Concerning Likable Characters

[Steerpike]

I've seen, from time to time, readers and writers say they won't read a book if it doesn't have a likable main character. I'm not of that view, but I don't think it is necessarily a small number of people who are. Jeff Vandermeer was asked about this in an interview. Here's part of the exchange:

Rumpus: Changing gears here: as soon as I started reading about the biologist (and the psychologist, and the surveyor, and Grace, ) I knew theLikeability Police would be out in force. They are for me too, and it’s a criticism I find baffling. What’s your reaction to readers calling your characters unlikeable? Do you think there’s any merit to the conventional wisdom that readers “need someone to root for”? Is that code for something else?

VanderMeer: I want to write interesting characters who are flawed and sometimes inconsistent because people are flawed and sometimes inconsistent. You run into real problems creating realistic characters if you want to pander to the idea of “likeability” because it tends to flatten out the things that make us human. We all like to think we’re good people and that good people have certain attributes, and in our mind we iron out all of our bastardly acts and our own bizarre rituals and the times we failed to measure up, to support a mythology of our own goodness. And thus sometimes we want fiction that supports or affirms a fiction we’re creating in the real world. But I’m resistant to giving readers that because I think it’s a lie. (Full disclosure: Sometimes I’m a bastard. Sometimes I’m not. I don’t think I’m alone in this.)

Thoughts on the above? I write some characters who are not entirely likable, but haven't done much with characters who are thoroughly unlikable, through and through (at least not as main characters; it can be done - see Ian Graham's Monument).

For those who know nothing about Vandermeer and care about credentials:

Jeff Vandermeer's awards include:

• 2000 — World Fantasy Award for the novella The Transformation of Martin Lake[16]
• 2003 — World Fantasy Award for his anthology Leviathan 3 (with Forrest Aguirre)
• 2009 — World Fantasy Award nomination for Finch [17]
• 2009 — Nebula Award nomination for Best Novel for Finch
• 2012 — World Fantasy Award for his anthology The Weird (with Ann VanderMeer)
• 2013 — BSFA Award for Best Non-Fiction for Wonderbook[18]
• 2013 — Locus Award for Best Non-Fiction for Wonderbook
• 2013 — Hugo Award nomination for Wonderbook
• 2013 — World Fantasy Award nomination for Wonderbook

 

[Svrtnsse]

My main character Enar has some traits that aren't entirely likable, but that I can relate to, as they're at least partially inspired by myself.
One of the people who've read his story referred to him as a bit of an idiot/dick at some point. It was something I hadn't even considered so it felt a bit odd. I guess that's a consequence of what's mentioned above about ironing out your bad sides.

 

[Mythopoet]

My take on "likeability" of a character is not the same kind as in "I think this is the kind of person I can get along with and be friends with, I enjoy spending time with them". That's real life likeability. For characters it's more like "I like reading about this character, I enjoy the experience of sharing their story as a reader". You can like reading about characters in a story that you wouldn't like in real life. But if there are no characters that you like and/or enjoy reading about then what's the point of reading the book? I've dropped many books because I didn't like any of the characters as a reader, meaning, I didn't care about them or their story and didn't want to experience it.

Unfortunately, character likeability is just as subjective as real life likeability. You can't know ahead of time whether readers are going to like reading about your characters or not. The best you can do, IMO, is write about characters you like writing about and experiencing the stories of and hope that a good amount of readers will feel the same way about them.

 

[Terry Greer]

Characters need to be interesting - likable is a bonus but likable doesn't have to mean 'nice'.

 

[Gryphos]

Characters should obviously be complex and flawed and stuff, but in general I'd personally say I prefer reading about good people, who I can actually root for. That's not to say I won't read about a murderer or rapist or tax avoider, but the rest of the book better be damn good.

 

[Philip Overby]

I've always taken this likeability argument to mean what others have said: characters that you would like to read about. For me, I probably write a lot of characters that are not conventionally likeable. I think in some instances I've actually changed characters I liked to write about because I feared people wouldn't want to read about this character because they weren't likeable.

