# Starting with an unlikable character



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Dec 11, 2013)

The story I'm writing is divided into two plots taking place in different geographical locations. Over the course of the story, those plots will entwine until both main characters will finally meet. One of my main characters is cynical for her age but she's got a lot of likable traits as well. My other character... well he starts of as the world's biggest douche. 

He's been ignored and shunned for a large part of his life and his way of dealing with it is by placing himself above others and acting accordingly. He strongly identifies with his social class (nobleman) and as a result he looks down on things beneath him. He's young (sixteen) but he often acts like a petulant five-year-old. He can be a bit cruel and he's almost always condescending. As the story progresses, he matures and his mentor (the knight he's serving as a squire) helps him find self-worth. He'll feel more valued and as a result, he'll no longer need to place himself on a pedestal to cope with years of neglect and even outright hate. 

I want to tell this story (and I will) but I'm a bit worried the reader won't stick with it because he'll find the main character very unlikable. There have been lots of stories with unlikable characters before (The Malus Darkblade trilogy for instance) but those characters had certain qualities that were admirable (even though they used them for evil). My character doesn't really have an admirable qualities. He's not extremely good at something, he doesn't have many redeeming qualities (his best quality would be that he's not inherently evil). He wouldn't beat people up for fun. He wouldn't rape or plunder or whatever. He's just an asshole. And that might be a lot worse, because we all know assholes and we all face them on a day-to-day basis. That's why it would be so easy to hate this character, I think. The only thing he's got going for him is that he's a bit of an underdog.

The reason why he's such a dick is explained as the story goes on (so again, the reader has to stick with it to figure it out). 

Any thoughts on this? Feel free to expand the conversation to the more abstract question (Does a main character have to be likable - or at least have redeeming qualities?).


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 11, 2013)

You might surround him with more sympathetic characters who -- for whatever reason -- like him.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Dec 11, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> You might surround him with more sympathetic characters who -- for whatever reason -- like him.



I'm surround them with semi-sympathetic characters (it's a dark fantasy, nobody's perfect!) and some of those like him (or at least tolerate him). Since they're stuck with him, they at least try to accommodate him.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 11, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> You might surround him with more sympathetic characters who -- for whatever reason -- like him.



That is one way.

Another thing to consider would be giving your character just a touch of sympathy.  He can still be a jerk while retaining a quality or two that makes him human, qualities which allow the reader to identify.

Take GRRM's character Cersei Lannister. She's definitely unlikable, BUT she loves her children and strives for their success. She also feels undervalued in a predominantly patriarchal society. These are the types of details which readers understand. Readers can relate to even a couple sympathetic traits.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 11, 2013)

Sherlock Holmes is one of the most unlikeable people in literature. He's cold, calculating and emotionless. He looks down on others who aren't as intelligent or as observant as he is. He's more interested in problems than people most of the time. Also he's got definite psychological issues and a drug habit. And yet he's one of the most beloved characters in all of literature. Think about it.


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 11, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> Sherlock Holmes is one of the most unlikeable people in literature. He's cold, calculating and emotionless. He looks down on others who aren't as intelligent or as observant as he is. He's more interested in problems than people most of the time. Also he's got definite psychological issues and a drug habit. And yet he's one of the most beloved characters in all of literature. Think about it.



I think Holmes is beloved because he helps people out of troubles... like when they're falsely accused of a crime.

Watson also helps humanize the character, I think.


----------



## buyjupiter (Dec 11, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Take GRRM's character Cersei Lannister. She's definitely unlikable, BUT she loves her children and strives for their success. She also feels undervalued in a predominantly patriarchal society. These are the types of details which readers understand. Readers can relate to even a couple sympathetic traits.



I can't relate to even her sympathetic traits. Mainly because the rest of her character is so screwed up. But I do keep reading her sections because I don't want to miss when a Wight or a Dragon comes in and mauls her. Although, where GRRM left her character, I'm finally starting to get some of what I want. I feel slightly bad about this as I realize that she had an incredibly screwed up childhood, and in her society she doesn't really have agency, but darn it she did make the choices she's made. And even if she is protective of her children, manipulation to achieve power for its own sake and then saying she only wants it to keep her kids safe? Bleck.

