Constant Reader discussion
Constant Reader
>
Do you need to like the characters to like the book?
Yes, I agree, I usually connect to characters that I like or that I'm rooting for. I completely agree that they need to be relatable. It is also fun to follow a villain to see what adventures they are up to!
Normally I prefer reading about people I can relate to in some way. However, I recently read Solar, which has a thoroughly unlikeable protagonist, yet I thought the book was pretty good with a strong moral theme.
I don't have to like the character's , I have to have some feeling for them ,whether it is love or hate. I like plot driven books.
I prefer character-driven books, but I don't have to like the characters, I just have to believe in them.
I at least have to be interested in what's happening to them. I agree that a character who's "just like me" (more likely, "just like my of me") may not challenge me much. But if I just don't give a darn what happens, or I don't want to spend time in the characters' company, I am very tempted to quit reading.
I have to be able to realte to the character in that I can understand how s/he reacts and behaves. I don't have to like the character. I'm thinking of Dolores Claiborne or Olive Kitteridge ... two rather unlikeable main characters that star in absolutely wonderful books.
I love character-driven pieces as well, and sometimes the characters are just so messed up, so despicable that you just can't look away lol They're complicated and that's what makes them interesting.My hubby absolutely hates the writing for the tv series Mad Men because all of the characters are such a-holes. I love Mad Men b/c of this. Don Draper drinks himself into oblivion, fights tooth and nail to hide a sketchy past, and is a serial cheater. He's not a nice-guy character, but he sure is fun to watch.
I felt this way with James Ellroy's L.A. Confidential. Every single character had some grit to him. Same thing with A Clockwork Orange and basically anything written by David Mamet.
I don't need to like the characters. I just need to have them seem human. And since humans run the gamut of likeable to hateable, I allow for characters to cover the spectrum as well.
I like to give the characters a chance to grow on me. I do need a plot and can like the human with character flaws. The one that interests me the least is the character that is one dimensional and no growth or overcoming a situation is a no go. As for moral growth..some books do but not all. agree? or not?
I don't have to like the characters. But I disagree with this quote from Mitzen from Ann's initiating post:“Relatable” characters are usually ones that don’t make us think, that we’re perfectly comfortable, and thus mentally passive, with. And there’s no merit in sympathizing with someone you can “relate to,” after all–no possibility for moral growth
This is silly. That would have to mean that a "relatable" character is one precisely like the reader. I've never read a character which was precisely like me, yet read many I could relate to in one way or another. Being able to relate is not the same as comfort -- in fact, sometimes it's precisely because we can relate that we feel uncomfortable. We see some aspect of ourselves we'd rather not have illuminated in quite so clear a way.
I'd go so far as to say that if a reader can't find something in a character to relate to, THEN there's no possibility of moral growth.
Interesting comments, everyone. Thanks for your input.To be fair, I should write a bit more about the context of the quote. It was taken from Mitzen’s comments on a reader's guide to a book called JULIE AND JULIA, about a New York woman trying to replicate all the recipes in a Julia Child cookbook. Many readers found the Julie character (who was also the author) rather annoying. The guide asked the reader the following questions: "Did you find Julie to be a likable character? Did you relate to her insecurities, anxieties, and initial discontent?"
Mitzen was obviously frustrated with some of the inane questions that appear in reader’s guides for book clubs.
I do agree with those of you who said that you must find some aspect of the protagonist that you can relate to: that is, you have to be able to at least understand their motivation or feelings. Understanding doesn't necessarily mean that you like them, or that, God forbid, you would want to be friends with them. But I wonder - does understanding mean that you have felt something at least remotely similar yourself?
I liked your examples of good “unlikable” characters. Olive Kitteridge was one, BC. Ruth also mentioned Raskolnikov from CRIME AND PUNISHMENT who is an even more extreme example. I have put McEwen’s SOLAR on my TBR list, Emily.
At the same time, occasionally there are books that I really can’t stand because I don’t like ANY of the characters. I couldn’t bring myself to read A CLOCKWORK ORANGE with CR because the characters in the movie made such a horrifying impression on me years ago. My in-person book club read a book called A RELIABLE WIFE a few years ago. I hated everyone in the book. I finished it because it was “assigned” and I wanted to find out the ending, but when it was all over, I wished I hadn’t.
