But because children's books deal exclusively in safe, pleasant subject matter they are allowed to not only be non-controversial but to be boring as hell. I know because I read three of them a night. Often, the kids themselves find them pretty boring or incomprehensible. And yet nobody gets mad about it. I don't demand a refund because my son did not love 'Day At The Zoo' with its shitty, repetitious language, formulaic style, and just general boredom. I don't write pissy letters to Dolly Parton about it. I don't feel driven to write reviews that are negative. Neither, of course, does my son. He simply doesn't ask to read it again.

That's the case all the way up. Safe, pedestrian writing never makes the bestseller list, but it never angers anybody either. Nobody gets upset because they were left fairly disinterested by some middle-road romance or cozy crime story. Worst case scenario, we simply put them down one day and forget about them. But _really _good books do take risks. Almost all the best ones do, or did at their time. 

Now you might say 'duh', but this is fundamentally the problem with the pollution of literature with morality. Way too often we approach books with a certain bias, and this ultimately means writers either don't take risks or do take risks and end up tying themselves in knots over whether they are 'handling things right'. 

One of the good things about Fifty Shades (the only good thing?) was that E.L James clearly did not/does not give a shit about how her novel could be perceived. She didn't sit there questioning whether it was OK to create a misogynistic character and whether it would be OK if people liked him. As it happens, a lot of people (idiots mainly, but whatever) _did _like Christian Gray and generally found him and/or Anastasia Steel fascinating. Maybe for the wrong reasons, but they were nonetheless likeable characters. And to that extent, the book is 'well written'.

What's unfortunate is that Fifty Shades Of Gray, while a fairly terrible book, is by no means the worst book ever written and it's plain ignorant to say otherwise. Trust me, "Day At The Zoo" is worse. But Fifty Shades is an easy target for that designation not because it is bad but because it is bad _and takes risks_. At least, it takes more risks than the run-of-the-mill airport paperback. Which is, when you think about, quite sad...


----------



## Theglasshouse (Mar 12, 2020)

I agree with relatability being the right choice or word to explain what you are saying.  That makes more sense to me. Also Nabokov 's Lolita would be an excellent example.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 14, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> ... the *more immoral the character/subject matter, the more important it is to write well & the greater the blowback for fucking it up.*



I'd agree with that!

Though I'd also add that the more popular the book, the greater the blowback tends to be, regardless of how well the story is written.

Consider the upcoming _Hunger Games_ prequel (_The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes_), coming out in May. It already has over seven hundred 1-star ratings on Goodreads, despite the fact that the book hasn't even been released yet. :shock: (I suspect a lot of those ratings are spammed, from some auto-generated accounts, but still ...)

Some people just automatically hate popular things.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 14, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> I'd agree with that!
> 
> Though I'd also add that the more popular the book, the greater the blowback tends to be, regardless of how well the story is written.
> 
> ...



It works both ways though, doesn't it? There is also an argument that people love popular things and that blinds that subset of the readership to the point that even mediocre quality receives acclaim. I see elements of this in the Harry Potter universe. People got hooked on Harry Potter early on (most of them as children) and that passion became self-fulfilling, to the point that when JK Rowling released 'A Casual Vacancy', which had nothing to do with anything relating to Harry Potter, the book made Number One immediately and many of those sales were from Harry Potter fans who just saw JK Rowling on the cover and decided to love it.

It wasn't purely name recognition, either, many of them did love it, in fact, as evidenced by the (mostly positive) Amazon reviews that constantly refer to how great Harry Potter is. The book isn't even very good, it's a middling meh about contemporary, adult issues. If an unknown author had written it, nobody would have cared. But ultimately devotion to the author and in particular to her famous character fueled a liking for the characters and storylines in 'Vacancy, because people cannot detach from things. Even myself, a non-Potter fan, reading that book, I constantly had to remind myself the main character was not Harry Potter and that I should stop reading it in the voice of a ten year old boy. Characters like that we tend to fall in love with, and see their faces long after they are gone.


----------



## Amnesiac (Mar 14, 2020)

Yeah... Slap "Stephen King" on any book, and voila: Instant bestseller.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 15, 2020)

Amnesiac said:


> Yeah... Slap "Stephen King" on any book, and voila: Instant bestseller.



