Making Connections discussion
ARCHIVES
>
Should the Main Character be Likeable?
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Hava
(new)
Aug 19, 2015 07:53PM
I think it's just a matter of how interesting the character is. A complex character that's hated but generates interest keeps people invested in the story far more effectively than a lovable but predictable/boring character. I personally prefer characters who aren't likable because I'm more interested in understanding their motives.
reply
|
flag
With my novel I made the main character an alcoholic nightmare, but as the story progressed he became someone people could identify with thus rooting for him as he pursued his dream!
I agree with Hava. There is no good or bad - only interesting.I've created a character to whom people are somewhat neutral, and I've fond that actually works quite well. At first, I sprinkle my protagonist with some uniqueness to keep the reader interested, then I hold off on any backstory to focus on the plot. Once that has been sufficiently developed (and perhaps plateaued for a few chapters for more implicit development), I start revealing different aspects of my protagonist. I think this is a good way to keep the reader engaged.
Readers relate to good and bad characters for different reasons. As long as the main character is striving to achieve a worthy goal or has a legitimate motive for behaving badly, I believe readers will form a connection.
Virginia wrote: "I'm writing a blog post about this topic and would like to hear opinions other than my own -- with examples if you feel particularly strongly about a book. Thanks."I guess it depends on the character and how i feel about them. For me, typically i want to like the main character especially if i' m going to go on the "journey" with them in the novel.
I think a main character should be interesting. Not necessarily likable as in "wow this person's cool, I'd love to be friends with them if they were real", but interesting. For example, Dorian Gray in The Picture of Dorian Gray is an interesting and charismatic character. Would I want to be friends with him? No. Would I want to meet him in a dark alley? No. Do I enjoy reading about him? Yes.
I don't know if the main character necessarily has to be likeable, but I think most importantly he/she needs to be relatable.
It is not necessary that the main character be liked, as long as he/she is intriguing. Some story lines and plots require that the main character be despicable in order to be believable. There have always been novels that feature a character that readers just loved to hate.
I started this thread because I was writing a blog post on the subject -- still not written ugh -- but very thoughtful opinions here. You may be interested in this blog post. Likeability is listed: https://screencraft.org/2015/03/24/fo...
Isn't that one of the reasons why Bonfire of the Vanities failed as a movie - the lack of likeable characters?I liked that movie though...
Andrew wrote: "I think the main character has to be believable and the reader has to empathise with them, they certainly don't have to be likeable. The best example i can think of from recent books I've read is G..."I agree. One should be able to relate to the character; likable on the other hand, is not necessary. A reviewer told me that my character was downright rotten but she still cheered for him. I think we tend to forget the human qualities, and we are complex. I'm certain we are not likable ourselves at times. I personally enjoy a flawed character; however, that character must embrace his/her human side.
Yes, if I don't care for the protagonist, I don't care for his or her story. This doesn't mean that the protagonist needs to be a morally perfect person. On the contrary, I believe we love someone for their defects and problems. My new novel's title character, LUKE, falls in love with someone who is already married -- to his uncle. While this might sound horrible, I hope readers love him for his endearing qualities.
I think there's a need to be able to relate to the lead - but like, no, not for me; not a prerequisite.In a way requiring it is kind of like how Amazon recommends book because they are so very similar to the ones you've recently purchased.
Sameness get boring quick for me.
My novel had actually been complemented for the "refreshingly unlikable" cast of characters. The protagonist is a bit of an idiot and makes people cringe, but she is relatable in her frustrating and hilarious quest. I've given her moments of redemption, but overall she just fumbles through life.
While the main character doesn't need to be likable, I need to either be able to relate to or empathize with the him/her. For example, in Luckiest Girl Alive the MC was neither likable nor relatable. I also did not feel much empathy for her character so I had to stop 1/3 through the audiobook.
I don't think characters have to be completely likable -- it's more important to be relatable. And for their actions to make sense. I find that readers sympathize more with flawed characters, anyway. And it's weird, I always seem to have more empathy for my broken, misguided characters more than my "winning" ones. Theo in The Goldfinch isn't really likable in the classic sense, but you feel for him, big time.
The character can be a bitch or a son-of-a-bitch and still be likable in some way. I like characters that are not snow white and perfect. Shades of gray make them more realistic. But you have to be able to relate to the character in some way. Even if they aren't likable you get why.I liken it to writing the badguy's POV. He's not just a crazy person, there is a method to his madness...or at least he thinks so. Otherwise he becomes a cartoon character with no depth.
The writer spends a LOT more time with the character(s) than the reader. In my case, fifteen years.Each one of the three main characters got some significant part of me - just to be able to relate as I wrote them: however different, or 'ripped from the headlines' each character was, I could find a common core of something we shared.