Occasionally, in book discussions, people say repeatedly that they couldn't enjoy the book because they didn't like the character. That usually drives me a bit crazy because a character in a book isn't like your neighbor or a best friend. Any character in a book who successfully puts me inside of another person is a good character for me. On the other hand, in Julie and Julia, I think most people were complaining about the somewhat trivial quality of the Julie character. I suppose in that case there simply wasn't much there. I should stipulate that I haven't read the book.
Ann wrote: "Interesting comments, everyone. Thanks for your input.To be fair, I should write a bit more about the context of the quote. It was taken from Mitzen’s comments on a reader's guide to a book cal..."
Wow, Ann, you are one of the first people I've found to agree with me on A Reliable Wife. Just did nothing for me. On the other hand, I read A Clockwork Orange as a teenager, but didn't see the movie until maybe ten years ago. The book I find very good, the movie awful. It glorified the violence, I thought. As far as Julie & Julia, I wound up reading the entire book just because I could not believe she had parlayed this thing into making money as a writer. It was stunning how much they softened her in the movie, but then, the best thing about the movie was the other half--Meryl and Stanley as the Childs--wonderful!
I don't have to like the characters, but I do have to care what happens to them. As noted above, A Clockwork Orange is a perfect example; I think I even noted during the discussion that I couldn't believe how worried I was about Little Alex the Sociopath. The only other example that comes to mind is The Horse Whisperer. As I recall, I was on vacation and my reading material was limited, so I stuck it out with the book, even though it was pissing me off. By the time I reached the end, I *hated* those people
I did not particularly like the characters in Paul Bowles novel, The Sheltering Sky, but I liked the book. The north African setting was unusual and the protagonists while not sympathetic were still quite interesting. I wanted to know what would happen to them. I thought Bowles had good psychological insight. Bottom line: I don't think liking the characters is necessary to enjoying a novel.
I'm with Katy - I don't have to like the characters, if they are interesting that's enough for me. Theresa
Peggy wrote: "I don't have to like the characters, but I do have to care what happens to them. As noted above, A Clockwork Orange is a perfect example; I think I even noted during the discussion that I couldn't..."I read The Horse Whisperer for some unknown reason as well. (the movie, well, that was in Montana, my favorite place, so that was different) Above all else, the book was full of such bad writing and ridiculous errors, like Americans calling gym shoes "trainers", that I don't remember the characters really at all. Tripe. And yes, I worried my head off about Alex, that vicious guy.
Hehe. I just remember getting all mad at the female protagonist because she was cheating on her nice lawyer husband with that skanky cowboy. Toward the end, I was proclaiming to all who would listen: "THESE PEOPLE DO NOT DESERVE TO HAVE SEX!"
I love this conversation, probably this issue comes up often in book clubs. People may say they didn't like the book because they didn't like any of the characters and I want to shake him/her and say, "Are you kidding me...you are exactly like, say Olive Kittredge when you get all self-involved and self-righteous." I don't go there, but I do sometimes say, "Oh, but I have parts of that character in me" and there's an awkward silence. There are times when I want to read about a character who is both complex and sympathetic and I want to be that character and find I fall a far short. On the other hand, complex somewhat unlikeable characters who come to life on the page--brilliant.
Then there are times when I'm not in the frame of mind to be dazzled by the author's skill. How I connect with a character and a book depends so much on where I am in my life and my mind. And also, on whether I know I'll be talking about the book with someone or whether the reading experience will be mostly private.
As for the spouse cheating on her nice lawyer husband...I haven't read The Horse Whisperer book... I grew up with a male who became a lawyer. I find the character sympathetic in theory.
Jane, you spoke my mind much better than I could have done myself, especially about your experience in book groups. (Barbara, you too!) I do agree with Libyrinths that the quotation is silly. (I might have said ridiculous.) I can think of two examples right off of books with highly relatable characters who invite us to participate in their own moral growth over the course of the novel. One is Jane Austen's EMMA. The other is Elizabeth McCracken's fabulous, funny, and sad novel, Niagara Falls All Over Again, which I highly, highly recommend.I will add that I do think characters I can identify with give me more pure reading pleasure (as long as there is also plenty to think about, including moral growth, which is actually my favorite focus in a novel)than characters that are far outside my experience. But as long as characters are complex and believable, I can enjoy a novel on some level.