I'd slap Stephen King for no money at all.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 15, 2020)

Yeah, I suppose it depends on which readership we're talking about: fans of the author's work, or critics.

Fans tend to praise, while ignoring the author's flaws. Critics tend to belittle, while dismissing the author's strengths.

Then you have the balanced, impartial readers . . . who tend to get ignored by both sides. #-o


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 18, 2020)

I just finished a book with an unlikable character. (The Cactus). The character is deliberately unlikable. She's never immoral, just constantly unsocial. To me, it defined a sub-genre. Like luckyscars said, the unlikability made a hit on enjoying the book. But in ways and places the book was amazingly clever and good. There was enough interest in the character and story to keep me reading.

I didn't figure out until page 79 how to read it! There, she kept calling a child "the toddler" even though she knew her name. When I looked back -- I was supposed to see the first person narration as containing a lot about how she saw the world. I knew that, I just didn't realize how much.


----------



## Amnesiac (Mar 18, 2020)

There was a story I read in my college English class, and I've since forgotten the name of it, but a family sets out for a picnic. They are pretty boring; even unlikable. The car breaks down, and there are three bandits who set upon the family, leading them off, one by one, behind a distant copse of trees, where each of the family members is killed. The only one left is the mother, who has now lost her mother, her husband, and both of her kids. At that point, the main bad guy starts a dialog with her, next to the car. By far, the most interesting character in the whole story, is the villain.


----------



## Ma'am (Mar 18, 2020)

Amnesiac said:


> There was a story I read in my college English class, and I've since forgotten the name of it, but a family sets out for a picnic. They are pretty boring; even unlikable. The car breaks down, and there are three bandits who set upon the family, leading them off, one by one, behind a distant copse of trees, where each of the family members is killed. The only one left is the mother, who has now lost her mother, her husband, and both of her kids. At that point, the main bad guy starts a dialog with her, next to the car. By far, the most interesting character in the whole story, is the villain.



"A Good Man is Hard to Find" by William Faulkner?


----------



## Amnesiac (Mar 18, 2020)

YES!!


----------



## KenTR (Mar 21, 2020)

"A Good Man is Hard to Find" is by Flannery O'Connor. 

I love that crazy old bat.

Amnesiac: check out "The Life You Save May be Your Own". My favorite short story ever.

Ma'am: Repent!!


----------



## Ma'am (Mar 21, 2020)

KenTR said:


> "A Good Man is Hard to Find" is by Flannery O'Connor.
> 
> I love that crazy old bat.
> 
> ...



Oops. I repent.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 21, 2020)

I've had several readers post reviews that they liked all the characters in Calizona...*except* Alex & Mickey (the main characters). Stranger yet, these were reviews on the second or third book, so they kept buying the books despite not liking the two main characters. According to their reviews, they liked the rest of the cast (it's a big cast) and stuck with it to follow them. 

So basically I wrote Will & Grace. 




On character likeability;

When I watched The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, I liked the character because she was extremely clever. But it took a while--they spent the first 1/4 of the movie showing you how weird she was. First they set the table by proving how atypical she is, then they contrast it with her doing something brilliant and multidimensional.


----------



## indianroads (Mar 21, 2020)

I disliked the 'Gunslinger' character in Stephen King's 'Dark Tower' Series - and yet read all the novels because the story was interesting.


----------



## hvysmker (Mar 21, 2020)

In my teens, my mother gave me a subscription to "The Book of the Month Club". Without thinking, I renewed it for another year. When they asked for more money I checked my shelves, finding that I hadn't finished even one of those books. They were supposed to be the most popular in any given month.  

So much for those statistics.


----------



## becwriter (Mar 23, 2020)

I'm not sure that main characters need to be likeable as long as they evoke strong emotion of some kind. I suppose it depends to some extent on your definition of "main character". Does that mean "the main character" or "a main character" because my villain is anything but likeable but is still a main character in my mind. My favorite character to write in my WIP is not my hero, but the snarky, sex kitten that plagues him. She always has something controversial (and fun) to say.


----------

