"Likable Characters"?

[madelinemasoch]

Bottom line, there is no ISO definition of likability. Make your characters likable to one cohort and another cohort will hate them.

Emily

I'm not trying to appeal to a cohort. I'm trying to learn more about the perspectives of every cohort.

 

[MrPixel]

Bottom line, there is no ISO definition of likability. Make your characters likable to one cohort and another cohort will hate them.

I agree. My definition of a "likeable character" is my usual MMC: friendly, generous, witty, considerate, loving, slightly edgy, sexy, and so on. Somebody you want to have a beer with who has a twinkle in his eye and is always on the verge of something fun. He has a FMC counterpart who's a peer in all respects, a sidekick ready to set out on the next adventure with him, and their friends and lovers.

Others, however, may find them precious and trying too hard.

 

[madelinemasoch]

I agree. My definition of a "likeable character" is my usual MMC: friendly, generous, witty, considerate, loving, slightly edgy, sexy, and so on. Somebody you want to have a beer with who has a twinkle in his eye and is always on the verge of something fun. He has a FMC counterpart who's a peer in all respects, a sidekick ready to set out on the next adventure with him, and his friends and lovers.

Others, however, may find them precious and trying too hard.

You're defining it according to your own work, which isn't what I'm asking about. I'm trying to learn more about other peoples' perspectives, in order to write better. I'm not trying to be masturbatory or arrogant about it.

 

[MrPixel]

You're defining it according to your own work, which isn't what I'm asking about. I'm trying to learn more about other peoples' perspectives, in order to write better. I'm not trying to be masturbatory or arrogant about it.

And you got my perspective. Basically, somebody I'd hang with.

 

[countdowntolov3]

I agree with you, it's not that easy. Also, are you trying to say my plots are a mess? I think the style is a bit arcane, but that doesn't retain to the plot.

Ah! No. I was not trying to say anything about your plotting. Though I can see how it could be read that way.

I was just speculating that even though making characters likable is hard, it's worth doing, because just that alone is enough to make something worth reading.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'm not trying to appeal to a cohort. I'm trying to learn more about the perspectives of every cohort.

I don’t think there is any such thing. People aren’t homogenous.

It’s like a guy recently saying he wanted to appeal to women readers; which women readers?

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

I agree. My definition of a "likeable character" is my usual MMC: friendly, generous, witty, considerate, loving, slightly edgy, sexy, and so on. Somebody you want to have a beer with who has a twinkle in his eye and is always on the verge of something fun. He has a FMC counterpart who's a peer in all respects, a sidekick ready to set out on the next adventure with him, and their friends and lovers.

Others, however, may find them precious and trying too hard.

Precisely.

I like my FMCs to be sexually fearless bisexuals, open to most things. I like them to be sassy and snarky. I like them to be super smart, but with an undertow of loving. That is all anathema to certain cohorts. And, frankly, fuck them!

Emily

 

[AchtungNight]

Precisely.

I like my FMCs to be sexually fearless bisexuals, open to most things. I like them to be sassy and snarky. I like them to be super smart, but with an undertow of loving. That is all anathema to certain cohorts. And, frankly, fuck them!

Emily

Don’t fuck them, you mean. I like my FMCs as you describe too.

Generally all my characters on the heroic side are sex-positive, of upstanding character even with that sex positivity, and are ethical sluts of various flavors. Most of my female characters are attracted to more than one gender, the same is true of a fair number of the men (but I’m not into gay sex, so I don’t write it). I have many straight or homosexual characters also, and at least one who’s celibate. As for the villains, to appeal to me, they have to get defeated somehow. I’m not into having the bad guys win. I have to be able to root for the heroes and boo the bad guys, like everyone else. But like Emily said, my opinion doesn’t cover everyone else’s.

 

[madelinemasoch]

I don’t think there is any such thing. People aren’t homogenous.

It’s like a guy recently saying he wanted to appeal to women readers; which women readers?

