The Picture of Dorian Gray question

Well, on the one hand, I had a hard time enjoying Wuthering Heights because it didn't have a single character I cared about. When you're reading a book and you find yourself wanting everyone to die just so it can be over, that's a problem.

However, sometimes the "unlikeable" character can be hugely appealing anyway. I know plenty of people love Heathcliff despite not necessarily siding with him, simply because he's a fascinating character. That's the way I felt about Scarlett O'Hara from Gone With the Wind. I was never on her side for a second, was often horrified by her cruelty, and yet she was so human that I felt a weird level of sympathy with her and it kept me turning pages.

Dorian Gray works, in my opinion, because it's a horror story. We don't necessarily like, for instance, Edgar Allan Poe's murderous narrators, but the feeling of tension they create is such that we're terrified and enthralled.

Mostly, I think, it's about how much emotion actually reaches me. It didn't matter if Dorian was evil--I could feel his fear. And Scarlett's emotions went ringing through me like bells with every page I turned. I couldn't feel Heathcliff's passion because everything was from the point of view of the disapproving Nellie, who didn't really care what happened to Heathcliff. Getting inside the mind of a villain can be fun, but being the spectator, locked on the outside? Not so much.

Another thing that makes Dorian work is the fact that a likable character, Basil, actually cares what happens to Dorian, so that even if you don't like Dorian personally you might want him to be good again for Basil's sake.

I think it is overrated.

Then again if you don't mind villains then wouldn't that make them a likable character?

It also depends where the book is heading, if the book is adventure or crime then obviously you need a likable character to 'save the day' but if the book is just some sort of account of life or you are following the character through his/her life(like in the picture of Dorian Grey) then i think it doesn't matter.

I need someone compelling regardless if I they are likeable or not. I think I'm more impressed if I can somewhat care about the unlikeable person. Maybe care isn't the right word but I guess at least care about their development in the novel. Loved this book by the way.

What a great question!

For this kind of story, no, it doesn't matter. Not only is the concept interesting, but the characters all have pretty, weird, and mind-breaking things to say. The basic philosophy of the story is much more engaging for me than WHAT happens; the characters are just vessels for ideas. In a story like Harry Potter, however, I couldn't read it if I didn't like the main character. I don't care about Harry's struggles if I don't like him.

I used to have a real problem with novels that didn't have a hero at the center. I wrote an essay about this subject here:

http://www.kurtkeefner.com/2012/09/de...

But I've changed a lot. I think a novel can have sparkle without an admirable character, as long as it has interesting characters, for example: Charles Jessold, Considered As A Murderer This has two rather questionable protagonists, but the way it depicts genius and the way it weaves musical history into the story is dazzling.

I also enjoyed Engleby even though the title character is repellent. I don't make a habit of empathizing with such bad people, but he was more broken than evil and my heart went out to him.

Likable doesn't have to mean we would like to meet them, have a beer and hang out. Sometimes we thrill to a villain so remarkable that we love to hate them. Hannibal Lechter, Darth Vader, Macbeth (and his truly evil wife). These are all examples of truly abhorrent characters that the readers loved because they were so vile.

I don't care how likable characters are, as long as their interesting.

A very good author can make the protagonist the villan as well and make you find yourself cheering him or her on. I've found that some of my favorite books have main characters for villans.

Books have to have characters you care about, but I don't think characters you care about and likeable characters are mutually inclusive. Villains can be the most interesting characters, like Iago from Othello. You can be simultaneously repulsed and enthralled by unlikeable characters; you can hate them as people but be fascinated by their ideas and like the dynamics they have with other characters in the novel, which leads to the reader still continuing to read because they're invested in the storyline and what happens.

I like a consistent realistic portrayal of a character in a good plot.

Some of you might be interested in a discussion here similar to the one on this thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...

I try to belong to that category of people who abstain from "hating" people or characters but rather are continuously fascinated, delighted and too often horrified by what they do and why they do it.

Brilliant discussion. And I would say - definitely not.

It's quite an old fashioned concept, this hero / villain idea isn't it? Quite black and white. When you consider real life, no one is holistically one or the other. Good people do bad things and vice versa.

I love that this novel contains complex characters, all with various levels of bad or evilness. With Dorian, the badness is beyond human; his badness goes beyond behaviour by invoking supernatural evils, allowing us to assume he is bad to his core and soul.

The idea of a collection of ‘villainous’ characters appeals to my cynical view of society and allows me to read this book with a sense of honesty that a lot of fiction lacks. I honestly don't believe we need an array of characters from each section of the spectrum for a novel to work, or for it to appeal to me. I prefer the notion of layering, complexity, self-worth over others and the idea that most people react in alternative ways to alternative situations.

