Likable characters -- a bad thing?

[PennLady]

This article was in Slate.com today and I thought it might generate some conversation, either about the article itself or about the topic, how "likable characters" are now seen by many in the writing biz as a bad thing.

Like the column author, I like likable characters. I don't demand them, but I think I often (not always) enjoy stories more when I can relate to and/or like some of the characters involved. I don't think it makes a story 'less' if the main character is not some edgy, angry person.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...n_fiction_claire_messud_and_meg_wolitzer.html

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We live in a world where most people are packaged to seem one thing or another, whatevers PC at the moment, like teen fashion. Nice characters are safe (for now) and worse than dull, more like chameleons tuned to and responsive to THE MOOD from one minute to the next, like weather radar. They remind us of Stalin.

 

[MatthewVett]

I'm a fan of likable characters. Not everyone needs to be likable, but you've got to have someone you like, otherwise it's just a bunch of jerks you don't care about, and that's only good if someone's about to come in and kick their ass who you can cheer for.

 

[LaRascasse]

Likeable characters are fine.

The ones I'm not a fan of are the can't-do-any-wrong, white-knight angels. They just don't feel real to me. There should be some flaw, some imperfection, however minor.

 

[slyc_willie]

The article is primarily concerned with the reception of likeable female characters, but I find the whole debate interesting. There's the apparent condemnation of likeable characters due to, as Wolitzer put it, “. . . a kind of disturbing trend is fiction about and by women who the reader is meant to feel ‘comfortable’ around—what I call slumber party fiction—as though the characters are stand-ins for your best friends.”

I've read quite a few books with likeable characters in them, and almost all of them end up dead or otherwise seriously injured (physically or emotionally) in some way. "Kill your darlings," as King would say. It's as if the author was intent on making you feel for, or identify with, the character just for the sake of making you cringe later. Sure, that makes for a compelling and memorable read, but sometimes, to me, it seemed a little overdone.

Personally, I like likeable characters, especially protagonists. Maybe I'm the kind of romantic, cheer-for-the-good-guy type, but I like to see a character get banged up, bruised, scarred, emotionally wrecked and still prevail. It's a bonus for me if I get the feeling this is someone I'd want to invite over for dinner. There are way too many readers, I feel, who concentrate on the negative characters, with some sort of false romantic notion that they're actually anti-heroic role models or something. What's wrong with a good character just being, well, good?

Yes, I'm sure at least one or two people will pop in with the "bad is real" argument, and I understand that. I get the supposed realism of an unlikeable protagonist. I just don't want to read it. It's the same reasoning that makes me like Superman over Batman, because after a while, all that ridiculous angst of a black-masked crusader for justice just gets boring. Superman is my kind'a guy because he's likeable, he's protective, he doesn't hide and he's direct and earnest.

Okay, enough of that tangent.

With all that said, I am and will continue to be guilty of writing unlikeable protagonists from time to time. But, to me, they aren't heroic or worthy of praise at all. I write them because I sometimes want to explore the darker side of human nature: the selfishness, the self-pity, the vindictiveness and so on. I just don't want to always explore the darker side of human nature. When I write an unlikeable protagonist, I do so in a kind of "I'm showing you how much of an asshole this person is" way. I did that in one of my Lit stories, and the comments are . . . interesting, to say the least. Several of the commenters understood why I was writing the character the way I did. Others, predictably, saw him as a role-model

Ultimately, I prefer protagonists I can relate to, or in some way admire for their morality, strength, sense of justice, or whatever. I like to see flaws, but I also like to see those flaws overcome by the character's innate goodness.

 

[3113]

"Likable" seems to be another word for "Mary Sue" here

This article was in Slate.com today and I thought it might generate some conversation

Great article! Thanks for posting. I think the key and most important point of the article was that women writers--with female protagonists--are feeling pressured by one side or the other. The literary group is insisting that it's not "real" literature if the heroine isn't all dark and stormy colors. The popular publishers want the opposite--heroines who are soft and pretty colors.

And clearly, the "literary" group is a knee-jerk reaction to popular heroines--and the pressure of publishers (because of this popularity), to make heroines more like those "likable" types. But where the article's writer goes wrong is thinking that "likable" means a complex but "likable" literary heroine like, say, Natasha from War and Peace. I suspect she's more right when she observes that it's the sort of heroine from "chick-lit" and contrary to what she thinks, I believe we can pretty much put our finger right on what the "literary" group means when they object to "likable."