'If I had grown up them' is how I put it.
We are cursed by having to look at the world, always, through our own eyes. So I used that. And sometimes I scare myself, because the parts a character got are parts I acknowledge - and don't ever let have free rein.
I think the writer has the most fun.
It depends. For me I always write educational stories about ethics and manners for children and middle graders, so my heroes are always likeable to set a good example for young readers. I didn't try yet to write about a hero with faults and in short (unlikeable), but it depends on the writers final goal of writing.
Here's one take on the "likeable" character. I recently published a three-book romance series based on a date I had some years back when I was a swinging, single, mid-life bachelor. So, naturally, the main character was me.
Well, when my wife (who came along after this particular date) read the book she said she hated the main character and not only refused to read any further but nearly threatened divorce. She said the guy was an a**hole, etc. (Mainly because he was such a blatant skirt chaser with no shame.)
I didn't deny it but tried to explain that the guy would "evolve" and learn from the experiences he'll be undergoing in the book, and he'll become more likable. The problem was that she still refused to read further to see the metamorphosis for herself.
So what did I do? First, I went back and tried to tone the guy down but not too much because I didn't want to lose the whole idea that he would evolve into a more "sensitive" character.
Second, when I finally finished and had sent the manuscript out for initial reviews and got the first 5-stars back I gave them to her, and it helped (she stalled the divorce anyway - just kidding). Then I asked her to help me with some final proofing because the reviews, although good, noted some errors. That brought her into the process and she and I both went through the manuscript line by line and word by word. She pointed out places where he was still an a**hole, so we did some more cutting and revising, but only some.
She kept repeating that if the character wasn't likeable people would stop reading like she did and that'd be the end of it, and I'd have no readers and the series would end up an utter failure.
I didn't completely disagree, so we talked it out and came to the conclusion that the character doesn't necessarily have to be likeable but he also can't be so unlike-able that the reader drops the book. There needs to be some empathy, even if just a smidgen. What saved it, I think, was that the character, while a decent guy at heart, was portrayed (accurately) as hapless and inexperienced in the world of dating and wooing women. I ramped that up a little more with the idea of evoking a little sympathy for the guy and his not so debonair efforts. And the best way to do that is to ramp up the humor so the reader can get a laugh at the guy's clumbsy efforts.
When the book published, and reader reviews started coming in it seemed we got him right. He still wasn't terribly likeable initially but he also wasn't so unlikeable that the reader stopped reading. He was just a guy trying to get to the prize and running into a lot of humorous obsticales getting there. By the end of the series, some readers were actually saying how much that "loved" the guy. Yeah, loved him.
So I guess the take away is not how much the main character is liked, as it is how much the reader will tolerate him. The main thing is not to cause the reader to stop reading before they finish the story.
Jack Dancer
Jack wrote: "Here's one take on the "likeable" character. I recently published a three-book romance series based on a date I had some years back when I was a swinging, single, mid-life bachelor. So, naturally..."
Sounds like you got it right. I had a similar reaction from my husband on my first (unpublished) book: he thought the female MC's husband was based on a negative portrayal of him - and refused to read further.
It wasn't. It was based on a bunch of guys I knew in grad school (loosely), but I didn't push the point. One of these days I may go back and rework that book - I like about half of it a LOT, and the other half is a bit slow.
But I did get similar comments on the main male character in the trilogy I just published the first book of (Pride's Children); my solution was to let him be who he was, but to show some of his good side very early in the story so he wouldn't be a total ass.
As for the villain, people said I made her fascinating. Good enough - she has very good reasons for being who she is.
And two likeable characters out of three is exactly what I was aiming for. Can't have a good story without a good villain, I say.
Alicia
Everybody is the hero of their own story, even the darkest villain or most twisted psychopath. I think the secret is to reveal some of this point of view to make a character understandable and sympathetic. Any character that is totally one dimensional is hard to enjoy.People like "flawed" characters because they think they are getting some insight into what makes that person tick, what motivates them (or demotivates them).
They should be somewhat likeable in realistic fiction, sci-fi, and fantasy. Crime and other fast paced genres make it not as important.
BethLee wrote: "They should be somewhat likeable in realistic fiction, sci-fi, and fantasy. Crime and other fast paced genres make it not as important."Good point; the genre makes the limitations - because of the reader's expectations.
As with beauty, likeability lies within the eye of the beholder. Some readers prefer and personally identify with strong, decisive and independent characters while others may be more inclined to like a character that displays occasional weakness, indecisiveness and vulnerability. Whether human or alien, likeable or not, a fictional character should be believably, realistically and consistently portrayed throughout the story by the author.
