"Likable Characters"?

[RetroFan]

Have you ever written a story where readers unexpectedly react to minor characters and comment about them?

For example, in my story 'Secret Sex With My Stepdaughter' one reader commented how much he hated the parents of the stepfather Robert (who narrates the story) despite the fact that they only have a brief cameo and several references in other paragraphs. The parents would have been born in the late 1920s - Robert was born in 1959 and the story is set in 2001 - so are very old fashioned, refusing to eat any foreign food such as Chinese food like sweet & sour pork and lemon chicken; or exotic Italian food like spaghetti, lasagne and pizza. You would see these types in Australia back then, probably the same is true for England and America, less frequent now as this generation die out. They disapprove of children/teenagers who are performers or play high level sports, Robert recalling that years earlier they refused his younger sister's requests to learn ballet, which presents a bit of a problem as the stepdaughter Maddie, aged 18, is a pop singer/actress/dancer/model. They are also obsessed about wanting grandchildren, but of their four kids Robert's older sister and her husband could never have children, his younger sister became a nun, and his younger brother was gay. As for Robert himself he was unlucky in love and didn't meet his wife until he was aged in his mid-30s and his wife was nearly 40, divorced with a son and daughter and didn't want any more kids. Robert's parents refuse to accept their son's stepchildren as their grandchildren, and frequently state how disappointed they are that none of their children provided them grandchildren, even when Robert or much worse his older infertile sister are standing right there.

So while the parents are not nice people and weren't meant to be, their presence in and impact upon the 10 page story is so limited that it seemed strange that somebody would dislike them enough to comment about them.

 

[Voboy]

I write a lot of misanthropes. When I do, I notice a definite trend in the story's rating: if the misanthrope "wins," the score is always lower than if the misanthrope "loses," and that seems to hold true cross-category.

This result no longer surprises me, and hasn't for a long time. And I understand it, too: we tend to like to see disagreeable people get their comeuppance.

So, while I might not be able to define a "likeable" character, I have a good sense for what an "unlikeable" character acts like.

 

[yowser]

I write a lot of misanthropes. When I do, I notice a definite trend in the story's rating: if the misanthrope "wins," the score is always lower than if the misanthrope "loses," and that seems to hold true cross-category.

I'm imagining the title of a story involving the sadistic mistress of a girls' boarding school:

'Miss Ann Thrope's Troubles with Unruly Pupils.'

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I write a lot of misanthropes. When I do, I notice a definite trend in the story's rating: if the misanthrope "wins," the score is always lower than if the misanthrope "loses," and that seems to hold true cross-category.

This result no longer surprises me, and hasn't for a long time. And I understand it, too: we tend to like to see disagreeable people get their comeuppance.

So, while I might not be able to define a "likeable" character, I have a good sense for what an "unlikeable" character acts like.

Which further reinforces the fact that the scores do not indicate quality of your work, only the popularity of your work, and that popularity very often coincides with the expectations of the reader usually based upon the reader's personal moral or political judgments.

 

[Voboy]

Which further reinforces the fact that the scores do not indicate quality of your work, only the popularity of your work, and that popularity very often coincides with the expectations of the reader usually based upon the reader's personal moral or political judgments.

I'm not sure I ever claimed anything otherwise?

I don't think saying "scores by readers indicate how well readers liked your work" is much of a hot take, frankly.

 

[joy_of_cooking]

I recently watched a show where arguably my favorite character

Source? This sounds relevant to my interests

 

[WeShallUnclench]

Source? This sounds relevant to my interests

The show is called "Midnight Mass", caught it on Netflix.

The premise is that an island full of silly catholics turn into silly vampires.

It's more tragedy than comedy - a reflection on temptation and human weakness - but parts of it are definitely satirical, and it has some genuine wisdom and emotional maturity in it.

 

[joy_of_cooking]

The show is called "Midnight Mass", caught it on Netflix.

And who is this favorite(-to-hate) character of yours?

 

[Devinter]

The show is called "Midnight Mass", caught it on Netflix.

And who is this favorite(-to-hate) character of yours?

If you haven't seen it, and decide to watch it, pay attention when the opening scene of the second episode plays. It has to be one of the most impressive scenes I've ever seen in a series because it's all done in one take, and there's so many different strings being pulled at the same time that I can only imagine how many times they had to reshoot it to get everything perfect.

