# Unlikable Main Characters



## Black Dragon (Aug 17, 2011)

Is it important for the main character of a novel to be likeable?

Conversely, can you think of any examples of successful fantasy novels which featured unlikable protagonists?


----------



## Kaellpae (Aug 17, 2011)

Well if you like to hate them then that'd be good. 
But they should be liked or at least relatable in some way.


----------



## Ravana (Aug 17, 2011)

As to the second, easily: Stephen R. Donaldson's _Thomas Covenant_ books; Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Mists of Avalon_; probably Moorcock's _Elric_ books. Arguably, Karl Edward Wagner's _Kane_ books, depending on how you meant it: as a reader, you'll probably like the character, but as a person, you'd hate him if you ever met him. 

As to the first: I'd say no—but readers have to be able to sympathize with or relate to them somehow. In the above cases: 
• Kane is brilliant, skilled, and has his own moral compass (hard as he tries to pretend to be amoral), though it's a far different one from what we'd consider "acceptable," and his efforts are heroic, even if his goals aren't. So you love watching him do what he does, no matter what you might think of him as a human being. 
• Elric is generally surrounded by people who are worse than him, so you end up rooting for him anyway. But he's not nice people, is often simply a jerk when he isn't busy rationalizing his actions, and tends to be whiny much of the rest of the time.
• _Mists_ is an amazing book: 900 pages of multiple-PoV storytelling… and I hate every single protagonist in it. There isn't a one of them that doesn't completely betray his/her own beliefs and morals at least once in a major way, several of them more than once; the balance of them are just hypocrites in general. (Though the rest would be more endurable if you didn't also have to deal with Gwenhwyfar, who you severely want to reach out and strangle.) I will never subject myself to this book again—to the point where I'd actually rather re-read…
• Covenant: an embittered leper (that part's excusable) who gets transported to another realm, discovers his condition cured, and celebrates by raping a teenage girl. He then spends the rest of the first book alternately trying to deny anything he's experiencing is real, refusing to accept responsibility for himself or his actions, and whining about how tough it is to be him, even though the things that made it tough have all been swept away and everybody around him so obviously has it worse. He doesn't get much better in the following two books, either. (The second trilogy sees him substantially improved, I will allow.) On the other hand, the supporting cast is generally quite good: the half of _The Illearth War_ that doesn't involve Covenant at all, I loved. 

So I guess the best advice is: if you're going to make the main character dislikable, don't surround him with others who are equally bad or more so. And give even the "bad" character some redeeming qualities.


----------



## Dante Sawyer (Aug 17, 2011)

I know there's already a full thread on Sword of Shanara... but I honestly hated Shea (who, if you haven't read the book, is the main protagonist). He's annoying and, quite frankly, worthless. Yes he is the focus of major plot points, but I'd just as soon it be his adoptive brother Flick (who, while still annoying, adds to the band of heroes and helps them).


----------



## Philip Overby (Aug 18, 2011)

I think a main character should have some redeeming quality that makes the reader interested in what he/she is doing.  When I was younger, I liked to write horror stories about really disgusting people who had really nothing going for them.  Now I write lots of stories with people who could be interpreted as anti-heroes.  But even anti-heroes have to have something people like about them.


----------



## Telcontar (Aug 18, 2011)

Somewhat akin to what Phil said: for myself, the main character needs to be someone who I can root for. He doesn't need to be the best of people, but I have to want him to 'win,' whatever winning might mean in the story. There are certain stories, and especially movies, where things happen and I find myself wanting the main character to die, or lose, or whatever. Those don't work so well for me. 

This can work with anti-heroes when they are pitted against something worse than themselves. In fact, in these cases, it's awesome. Nothing I love better than evil destroying evil.


----------



## Ophiucha (Aug 19, 2011)

I've got a bit of background in literary fiction, so I am tending towards "no, you don't have to like them", simply because one of my favourite authors is Vladimir Nabokov, and I doubt many people were really rooting for ol' Humbert^2. Certainly, though, it would very much depend on the story. Lolita is about a character who wants to sleep with his preteen stepdaughter, so no, you don't need to like him. If your character is trying to save the world, though, they should probably be _at least_ more likeable than the opposition. Really, though, you could probably get away with anything as long as the reader feels something for the character. I'll read/watch/play on if I would really like to see a character _fail_ as much as I will if I want to see them succeed. It's that same passion. Just step carefully if you still intend to have them come out triumphant.


