21st Century Literature discussion
Book Chat
>
Debate: Can You Enjoy a Book If You Hate The Characters?
date
newest »
newest »
I read the article. Personally, I think kindness, empathy and political correctness never ruined anything. And he's wrong. You can be a bigot or a misogynist or a damn xenophobic ax murdering puppy kicker and you can write any damn thing you like. If people aren't buying your books because of it, I think that is hardly an indication that society has fallen apart.I guess Howard Jacobson is entitled to any opinion he likes. I'm sure he'll be distressed to hear that Deborah Rosenblum was happy not to agree with him.
Maybe if he were less unlikable people would like his characters better.
That's a rather passionate take on the issue but he definitely seems like an ass to me. I'm pretty skeptical about any claim that basically amounts to, "You're reading books wrong! If only you were as enlightened as me! *sob sob*" Also Deborah, that post actually made me snort-laugh hideously. "A damn xenophobic ax murdering puppy kicker." High five.
Thank you Savanna. I suppose it's possible he's not a complete dookiehead. Not likely, but possible. I felt pretty passionately about it. I continued to rant on facebook, because I didn't want to upset everyone here with my tirade!
Deborah wrote: "I am not an Ishiguro fan. I'd like to be. I just don't like his characters or his narration."I don't like one of his characters, but there's something about his prose style that I find quietly compelling.
As for Howard Jacobson I don't much like him, or most of his books. But mind, I don't tend to care for comic novels, anyway, no matter how cute the characters are.
I'll apologize in advance – I haven't read through the whole thread, so what I'm about to say has possibly already been said:I would vote yes. I personally think this whole 'character has to be likeable' thing is one of the greatest misunderstandings in the modern reader. I feel liking the character is not important; understanding the character is the main thing.
If every single character was a perfect, upstanding citizen, you basically wouldn't have proper literature, because one of the main things literature does is explore the darker sides of our psyches and society. Now, this does sometimes takes the route of 'good person done wrong by unjust agents', and of course you feel sympathy toward the character, but very often it goes the other way: 'person pays price for his/her flaws.'
If you only had it the former way, then basically it would be saying that everything bad that happens to you is forced upon you by 'badness' and 'evil' and you never have to take any personal responsibility for your actions.
The only way to have readers introspect is to show them flawed people and ask 'do you undersand why this happened to the character?' The reader doesn't have to like the character, but if the reader can relate to the character and understand where the character when wrong, that's the main thing.
Creating sympathy for an unlikeable character is probably the greatest trick an author can pull off.
I guess I agree with Howard Jacobson in that he should write what ever he feels compelled to write regardless of what the reader will end up feeling about his story. If he's a true artist he should have no thoughts to "Will people like this?" "Will this win a prize??" "Will I make lots of money?" I feel like "Hey Bro, go for it. Feel free. And extend to me that same courtesy. Let me chose to like whatever I want without breathing down my neck and telling me I'm stupid for not "getting" your story."Truthfully LOL I have a hard time finishing a book if I don't feel some kind of attachment to the characters. I'm a crappy reader, (according to some)alas. That's just me though.
James wrote: "Creating sympathy for an unlikeable character is probably the greatest trick an author can pull off. "Absolutely!
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that Jacobson's work is flawed because he doesn't feel the need to pander. I applaud that choice.Where he loses me is when he says, all these stupid people who believe in political correctness have ruined society.
I mean let's contrast Jacobson with Alexie. In Indian Killer , Alexie makes some statements that are hard and harsh. He takes the chance of offending every white reader who picks him up. But he says something powerful.
To my knowledge however, he has not said, "Everyone who is offended by what I've said is an idiot who is ruining literature."
To offend in art is a brave and wonderful thing. But you can't have it both ways. You can be offensive and then offended when you offend people. That's just being a complete jerk.
Deborah wrote: "Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that Jacobson's work is flawed because he doesn't feel the need to pander. I applaud that choice.Where he loses me is when he says, all these stupi..."
Jacobson, I think, was using hyberbole to try to to make his point; the problem is, hyperbole wasn't really necessary, and it just made him sound like a guy on the street corner prophesying the apocalypse.