 

[WeShallUnclench]

And who is this favorite(-to-hate) character of yours?

That would be the lecturer Bev Keane. As I said, she is a nasty piece of work. She starts out having only a subordinate role to the priest but


The priest is also interesting, in that similar spirit of a very flawed character incarnating human weakness. He is arguably as "bad" as Bev, but in a very different and ultimately more sympathetic and redeemable way, though I prefer Bev because I just find her more silly.

In the entire show, it helps that you can feel how these characters can be seductive, and have themselves been seduced.
In some tales about totalitarianism and cults, you think "why are they being fooled like that", but in Midnight Mass, it is obvious, and almost - like a prank on the viewer - contagious.
It might be because I am simple minded, but at times I actually believed I was warching a show about miracles. (It is not. It is very much not. Well... maybe in a more philosophical sense.)

 

[joy_of_cooking]

Thanks, both of you!

 

[SimonDoom]

It's a good question. There's a screenplay-writing book called "Save the Cat" that advocates for having your main character do something admirable early on, e.g., "save a cat," to endear them to the audience. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the main storyline. The book is way too formulaic to my taste, but I think this is a good point.

An important principle in erotica, IMO (not all the time but most of the time) is you have to make your readers WANT your characters to fuck. The standard arc of a romance story is that you establish early on that two characters are meant to be together, but there's something keeping them apart, and you keep your readers turning the page because they are eager to see the obstacle resolved so the romantic characters can end up together. An erotic story is basically a romance, but with fucking. I think for most of us, it's more pleasurable to read about two characters that we basically like heading toward a relationship than to read about two bad characters or one who's bad and one who's good. This makes the eventual sexual union truly satisfying on every level.

But here's the rub. You don't have to do a lot to establish a character's goodness and appeal. Do more with less. Just have them be nice to a neighbor, or say something good, or wish well toward someone, or care about the person for whom they have desire. The possibilities for establishing your character's "goodness" are almost endless.

And it's perfectly OK for them to be a mixed bag, a combination of good and bad qualities. But you're probably going to get your reader more deeply invested if there's at least something good about them.

 

[EmilyMiller]

The show is called "Midnight Mass", caught it on Netflix.

The premise is that an island full of silly catholics turn into silly vampires.

It's more tragedy than comedy - a reflection on temptation and human weakness - but parts of it are definitely satirical, and it has some genuine wisdom and emotional maturity in it.

Midnight Mass is Flanagan at his best. Sadly Fall of the House of Usher was not.

Emily

 

[SimonDoom]

That's the tragic irony of Literotica as a site/audience as a whole. Most people want a cumrag, they don't want a narrative.


This is the kind of story that I strive to write, and the kind of reader that I strive to attract.


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.

If you approach writing at Literotica with this attitude, I think you're doomed to frustration and failure. I couldn't disagree more. There are millions of readers, of every type. The first step toward wisdom and satisfaction is to stop making false generalizations about them. It's crystal clear if one bothers to read stories here and see the reactions to them that many Lit readers like good stories with their sex.

"Good" in a character can be a host of things:

-- acts of kindness and love
--generosity
--courage
--intelligence, talent, skill
--grace under pressure
--leadership
--standing up for an admirable cause

 

[NoTalentHack]

I read your story. I'm sure you're tired of hearing this from me, but I liked the writing but disliked the characters. More accurately, I dislike what I see of the characters. This story, though, gives me a lot more meat to comment on why than others did, and I hope this is useful for you.

There are three characters in the story:

• Eliza, a woman who cheated on her husband, was abused by him, and left him as a result. She's written pretty much throughout as selfish; the narration even recognizes that: " It was less important who she loved than that the both of them had loved her faithfully. At least, that is what she told herself, both as she drove there and while she remembered the events." She's a fairly fully realized character, but there's no reason to like her, even though she starts the story in a relatively sympathetic position.
• Hector, the husband, who becomes abusive after learning Eliza cheated on him, in an obsessive/possessive way. He's written as obsessive both at the beginning and the end of the story, but his behavior changes. However, we don't ever really see why any of those things are true. We're told them, but with no context as to why. He comes off as creepy at both the beginning and end of the story.
• Marcus, the lover, who she later marries and who has, in her estimation, grown tired of her. When she asks him if he trusts her, he replies, "Not one lick" and leaves. She then cheats on him with her obsessive ex-husband, showing that distrust is pretty fair.