Emily

I know that. I understand what you're saying. I'm just trying to touch that feminine objective prinicpal...

 

[madelinemasoch]

Don’t fuck them, you mean. I like my FMCs as you describe too.

Generally all my characters on the heroic side are sex-positive, of upstanding character even with that sex positivity, and are ethical sluts of various flavors. Most of my female characters are attracted to more than one gender, the same is true of a fair number of the men (but I’m not into gay sex, so I don’t write it). I have many straight or homosexual characters also, and at least one who’s celibate. As for the villains, to appeal to me, they have to get defeated somehow. I’m not into having the bad guys win. I have to be able to root for the heroes and boo the bad guys, like everyone else. But like Emily said, my opinion doesn’t cover everyone else’s.

I don't view it as bad or good, gay or straight; these are stultifying categories to me. There's nothing WRONG with that.

 

[AchtungNight]

I don't view it as bad or good, gay or straight; these are stultifying categories to me. There's nothing WRONG with that.

There’s nothing wrong with that to me either, I just count sexual preference as another character trait. Now, if you see sex as something negative or worthy of exploitation, then, you have a problem. The bad guys in my stories usually have the latter stance. IMO you should avoid such people in real life too.

 

[TxRad]

Characters are what you make of them. Writers see them one way but that doesn't mean the readers will also. The readership on Lit is so diverse that there is no way to sort or divide or even try to imagine what they want.

Write for yourself and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[StillStunned]

My further question from here would be, how do we get (compel) the reader to identify with that?

What most professional fiction writers do, I think, is write multiple different characters and hope that the readers identify with one of them. And make the others at least interesting enough to see how they develop.

The risk with a lot of shorter fiction is that the story is focused on one character, and if your readers can't relate to him or her, the chances are they're not going to enjoy the story.

As for how exactly to go about writing compelling characters? If I had the answer, I'd be writing full-time and getting paid for it.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

What I mean to ask is, what do Lit readers think of as good and bad? I disagree with your perspective on morality, I think it's beyond subjective, it's historical, it's more of a value system than some kind of inherent trait of good and bad within any individual person or character (provided we're striving for realness, that is) and I'm just trying to decipher what makes more discerning Lit readers than the strokers consider certain characters as likable.

Like I said, for many people yes it boils down to morality, and by morality I mean personal morality and everyone has different morals. The obvious example is the BtB crowd. It's 100% about matching personal morals and politics. But of course there are other examples. I've had a couple of people tell me that they didn't enjoy my story because they didn't like any of my characters, despite the fact that they found the piece otherwise high quality writing and generally well crafted, because no one in the story was a saint, so they didn't feel that anyone should prevail and so without a horse in the race they were bored with the plot. On the other hand I've had other people tell me that they loved the exact same story, identified with some characters and lived vicariously through another.

Of course not everyone reads that way.

Bramble put it best a few posts up. Often readers want someone to cheer for. I was actually going to use this exact phrase in my previous post but messed myself up and forgot to include it. They want at least one character that they can feel good rooting for and that they can feel good following. Not everyone wants this but with many readers this goes a long way and if you don't throw them a worthy hero then it becomes that much harder to win them over with all of your bad people.

I once had a friend of mine beta read for me and she didn't like the story simply because my main heroine wasn't a saint and didn't just walk out of her future troubles on day one. I had purposely avoided writing a saintly heroine. I did not want a bullshit cardboard damsel that you can find in any formula Harlequin paperback rubbish. I wanted to her to have at least some complicity in her own predicament to give her depth and deepen her regret. But my friend was having none of that. I knew my friend quite well and knew that she viewed art by her moralistic standard and could be very judgmental, and that's what she did. My character's morals did not match hers and so she couldn't cheer for her so there was no reason to see the story to the end and that was that.

You will pretty much always find a pattern with people who need their likable good characters. To the degree that they need their saintly heroes will match how morally judgmental they are of art. As soon as one lets those personal judgments (of fictional characters) go, one will instantly enjoy more stories.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

My further question from here would be, how do we get (compel) the reader to identify with that?