"Likable," I think, means making a heroine like a Bella Swan or Katniss Everdeen. An "every-girl" who, when things get tough, has got...well, someone's back. Her gumption (she's not so much brave as "spunky") is not aggressive but reluctant and there to protect, sacrificial rather than proactive. In short, she is what we formerly called a "Mary Sue." She may have trappings that make her seem like she's complex and not a weak, wimpy feminine stereotype, but strip away the bow-and-arrows and she turns out to be the same old Mary Sue. Saintly, and just enough of a cipher that the reader can put her own face on that heroine. (If the heroine is too distinctly her own woman, then the reader can't imagine herself as that heroine, and so can't imagine herself being romanced by the sexy vampire or whatever...which is the real point.)

Of course, there are male protagonists who serve the same purpose, but the difference is that male protagonists are expected to be pro-active and so have a larger range of options/actions. Example: consider Han Solo who in the first Star Wars movie, while at the table in the bar, shot first and killed the alien threatening him. This was later changed to the alien shot and then Han reacted (shot).

No one objected to (or disliked) Han for shooting first. The change was made to turn it kid friendly. But Han was "likable" even though he shot first. Female protagonists in "chick-lit"--rather like heroes in kid lit--can't shot first. They have to react (have a reason for shooting) or they aren't "likable." (Or at least, that's the assumption). And I think this is why many female writers are waving this "anti-likable" banner--because they identify "likable" with reactive rather than active, sacrificial rather than independent; "likable" to them is the same old Mary Sue with "spunky" trappings to try and hide the fact that she's Mary Sue.

I agree with the article, however, that it doesn't do women writers any good to attack each other on this point. Attack the publishers and/or readers pressuring writers to create such heroines, not the writers who create them for whatever reason.

 

[3113]

The ones I'm not a fan of are the can't-do-any-wrong, white-knight angels. They just don't feel real to me. There should be some flaw, some imperfection, however minor.

Ah, but that's the point. I think the objection here is isn't to characters that we would vote as "likable" but to can't-do-anything-wrong, white knight angels who are given *minor* imperfections to hide the fact that they are angels.

And many readers fall for this magic trick. The writer says, "See, my heroine has this problem with...." and gives her some imperfection that is, ultimately, minor. She has a fear she must get over, or she has a flaw she must face and get past--but ultimately it is just there so the writer can say "she isn't a perfect angel" when, in fact, that is exactly what she is--bravely willing to sacrifice herself for others, to do the right thing, kind to animals, forgiving of her enemies, etc. The flaw is simply there so you don't notice the angelic-ness.

But these writers, I think, do notice it and I think they're objecting to popular heroines who are angels in thin disguises--and they're pissed that readers seem to still want those angels (and fall for the "flaw" trick) rather than real people or devils as their protagonists--if they are women! Note that devilish male characters are often so well liked that they're "redeemed" and made into heroes. This rarely happens with female characters who are equally devilish.

 

[SecondCircle]

Characters, "good" or "bad", do not really matter to me either way. I like both versions, and I think we need both versions, as long as they fit the story being told and realistically fit into the setting that is portrayed around them.

For a while it seemed like the only hero I would see was the antihero. The one that isn't really a hero, he's bad, but he's the protagonist and we need his help.

I think we need a little of everything just as long as we don't over saturate.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Like the column author, I like likable characters. I don't demand them, but I think I often (not always) enjoy stories more when I can relate to and/or like some of the characters involved. I don't think it makes a story 'less' if the main character is not some edgy, angry person.

Agreed. I would add: even if you ARE aiming for horrific impact with edgy, angry characters, you can still give them some sympathetic elements and it doesn't have to weaken the rest of the story.

I tried reading American Psycho a couple of times, and just couldn't finish it. It wasn't that the torture distressed me; I'm not easily squicked by fiction. But Patrick Bateman was so soulless and shallow, there was nothing to draw me in, nothing to make me care about anybody or want to see how their story ended. (I think soullessness is what Ellis was trying to convey - if so, well done, still don't care to read it.)

OTOH, Iain Banks' "The Wasp Factory" is a novel about an equally psychopathic character who does equally horrific things. But Banks manages to make Frank Cauldhame interesting and (arguably) likeable, and for me that's much more unsettling because it gets me emotionally invested in the story.

See also "Misery". Annie is an awful and screwed-up character, but King does allow her a little bit of sympathy. I think the story and the horror are stronger for it.

 

[Saxon_Hart]

I think writing likable characters is only bad if you plan to kill them off. Then crazy ladies hobble you.

 

[Ironiclaconic]

The debate in slate seems a misunderstanding. The issue in the original interview wasn't whether likeable was bad but whether unlikeable was wrong. The author reacted to what she saw as a double standard where unlikeable male characters get a pass by everyone wants to be friends with the heroine.