Despite the fact that he fucked a married woman, Marcus is, arguably, the most likable character in the story, and it's because he's the only one the reader can easily understand. Given what you've written, it's a very short step from how he acts to why he acts: Eliza is untrustworthy, Eliza has cheated before, and Eliza kept both her old wedding ring and the love letters from Hector. While it's shown that he leaves, it's not clear whether that is intended as a permanent thing or a temporary one; given your other writings, I'm guessing the latter, but the former would make more sense for most readers, I think.

The problem, which I've talked with you about before, is that you have a tendency to say "the character does this" without giving a lot of insight into why they act that way; in the cases where you do, you're usually examining the motives of the least sympathetic (for the average LW reader, at least) of your characters.

Your main characters, especially, can be interesting, but usually not likable, because of what you show of them. If they were real people, their actions, without the context of what's going on in their heads, would make them seem hateful; the supporting characters instead come off as obsessive and/or weak. That's what the readers who are not into humiliation and cuckolding are bringing to the table, and it's what you have to deal with as someone publishing their writings.

Note, I'm not saying, "as a writer." If you write for yourself, you know exactly your character's motivations, backstories, etc. But the readers don't. When you write, write for yourself, but when you publish, make sure they're in the loop. They can't pick up what you're putting down if you're not putting it down.

I'll give you an unrelated example: John Wick, the first movie. For those who haven't seen it, Keanu Reeves plays a retired, prolific assassin who got out of the business to marry the woman he fell in love with. As the movie starts, his wife has recently died, and he receives a posthumous gift from her of a puppy, so that he will have something to take care of, in order to keep his connection to his humanity that she can no longer provide. Stuff happens, bad guys decide they want his car, which he refuses to sell to them. They break into his house, beat him up, kill the dog, and steal the car, leading to a killing spree by John.

It's a dumb plot. It's a REALLY dumb plot. There's a reason when these stories have been done in the past, it's the wife or the kid that dies/is threatened (Nobody), the MC is targeted because of his past (RED), or both (The Long Kiss Goodnight, A History of Violence). People made fun of it at the time, both critics and fans, as "he's murdering everyone because of his dog," even if it was slightly more complex than that.

But it worked.

Let's imagine a cut of the film that excises the stuff with the dog and the wife. It's still in his backstory, but no one references it in this cut of the film. Toughs threaten him, then go to his house, beat him up, and steal his car. John proceeds to murder dozens of people over... a car. That's all the viewer sees.

His motivation is still actually about his wife and her gift to him, as it was in the original cut, but the viewers don't know that. The story hangs together for the folks that are into action movies, but it becomes just another unmemorable shoot 'em up with above-average action sequences, because there's no really legitimate reason to root for the main character.

It doesn't even really change who he is at his core. He was always as bad as the people he's killing in both versions of the movies--arguably worse, based on his rep--but in the hypothetical no-dog cut, he just seems like a psychopath. Which he is. But in the dog cut, he seems less like one, because that version shows the viewer a progression: it hints at who he had been before (the Baba Yaga story, for those who've seen the film), who he tried to be during the time with his wife, his attempt to stay that person, and the symbol of it being torn away.

The first movie in the series ends with him adopting another dog and trying to go back to who he wanted to be when he was with his wife. The sequels screwed all of that up, but that's neither here nor there. It shows a progression, albeit somewhat out of order for storytelling reasons: monstrous killer, family man, grieving husband, victim of violence, vengeful assassin, man who tries to put it behind him once more. There's a progression, slim though it may be, that helps the viewer find a mass murderer sympathetic and, yes, likable.

It's funny, because you have the exact opposite problem from what I usually see in LW: you explain too little instead of too much. Because other relationship drama writers in LW have seen stories in there with extensive backstory, they often tell it whether they need to or not.