But he's right in the sense that literature has been, for the last couple of hundred years (and poetry before that) the standard-bearer for societal examination and change. Literature blazes the path with certain ideas usually decades before the masses are even aware of those ideas, let alone close to accepting them.
If we are, generally, societally, losing our critical acumen as readers of challenging fiction, then it will have a detrimental effect overall, not doubt.
But if he's basing his argument simply on what he's getting at book clubs, then maybe he didn't do enough research before he spoke ;)
I don't think he called anyone stupid. I think he's asking why his editors are reluctant to publish anything but shiny happy people. There are plenty of readers who shy away from any depth - and the publishing industry goes where the money is, publishes what the masses read. He's simply complaining and perhaps giving us a preview of his next novel.
By the way, I despised the characters in We Need to Talk About Kevin, but gave the book five stars. Yes, I can hate the characters and still appreciate the writing.
Both of you James and Thing Two have made his point far more accessibly that he did. If I'm honest, by paragraph two I couldn't care less what his point was.
I've never thought of literary characters as potential friends, and it's never occurred to me to evaluate them in terms of likability. I think if I'd rejected books because I didn't find major characters likable, I could have missed some great books! Two come to mind:"The Sense of an Ending" features a protagonist who lacks all ability for introspection. He doesn't understand himself, and he doesn't understand the people around him. He's obtuse and insensitive, and worst of all, he's utterly unreliable as a narrator. Which makes him perfect as the focus in this story about the unreliability of memory, and the dangers of self deception.
I love Wallace Stegner. I can't imagine missing his semi- autobiographical "The Big Rock Candy Mountain." What makes it so moving is in large part is the disintegration of Bo Mason, the character who is analogous to Stegner's father. Mason is a tragic figure to be sure, but few would describe him as likable, especially by the end of the book.
Oftentimes, it's the pathos of the tragic figure that lends a story depth, and most tragic figures are far from likable!
The title of this addresses itself to repulsive writers, rather than characters, but the text seemed relevant to the conversation happening in this thread:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs...
I just discovered Gillian Flynn, who is the master of books whose characters you hate even while loving the books. I can't recommend Gone Girl enough.
Lily wrote: "The title of this addresses itself to repulsive writers, rather than characters, but the text seemed relevant to the conversation happening in this thread:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bo..."
That was an interesting article, but in a sense it plays into the notion that Jacobson was talking about, how you really don't get books such as Waugh would write anymore because the characters would be too despicable for most readers.
This is highlighted, for me, in the passage quoted from Waugh's 'A Handful of Dust,' about how the mother is happy her lover has survived while not so sad that her son has died (that's Bustillos's interpretation, anyway). Bustillos writes:
"... small though her heart may be, surely the worst adulteress in the world could find room enough in there to contain both lover and son. So a certain part of my belief goes crashing to earth."
She's basically saying that she doesn't think it's possible for a mother to not care about her children, therefore her belief in the characters is marred. Well, why can't she believe that? Simply because it's too horrible for her to contemplate. But that doesn't mean it's not possible; look at the news on any given day and see stories of child abuse and you'll see it's actually quite possible for mothers not to care about the well being of their children.
So this is a case of the reader not accepting a hard truth simply because it's too horrible. And this is where a lot of readers fail when they read, because if the characters are too odious or highlight too awful a truth, many people not only will turn away but actually won't believe it.
This is the point that Jacobson was trying to make, though he failed at his attempt.
It depends. If the characters are really well thought-out, authentic characters, I CAN enjoy a book, because it might have a really important and strong message. But if the characters are flat, and that's why I don't like them, the story itself is not going to be credible.
I don't care about important or strong messages, or any messages for that matter, but I agree that "flat" is not a desirable feature for a character. Unless the book's about flatness, I guess.
Unless the book is Flatland ^^ (oh the irony)Regarding the topic's question, I guess it mainly depends on what you look for in a book. If you read it to enjoy a good narrative, you'll hardly appreciate it if you can't relate with any of the characters. If you read it to create a dialogue with the author, to experiment a form of beauty, to face a literary experience which is not "superior" or "better" than the previous one - but which, inevitably, tend to be deeper - then you're not reading in search for familiarity, or at least not from the character themselves.
