Sympathetic Characters

[danr62]

It's been a few weeks since I saw this video, but I also think Sanderson said that even if your protaganist starts out as reactive in terms of the plot, you can make him proactive regarding other things to make him more sympathetic. For instance, maybe your protag has a girl he likes and approaches her for a date. Or maybe he's a farmer and he's proactive about getting his chores done. I think that his point was that it's easier to like a protag who has at least some proactivity, even in the beggining.

Of course, that's not to say you can't have a coming of age or character transformation story that starts with a character that is completely passive, but then you need to work harder to get the reader to like him for different reasons.

Everything said here applies equally to female characters. I just used "him" for ease.

[JCFarnham]

It's been a few weeks since I saw this video, but I also think Sanderson said that even if your protaganist starts out as reactive in terms of the plot, you can make him proactive regarding other things to make him more sympathetic. For instance, maybe your protag has a girl he likes and approaches her for a date. Or maybe he's a farmer and he's proactive about getting his chores done. I think that his point was that it's easier to like a protag who has at least some proactivity, even in the beggining.

Of course, that's not to say you can't have a coming of age or character transformation story that starts with a character that is completely passive, but then you need to work harder to get the reader to like him for different reasons.

Everything said here applies equally to female characters. I just used "him" for ease.

Precisely

Brandon was picking up on points that play into the human psychology of liking. We all love rooting for the underdog (okay some won't, but they're just weird heh heh). We like to be friends with people who have plenty of other friends (eg, Sherlock is fairly unlikeable, but a sensible bloke like Watson likes him. He can't be all that bad right?).

It's all about giving the character that thing we can latch onto, whether they're the protagonist, or the antagonist, or some where in between.

[Addison]

I read somewhere, I forget where, that most beginner writers muddle over characters because they're both trying not to put too much of themselves into the hero or trying to make the hero someone that all readers can relate to. There will always be something of the author in the protagonist. And just because not everyone can relate to being adopted or such doesn't mean a writer can't use that for their protagonist. If it works for the story and fits in their mind then go with it. Start with the fresh idea, write down and second thoughts on a separate them and look them over when the first draft is completely done.

[JCFarnham]

Now see, I've always heard that a beginner mistake is to actually put too much of yourself into a manuscript. I believe it was Mary Robinette Kowal in fact. Her annecdote is she was writing a story and created two cat characters because "she had two cats" rather than because "they were strictly necessary". [In the end she made them necessary through edits, but she's since learned otherwise]

I think the only thing we can definitively say is... Do it just right.

What "just right" is, I haven't the foggiest clue.

[Ireth]

I've come to realize lately that, quite unintentionally, one of my characters is basically my "spear counterpart". He was originally created to be a foil for another character, but it turns out that his personality is very much like mine -- quite laid-back, not very talkative, content with the familiar and wary of the unknown. I'm sure it's not a problem because it wasn't deliberate, but it's still interesting.

[Zero Angel]

If you are going to put yourself into your characters, I hope you have multiple personality disorder! Or at least take only certain facets of your personality into them.

If the whole character reads like you in print, then there might be some issues, but if you are only recognizing some aspects of yourself in the character then that is probably fine. You can probably find something in almost anyone that reminds you of yourself.

[The Dark One]

What exactly is likeable though? The main character of my recently finished novel (1st person POV) is a total scumbag who gets up to all kinds of evil and is utterly contemptuous of all around him.

And yet, everyone loves him.

Of course, I want people to like him but what is it about such a bastard that makes people enjoy reading him. It's a bit like reading Francis Begbie in IW's books - evil, violent psychopath, but hilarious the way Welsh handles him.

I suspect in my character's case, people enjoy his intelligence and evil sense of humour. They also wind up feeling sorry for him because after all the evil stuff he does he cops the worst (and ironically undeserved) come-uppance imaginable.

[danr62]

Yes, but I'm guessing he's proactive. He's probably very competent, too. The sense of humor makes him relatable and his unjust comeuppance makes him an underdog, so you've already hit several of Sanderson's qualifications there.

[robertbevan]

i just read this thread all the way through. good stuff to think about.

Could you elaborate on why you say this? To me, if a story features unsympathetic characters then there is no reason to care about the outcome of the plot.

one of the common criticisims of mybook was that my characters are unlikable, and don't have a lot of depth to them. i won't make any arguments for depth. it's true, depth of character is certainly something my book lacks. and i won't argue much for likability. i love them, but if more than one person is telling me that they are unlikable (out of not a very large pool of readers), then how can i argue with that?

in fact, one of our fellow scribes here reviewed my book, and went as far as to say that he didn't care if the characters lived or died... but he still gave it four stars.

so i guess being funny helps.



i'm going to go through the list with the characters from my book, a recently self published title. and i'm going to go through it again with the first thomas covenant book, which was traditionally published and has a pretty solid following. (but which i personally hated.)


my book:

• they have similarities to you or people you know [of]. yes.
• they face problems [underdog syndrome]. yes.
• they are consistant. yes (maybe a little too consistant.)
• they have depth [and/or quirks]. depth, not so much. quirks, yeah.
• you might aspire to be them. ha... probably not.
• they have some sort of expertise. does swearing count?
• they are PROACTIVE. they spend most of the book being reactive, but they have a couple of proactive moments.

• they have similarities to you or people you know [of]. no. if i knew anyone like thomas covenant, i'd stay away.
• they face problems [underdog syndrome]. yes.
• they are consistant. yes (but this is certainly a bad thing)
• they have depth [and/or quirks]. people seem to think so. can you measure depth in units of whining?
• you might aspire to be them. no no no no no.
• they have some sort of expertise. whining? raping?
• they are PROACTIVE. not at all. in fact, i don't remember him doing much of anything at all except for going along for the ride and bitching about it the whole time.
  
  
  unlocking what it is that made the thomas covenant books successful might be the higgs boson of literature.

[JCFarnham]

You can't underestimate the power of Underdog Syndrome. It's said to be a massive underlying psychological factor of humanity. Of course like in most sciences it's hotly debated.

The reason people love Covenant I'd say, is because he constantly gets in shit, and people perhaps morbidly want to watch and see what he gets into next. We as a species are fancinated for better or worse by people and things that are different.

There's the ticket.

I'd also imagine that the writing is compelling and the marketing is top notch.