Jane, "fabulous, funny" sounds very appealing. I put Niagara Falls All Over Again on my reading list.I really like my in person book club, but there are definitely members who have a hard time relating to characters unlike themselves. For me the characters in a book can be a different nationality, a different sex, a different class, from a different time period - I don't care. But some of their feelings or thought patterns have to be at least a little familiar to me, or I am lost.
Ann,
What a good moment you chose to pose this question to the group, as we are reading The Sisters Brothers. I expect the issue of likability will arise in the book discussion.
I don't need to like the characters, but I do need to find them interesting.
What a good moment you chose to pose this question to the group, as we are reading The Sisters Brothers. I expect the issue of likability will arise in the book discussion.
I don't need to like the characters, but I do need to find them interesting.
Tina,Yes, I also thought about THE SISTERS BROTHERS. IT should be an interesting discussion.
Interesting that you bring THE SISTERS BROTHERS up. I decided not to read it because the main characters seem unpleasant!
Pondering this, it occurs to me that the issue has more to do with the emotional distance the author keeps from her or his characters than how similar the character is to me culturally or in terms of lived experience. It is less in vogue for authors to stay close to their characters than it once was. It's that closeness that gives me the greatest reading pleasure--Rohinton Mistry is a great example. But I can also enjoy novels where there is greater distance, as long as the characters are fully complex. And occasionally even when they're not, as in some comic novels.
I think Patricia Highsmith really pushed the envelope on this issue with her Ripley series. I've only read the first one, but Ripley is really unlikeable, but I still liked the book (and actually rooted for him, in a way). That is a real accomplishment for an author. And how about Dexter? He's a flat-out serial murderer, but I like him a lot.
Emily wrote: "Interesting that you bring THE SISTERS BROTHERS up. I decided not to read it because the main characters seem unpleasant!"I'd miss out on a lot of good books if that were my criteria for reading.
Sherry wrote: "Emily wrote: "Interesting that you bring THE SISTERS BROTHERS up. I decided not to read it because the main characters seem unpleasant!"I'd miss out on a lot of good books if that were my criteri..."
If you have 6 books to read in a busy month and must eliminate one, decisions have to be made. That was my criterion this time. Next time, maybe there will be a different reason. I'm struggling to get past the middle ofThe Mosquito Coast. It has bogged down and become boring. I keep hoping it improves.
Kat,That is an interesting idea about the distance that the author keeps from his characters affecting your own attitude. A first person narrative tends to make it all seem immediate doesn't it? A limited third person narrative like Hilary Mantel uses in WOLF HALL can have the same result. She tells almost the entire book in the present tense and makes me feel like I am in Thomas Cromwell's head. She also makes him more likable by emphasizing the loss of his wife and children and a devotion to a quite charming Cardinal Wolsey. In other historical accounts, Cromwell is thoroughly unlikeable. If Mantel's readers didn't like him, few would persevere through such a long book.
If we are thinking of cases where the write keeps more of a distance from his characters, would A STRANGER'S CHILD be an example?
Kat wrote: "Pondering this, it occurs to me that the issue has more to do with the emotional distance the author keeps from her or his characters than how similar the character is to me culturally or in terms ..."I've never been able to create really unlikeable characters because I can't get close enough to them. The actor's problem as well. The reader has the luxury of distance which the author doesn't have. As a reader I'm inclined to resent an author who rubs my nose in his own problem. I don't like audience-participation stuff. "Interactive" is a scary word.
I actually think Hollinghurst stays pretty close to his characters in THE STRANGER'S CHILD. However, we don't get as close as we would if he stuck with the same set of characters throughout. I'm curious about whether that was in fact part of his intention--to get us vitally interested in the characters through that close POV and then pull the rug out from under us.Charles, would you say that Jane Austen, or Leo Tolstoy, rubbed our noses in their own problems? That is the kind of emotional closeness I'm talking about--the kind that lets us identify with characters who seem to live and breathe. It's much less common in contemporary novels, I think. For the past few decades it seems to me that some critics and authors have considered it slightly sentimental to create characters of this kind, and have showed a preference for novels that emphasize structure or interesting technical devices (magic realism, e.g.) instead. However, I do think character has been making a comeback over the past few years.