----------



## Theankh (Aug 19, 2011)

My main character is the sort that you wouldn't get on with if you met her, because she doesn't get on with pretty much anyone. 

But as a character, the reader will mainly be seeing her through the eyes of the two other main characters, one of whom is in love with her and the other who has a less biased view, so although she'd be a horrible person to actually have to deal with, her redeeming qualities are shown through their experiences with her.

I think a main character can be unlikable, but you need other people to balance it out.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Aug 19, 2011)

Unlikable characters can be done, but they do require quite a bit more skill to write them in a way a reader will be willing to stick with a character they don't like.  I think there has to be a difference between people we wouldn't like to meet, and truly unlikeable.  While someone might lack social skills, when the reader sees the character's inner desires and can understand why they don't get along with others, then we will sympathize with them.  Now if your character is just rotten, captures and tortures small animals for the fun of it, and is all around a bad person, other than hoping for them to die quickly, it will be a hard sell to convince someone to stick around for a full novel with them.


----------



## cobrarosa (Aug 20, 2011)

I think it depends on what goals you have for the characters in question. The concept of a story could be redemption, for instance; if you plant this concept early on in the story, and the reader follows the story in order to get to the point where the "bad" protagonist actually manage to redeem himself/herself, giving an incentive to keep reading regardless of his/hers questionable behaviour/actions. 

Maybe you'll spark curiosity? Why is this character an a$$-hole? I remember reading a book called _Monument_ where the main character was an ugly, mean brute all to the end basically. What kept me reading was that I wanted to know _why_.

So conclusively, for me, if there is a goal for the character, I think you can make any type "likeable".

Peace
Tomas


----------



## UnionJane (Aug 21, 2011)

One of the most skillful renderings of unlikable protagonists is by Joe Abercrombie, especially in _The Blade Itself._ The book starts out with a character who hates himself and hates what he has done--Logen Ninefingers--and spends most of the novel trying to void that fact. As the novel progresses, Ninefingers continues to do the very things he hates, and then feels awful about it. He can't truly explain why he commits the very acts he hates about his past. There's something magnetic about Logen from the start, though; perhaps it's his remorse. The characters Ninefingers meets throughout the story, however, are no better than himself, yet we like them too. It's an interesting twist to the protagonist the reader is supposed to love and cheer for unequivocally, and definitely adds an element of realism to the novel. There's nothing inevitable about the conclusion of the novel--most of the conflict was created by accepting the consequence of bad choices (and maybe that's what earned Abercrombie the "noir" tag).


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Aug 21, 2011)

> Ninefingers continues to do the very things he hates, and then feels awful about it.



And this would by why the character works.  It isn't the acts that make the character someone we don't want to follow, it's their reasons and motivations for them that determine whether or not we stick with it.  The character feels bad, so there is hope he might change his ways.


----------



## Guy (Aug 21, 2011)

It's not really likeable. It's interesting. The character has to be interesting. The protagonist in the show _House_ I find to be very intersting, but if I had to deal with the guy in real life I'd probably kill him. Then there are all those villains we can't help... well, maybe not liking, but enjoying because they're so deliciously bad. Alan Rickman usually plays an enjoyable antagonist.

As others have said, I think the main thing is a protagonist the reader can identify with. The antisocial outsider is a common character who probably isn't likeable, but a lot of readers can identify with this person. A lot of us know what it's like to be the odd one out.


----------



## Ravana (Aug 23, 2011)

Guy said:


> Then there are all those villains we can't help... well, maybe not liking, but enjoying because they're so deliciously bad.



Raise your hand if you've ever rooted _for_ Hannibal Lecter.…


----------



## Kevlar (Aug 23, 2011)

I like a good read with unlikeable characters, of varying degrees of unlikeability. Tyrion anyone? As much as you'd feel the need for a half-sized rack or iron maiden if you hd to spend a week with him, you can't help but love him, even if you don't like him. And then there's the Kingslayer. An affront to all my morals, and yet an enjoyable character to read about. Also, I think The Sellswords, by RA Salvatore, is better than any of the Drizzt books, and yet it focuses on two characters you've already been conditioned to hate.