This is a really hard question!...My answer is no, it doesn't matter if a character is "likable" so long as he/she is complex, three-dimensional, and fairly realistic. (This is where Stephenie Meyer goes wrong!) A few good examples of this are the title character from Emma, and Heathcliff and Catherine from Wuthering Heights.

What an interesting theme!

It rather depends, I think. Sometimes, the so-called "bad" characters can be more enjoyable than the "good" characters.

Take Lestat from Interview with a Vampire, for example. That guy is, at least throughout the first book, a total psycopath, and yet many still preffer him to Louis,me included, mostly because Louis is such a damn emo. ALWAYS. Or take Grell Sutcliff from the manga/anime Kuroshitsuji (Black Butler). He's another blood-thirsty, flamboyant, gay as the sun is bright psyco, and yet you can't help but to love him after the 5th episode, so much so that his fanbase almost rivals that of Sebastian, the main character. And psycopaths are not the only ones. Hell, I know that on all the books about the Trojan Wars that I've read, I always end up rooting for Paris, even though he's a whiny little bitch, but he's so much better than goodie-two-shoes Hector, or at least to me he is.

So no, I don't think that a character has to be likeble in the traditional ways, i.e. G.O.O.D and M.O.R.A.L, in order to be, well, likeble, as long as he's complex and well rounded.

I think that it also depends on how the other characters are (again the Lestat thing. If one character is too moral and angsty, I at least tend to lean towards the bloodthirthy, ruthless one, even though I might hate him for being bloodthirsty and ruthless).

And I guess that it also depends on the on the way the book is written, on who are the protagonists and the antagonists, if there are any. I mean, on George RR Martin's ASOIAF, besides one or two exceptions to the rule, there are no "good" characters and no "bad" characters, only "better" or "worst".

And I guess it also depends on the author. If the author is really good, then most of the times it doesn't really matter who "bad" and "imoral" the main character is, you'll still like him better than the antagonist because as the main character, you'll hopefully spend more page time with him and you'll eventually get used to him. But again, for that to work, the character has to be very well constructed and the writer has to be a very good one (this does not apply to Stephenie Meyer or E.L.James).

In my opinion, the thing with Dorian Grey is that he's a representation of the Victorian society of Dandies, or rather, of the dark, innerly corrupted side of the dandies and of their hedonistic lifestyle. And dispite the fact that you don't really know much about him and his past, he's a very well rounded, well written character, and dispite of him being a dispicable little bitch, he is, most of all, interesting. You hate to love him and you would love to hate him but can't because, dispite the fact that you dispise him, you just can't look away.

I think in the book more so with dorian he strugled to even understand himself, maybe he ws just torn between his vanity and his true self in the shadow, but i do think in dorian's soul he was in truth a good person, he just got caught in the flood of the tides of time

The Picture of Dorian Gray is absolutely fantastic. Some of us like to route for a more villainous character. Some just find them more interesting... or at least I hope. Some of my work has arguably no likable characters, particularly an upcoming novel... I hope people will like it.

But I write horror, so perhaps it is as you say. Maybe the villainous narrator or lead character only works in this genre

I find that 50% of the time I find myself bored with the heroes in stories and far more interested in the villains not because I agree with their actions or sympathize with them, but because I find them so much more interesting and entertaining to watch. Their actions and motivations just tend to be so much more complex and every single flaw that makes me hate them and want to see them dead just makes them that much more real to me as a character. And that's the big thing there. Not how likable a cast of characters are, but how real and interesting they are.

No because in real life, you don't always like everyone you know and the good guys don't always have to win. I think it is overrated to have a likable character, it's boring in films and books if there's only ever good guys for heros. And like Dorian, sometimes they may start out goodish, but people get corrupted.

Indeed, likable characters are not needed, not at all. It really annoys me whenever I read a review here on Goodreads that includes an argument about how they didn't like the book because there were no likable characters for them, that is one of the weakest, most moronic and shallow arguments against a book.

Many readers deceive themselves into needing a "good" hero, whether that means the hero's personality or actions are in accordance to the readers expectations or moral alignments, or simply because they want to see a part of themselves reflected in the hero.

If every book out there had freaking likable characters, reading would soon become a tedious unfulfilling experience. Imagine a world full of books built upon the Twilight Series scheme.

There is nothing wrong with likable characters, and I have nothing against them, but they are not needed. Reading is a really nice sanctuary because we can find variety among characters. Oscar Wilde and many others have given the world proof that demonstrates there must be variety in books.

Finally books are worth reading for a variety of reasons besides characters, there is a lot to grasp in them.