Most stories don't need a page of "my wife and I met in college, and here's our meet cute, and us with the kids growing up, etc." unless something in that past actually matters; for example, if they broke up once because she cheated--establishing her character--or because she balked at his proposal, leading to him offering a hall pass, which she later takes the MMC up on, thereby establishing the core plot. But those writers give it to us anyways, because other writers did. It's a misunderstanding of what parts of the story matter, and that not all parts belong in all stories.

The flipside is that yours needs MORE backstory, because it's asking us to accept a number of very remarkable things: that Eliza is worth all this fuss; that there's some reason for Hector to go from vengeful, violent, scorned husband to obsessive, remorseful worshipper (and, no, a brief letter saying "I'm working on myself" doesn't cut it); why Marcus has grown bored with Eliza if she's so exciting.

That last one is less important, though, I think; he's not really a character, in my reading, just a plot device. I think he works fine as-is, because he doesn't really matter that much. It's not really about him; in the same way that I don't need (in a typical LW story) paragraphs about the husband's best friend from college and their shared backstory if he's not going to show up later, except for maybe a couple lines of dialogue, it's okay to leave Marcus as a sketch. But it's not okay to do that with all of them. "Two years pass" isn't enough to explain what's changed in each of the two main characters, especially not enough to accept that I should like either of them.

Regardless, keep at it. I think this is my favorite story of yours so far, because it gets closer than most at giving us a glimpse of who these characters are and not just what they do.

 

[VikingPhoenix]

I’d say not likable is short hand for… your characters don’t adhere to my preconceptions about what they should be like…

Your FMC is too slutty

Your MMC is not dominant enough

Your FMC cheated on her husband when all he did was beat her a little bit, what’s up with that shit?

Emily

I think you're on point here...other than the beat and cheat bit, that i may have misunderstood....if he beats, he green lights her to find better IMHO...in the same way as if she beats/mentally counts/extorts him with her wedding ring...then she has green lit him also.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think you're on point here...other than the beat and cheat bit, that i may have misunderstood....if he beats, he green lights her to find better IMHO...in the same way as if she beats/mentally counts/extorts him with her wedding ring...then she has green lit him also.

Just channeling a subset of Loving Wives readers. And also maybe the Sherif in Fargo 5. That season spoke to me.

Emily

 

[EmilyMiller]

I read your story. I'm sure you're tired of hearing this from me, but I liked the writing but disliked the characters. More accurately, I dislike what I see of the characters. This story, though, gives me a lot more meat to comment on why than others did, and I hope this is useful for you.

There are three characters in the story:

• Eliza, a woman who cheated on her husband, was abused by him, and left him as a result. She's written pretty much throughout as selfish; the narration even recognizes that: " It was less important who she loved than that the both of them had loved her faithfully. At least, that is what she told herself, both as she drove there and while she remembered the events." She's a fairly fully realized character, but there's no reason to like her, even though she starts the story in a relatively sympathetic position.
• Hector, the husband, who becomes abusive after learning Eliza cheated on him, in an obsessive/possessive way. He's written as obsessive both at the beginning and the end of the story, but his behavior changes. However, we don't ever really see why any of those things are true. We're told them, but with no context as to why. He comes off as creepy at both the beginning and end of the story.
• Marcus, the lover, who she later marries and who has, in her estimation, grown tired of her. When she asks him if he trusts her, he replies, "Not one lick" and leaves. She then cheats on him with her obsessive ex-husband, showing that distrust is pretty fair.

Despite the fact that he fucked a married woman, Marcus is, arguably, the most likable character in the story, and it's because he's the only one the reader can easily understand. Given what you've written, it's a very short step from how he acts to why he acts: Eliza is untrustworthy, Eliza has cheated before, and Eliza kept both her old wedding ring and the love letters from Hector. While it's shown that he leaves, it's not clear whether that is intended as a permanent thing or a temporary one; given your other writings, I'm guessing the latter, but the former would make more sense for most readers, I think.

The problem, which I've talked with you about before, is that you have a tendency to say "the character does this" without giving a lot of insight into why they act that way; in the cases where you do, you're usually examining the motives of the least sympathetic (for the average LW reader, at least) of your characters.

Your main characters, especially, can be interesting, but usually not likable, because of what you show of them. If they were real people, their actions, without the context of what's going on in their heads, would make them seem hateful; the supporting characters instead come off as obsessive and/or weak. That's what the readers who are not into humiliation and cuckolding are bringing to the table, and it's what you have to deal with as someone publishing their writings.