Jim wrote: "As with beauty, likeability lies within the eye of the beholder. Some readers prefer and personally identify with strong, decisive and independent characters while others may be more inclined to li..."Yes, I agree. The main character does not have to be likeable, but the main character should be believable.
I cannot enjoy a book completely if the main character is not at all likeable. And most people react like I do, otherwise you would find "the Love life of Hitler" and such books in libraries.
It's different if it's fiction. For example, some fiction writers have used techniques like unreliable narrator. When the main character is someone the reader can't even trust it makes for quite a story.
Agatha Christie used it for a great book of hers.
Anne wrote: "I cannot enjoy a book completely if the main character is not at all likeable. And most people react like I do, otherwise you would find "the Love life of Hitler" and such books in libraries."That's interesting with the likeable thing. Is it Genre dependant? I do get what you mean. Protagonist / Antagonist is as set in genre fiction as the three act structure. And liking a Protagonist is part of them being the Protagonist I guess.
I have answered previously in this thread that for me the MC needs to be some one I can relate to. Which at the time and with no real thought seemed the appropriate answer. Yet when I think about it I don't necessarily need either - what I need is to enjoy the story.
I can relate to the Magistrate in Waiting for the Barbarians in that he too is getting old and has spent his life as a humble servant of law and order to find that it was a bit of a sham. But relating to 'him' is probably overstating it. He did use the remnants of his power to get his way - or at least tried to; to which I can;t relate. To like him would be a big stretch too.
Loved the story though.
Lenita wrote: "It's different if it's fiction. For example, some fiction writers have used techniques like unreliable narrator. When the main character is someone the reader can't even trust it makes for quite a ..."Unreliable narration is trickery though - then again all fiction is trickery. Because we're relying on the unreliable narrator to fill us in on his/her unreliability. Thus we rely on the bit that confirms the otherwise unreliability. Where as we should question whether we can rely upon an unreliable narrator revealing to us that they're unreliable. Which I think is the point - that we question the whole reading experience.
Or am I wrong - or simply unreliable...
I'm intrigued that no one yet appears to have mentioned what seems to be the most important factor - not likability or otherwise but engagement - if a readership or audience cannot engage with a character they remain emotionally unmoved. An antagonist is easily as able to engage with as a protagonist if not more so. If the character matters to me I engage - witness the traditional pantomime where the audience boos the bad guy as enthusiastically as they cheer the good. But without relevance and credibility there is nothing to engage with. Hence our characters must be credible but must also be relevant to make readers engage
Michael wrote: "I'm intrigued that no one yet appears to have mentioned what seems to be the most important factor - not likability or otherwise but engagement - if a readership or audience cannot engage with a ch..."Totally agree.
It almost depends on the genre you're writing. For example biographies are frequently going to be about disliked characters yet that could be the primary attraction.In fiction I have followed characters who were not at all likable because the story around them was good.
If you think about it Scarlet from Gone With the Wind is one of the most popular characters of all time yet she was selfish, self absorbed, and in many other ways not likable at all.
Mason wrote: "I agree with Hava. There is no good or bad - only interesting.I've created a character to whom people are somewhat neutral, and I've fond that actually works quite well. At first, I sprinkle my pr..."
There's a reason actor's love to play villains. The protagonist often is a neutral character and less interesting than the villain who are often more complex. For my own book I am deliberately making the main character sometimes rude and selfish to make him real.
Oscar Wilde was right. It makes no sense dividing people into good or bad. They're either charming or tedious, and the same is true of protagonists.
And antagonists. I echo Michael and Thatdeus's sentiments: credible, relevant and engaging. Those are the necessities for your characters.
Likable or unlikable, the readers need to be able to have some kind of emotional reaction to all major characters. Of course, unless there is something likable about a protagonist and something unlikable about the antagonist, you are going to confuse your readers. However, you can have unlikable qualities in a protagonist as well as likable qualities in your antagonists.That was as clear as mud, right!?
"Credible, relevant, and engaging." Hear hear.
Of course "likeable" can be many different things to different readers.
You can have a really twisted, morally corrupted character full of flaws, and you catch yourself rooting for him/her anyway. :-))It's all about the story and the message. And let's be honest we all like the bad boys/girls if they have some growth or redemption :-)
no, not all of us. Maybe it's another American feature... I honestly don't feel the bad boy attraction so often spoken of. And I've read some good books where the main character was not likeable and they did not appeal to me. The last one written by Augusten Burroughs. Good, well written, but about people I never want to meet.
I don't don't really think it matters what the character is like as long as it's well-written they can be engaging, or serve a purpose, like having a relatable problem to overcome, to be looked up to or provide catharsis, or play an important role in another character's life. one of my biggest pet peeves is when people don't like a book because they find the characters unlikable