Sometimes, I'll keep reading to find out what happens to the bad guy/gal and if they get punished for their crimes. You can make a character as foul as can be, but if you dangle the idea of retribution for bad behaviors in front of my eyes, I'll definitely be more interested.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Dec 11, 2013)

Thomas Covenant, in Stephen R. Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever was an unlikeable character.

He was a leper who pretty much didn't endear himself to anyone in the novel, but the two trilogies and the 4 book set now being completed attest to the fact that having an unlikeable main character can work.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 11, 2013)

buyjupiter said:


> I can't relate to even her sympathetic traits. Mainly because the rest of her character is so screwed up. But I do keep reading her sections because I don't want to miss when a Wight or a Dragon comes in and mauls her. Although, where GRRM left her character, I'm finally starting to get some of what I want. I feel slightly bad about this as I realize that she had an incredibly screwed up childhood, and in her society she doesn't really have agency, but darn it she did make the choices she's made. And even if she is protective of her children, manipulation to achieve power for its own sake and then saying she only wants it to keep her kids safe? Bleck.
> 
> Sometimes, I'll keep reading to find out what happens to the bad guy/gal and if they get punished for their crimes. You can make a character as foul as can be, but if you dangle the idea of retribution for bad behaviors in front of my eyes, I'll definitely be more interested.



I get what you're saying about not being able to relate on the "kids angle" (though I personally think it's subtlety effective). It also seemed well established to me that she does genuinely care about her children. However, are you saying you can't relate to a person feeling undervalued or not being given the opportunities they think they deserve? Or, that you can't understand a woman being forced to stay married to a man like Robert Boratheon...to be treated like no more than a noble whore...along with all the indignity?         

I'm not trying to say she's at all likable, but Martin adds enough bits of situation and personality that most readers should be able to find something to identify with, if even a little bit. Sometimes, that's all we need.  

Lastly, I agree 100% with waiting to see a character get their just desserts. Just a hint of a possible comeuppance can be powerful.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 11, 2013)

Hi,

Thomas Covenant unlikeable? I liked him - or maybe I just felt sorry for him. And Cersei? I like her too - but I wouldn't turn my back on her! As for Sherlock you're not really supposed to like him - you admire him because of his brilliance which is Watson's role - to keep telling you how brilliant he is even when nothing much is happening.

Having an unlikeable MC is a risk. But you can manage it by giving them some traits to be respected or admired. Sherlock's brilliance, Cersei's unshakable love for her horrible son, or even something to be pitied - the man inside Thomas Covenant who so wanted to not be who he was. (I wonder if anyone's told Stephen Donaldson that there's a cure for Hanson's disease?)

Still somtimes nothing will work, certainly not for all people anyway. I just bought the first season of Orphan Black on DVD, and really enjoyed it. But I gave it to my sister to watch thinking she too would think it was good and she watched half the first epp and gave the rest away - because she couldn't get past the MC's abandonment of her child and druggy past.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 11, 2013)

TWErvin2 said:


> Thomas Covenant, in Stephen R. Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever was an unlikeable character.
> 
> He was a leper who pretty much didn't endear himself to anyone in the novel, but the two trilogies and the 4 book set now being completed attest to the fact that having an unlikeable main character can work.



I never did like those books. Now I know why.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Dec 11, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> I never did like those books. Now I know why.



There are more than a few that didn't care for the books, but if I recall accurately, they reached the NYT Bestseller listings, so there were enough that enjoyed the series despite the generally unlikeable main character. And in the end, Thomas Covenant was just the right man for the job.


----------



## AnneL (Dec 11, 2013)

buyjupiter said:


> I
> Sometimes, I'll keep reading to find out what happens to the bad guy/gal and if they get punished for their crimes. You can make a character as foul as can be, but if you dangle the idea of retribution for bad behaviors in front of my eyes, I'll definitely be more interested.



Or, conversely, the possibility of redemption. Which is what makes someone who is just a plain jerk instead of an out and out villain challenging, b/c we tend to think jerks can't change.  Sounds like this MC is insecure and ashamed, which is pretty good motivation for change, but of course he has to admit that to himself.  There has to be a crack somewhere in his facade, a crack which he can't conceal to himself. If readers can get a hint of that crack, then the root for the underdog thing will kick in.

Seems like there also needs to be something that makes him different from every other pompous ass -- maybe there's one thing he actually is really good at and deserves to be proud of.