 Unforunately I haven't read about enough unlikeable characters. Which is maybe why some of mine have their unlikeable traits. One will be easy to hate. Another will be easy to sympathize with, because his bitterness and angryness stems from the rape and murder of his family - and the fact that he killed his first three men on that day, at the age of seven. So killing has become easy for him, even if he remembers every single one he's made. Another is simply an ass half the time. And another is possibly a sociopath. All current or future POV characters.

Personally I love unlikeable characters, they're always more complex and enjoyable than the typical hero type. They make me think things like: Why the hell is Drizzt being so nice to these racist asshats... again? Why doesn't Aragorn just kill Bill Ferny already? Come on Gandalf, stick Glamdring in Saruman's throat. You, Ned Stark, are an idiot, and almost as much to blame as Sansa or Jeoffrey for Baelor's Sept.

Of course Ned is a great character too, possibly because he is, besides maybe Robb, despite his lapses, the only traditional hero type in ASOIAF. Of course, by all appearances Ned has a bastard son, so we can't say his record is clean. And Aragorn was fun to read about because he set the standard for the hero type.

Isn't Conan an unlikeable character too, and yet one of the most famous?


----------



## Guy (Aug 23, 2011)

Kevlar said:


> Why the hell is Drizzt being so nice to these racist asshats... again? Why doesn't Aragorn just kill Bill Ferny already? Come on Gandalf, stick Glamdring in Saruman's throat. You, Ned Stark, are an idiot, and almost as much to blame as Sansa or Jeoffrey for Baelor's Sept.


This is an interesting point and one of my pet peeves:  characters who are _too_ good; being merciful towards enemies who either don't deserve it or, even worse, are just too dangerous. Could've saved the Shire an awful lot of trouble if Gandalf had just stepped up and done what needed doing, and even after the scourge of the Shire they were still going to let Saruman walk away! WTF? Reminds me of that line from _Spaceballs_: Evil will always triumph because good is stupid.


> Isn't Conan an unlikeable character too, and yet one of the most famous?


No, I like the big lug. He has his own sense of chivalry, perhaps not as polished as others, but there are lines he won't cross.


----------



## Philip Overby (Aug 23, 2011)

My idea of an unlikable character is not really the character's fault.  I mean the writer made him that way.  Usually, it's because the character isn't necessarily doing things that are "bad," it's more like they're not doing ANYTHING.  And I've read books where the main character is so passive that it's like "What was the point of writing this?"  These type of characters are unlikable.  Characters who kick babies and spit on old people aren't really likable either, but at least they are doing something.

Conan is likable because he just does whatever he wants.  And lots of readers like to live vicariously through him.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Aug 23, 2011)

Hmm...if you like the character, wouldn't that make them likable, not unlikable?  

I think the point is this, if you make your character in a way that the reader doesn't like them, then they probably won't stick around to follow them for an entire novel.  If they are likeable, no matter what they do, or how they act, you like them.


----------



## Meka (Aug 23, 2011)

I personally don't think its crucial to have a likeable main character. In fact, I think having a very unfavourable character as one of the main characters in a story can be really interesting. For example, Inquisitor Glokta in Joe Abercrombie's The First Law series is one of the most sinister and cruel characters I can think of; his actions and attitudes could make him unlikable, but the reader can feel sympathetic towards him because of his history and the circumstances. I think, if your going to use an unlikable character as a main character who will drive the plot, he must have at least one or two more attractive qualities to keep the reader interested in what he / she is doing.


----------



## Kevlar (Aug 23, 2011)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> Hmm...if you like the character, wouldn't that make them likable, not unlikable?
> 
> I think the point is this, if you make your character in a way that the reader doesn't like them, then they probably won't stick around to follow them for an entire novel.  If they are likeable, no matter what they do, or how they act, you like them.



When I think of unlikeable characters it has nothing to do with my feelings about reading about them. In my opinion an unlikeable character is one you wouldn't like in real life. If you don't like reading about the character, though, then the character is simply uninteresting. I don't have to like a character's personality on a personal level to become emotionally attatched to them. Basically, to sum it up, liking the person and the character are two different things. If you don't like either its an 'unliked' character. If you like the person but not the character they're probably boring, useless, or poorly written. If you like the character, but not the person I see that as 'unlikeable.' And unlikeable is interesting.