Give up trying to make the reader think the way that you want. You cannot control how or what people think. Just let it go. Write your story how you feel it should go. Some people will like it and some won't.

If you get inside the heads and hearts of your characters and think and feel what they feel, then this will start relating onto the page and others will pick up on that and connect.

 

[TheRedChamber]

In erotica, I guess, there's a distinction to be made between 'desirable' and 'likable'. Generally speaking, I would have thought most stories would want to point a 'likable' MC at a 'desirable' hook-up character.

[Taking a wild stab in the dark now, based on what I've read of your writing]

Where it gets tricky, maybe, is when you are writing BDSM-type stories. A dom(me) may be desirable in that they end up doing desired things to the MC, but it's probably quite easy to slip into them being assholes. And if the sub is submitting to asshole doms, it can make them seem just plain weak rather than submissive and that can be equally unlikable.

A lot of BDSM stories seem to have a dynamic where the dom knows exactly what the sub wants and does only those things and (largely) only for the sub's benefit. And in a loving and communicative relationship, maybe that's no bad thing although a lot of stories seem to skip over the real life steps needed to get to that point and just go with apparently mind-reading doms.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm not trying to appeal to a cohort. I'm trying to learn more about the perspectives of every cohort.

That's a fool's errand. Every category cohort has its own criteria for everything - there is no single definition of likeability, just as there is no universal "reader".

 

[SirAeghann]

So, I've struggled with this myself. For context, I write a poly bdsm series with arguably one main protagonist and five deuteragonists. Early on I received feedback on some of the characters that they were either too perfect, because I didn't showcase their flaws, or unlikable.

With six main characters to choose from you'd think there would be at least one character every reader would like and identify with in some way, and to a point that's true. Still, when polled, my readers almost all loved one particular character and found another unlikable. The unlikable character was one I particularly enjoyed, so I was confused and dove into how and why she came across as unlikable.

Turns out it was because I didn't do a very good job of conveying her motivations or reasoning behind her actions. I fixed that, and without changing anything about the character she became much more likable to my audience.

All that to say, the lesson I learned, is the likable character is the one whose motivations and reasoning are clear, whether the reader identifies with that character or not. To like a character the reader has to understand the character. Then they can go from there.

It also helps to have characters cover a spectrum of personalities so even if one character isn't particularly well-liked, the presence of another more enjoyed character can make up the difference.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

What do Lit readers think a "likable character" is? By which I mean, which qualities and traits do readers on this website register as likable? I don't really understand what they mean by that, because I like my own characters, a lot. Especially those which I am attracted to. I have a feeling there's a difference in personal investment here, between me and the readers who've told me that my characters aren't likable.

I recently posted in the "How To" category a short piece that I hoped would prompt readers (and a few writers) to understand some of the intricacies of the literary skills employed by writers and to appreciate these when they encountered them. One of theses was "Characterization"

"Characterization refers to the act of creating and describing characters in a story. Characterization includes both descriptions of a character's physical attributes (what they look like) as well as the character's personality. The behavior of characters; how they act, think, and speak also adds to their characterization. Characterization can be described as “dynamic” if the character changes a great deal over the course of the story, or it can be described as “static” if the character remains the same throughout. Similarly, if a character is very complex, the characterization would be considered “round”, while is straightforward in his or her motivations, they would typically be considered “flat”."

Raising readers' understanding and appreciation of what constitutes good writing skills to a level above maybe the eighth grade is not something that a site such as Literotica will ever excel at. Keep writing what you do and you will eventually attract the followers who do appreciate your skill and style. The cream will always rise to the top.

 

[StillStunned]

Then why don't they resonate with Eliza? She's quite clearly a woman who's vulnerable, even though she's strong.

I've had a look at your story, and I think I've found one flaw that's pretty easy to resolve.