Some of the best books I've ever read have hideous, terrible characters (American Psycho being the most flagrant example). Others have characters who not only are, at times, detestable - they're also ridiculous and unlikely. Thomas Pynchon is a master in creating those.
I can definitely enjoy, even adore, a book where the main character is unlikable, provided it was done intentionally. For example, Ignatius J. Reilly from A Confederacy of Dunces is probably the most obnoxious, insufferable, disgusting character I've ever encountered. I hate him. But I kind of love him too. Dr. Charles Kinbote from Pale Fire is another example. It's when a character is meant to be sympathetic but isn't (to me) that I have problems enjoying a book. Take Tess from Tess of the D'Urbervilles. If I had been alive to read Tess when it was first published I probably would have adored her and wept for her plight. Unfortunately I read in in the 90's in a a culture with entirely different standards of conduct. So instead of weeping when Angel casts Tess off, I'm flinging the book across the room and yelling, "Oh my god! Kick that hypocritical ass in the hairy applebags and go find yourself a REAL man!!!" I usually make an effort to keep in mind the cultural differences that may have influenced an author and set aside those kinds of thoughts, but for some reason I couldn't do it with Tess.
Books where women let men trample them and push them around just bring on my rage face. Someone mentioned Twilight and I agree. I don't understand why so many women love romances with controlling men and submissive women.
Mod
Considering Tess' Naturalist nature (oh the irony) I doubt that Hardy really wants to feel empathy for the character herself (who does in fact a number of idiotic things throughout the novel), but for her social (/cultural) condition. Now, I'm not asking anyone to historicize because I don't really like that and I never do it myself. But think about it this way: isn't getting mad at Tess because she's not an emancipated woman the same as getting mad at an African-American character in a slavery novel because he doesn't just kick that arrogant master of his in the wherever?
I think if a novel can bring in other redeeming qualities to it-- a moral, a key theme, a life lesson-- then it is easier to overlook unsympathetic or blatantly annoying characters. When there is no redeeming quality deeper than the characters, and they are as simplistic as a piece of paper, then it makes it really difficult to enjoy that book. Look at Victor Frankenstein. He's a weak character in many estimations, and critics who dislike the book Frankenstein seem to rail on him, but he's only a miniscule essence of Shelley's book. It goes so much deeper than him. I use this example because Frankenstein is one of my favorite books.
Has anyone mentioned Madame Bovary? Or Lolita? We're not meant to like any of the characters in either book, and yet they're both classics!
Bookchemist, personally I'm not mad at Tess for being part of her time (irritating though her actions can feel). I'm mad at Hardy for thinking he truly understands the condition of a woman of that time. (By comparison, Edith Wharton's House of Mirth does it right.)
I have never considered the matter under that light. Hardy has a huge advantage over me when it comes to understand Hardy's times. He was born during those times :).
I think Bookchemist said it very well. It really depends what you are looking for. Which, I think, reveals a possible disconnect in terms of how people interpret the question. There are two questions:
-- Can *you* enjoy a book if you don't like the characters?
-- Can one enjoy a book if one doesn't like the characters?
The second is kind of meaningless, because the answer varies for different values of one. The first, only you can answer (which, to be fair, is what most of the above discussion is exploring, but Howard Jacobson doesn't seem to get it).
Personally, I very much can. I have seen good in real life in people who have done very bad things, and I see reasons why people do the things they do. The complexity of a human being and all their motives and needs and wants, when well-wrought, is fascinating to me, whether I feel a kinship to them or not.
Perfume by Patrick Suskind is a very good example of an entirely unsympathetic protagonist in a very good and readable book.
Mod
"Annasue McCleave from Publishers Weekly suggested during an interview with Claire Messud, “I wouldn’t want to be friends” with Nora, the fiery protagonist in Messud’s new novel, The Woman Upstairs. “[Nora's] outlook is almost unbearably grim,” continues McCleave.