Kat wrote: "Charles, would you say that Jane Austen, or Leo Tolstoy, rubbed our noses in their own problems?"I've been very clumsy. What I meant was that in creating characters as Austen or Tolstoy did it's necessary for the author to open himself, find the sympathy to portray the character's humanity. With unpleasant characters this is a challenge -- how to get close without getting burned. The reader doesn't have to get close. Some authors seem to resent that. It's as Ann says: if you get close, unlikable characters acquire redeeming features. I'm not sure I want to feel the essential humanity of a serial ax murderer. I think I might learn more from trying to understand why my neighbor is such a jerk, but it seems like that's too easy for some authors.
Ann wrote: "Kat,I agree with what you said about THE STRANGER'S CHILD. The shifting narrative voice is what distanced us. I think his purpose was to leave the reader confused about what really happened.
In..."
Charles,
Very interesting comments, and I can understand why you are reluctant to take this kind of journey as an author. Actors often say that they enjoy playing villains, but the connection between a creator and his character seems deeper than that between a character and his interpreter.
At the same time, as a reader, the villains who make a lasting impression on me are the ones that the author gets so wrapped up in that he can bring me in close too and show me the person’s underlying humanity. In so far as I can understand that humanity, I can relate to them, although I might not “like” them.
I am trying to think of some examples and would appreciate anyone else's input here. The first book that came to mind is the docudrama IN COLD BLOOD. Capote really made me feel s empathy for Perry Smith, even though he was a cold blooded killer
There are also examples from classic literature. Ruth already mentioned another murderer, Raskolnikov in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. MADAME BOVARY was not a sympathetic character, but I could understand her boredom and ambition. I thought Karenin in ANNA KARENINA was pretty disgusting, but Tolstoy made me feel his pain and his point of view.
Any other examples?
Kat,I agree with what you said about THE STRANGER'S CHILD. The shifting narrative voice is what distanced us. I think his purpose was to leave the reader confused about what really happened.
In modern literature there seems to have been a shift toward unresolved stories and unreliable narrators. THE SENSE OF AN ENDING is an example from my more recent reading. If I am reading these books by myself, they often leave me feeling very frustrated, but they are great for a group discussion.
This emphasis on not knowing for sure what really happened results in a distancing from the characters.
Do you think as we read about serial killers, we are drawn to wanting to see why they commit crimes? Is our empathy coming deep in us that want to think there is a good side? I think of "Tony Soparano" on HBO. He was known to comment that he got rid of people who harmed others, sold them drugs and so forth as his good for society. I strangely want to know what makes the killer become a murderer.Its great when the writer gives the background. You guess a lot when they do not!
Cyndee wrote: "Do you think as we read about serial killers, we are drawn to wanting to see why they commit crimes? Is our empathy coming deep in us that want to think there is a good side? I think of "Tony Sopar..."I do, and I don't want to be. Understanding is good; that does require a certain amount of cautious empathy. Finding the humanity and good in evil people doesn't interest me. If there is any.
The original question distinguished liking unpleasant characters from understanding their essential role in magnificent tragedies. The second does not require the first.
Coming down an enormous distance from Anna Karenina, I don't care if the detective doesn't get on with his wife, unless it has something to do with the crime or the detection of it. Inspecteur Lavardin for a good example, Inspector Lynley for a bad one. Unlike real people, I don't feel obligated to like characters unless the author gives me reason to, and don't like to be browbeaten or jerked around by authors.