If a character isn't likeable, then I need something to hang my hat on. Maybe I'm interested in their journey or the people they surround themselves with, or the even the world. I've watched some Vice documentaries about thoroughly unlikeable (and at times despicable) people. Nonetheless, they were interesting to learn more about for me because I don't always want to be entertained by people I like.

On the other hand, speculative fiction may have a reputation as genres for escapism, therefore they don't want to read about jerks, losers, and psychopaths they are confronted with in real life all the time. I find any compelling character worth reading about, real or fiction.

 

[Velka]

Some people read books to 'become friends' with the MC, some read books to explore different characters. I personally prefer characters that are flawed and messed up and I don't necessarily want them to see the error in their ways and become better people at the end of the story. Life isn't like that, and people most certainly aren't. I don't have to like the character, but I must like the story, and many times a horribly flawed character makes for a fantastic story.

It's also important to note that gender plays an important role in this topic. Unlikable male characters? Not really a problem, literature is rife with them. Unlikable female characters? Gasp! Clutch the pearls! Think of the children!

Some interesting articles on the subject of (un)likable characters:

Perfectly Flawed

On the importance of unlikable female protagonists.

Social Contracts and “the Cult of Likability”

 

[Caged Maiden]

On likeability, I'll reference a conversation I had a few weeks ago with my husband:

I told him about an adventure I had with one of my friends, a long weekend we spent together far away and some of the things I perceived happened there. Basically, I felt sorry for my friend, who has self-confidence problems and certain views of her place in the world, etc. etc. My husband's response was somewhat shocking, in that he claimed she was a trouble-starter and should have foreseen the making of her own problem on this particular incident.

I only mean to say that I might view a person as lonely, desperate, self-soothing in her behaviors; while my husband sees her as flighty, inconsiderate, inconsistent, and rather banal.

Oh the difference in viewpoint, right?

Writing characters like real people isn't a requirement or a mistake--it comes with its own risks. Some folks read stories to feel better about themselves, their mundane lives, etc. Some read for escape or to provoke ideas or to feed a sense of adventure. Some just enjoy the creepy and weird and the more a story hits on taboos or indulgences, the more they eat it up.
As writers, we're those people, too. I love to write creepy and weird, but I have my own personal limit. I like to write flawed characters who are mostly good, because that's how I see myself and others around me. I don't prefer shining knights and virtuous damsels, but some people love it and it's all they want to read.

I think it's our uniqueness as people that allows us to flavor our stories with the sorts of people who appeal to us, and that will resonate with other readers looking for the same things. What one person calls unlikeable, another calls her best friend, who she feels loyalty for and who she would help out of a rather distasteful situation for nothing more than the sake of their friendship.

Write what you want. The audience will find you if you stir people's spirits. And for all of us, it's something different that speaks to us deeply. Many of you are familiar with the WiP I've been hammering at for the last year, and until recently, I wasn't sure what I intended with it. I love my characters and some readers loved them too, but other folks felt the characters were unrealistic, inconsistent, or otherwise unlikeable (one a bit of a selfish brat, another a sort of disloyal coward, etc.). One of my crit partners suggested as I begin a new work about a rugged crew of outlaws, I read The Lies of Locke Lamora, to familiarize myself on perhaps the running of a sort of ragtag gang. What I found when I read it, was a perfect example of what I intended in my WiP. Most fantasy books I've read tend toward the epic, or the high fantasy, and I've felt very alone in my vision. But that all changed when I read one of the best books ever, and found a sort of permeating resonance with a style I felt always my goal but never had an example of.

Characters are part of a story, too, not discrete items on a shelf. They need to fit into a story and do a job, in a way, and their flaws, strengths, and personalities have an impact not only on the story's flow, but its outcome.

I realized that when I changed my ending, that the first ending I had planned (a sort of happily ever after) wasn't appropriate for the characters and certainly not for their story. I think the most successful writers recognize their characters as people in a way and their story takes shape as much from their personalities as it does from the plot situations.