----------



## GeekDavid (Dec 11, 2013)

TWErvin2 said:


> There are more than a few that didn't care for the books, but if I recall accurately, they reached the NYT Bestseller listings, so there were enough that enjoyed the series despite the generally unlikeable main character. And in the end, Thomas Covenant was just the right man for the job.



_Twilight_ also made bestseller lists. That tells me a lot about the majority of the reading public.


----------



## buyjupiter (Dec 12, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I get what you're saying about not being able to relate on the "kids angle" (though I personally think it's subtlety effective). It also seemed well established to me that she does genuinely care about her children. However, are you saying you can't relate to a person feeling undervalued or not being given the opportunities they think they deserve? Or, that you can't understand a woman being forced to stay married to a man like Robert Boratheon...to be treated like no more than a noble whore...along with all the indignity?
> 
> I'm not trying to say she's at all likable, but Martin adds enough bits of situation and personality that most readers should be able to find something to identify with, if even a little bit. Sometimes, that's all we need.
> 
> Lastly, I agree 100% with waiting to see a character get their just desserts. Just a hint of a possible comeuppance can be powerful.



No, I can relate to feeling undervalued, and not being given a chance, and even what it's like to live in an unequal relationship. I cannot relate to the choices that stem from those feelings and how she reacts to those feelings. Like most of the women in _A Song of Ice and Fire_, she's mostly made sympathetic by being a victim. 

If she had just killed Baratheon and put her son on the throne, without the power plays and manipulations behind the scenes, I would have bought the sympathetic traits more. As it turned out, her manipulation had been an ongoing thing. If she had gone full out 16th century revenge drama (think Titus Andronicus or The Duchess of Malfi), I would have bought that. (This is probably one of the reasons I like Abercromie's _Best Served Cold_--Murcatto reacts in a more believable way to the injustices life has thrown at her. She's still not all that likeable, but she's more sympathetic.)

Cersei is a difficult character to unravel why she's so distasteful to me. The gratuitous and unrealistic motivations for her relationship(s) do not help. I'm not blaming her character for reacting the way she has, but I am fully laying the responsibility of creating a disliked character by using sexuality or manipulation at the author's feet. It's lazy character motivation.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Dec 12, 2013)

I think that by giving your ass of a character a weakness, it makes him seem more human in the eyes of a reader

i have a naive, unlikeable character by some standards, but for most of my crit partners, they liked her parts best.  She's silly and makes stupid choices because she thinks she's in love, but her gradual change is a big part of the story and if she wasn't so silly at the beginning, her gathered wisdom wouldn't have the same impact in the end.

Sure, let us know he keeps the world at arm's length... but let us know why.  Is it that he fears loss?  that he's traumatized by how his parents fostered him and didn't ever show they cared?  That he's never made anyone proud and he can't seem to find value in his own life?  There are a lot of ways to make a despicable character human and real.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 12, 2013)

You've made a choice to go with an unlikeable character.  Some people aren't going to like your book because the main character is unlikeable.  As I see it, you have two choices:

1. Make a change to your choice in order for him to be more likeable.
2. Accept that some people aren't going to like your story.

Note that, no matter what you do, you will never write a story that everyone will like.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 12, 2013)

Keep in mind, as demonstrated by this thread already, that was is "likeable" and "unlikeable" is highly dependent on the individual reader. "Likeable" is a wishy washy sort of word anyway. I could successfully argue that everyone ever born is "likeable", that is, able to be liked. I'm sure there were people who "liked" Adolf Hitler. 

People often talk about "interesting" or "compelling" characters, but that also is highly subjective. Look at the amazon reviews of any of your favorite books and you're likely to find opposing reviews praising and condemning the book for the same elements. (I remember reading a review of the Amber books by Roger Zelazny proclaiming that the MC, Corwin, was a terrible and one dimensional character and that the story was both boring and made no sense. My mind was thoroughly boggled, but that's tastes for you.) 

I really think that a writer should focus on writing characters that he/she find interesting and compelling and that he/she likes to read about. If you are passionate about the character and the character's story then that will come through to at least some of the readers. You simply have to hope that readers who share your tastes find your book. They are the ones you write for.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Dec 12, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> _Twilight_ also made bestseller lists. That tells me a lot about the majority of the reading public.