That seems an over-reaction, but not much. I can think of unlikeable lead female characters in classic fiction (although I might be the only person who thinks Antigone is a self-righteous priss), but not that many of them.

However, I'm not sure I care. People respond differently to the same personality traits in men and women. That might affect marketability but that's between the author and the audience. I see little reason to tell authors they can't write unlikeable female characters, nor a reason to tell readers they have an obligation to buy and read such stories if the author writes them.

 

[NekoParks]

The debate in slate seems a misunderstanding. The issue in the original interview wasn't whether likeable was bad but whether unlikeable was wrong. The author reacted to what she saw as a double standard where unlikeable male characters get a pass by everyone wants to be friends with the heroine.

That seems an over-reaction, but not much. I can think of unlikeable lead female characters in classic fiction (although I might be the only person who thinks Antigone is a self-righteous priss), but not that many of them.

However, I'm not sure I care. People respond differently to the same personality traits in men and women. That might affect marketability but that's between the author and the audience. I see little reason to tell authors they can't write unlikeable female characters, nor a reason to tell readers they have an obligation to buy and read such stories if the author writes them.

I agree. Greek drama is full of “unlikeable” female characters including Medea.

Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth is an example of a compelling but unlikeable female character in English Renaissance drama.

In popular fiction, there is Gone with the Wind’s main female character Scarlet O’Hara. She is a female anti-hero who is selfish, vain, conniving, brilliant, bold, courageous—always fascinating but never “likeable.”

Jane Austen deliberately wrote Emma with an unlikeable heroine as the main character. She even predicted that few people were going to like Emma at all.

Other mainstream romance writers have managed to write stories with unlikeable female characters such Mary Balogh. She wrote a series of novels in which a female character was the villain in one novel and the main character and heroine of the next novel.

What is more important than likeability is whether or not the main character is vivid, interesting and unforgettable.

 

[sr71plt]

What is more important than likeability is whether or not the main character is vivid, interesting and unforgettable.

Went to a writing program tonight on writing characters that bottomlined on this as well.

 

[MrPezman]

To me, it's only a bad thing to have a likable character when you can no longer logically follow them. Done is done. But revisiting a likable character is quite another thing.

 

[lovecraft68]

What is more important than likeability is whether or not the main character is vivid, interesting and unforgettable.

The anti hero or that type.

I've noticed that an interesting Villain will live forever and be mentioned even before the heroes.

Star Wars is perfect example. You talk Star Wars Vader is brought up well before any other character.

Hell, the Shark from jaws was voted as one of the top movie villains of all time and people remember the demon from the Exorcist and its actions before they can name the two priests.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its weaknesses that endear characters to readers, and whether the characters heart is in the right place.

 

[2981notrohrm]

I agree that a character who's totally flawless is far from ideal. Good characters have a weakness, a flaw, something to overcome. Someone without that is just a filler and is boring.

But what I also don't like is the complete other extreme. I see some characters who, aside from being great at sex, are just terrible people. People like that are not sexy; if you want to include a person like that, a role outside the main relationship is preferable.

 

[lovecraft68]

I agree that a character who's totally flawless is far from ideal. Good characters have a weakness, a flaw, something to overcome. Someone without that is just a filler and is boring.

But what I also don't like is the complete other extreme. I see some characters who, aside from being great at sex, are just terrible people. People like that are not sexy; if you want to include a person like that, a role outside the main relationship is preferable.

The romance staple of the hot bad boy contradicts your view.

Women love assholes in books because they think at the end he won't be one. Fine in fiction, but far too many women think its true in r/l as well.

 

[CWatson]

I disagree with Messud entirely in her statement. The thing about all the best characters is that they are rounded, with both strengths and flaws. A character should not be 100% likeable because nobody is; but a character should be somewhat likeable, because if we can't identify with the characters, there's no way to get into the story.

Case in point: I made the mistake of trying to watch that horrible Battleship movie the other day. I knew it had failed at life, but I didn't know just how dramatically it had managed to do so. The film starts off with some crap about the aliens who are coming later, and then shifts to the person who is supposed to be our hero: he's played by Taylor Kitsch, he's at a bar with his older brother, and that older brother is trying to talk some sense into him. Kitsch would rather chat up a girl who just walked into the bar asking for a chicken burrito. To impress her, he promises to obtain one. This leads to him breaking into a convenience store to steal one, complete with Pink Panther heist music.