I think that annoyance, dislike or just not liking a character is one thing and may reflect a reader's character as much as the characters in the book. But what about a novel with a main character with few or no redeeming qualities? I'm thinking of Slammerkin by Emma Donoghoe. (Did I spell her name right? Not sure.) Well written; she's a good writer. But what an awful protagonist. Very hard to read a novel when the main character is so awful.

For me, it's not so much about liking a character but being able to empathize with and feel for one. Sure, Dorian is annoying at best. But up to the end, I felt for him. I understand why a lot of people found Picture of Dorian Gray as boring or difficult to finish given the character and, according to a friend, gay overtones. But then, they missed out on a lot of things.

I second the example of Wuthering Heights. There was no one to like in the novel, not even the female characters. But it proved quite an excellent tale, at least for me. It was also a study of human nature and to what extremes people can go to.

Likeable and care about are two different things, aren't they? A book can be driven by a force that you care about -- you care about his/her purposes, values, courage -- but not be likeable. Maybe these characters are some of the most important in literature. Think of King Lear. Flawed is yet again different -- we're all flawed, and a character who wasn't would be unbelievable. Irrelevant flaws don't do the job, either -- that's what's wrong with so many efforts to try to humanize a detective.

I must say that I can't sit through a movie any more when I hate everybody in it.

Yes, so you wouldn't read the book. When you don't like the main carachters(?), the author gives you several in the back to cheer, love and peaty for.

give me compelling characters rather than likable ones

I think flawed characters work well when they are used by the author to reflect a flawed society. Dorian Gray was a window into the hidden life of Victorian society with its effects shown in his portrait. Though he was without a doubt morally flawed, I found him a interesting character.

Another example of this is all the characters in The Great Gatsby. Every single major character had some moral flaw which made them all detestable, yet it is one of the best loved books ever written. These characters also fitted in a flawed and hedonistic roaring twenties, by reflecting the society in which they lived.

Maybe I just like authors who do not try to create perfect characters who the reader feels an attachment to but instead who the reader is interested in. Perhaps the characters with no flaws just seem artificial and fake.

In my opinion, it is often the unlikable characters that we relate to the most. I think having flawed, unstable characters in a novel is truly reflective of human nature and therefore more relatable than if each character were pure and simple. And what is good or bad, anyway? As humans, we are as complex as the stars are numerous in the sky. Even the most unlikable character is a person who feels and wants. I actually think unlikable characters are the actual backbone of the story. By the way, The Picture of Dorian Gray is one of my all time favorite novels.

I would have liked a considerable likable character in there because it would have been more of a classic to me than a proud young man that never changes his looks but the painting shows what his heart truly looks like.

I don't know why some unlikable characters work and others don't. I don't believe that a main character has to be likable in order to enjoy the book, but I think the story has to have other redeeming qualities to it. I can think of two books I just hated because the characters were terrible. One was Shangai Girls and the other one was The Boy in the Suitcase. I never cared about the characters. They had no redeeming qualities and never learned anything by the end of the book. On the other hand, I didn't like the main character in The Kite Runner, but I felt the internal struggle he had and that he had learned something by the end of the story. If the author can at least show the motivations of an unlikable character then I think a book can work.

I agree with all of the above. But if all the characters in a book are fiendish or beyond averagely flawed it gives the book a false note. Yes, there are horrible, monstrous peopel in this world. There are selfish, ignorant people in this world. And it would be believable if some of them came together to create a story worth reading. But it would stretch believability too far to think they never brushed up against one decent human being in a day. A.S. Byatt falls into trap sometimes (I finished "The Children's Book recently and that was my only complaint) and it can leave a sour taste in your mouth.

I don't really think Dorian was a villain, I think he became one by Lord Henry's influence. In my opinion, he surpassed the masterin being evil and living for pleasure.
Honestly, Basil is likeable,but we sort of feel he's being a third wheel once Lord Henry enters the picture.

I think that in general, people want to read about characters to whom they can relate. Reading about a squeaky-clean, "perfect" main character who doesn't have any faults or shortcomings is sometimes more irritating than reading about a villain or deeply flawed character. The flawed character is generally one that we can relate to at some level, because we're all flawed as well and have our own individual struggles and weaknesses to overcome. It's a fine balance an author has to consider when developing characters.

For instance, Dorian wasn't always a "bad guy" -- at the beginning, he had a lot of potential and was generally well-liked. He faced temptations just like each of us, and gave in to peer pressure, and it destroyed him. Although he's an extreme, I think we can all relate to that at some level -- of following (or WANTING to follow) the bad advice of a so-called friend, giving in to our pleasures, and ending up worse in the end.

Holly Golightly may be a mess, but she has spunk and quirkiness that people find endearing, and some of her flaws and misadventures are ones that people can relate to (such as constantly losing her door key)