Note, I'm not saying, "as a writer." If you write for yourself, you know exactly your character's motivations, backstories, etc. But the readers don't. When you write, write for yourself, but when you publish, make sure they're in the loop. They can't pick up what you're putting down if you're not putting it down.

I'll give you an unrelated example: John Wick, the first movie. For those who haven't seen it, Keanu Reeves plays a retired, prolific assassin who got out of the business to marry the woman he fell in love with. As the movie starts, his wife has recently died, and he receives a posthumous gift from her of a puppy, so that he will have something to take care of, in order to keep his connection to his humanity that she can no longer provide. Stuff happens, bad guys decide they want his car, which he refuses to sell to them. They break into his house, beat him up, kill the dog, and steal the car, leading to a killing spree by John.

It's a dumb plot. It's a REALLY dumb plot. There's a reason when these stories have been done in the past, it's the wife or the kid that dies/is threatened (Nobody), the MC is targeted because of his past (RED), or both (The Long Kiss Goodnight, A History of Violence). People made fun of it at the time, both critics and fans, as "he's murdering everyone because of his dog," even if it was slightly more complex than that.

But it worked.

Let's imagine a cut of the film that excises the stuff with the dog and the wife. It's still in his backstory, but no one references it in this cut of the film. Toughs threaten him, then go to his house, beat him up, and steal his car. John proceeds to murder dozens of people over... a car. That's all the viewer sees.

His motivation is still actually about his wife and her gift to him, as it was in the original cut, but the viewers don't know that. The story hangs together for the folks that are into action movies, but it becomes just another unmemorable shoot 'em up with above-average action sequences, because there's no really legitimate reason to root for the main character.

It doesn't even really change who he is at his core. He was always as bad as the people he's killing in both versions of the movies--arguably worse, based on his rep--but in the hypothetical no-dog cut, he just seems like a psychopath. Which he is. But in the dog cut, he seems less like one, because that version shows the viewer a progression: it hints at who he had been before (the Baba Yaga story, for those who've seen the film), who he tried to be during the time with his wife, his attempt to stay that person, and the symbol of it being torn away.

The first movie in the series ends with him adopting another dog and trying to go back to who he wanted to be when he was with his wife. The sequels screwed all of that up, but that's neither here nor there. It shows a progression, albeit somewhat out of order for storytelling reasons: monstrous killer, family man, grieving husband, victim of violence, vengeful assassin, man who tries to put it behind him once more. There's a progression, slim though it may be, that helps the viewer find a mass murderer sympathetic and, yes, likable.

It's funny, because you have the exact opposite problem from what I usually see in LW: you explain too little instead of too much. Because other relationship drama writers in LW have seen stories in there with extensive backstory, they often tell it whether they need to or not.

Most stories don't need a page of "my wife and I met in college, and here's our meet cute, and us with the kids growing up, etc." unless something in that past actually matters; for example, if they broke up once because she cheated--establishing her character--or because she balked at his proposal, leading to him offering a hall pass, which she later takes the MMC up on, thereby establishing the core plot. But those writers give it to us anyways, because other writers did. It's a misunderstanding of what parts of the story matter, and that not all parts belong in all stories.

The flipside is that yours needs MORE backstory, because it's asking us to accept a number of very remarkable things: that Eliza is worth all this fuss; that there's some reason for Hector to go from vengeful, violent, scorned husband to obsessive, remorseful worshipper (and, no, a brief letter saying "I'm working on myself" doesn't cut it); why Marcus has grown bored with Eliza if she's so exciting.

That last one is less important, though, I think; he's not really a character, in my reading, just a plot device. I think he works fine as-is, because he doesn't really matter that much. It's not really about him; in the same way that I don't need (in a typical LW story) paragraphs about the husband's best friend from college and their shared backstory if he's not going to show up later, except for maybe a couple lines of dialogue, it's okay to leave Marcus as a sketch. But it's not okay to do that with all of them. "Two years pass" isn't enough to explain what's changed in each of the two main characters, especially not enough to accept that I should like either of them.