For me personally, the most unlikeable characters I've read are the ones who left me with no impression. I cannot remember their names and often can't recall their stories. I think sometimes about how sometimes the best parts of a character are the moments in which they failed, fell, or otherwise messed things up. Where they were weak or had regrets. Or maybe where they did something shocking and seemingly uncharacteristic.

 

[TheHeroOfCanton]

Hey guys, ran across the website today while goggling the correct capitalization of 'sire,' and really appreciated the community. Concerning likability, I was reminded of a Robert McKee quote from his book Story. He says,

"The protagonist must be empathetic; he may or may not be sympathetic. Sympathetic means likable... empathetic means 'like me.' Deep within the protagonist, the audience recognizes a certain shared humanity... in that moment of recognition, the audience suddenly and instinctively wants the protagonist to achieve whatever it is that he desires." pp. 141

Food for thought. Thanks for the community!

 

[Feo Takahari]

I read a book once called El Paniquiado, the goal of which was to present an entirely unlikable cast and gleefully show how they screwed each other over and got themselves killed. I like the author's other work, but that book was barely readable to me. It went so far in establishing how repulsive each character was that I had zero interest in following their stories.

Then again, I think Hannibal Lecter is annoying, so I'm clearly the odd one out here.

Edit: to Hell with it, I'll go there. I feel like I, as a person, have more in common with "unrealistic" good characters than with "realistic" jerks. In modern fiction, this would make me a hypocrite who's just as bad as everyone else. But I don't think I'm like that, so I write about characters I can relate to.

 

[Gryphos]

I read a book once called El Paniquiado, the goal of which was to present an entirely unlikable cast and gleefully show how they screwed each other over and got themselves killed. I like the author's other work, but that book was barely readable to me. It went so far in establishing how repulsive each character was that I had zero interest in following their stories.

Then again, I think Hannibal Lecter is annoying, so I'm clearly the odd one out here.

Edit: to Hell with it, I'll go there. I feel like I, as a person, have more in common with "unrealistic" good characters than with "realistic" jerks. In modern fiction, this would make me a hypocrite who's just as bad as everyone else. But I don't think I'm like that, so I write about characters I can relate to.

I feel the same way. I'm a good person. Good people exist everywhere. Most people are good. Flawed, but good. So I can't stand it when people talk about how a specific dick-faced jerk character is realistic and a knight in shining armour is pure fantasy. I can't speak for everyone, but in my life I've met more Knights in shining armour than dick-faced jerks.

 

[spectre]

I find for myself as a reader and what I strive for in expression as far as likeability is a fluous theme. Not a cookie cutter version, even if these are not out of the question and do work, but something which is feasible by its design. Although I read/write fantasy, I don't feel there needs to be a realistic basis in "world rules" for this because if you think of rules as separating boundaries perhaps not between realistic and non-realistic but instead as what will be viewed in a projective way to make a reader say, "Wow!", objectively, and subjectively then themes are the entity in which they are maintained. The theme is the world, not the rules per say, and there is proof in this in works like Alice In Wonderland which is thematic in how it's scenes are written versus say, Cinderella that is governed by stereotypes we can find plausible in fairy tales as more classic folklore. Cinderella's audience is taken by a different sense of nostalgia than Alice in Wonderland's audience.

Getting to your question though, I think likeability being measured of a character follows a theme (perhaps an archetype perhaps not) by which a character is identified (not necessarily identified with) and then again likeability or enjoyment of a world depends on a persons "transliteration" of what they are reading, a somatic creation in "transliteration". This depends on a person's tendency to being subjective, objective, or projective. The two are somewhat interchangeable and the dichotomy of the mind decides if a person identifies with something, or identifies it, or just takes it in whether it be a world or a characters but I think we want thematic characters and identifiable worlds. That is the only world rule, that we can identify where we are.

No two people are alike, so while some like an anti-hero others want a champion. Some are paternal, others maternal so they may identify with specific genders in specific roles and what is to be expected of this is that the introduction of the unexpected will present itself as an emotional problem solving exercise for readers so there's a Rubik's Cube of answers available to the question, "what is likeable" and all the writer has to do is get all the same color on each side and hope the reader isn't colorblind (for lack of a better analogy to Rubik's Cubes) to that organization.