Messud shot back:
For heaven’s sake, what kind of question is that? Would you want to be friends with Humbert Humbert? Would you want to be friends with Mickey Sabbath? Saleem Sinai? Hamlet? Krapp? Oedipus? Oscar Wao? Antigone? Raskolnikov? Any of the characters in The Corrections? Any of the characters in Infinite Jest? Any of the characters in anything Pynchon has ever written? Or Martin Amis? Or Orhan Pamuk? Or Alice Munro, for that matter? If you’re reading to find friends, you’re in deep trouble. We read to find life, in all its possibilities. The relevant question isn’t ‘is this a potential friend for me?’ but ‘is this character alive?’"
Haven't read Messud, but now I plan to.
@ Will: I think your political angle gets real close to the disparity. The question itself invites judgment of the characters, and then we're hooked into voicing our degree of approval. We can even trick ourselves, I suspect, into thinking that if we don't like the characters we shouldn't like the book.So maybe we should ask instead, Are the characters interesting? because "interest" covers the broad ground, from awe to eww.
@Deborah: Yes, when the author doesn't (seemingly) show some compassion, I don't engage. But apparently for some writers and readers, dis-compassion, if you will, is engaging in and of itself.
@Fellow Martin Amis Anti-Fans: Heh! My favorite example is Other People. But he wrote some years ago a reverse-mystery that was rather cool.
i enjoyed "gone girl" even though i did n't like any of the characters. it kept my interest all the to the end. i had to continue to learn what really happened and how it would all end.
I guess I would have to ask are the characters written so you hate them? Then yes, if you have passion about the people you are reading about then the author is doing their job. However, if the characters are just written badly...then its a no go. Unless there was one heck of a story there. I think any book that makes you feel anything, is gold.
This is going to sound strange, but I prefer stories where I don't completely agree with the character. Up to a point, characters with slightly different views is refreshing sometimes. I want to know them, not how good they are at popping bad guys. (No I don't like action.)
Also I can enjoy a good bad guy protagonist, so long as the bad guy himself thinks what he does makes sense. There is something not particularly unnerving about bad guys who dont even make sense to themself.This is why utopia by any means necessary is so much more unnerving to me. Oh, and why Brave New World is actually scarier to me.
I have to third the mention of Gone Girl. I certainly am glad I read it, despite the two leads being as despicable and sociopathic as they come. They lack almost any kind of charm, and you really begin rooting for them both to fail. I have to hope that's what Flynn intended.
Bret Easton Ellis is another writer whose characters tend to be unlikable - at least in the three I have read (Zero, Attraction, Psycho). But they are fascinating reads that have something to say about consumerism, hyperstimulation, relationships, etc. And black as they are, the books are frequently quite funny.
I have liked a book where I didn't particularly like the characters, but it is rare that I HATE the characters. I did hate the book "Gone Girl," but didn't connect it with hating the characters. I didn't like the characters, but thought the story just plain stupid. Why did I keep reading? I figured there had to be some redemption with all the hype it got. Note to self: Ignore hype!
I saw this thread and decided to pipe in because I am currently reading The Corrections. So far I am enjoying this book. Yes, the characters are despicable. However, I find the story extremely funny and the writing is great. I think a book can be great with unlikable characters. Two authors that come to mind that I enjoyed their books, but the characters were not exactly sunshine and roses are Cormac McCarthy and Donald Ray Pollock
21st Century Literature
Books mentioned in this topic
The Corrections (other topics)Gone Girl (other topics)
We Need to Talk About Kevin (other topics)
Indian Killer (other topics)
A House for Mr Biswas (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Cormac McCarthy (other topics)Donald Ray Pollock (other topics)
Nick Hornby (other topics)
Ford Madox Ford (other topics)
Howard Jacobson comes down very hard on those who want likable characters.
Excerpted: ..."I don't like this book because I don't sympathise with the main character."
"That's like the end of civilisation. That is the end. In that little sentence is a misunderstanding so profound about the nature of art, education and why we are reading, that it makes you despair..."
Of course, you may think Jacobson is an ass.