While I would put the quality of Donaldson's prose on a different level than Meyer's, it is good to remember that the reading public (majority or not) will be the ones that buy and read your books (or not.)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 12, 2013)

I'd read _Twilight _over Donaldson any day of the week.  I enjoyed _Twilight _quite a lot.  I did not enjoy any of Donaldson's books.  In fact, there aren't a whole lot of books I've read that I've liked more than Meyer's.  She obviously did something right...


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 12, 2013)

buyjupiter said:


> No, I can relate to feeling undervalued, and not being given a chance, and even what it's like to live in an unequal relationship.



That, in my opinion, is exactly how sympathy for an unlikable character should feel. We don't have to condone choices or actions to understand (or sympathize) with underlying causes (and therefore the character).      



buyjupiter said:


> ...This is probably one of the reasons I like Abercromie's Best Served Cold--Murcatto reacts in a more believable way to the injustices life has thrown at her. She's still not all that likeable, but she's more sympathetic.



This I understand. I'm a big fan of Murcatto as well. However, the term "sympathy" in the sense I intended isn't meant as feeling sorry for the character. Rather, it's intended as an umbrella term to describe traits that make characters come alive...to make them feel real by having the character share commonality with the reader. And, in the case of an unlikable character they can work to not make them completely loathsome simply because of that shared commonality. 

Obviously, considering our difference in opinion, this is not an effect that is guaranteed for every reader. Whether or not we enjoy a character, or their story role, will come down to individual taste.


----------



## The Dark One (Dec 13, 2013)

I don't think 'likable' or 'unlikable' mean the same thing in fiction as they do in real life. Someone in fiction is likable because the reader enjoys that character's part in the story. 

I think readers are attracted to evil/bad/naughty characters with unpleasant traits because it allows them to live vicariously through those characters to explore their own untrammelled id nature.

My recently published book features a 1st person POV, with a real bastard of a character. Wealthy, intelligent, arrogant, womaniser, drug taker, insults nice people and secretly manipulates people's lives for his own amusement. And readers love him to bits. Mind you, it's a balancing act - one false step and the whole thing would come tumbling down.


----------



## Deleted member 2173 (Dec 14, 2013)

There are a number of things about an unlikable character that people can still connect with.  Even with an evil character.  

It might be that, on some level, they are right or justified in their opinions or actions.  We don't have to agree with them, but a great character can make us say, "I know how that feels.  I have felt that way too."  Maybe they ARE the smartest.  Maybe their opinion IS right on some level. Maybe they WOULD be better at ruling the world.  The current Spider-Man comics has Peter Parker dead and Dr. Octopus living in his body, being a better hero on many levels, but failing on others. 

Humor.  James Bond makes a smart comment or a pun when he kills someone.  Not an evil person, but he's not the nicest one either.

Far too often we find characters that are given horrible, traumatic experiences that make them that way.  Why can't someone just be an asshole?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 15, 2013)

> I don't think 'likable' or 'unlikable' mean the same thing in fiction as they do in real life. Someone in fiction is likable because the reader enjoys that character's part in the story


. 

I disagree - at least with how I've been using the term on this board.

Some readers dig anti-heroes.  As long as a character is well-written, it's like you said.  They enjoy reading about the character as long as they enjoy the writing.

A lot of readers, such as me, don't like reading about "unlikeable" characters - meaning those with unlikeable traits.  You have found an audience for your character.  From your description of that character , however, I seriously doubt I'd like your book.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with going with an anti-hero, but, assuming my attitude is indicative of anyone beyond myself, you definitely will turn off some readers.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 15, 2013)

Hi,

You lot got me thinking - never a good thing. And yeah for my money there are a whole lot of different ways of liking someone.

I mean was Yossarion (Catch 22) a really likeable character? Or did we just feel sorry for him - the man being crushed by the machine - and like him because of that. And in the end when you think about it, his escape from the war is sort of a cowardly thing to do, but because we sympathise with him, we take it as a victory. Sort of.

And James Bond as someone mentioned. We like him, but he really isn't a nice guy. We like him because he's our champion and so we forgive him his flaws. Anyone else who drank, womanised, gambled and shot people we'd run a mile from. 

In the same vein I suppose you could add Bonnie and Clyde. Antiheroes to the max, but really thoroughly nasty people who would kill you as soon as look at you. Not heroes at all. Do we like them - in as much as they were seen to be fighting against the machine yeah. Even though they were really just cold blooded killers getting money for themselves. But we sometimes feel repressed and in them we saw someone doing what we are too frightened to do. Rebelling.