----------



## Merc (Nov 20, 2011)

I've read plenty of books where I hated, couldn't stand, loathed, and downright cursed at often, the main characters.  It kinda gave me a drive though.  Like when the dumb blonde in a slasher film opens the door in a now deserted house(due to all of her friends being murdered or abandoning her ass) and asks, "Hello?".  I was turning pages waiting to see what horrible things would come to this person I hated.  ... Wow.  I'm a bad person >.<  
As far as unlikable though, I didn't really like Harry all that much.  Loved him to bits and pieces don't get me wrong, and will forever have sold my soul to the books, but, really?  I loved so many other characters so much that I was kinda all, eeh she'll be along to help soon hold your shorts.  
I can't stand Eragon, but I enjoy the plot, so I convince myself I can tolerate him.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Nov 20, 2011)

I'm sure it's really just a matter of taste and audiences can be found on both sides. Personally, I would love to spend time in real life with my main characters. I have one non-fantasy book that has a main character is pretty unlikeable and I still struggle with what I should do with this book. I mean I love the writing and the story but because I don't like the main character very much I'm not as enthusiastic about it as I am others.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Nov 20, 2011)

I can't even play a video game or sit through a movie if I don't like the main character. I'm with Michael... I'll have a hard time getting through a novel in this situation.

The only novel I've read with an unlikable main was a Dean Koontz book I read in high school. (Forgot the name.) The main character was a slutty teenage girl, and I just felt like maybe she got herself into the mess she was in. (Blaming the victim?) It was still a great story, and I was really into it at the end. It may have helped that what made me not like her was something that was revealed halfway through the story. Also, I read the whole thing in one sitting.

But keep in mind, Teenage Me had more free time, and my mom was into Koontz books so I had read several of his stories. I trusted the author. Now, I'm lucky if I can find time for an uninterrupted chapter. If I don't know the author, I better want to know his character because I will put the book down, giving me time to think before I pick it up again.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Nov 20, 2011)

I started reading the thread with one mindset and now am on the complete other side.  I disagree with most of your definitions of "unlikeable".  If you sympathize a character and root for them, you _like_ them.  Period.  Doesn't matter if you disagree with their actions or their choices, you like them.  So, maybe not in the drizzt books but definitely in the sellswords series, you like Entreri.  And Jarlaxle is one of the most likeable characters in either series.  

I realized in reading this thread that I can't stand reading books where I don't like the main character.  Not when I don't like the character for a couple pages, because I definitely hated Harry at times, as well as Robin Hood from the Outlaw series (forgot the author).  I've read several books in school (Catcher in the Rye, Their Eyes Were Watching God, The Awakening, The Scarlet Letter, etc.) ad they were all miserable experiences.


----------



## mirrorrorrim (Nov 20, 2011)

I'm of kind of the same opinion as Elder the Dwarf. Instead of _like_, though, I would instead say you need to _enjoy_ reading about the main character. Honestly, I think bad characters are often a lot more interesting and enjoyable to read about than straight-laced saints. For one, they make me feel better about myself.  But even more than that, grey characters are much more unpredictable than straight-up good ones. In the beginning of the Hobbit, Tolkien mentions that Hobbits are so predictable that you would never even need to ask a Hobbit for his opinion on a matter, because you'd know it already, but then points out that Bilbo ends up doing and saying things that are quite unexpected, which is part of what makes his story so interesting.

I think characters that are too perfect are the same as Hobbits--you know how they'll act in any given situation, so there's no point in actually reading about it. I think the same goes, however, for characters who are too perfectly evil. If your character burns _every_ village he passes through, that also gets boring rather quickly.

Also, I think perspective plays has a huge effect on all of this. It's no fun being stuck inside someone's mind while they do terrible things for hundreds of pages straight, even if it's interesting how or why they do it. If your main character is going to go on being a monster for too long, I feel it's helpful to switch to another perspective. I feel that Tolkien did this masterfully in The Lord of the Rings. In Books I and II, most events are from Frodo's perspective. In Book IV, however, Sam's point of view becomes more and more prevalent, and by the end of it, the story has switched to his view entirely. We don't switch back to Frodo's perspective until the Ring is destroyed, near the end of Book VI. By using this technique, Tolkien lets us see Frodo fall completely into the Ring's grasp, but we don't actually have our narrative view darkened by being inside of him while it happens.