This was about the time I said, "Holy shit: this is so stupid. This character is not acting in a remotely normal or acceptable way. We're supposed to root for a guy who is willing to indulge in criminal enterprise for the sole purpose of impressing a blonde." Ironically, I had just watched The Great Gatsby, which is basically about the same thing, but it has useful, meaningful things to say about passion, about the differences between the world we think we live in and the world we actually do, about carelessness and bad driving. Also, DiCaprio is a million times better at acting than Kitsch. Hell, Jerry Trainor is a beter actor than Kitsch, and probably would have been cheaper too. The point is that this is where I turned the movie off. The lead character had become a complete idiot, and I had no respect for him or interest in seeing where his story led.

A character cannot be 100% unlikeable, because then nobody wants to spend time with them. This is even true of villains--Darth Vader may be a scuba-breathing twisted cyborg murderer, but damn if he doesn't do it with style. He's intimidating, he's impressive and he does things we've all wanted to do, like strangle his incompetent coworkers. (Even better, he does it using The Force, keeping his hands literally and metaphorically clean.) He is likeable, even if only because he embodies the evil in all of us; even if only for his refuge in audacity. He is the fearsome demon all of us, in our heart of hearts, secretly wish we could be sometimes, and while we all know that would be bad, we still envy his ability to get away with what we can't.

And all the best characters have elements of both. Gatsby's greatest strength--his unquenchable love for Daisy--is also his greatest flaw. Vader is a scuba-breathing twisted cyborg murderer, but he still has a human heart (and always has, if you believe the prequels). Arya Stark is a pint-size badass (her final chapter in the third book is one of the most triumphant and thrilling examples of the Karmic Death trope), but she's also becoming a cold-blooded murderer and is losing any sense of compassion. All of these characters are likeable not just despite their flaws, but because of them--because in their excesses we see our own. And because they, like most human beings, have virtues alongside their flaws.

Should a character have nothing but virtues? Hell no. Should a character have no virtues? Hell no. And if Messad is claiming that 100% flaws are the way to go, then I call shenanigans.

 

[3113]

The romance staple of the hot bad boy contradicts your view.

Women love assholes in books

As men love bad girls in books. The femme fatal is as much a staple in "men's" books as the bad boy in "women's" books, and certainly as much of a selling point, no?

I think it's long past time that was pointed out. What's good for the goose...

Of course, it should also be pointed out that bad boys in romances are always redeemable, in fact, that's an important point. They fall in love with the heroine and suddenly become not so bad (monogamous, compassionate, heroic, etc.). Their love for her changes them (and vice versa). The romances would never sell if, as in real life, the assholes remained assholes and no amount of love from either side could change that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Should a character have nothing but virtues? Hell no. Should a character have no virtues? Hell no. And if Messad is claiming that 100% flaws are the way to go, then I call shenanigans.

I generally agree with you, but I'd make an exception for farce. In particular Flashman is just about 100% flawed and yet manages to be entertaining, because part of the gimmick is how a dissolute cowardly incompetent is going to keep coming out on top.

 

[SamScribble]

Regardless of what your mother told you, good guys don't always finish first. But many readers still hope that they will.

 

[lovecraft68]

As men love bad girls in books. The femme fatal is as much a staple in "men's" books as the bad boy in "women's" books, and certainly as much of a selling point, no?

I think it's long past time that was pointed out. What's good for the goose...

Of course, it should also be pointed out that bad boys in romances are always redeemable, in fact, that's an important point. They fall in love with the heroine and suddenly become not so bad (monogamous, compassionate, heroic, etc.). Their love for her changes them (and vice versa). The romances would never sell if, as in real life, the assholes remained assholes and no amount of love from either side could change that.

I'm very aware of that. Back before I found my "good girl" I was with a few real bad ass bad girls.

I think the standard is the bad girls do not usually beat and rape their boyfriends. Some might, but its usually more dangerous the other way around.

My wife has a plaque in her office that says sums us up perfectly

"Every good girl wants a bad boy who will be good just for her. Every boy wants a good girl who will be bad just for him."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Every female I know of treats all male animals the same: They hang a faggy collar around his neck and cut off his balls.

 

[lovecraft68]

Regardless of what your mother told you, good guys don't always finish first. But many readers still hope that they will.

Not so much these days. A lot of recently popular characters are bad guys and assholes.

Hannibal Lechter is a cannibal and a sociopath serial killer and he has his own damn show.

Dexter?

Look at Game of Thrones. the characters we saw as decent-The Starks- all got slaughtered like pigs. That show has you siding with the lesser of the various evils.

Society is at a dark stage right now and it shows up big time in what people perceive as entertaining characters these days