As for Sherlock, he's an arse. There I said it, he is an out and out arse. And as I said in my previous post we like his brilliance even if we hate his dry tongue and superiority. But there's one other thing he does that we like. He tells things as they are. He doesn't do mealy mouthed beating around the bush as most of us do. He does what we can't do but secretly want to. And we like that. We'd probably want to punch him in the nose if we met him, but that's a different mystery.

In real life it's the same. I personally want ex Italian PM Berlescone for PM of New Zealand. Yes he sleeps with underage hookers, he's corrupt, can't run a country for crud and has a criminal record to go with his underworld connections (reputed). But grief he's got style and charisma, and our current PM is a boring Zurich gnome who vanishes in a crowd. (That's Zurich New Zealand by the way!) Sometimes you just want a bit of excitment even when you know it's going to go nowhere good.

So yeah, if you want an antiheroe that people will like you've got to give them something people want, even if they would never admit it.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## The Dark One (Dec 16, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> .
> 
> I disagree - at least with how I've been using the term on this board.
> 
> ...



Absolutely. I have a tendency to speak in extremes - sententiously wrapping everything and everyone into one glib overstatement. And of course not everyone likes my character Morgen, and I frequently warn people off him if I know or suspect them to be sensitive souls. There was a person at work who begged to borrow my lending copy one lunch time. I knew he wouldn't cope...tried to suggest as much gently...but he wanted to take a look. He was back ten minutes later - very embarrassed, and agreed it was not to his taste.

Plenty do like Morgen though. There is a major book chain in Australia which last week included Straight Jacket in their best ten crime novels of 2013 (came second to JK Rowling's first crime novel) and it's getting some stunning reviews on goodreads and other places.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 16, 2013)

> Plenty do like Morgen though.



I think we're on the same page.

Just want to point out, because I'm not sure I was clear on my post above, I think it's a bad idea to try to make your character likeable for the wrong reasons.  Regardless which direction you go, you're going to turn off some readers; it's impossible to please everyone.

Much more important is what you want the character to be.  Perhaps even more important is what the story needs the character to be.

On a personal note, my story, I think, needs a likeable character, and, in an attempt to make him more "real," I ventured a bit off course.  I'm having to rein in the darker elements for my final draft.


----------



## Rullenzar (Dec 21, 2013)

This entire thread got me thinking of the show I really miss. House. He was the definition of a dick. He was crude, rude, arrogant, yadi yadi but it worked. In my opinion he was the medical version of sherlock holmes. This method can be done.


----------



## Firekeeper (Dec 21, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> That is one way.
> 
> Another thing to consider would be giving your character just a touch of sympathy.  He can still be a jerk while retaining a quality or two that makes him human, qualities which allow the reader to identify.
> 
> Take GRRM's character Cersei Lannister. She's definitely unlikable, BUT she loves her children and strives for their success. She also feels undervalued in a predominantly patriarchal society. These are the types of details which readers understand. Readers can relate to even a couple sympathetic traits.



Agreed. He can be a total wretch, but as long as there are parts of him that readers can relate to, or at the very least understand, you'll be ok. You could also give him a flaw or two, just to humanize him. He could be a compulsive gambler; he could be terrible at the games he plays but thinks he's awesome, and ends up losing a lot of money constantly. If you surround him with sympathetic sycophants, he could rationalize his losses to them as having been cheated or something like that. He remains a petulant jerk, but you've just made him more human. 

You could make his flaws humorous, which would endear him to readers, or you could keep a serious tone and keep him an all out wretch, it's up to you. 

Flaws and aspects that readers can understand....those are the biggest keys IMO


----------



## Erudite (Dec 22, 2013)

Just keep in mind that readers assimilate with the characters they read. You've got a large chance to reach some young guy by writing this well, but you can't just sell 1 dimensional characters. You know the reasons he's acting the way he does, so write it in and do it well. Show the contrast between how he acts like a douche to those with little wealth, but is treated the same among his peers, despite his position.

Good luck, have fun.


----------



## Bruce McKnight (Dec 23, 2013)

I think if it's well written, I don't think it matters if the MC is likeable or not. If it grips readers, they will keep reading, looking for the MC to find redemption or comeuppance.


----------