In my writings, I'm purposefully switching to someone else's perspective whenever one of my main characters becomes particularly unpleasant or unbearable.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 24, 2011)

The main character does not have to be likeable, redeemed (or redeemable), or even feel bad or have any conscience about the the horrible sort of person they are. But you have to do a very good job to pull this off with a main character in a novel. To see it done well, read _Monument,_ by Ian Graham.


----------



## Devor (Nov 24, 2011)

I think there's a lot of factors which go into creating a character that's _likable_, and it's not restricted to a reader's moral opinion of everything the character does.  I think there are stories where the villain is more likable than the hero, and I've seen stories where a character becomes unlikable just because the author is constantly telling you how great he is (through narration or through other characters bragging on them) without proving it well enough in his actions.

I think "likable" is exactly the right word; I should just like reading about this character.  I need to like them, not as a friend or as a person, but as a character.  If I don't, I might actually start to cringe every time the character appears on the page.  I don't like cringing, and too much of it will lead me to stop reading on.


----------



## Erica (Nov 28, 2011)

I suppose you'd have to describe what you mean by unlikable. There is some subjectivity here. Do you mean "I eat babies for breakfast" unlikable or simply "I have a penchant for making bad choices" unlikable? I will say that some of the characters I have liked the most in novels I've read were deeply flawed, so flawed does not mean unlikable.

I think someone else mentioned Thomas Covenant as a somewhat unlikable character who still hooked you in. I can't say I disliked him, exactly, because I knew where his angst came from. But I did want to smack him sometimes. But the story and the other characters were compelling enough I stuck it out.


----------



## DameiThiessen (Dec 2, 2011)

I like to write my characters so the reader don't like them at all at first, but comes to like them by the end of the story. Character evolution should do that, I think.


----------



## Stranger (Dec 2, 2011)

Elder the Dwarf said:


> I started reading the thread with one mindset and now am on the complete other side.  I disagree with most of your definitions of "unlikeable".  If you sympathize a character and root for them, you _like_ them.  Period.  Doesn't matter if you disagree with their actions or their choices, you like them.  So, maybe not in the drizzt books but definitely in the sellswords series, you like Entreri.  And Jarlaxle is one of the most likeable characters in either series.
> 
> I realized in reading this thread that I can't stand reading books where I don't like the main character.  Not when I don't like the character for a couple pages, because I definitely hated Harry at times, as well as Robin Hood from the Outlaw series (forgot the author).  I've read several books in school (Catcher in the Rye, Their Eyes Were Watching God, The Awakening, The Scarlet Letter, etc.) ad they were all miserable experiences.



Catcher in the Rye was miserable indeed. Holden annoyed me so much. "Whine, whine, whine. Oooh, I'm cool because I swear. Watch me do stupid things. Hey, I feel like whining again so why don't I do that for the next 30 pages! Also, everybody is a phony."


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Dec 2, 2011)

Stranger said:


> Catcher in the Rye was miserable indeed. Holden annoyed me so much. "Whine, whine, whine. Oooh, I'm cool because I swear. Watch me do stupid things. Hey, I feel like whining again so why don't I do that for the next 30 pages! Also, everybody is a phony."



Oh wow, we might be the same person... that is my exact impression of Holden.  That and "I'm gonna do nothing for 200 something pages except sit in New York, cuss, and possibly bum a cigarette at some point.  Yeah, I'm kinda the man."


----------



## Sparkie (Dec 3, 2011)

Guy said:


> one of my pet peeves:  characters who are _too_ good.



On this point, Brian Sanderson's _Elantris_ comes to mind.  While I enjoyed the story and the excellent world-building, the hero was almost too much to take.  I can't remember his name, but I remember he was a real goody-two-shoes type.  Vanilla to the core.
Still, I didn't let it ruin the overall experience of reading the book.  I, for one, don't need to 'like' the main character (or any other character for that matter).  As long as the story is good, I'm happy.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Dec 4, 2011)

Hmm, I think there might be a bit of a difference between likeable, and believable.  While the main character was a bit too good in ways, it didn't really make him unlikable, but a little hard to believe.


----------