The opening scene has Eliza at a distance from the reader. What we know about her comes from Hector's shouted abuse, the action we see her taking. Our opinion is formed by that scene. She's done something to upset Hector, and she doesn't show or seem to feel any remorse. Readers are more likely to take Hector's side.

I'm not saying this is wrong. Personally I thought the opening was intriguing, and in fact I thought Eliza remained an intriguing and interesting character throughout. There's a lot going on beneath the surface. She doesn't need to be likeable.

But in a short piece, that doesn't leave much room to overturn the reader's initial impression. Which, again, is not wrong. I'm not sure the story would work as well otherwise. But if the goal is to make your character likeable, then you either need to give her the benefit of making the reader's first impressions of her positive, or else take the time and words to delve more deeply into her personality and show why she's likeable, even if she appears remote on the surface.

ETA: It's cheesy, but a Save the Cat moment makes a huge difference.

 

[onehitwanda]

Emily open the door and talk to the nice men in the white coats hun
Cause your bat shit crazy...

This is unacceptable.

 

[Stimtheone]

Bottom line, there is no ISO definition of likability. Make your characters likable to one cohort and another cohort will hate them.

Emily

Pretty much what I came here to say. Some of more improved intelligence can see the qualities and values of characters, no matter what, but you can have someone come in and hate on a guy just because they aren't exactly how they imagine or for indirectly calling the reader stupid because they are, and loads more reasons. Understanding literature is subjective and there have been cases where authors have been told that they do not understand their own characters..

 

[samhasstories]

I can't speak for Lit readers in general - I barely count as one myself. But for my money likability comes more from grounding detail and markers of personality than it does from some moral accounting of what the characters do or say. I will "like" a deeply flawed character that feels real more than a character that seems like a "good person" but feels flat. I guess to me it's more about resonance than like or dislike. I don't need to admire characters - I just want them to feel like real people. A little light humor, I think, is a good way to do that, if you can manage it.

For some reason my mind is going to Oliver Twist, though it's been years since I've read it. Oliver himself is a perfect little angel, but a nothingburger of a character, and I felt no connection with him whatsoever. The Artful Dodger was a thieving lying little shit and I missed him when he wasn't on the page.

 

[Devinter]

We judge ourselves by our intentions, but others by their actions.

Extremely well said. And there is an obvious reason for this too. Because you cannot be certain of someone else's intentions. Therefore, this is the most healthy way to approach the world and the people within it.

Now, if you are reading fiction, we can use many tricks to circumvent this. We can reveal the intentions of a character. Either by sharing their thoughts, or taking the role of an omniscient narrator. Do this correctly, and even a person that does 'unlikable' actions can still be a likable character. And furthermore, if you start with them being somewhat likable but then gradually twist it, people will root for them for far longer than they probably should. A classic example of this would be in the TV series Breaking Bad, where for each session that passes, the main character becomes more and more dislikeable but many people root for them regardless because they're followed their journey to get there.

Defining exactly what is "likable" is impossible, because it's subjective - but generally speaking, someone who does horrible things for horrible reasons isn't going to be very popular. They are going to be seen as a villain, main character or not. (Though the MC can get away with more things than any other character in a story, I'd say.) Some people do like villains, but even there most will have limits, and people cheering for 'the good guys' will be far more common. Personally, I like villains that make sense, but someone just doing mean things for no good reason is extremely boring to read.

Either way, it matters little. Just write what you want to write.

 

[RoperTrace]

What do Lit readers think a "likable character" is? By which I mean, which qualities and traits do readers on this website register as likable? I don't really understand what they mean by that, because I like my own characters, a lot. Especially those which I am attracted to. I have a feeling there's a difference in personal investment here, between me and the readers who've told me that my characters aren't likable.

I've brought up this very subject from a writer's viewpoint this past year. I was finding my MC becoming less likable as I went into another chapter. In my own case, I was putting myself into the main character, and didn't like what he was becoming. I thought he would be more interesting, if he became a little more "Walter" in the Breaking Bad series. Nice guys even in full-on sex stories are just a bit boring, IMO.