Generically, !!depending on your target audience!!, character progression/maturity is going to be their most likeable trait. The how of it. Make profundant characters.

I read a book once called El Paniquiado, the goal of which was to present an entirely unlikable cast and gleefully show how they screwed each other over and got themselves killed.

Great example! Greek comedy/tragedy and Shakesperian dramas would probably be good teachers!

 

[Penpilot]

I like a little variety in what I read. Sometimes I want a goodie-goodie hero. Other times, I want a main character that's more flawed, or tremendously flawed. I think reading about flawed people grants one perspective on one's own flaws, and allows one to explore emotions that aren't always on the surface because they're kind of icky.

I find this tremendously useful for my own writing because it helps me expand my emotional horizons just a little bit. And allows me easier access to certain character dimensions.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Maybe this has been answered previously but what exactly does it mean for a character to be likeable? Look, as people I hate most of the characters in GoT. They're all d-bags for their own specific d-baggish reasons. But I love them as characters. They're interesting and struggle and I love that. They grow and change; it's wonderful. However, I could see me hanging out with Eragon. He seems like a nice enough fellow. But I hate him as a character he's dull, flat, and never really grows.

Perhaps likeability isn't wanting to like them as people but as characters. Meaning you could have a nasty evil villain (like Darth Vader) but still like them as characters (once again Darth "BA" Vader). At least as I write this question that seems to be what I think.

 

[DeathtoTrite]

@ Brian Scott Allen I think you're on to something. I know I hated Tywin Lannister's guts, but damn was he classy and efficient. I think the things I hate in books are 1) universe facilitating a terrible villain in far-flung ways (Umbridge in Harry Potter for example) or 2) main characters that are constantly moping- I get having emotional angst, but the constant complaints in Mockinjay or Harry Potter V get old after a few chapters.

We should empathize with characters. They can be twisted, cruel, etc., but you should make them relate-able.

 

[Ireth]

@ Brian Scott Allen I think you're on to something. I know I hated Tywin Lannister's guts, but damn was he classy and efficient. I think the things I hate in books are 1) universe facilitating a terrible villain in far-flung ways (Umbridge in Harry Potter for example) or 2) main characters that are constantly moping- I get having emotional angst, but the constant complaints in Mockinjay or Harry Potter V get old after a few chapters.

We should empathize with characters. They can be twisted, cruel, etc., but you should make them relate-able.

In defense of Harry's angst, that kid went through a LOT and had no idea how to otherwise cope with it. And he did eventually get better and turn his constant tirade of "you don't know what it was like, you don't know what I've been through" into "okay, let me teach you what I know so you don't end up in my situation", albeit with Rom and Hermione's help.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I think it's as others have said. It's about how well the reader can relate to the character. For most of us - by which I mean me of course - we want to read characters we can relate to. Characters we can almost think of ourselves as being like. Therefore we need a character to read who doesn't jar with our self concept of who we think we are.

(This last is important because while many people do jerkish things, almost no one thinks they're being a jerk when they do it. I have a colleague at work who constantly belittles others, especially women and those of faith. But he doesn't do this because he enjoys upsetting people etc - as far as I know. In his mind he's bettering the world by helping people to understand how illogical, emotional etc they are. He truly believes he is a superior creation and that therefore others should be like him. The world would be a better place if everyone was the same etc.)

Now having said that, people are going to have difficulty relating to characters who do or think differently to themselves, and that may well spoil their enjoyment of a book.

As an example think of Twilight. Why does it do so well? In my view in large part it's because many of those who read the book relate to Bella. They project their own self image on to her. In part they can do that because she is not well described, and because she is actually a vague - dare I say bland character. And they can do it because her goals, her wants and dreams, are those ofher readers. Or at least the goals the readers want to believe are theirs. Yes they identify because she feels not so pretty etc. Insecure. Because most people in their hearts feel the same - again based on my own inwards lookingness.