Regardless, keep at it. I think this is my favorite story of yours so far, because it gets closer than most at giving us a glimpse of who these characters are and not just what they do.

I’ve not read that, just lovely to see you around AH .

Emily

 

[VikingPhoenix]

Just channeling a subset of Loving Wives readers. And also maybe the Sherif in Fargo 5. That season spoke to me.

Emily

I hear ya. Very interesting how that subset of readers demonize their own kinks...well, a portion of them anyway...We don't take them personally. We hope they can heal and the rest of us just carry on loving our loving/hot wives.

 

[VikingPhoenix]

I hear ya. Very interesting how that subset of readers demonize their own kinks...well, a portion of them anyway...We don't take them personally. We hope they can heal and the rest of us just carry on loving our loving/hot wives.

Hey so since I've got a writers ear...I've written a few...dozen stories, quite a few about this topic. They're just sitting there in my folder and need to be read...what category do you recommend I use if I ever get around to posting them. I'm not in the slightest concerned about haters...they're always going to hate.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Hey so since I've got a writers ear...I've written a few...dozen stories, quite a few about this topic. They're just sitting there in my folder and need to be read...what category do you recommend I use if I ever get around to posting them. I'm not in the slightest concerned about haters...they're always going to hate.

It really depends on the contents of the story. Message me if you want to talk about it.

 

[VikingPhoenix]

It really depends on the contents of the story. Message me if you want to talk about it.

Thanks I will. So is there better places to post a hot wife story than others?..I float between writing those and my life chronicles from years of travel and plunder..lol. cheers!

 

[AG31]

I don't think it's necessary for characters to be likeable. The do need to be interesting (if you chosen to write something other than simple erotica... )

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The only readers who do not like bad characters in any way are stroke readers. Now I'm sure there are plenty of stroke readers out there who don't mind less than savory characters here and there, but you will be very hard pressed to find a for-plot reader who does not want to see any evil or conflict whatsoever. Even the staunchest fluffy romance readers will welcome some sort of villain to stand between their two soapy saintly lovebird heroes, and even the most moralistic and judgmental readers don't mind a villain so long as the villain is brought to justice or otherwise ends up paying for their badness.

Bad characters will make your good characters (or even your less bad characters) seem more good. It is the human experience to judge and measure by comparison. If someone says "Gee, it's really bright out today," they are really comparing the sunshine today to the average day that usually has dull clouds. In fact, comparison is the only way to measure or define anything in this world. Your readers are constantly comparing things in your story and that definitely includes the characters.

Bad characters and even very bad characters can do good things and reveal depth. A great example of this is Tony Montana from the movie Scarface. He's a ruthless gangster and cold-blooded killer who will do anything to get ahead, build his empire and increase his wealth and power. He's an extremely bad guy. Late in the movie he accepts the job to assassinate the diplomat with a car bomb but when he witnesses two young children get into the car, he does everything that he can to abort the mission. Even this cold-blooded murderer draws the line at killing innocent children and in doing so he reveals a significant semblence of honor and suddenly becomes less bad (or at least less bad compared to the cartel thugs that he's working with who don't care about the kids) and the audience is able to actually draw at least some sympathy for this otherwise terrible and ruthless man. It's complex writing that adds depth to the character and lends very strong emotion to the plot as the audience (in that scene at least) can't help but root for Tony to save those kids.

 

[YDB95]

For a story to have any tension, I guess you don't need to have any unlikeable characters, but it certainly does make it a lot easier. That's why most of my stories do have one. I'm not one for ambiguity - if a character in my story is unlikeable, s/he is definitely supposed to be that way. Probably the best example of this is Christine from City Girl in the Desert, there is just about nothing to like about her, but she's a perfect foil for Katie, the protagonist. (She was also a ton of fun to write...almost every paragraph gave me an opportunity to think of something outrageously arrogant for her to say or at least think.)

I have run into a few cases of readers finding the "good" characters unlikeable. One was The Unwelcome Wedding Guest, where someone said the revenge against Audra was too harsh. Another was The Altercation Before Christmas, which to be fair isn't among my favorites of my own stories. Both are sequels to other stories where it's pretty well established that the "victim" was rotten to the core and had it coming to them, at least in my opinion. But hey, I welcome any interpretation of my work.