This thread is fascinating. I'd love to share it with students. I just read a book where I am definitely distanced from the characters, and then brought close and then distanced. It's an amazing feat. The book --Generosity, an Enhancement, by Richard Powers. The narrator of the book periodically discusses what he's doing--describing how he can't quite see what a character is doing. It's really extraordinary, and I loved this book. It's not at all a narrative you can sink into (like a dream). Well, actually, in some ways it is. But that keeps being undercut by the narrator, who seems to be the author, but of course, is actually the author's creation. I realize that I was talking about something different than Kat when she describes emotional distance. I Like the idea of that distinction. I was talking about people who can't see the humanity in characters whose humanity seems to be roaring off the page, who don't identify with flawed fictional characters because they are in so much denial about their own lack of perfection. I think I read fiction because I long to experience the complicatedness of being alive in a particular place at a particular time. The best movies and novels embody that for me. I also read because I am thrilled by gorgeous sentences and blown away by some author's styles or subject matter. Being Dead by Jim Crace comes to mind. I think I'd agree that Alan Hollinghurst is playing with us in The Stranger's Child. He does create compelling characters, but I think the main point of the novel is the way we are all fiction writers creating our own stories of "what happened" given the scraps we "know" to be true and the investment we have in a particular version of the truth.
Interesting notes, everyone.Cyndee, I know that discovering a character's motivation is very important for me and will keep me reading.
Charles, good point: "The original question distinguished liking unpleasant characters from understanding their essential role in magnificent tragedies. The second does not require the first."
Jane,
I think we have all met the kind of reader you described. I agree - just because a character is very flawed he is not "unlikable."
I loved your description of why you read.
Jane wrote: "This thread is fascinating. I'd love to share it with students. I just read a book where I am definitely distanced from the characters, and then brought close and then distanced. It's an amazing fe..."I loved Being Dead, too. You might be interested in reading this discussion of it years ago when Jim Crace himself talked to us about it:
http://constantreader.com/discussions...
Charles (and Ann) write: "It's as Ann says: if you get close, unlikable characters acquire redeeming features." This phrase really jumped out at me. It reminded me of the negative fallout that seems to occur every time the mainstream media or entertainment industry portrays "The Other" (ethinicity, LGBT, religions, hair-color, whatever) in a positive or even neutral light. How dare they show "those people" wanting to get married or serve in the military or just go to the grocery store in peace? Next thing you know, they might be mowing the lawn or taking their kids to soccer practice! Think of the children! Why, we might wind up empathizing with Those People!"
I had phrased this better in an earlier response, but Goodreads ate it.
Oh, and I included hair color because I remember reading a dead-serious rant about how poorly red-headed people were portrayed in the movies.
I agree, this has been a great thread. Charles, I've always known that I couldn't bring to life a character who is psychotic--who is so damaged that he or she isn't motivated by the same things that motivate most of us. But even the characters I do create, who in my opinion err on the side of being too nice, have been criticized as being too "unsympathetic." That's the reader attitude that I find frustrating, both as a writer and as a relisher of novels that include interesting but flawed characters. Has anyone read The Book Borrower? A friend of mine absolutely condemned it because of its flawed protagonist, but I loved it.
Another one of those books is House of Sand and Fog, by Andre Dubus III, which I absolutely loved, and many of my friends hated me for recommending. None of the three main characters had redeeming qualities.Honestly, my recommendations now come with a broad caveat of "reader beware", so I hesitate to give recommendations as a consequence.
Oh, I know what you mean, MAP. That book was a great one for discussion, too.
Peggy,Yes, it does seem that human beings have to think of a discriminated against group as "the other" in order to maintain their hatred. Unfortunately, there is a lot of that kind of thinking in politics today.
Kat, Sherry, and MAP, I know what you mean about recommending books. I always have to do it with the disclaimer that I often like strange books. That is the reason why I treasure Constant Reader - no disclaimers necessary. We have different tastes here, but you can always find someone who likes the kind of books you do.
The House of Sand and Fog is a great example of a book with flawed characters. That kind of book cries out for discussion.
Constant Reader
Books mentioned in this topic
Any Human Heart (other topics)House of Sand and Fog (other topics)
The Book Borrower (other topics)
The Mosquito Coast (other topics)
The Sisters Brothers (other topics)
More...
...it’s not relevant whether you like the character: literature is not a popularity contest or a beauty pageant, and characters you hate may be the most important to understanding what a book is doing. “Relatable” characters are usually ones that don’t make us think, that we’re perfectly comfortable, and thus mentally passive, with. And there’s no merit in sympathizing with someone you can “relate to,” after all–no possibility for moral growth.
What do you think? True or not true?
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/nov...