I on the other hand identify with characters like Thomas Covenant - because he's clever and wants to do the right thing no matter the pain he suffers. Or Jim Degrizz the stainless steel rat because he's smart and sassy and cynical, and I can imagine myself as being those things. So putting myself in their shoes is easier for me and brings those books to life.

I could never put myself in the shoes of Hannibal or Dexter. Not only am I not a psychopath, I really don't want to be one or to imagine myself as one. So those works I simply won't watch.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Mythopoet]

@ Brian Scott Allen I think you're on to something. I know I hated Tywin Lannister's guts, but damn was he classy and efficient. I think the things I hate in books are 1) universe facilitating a terrible villain in far-flung ways (Umbridge in Harry Potter for example) or 2) main characters that are constantly moping- I get having emotional angst, but the constant complaints in Mockinjay or Harry Potter V get old after a few chapters.

We should empathize with characters. They can be twisted, cruel, etc., but you should make them relate-able.

You know, I didn't mind Harry's angst in V much. I remembered that he was 15 and we're all angsty when we're 15 and he had more reason to be than pretty much everyone. His angst was relatable.

But I absolutely HATE every single ASOIAF character except for Eddard Stark. He was the only one worth giving a damn about. I tried to keep reading for the story if not for the characters but each book introduced new characters that I also hated to the point I couldn't stand it anymore. I don't find any of those characters enjoyable to read about.

The point being, that it doesn't really matter how you define "likeable characters". It's still entirely subjective whether you mean you would like them as people if you met them in real life or whether you mean that you find them interesting and like reading about them. There's no formula for making a likeable character. Every single character you can think of will be likeable to some readers and not likeable to others.

 

[buyjupiter]

I love unlikeable characters. GRRM and Joe Abercrombie books are full of them. So are Jeff Vandermeer's. (Which is probably why I like his stuff so much). I like them so much more than the goody two shoes, or the squeaky clean heroes.

It's a challenge to find redeeming qualities in those people who act really terrible, most of the time. Granted, I like characters in ASoIaF, like Brienne or Jamie Lannister a lot more than I do say the Hound, or Cersei, or Joffrey. There are times where I do like Cersei and can even understand Joffrey/the Hound. But Brienne isn't really a likeable character, even though she is the catalyst for Jamie's redemption, because she doesn't have as much emotional connection for me (not when there are characters like Arya or Tyrion). Nor is Jamie a likeable character--because most of the time he goes about being a real b***tard for the sake of "honor" and such BS.

I do not, I repeat do not, like writing unlikeable characters. I can unbend from my own viewpoints long enough to inhabit an ugly (in psychological sense, not physical) character's head for the POV bits. It's hard to get completely out of your own head, for one, and two, it's hard to come back into your own head after. And you have to sift through icky/squicky bits to get to the relevant parts you want to write about. (In other words, not how would I as author react to these events, but how would I as character with this backstory react to these events.)

I always want there to be some factor that is redeeming to my characters, but sometimes you have characters that are completely squicky. (I don't know how Joe Hill does it without going insane, but goodness, he does it well.)

 

[Trick]

murderer or rapist or tax avoider

I find it incredibly interesting that you put these three types of bad characters together. Is this sarcasm? It's so hard to tell when there's only text to go off of.

When I think of Likability for a character it is distinctly removed from real life likability in relationships. Heck, Logan Nine-Fingers is very likable but in real life I'd never spend time with him... you know, in case he goes all Bloody Nine on me.

My own MC is kind of likable I guess but he's a thief and a murderer with seriously sociopathic tendencies. Not so good for a coffee date.

Now, if an MC is distinctly not likable in every way, there may be an issue. Even the Prince of Thorns had likable traits. Much like Jorg, if a character can at least pull me in, I'll stay with them even if it's just for the guilty pleasure of it.

On a last note, I don't believe that there is a single human with no likable trait, depending on how well you know them. The disgusting and evil or just despicable sides of them may be overwhelmingly bad but there is always something that is likable to other humans. As Lincoln said, "I don't like that man, I must get to know him better." As a writer, if you do your job well, even your villains will seem likable in some way even if it's only there sense of fashion or some other minor detail.