unlikeable characters-beginners mistake or a brilliant move?

Unlikeable characters: beginner's mistake or brilliant move?

Depends on whether the writer intended them to be unlikeable, and whether the reader keeps reading.

 

I agree, writing good, compelling fiction isn't easy... which is why we see so many two dimensional characters in black/white/good/evil worlds.

Just because something is hard, doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, the hard stuff in fiction is usually an indicator what you're writing isn't crap.

Do we have a facepalm smiley? :/

 

My life is my relaxation... when I sit down to read (keeping in mind reading is writing), it's when I start to work.

And I don't think the depth or effort necessarily equate to whether something is empathetic or sympathetic. There are certainly trends that point to that, but I think overall well written fiction is easy to read, whether it's genre or literary, sympathetic characters or empathetic style, etc. Good, high-quality fiction does the work for a reader, and while sometimes I'm not in the mood or have the emotional energy to engage in a subject, it's usually a matter of well written fiction being easy for me to read, and poorly written being the challenge.

I've read some pretty surface, 'escapist' fiction that was exhausting because I kept having to stop to try to figure out what the muddled prose was actually saying, or getting tripped up by inconsistancies, etc. Then again, I've read stuff like The Road that wasn't exactly fun to read, but was easy, because even with the fragmented, awkward style at times, McCarthy does the work for the reader and it's tight and all in place and you're just along for the ride.

 

Heh.

I'm sometimes astounded by the extent to which artists and creative people on sites like these take the view that one "cannot" do something. It makes no sense to me.

You can do whatever you wish. Just do it well and engage the reader.

 

Nod. Absolutes make people feel comfortable, though. And writers are people too... sometimes. In fact, I think writers especially like absolutes, which is why we see so many inane rules being tossed around. With an absolute the writer can think they truly, fully understand something. When in reality, most artistic pursuits (and writing is artistic, too... sometimes) are so open and unrestricted that it's overwhelming... so, to better deal with it, left and right I see writers saying one can't do this or can't do that or that convention is bad or those parts of speech are wrong or saying the thing they've been arguing against and may realize they were wrong isn't really wrong because, well, just find a medium and claim it at least wouldn't work then.

The only thing that doesn't work is crappy writing. All the things we like to claim are bad or wrong or tiresome are only so in bad writing. When the writing is good, well, ummm, crap, now what do we claim... oh, wait, I know, it was just a rare exception, so doesn't really count.

But yeah, in the black and white world that writers find comfort in inventing, at least the Oreos will still be the same.

 

@ Pops.

I'm not sure who exactly was dealing in absolutes, prompting this age-old argument against unbreakable rules in writing. It's patently obvious that anything is possible in skilled hands, and this could be used to stifle every thread on the writing issues forum. I don't know how many times I've heard people say that aside from grammar there are no rules, only guidelines, and nobody on this thread has suggested anything otherwise.

The fact remains if you create an unlikable character, you amplify the risk of alienating the reader from your main character. Yes, there are many skilled writers with the ability to craft a compelling main character that isn't likable, but back to the context of this thread, can it be a rookie mistake? Yes it most certainly can.

I agree with most of what you said, but the diatribe against absolutes was unneeded.

 

I've always thought that if the reader can either relate to the character or the character is put into a situation that makes the reader sympathetic you can make them as unlikeable as you want - as long as they're not explicitly bad or evil for its own sake, then you can get away with it. I sincerely hope so, anyway, as I've created one of the nastiest pieces of work I've ever read.

All the people I've asked to read my work (about fifty friends, family, and friends-of-friends I've bumped into who have nothing better to do) say she's acceptable to them. Only about ten or so have minor reservations. Still, it's probably best not to do it, or, if you're going to do it, make them a good character on the inside and give the reader hints as to their true nature, to guarantee they won't lose interest.

 

@Gallowglass - what makes you think you have to make them good on the inside to maintain interest?

@Joker - the discussion about "rules" is a bit tangential but I think is helpful to make the point from time to time when you have a discussion going where people are telling other writers "if you want to do X, you have to do Y" or you can only do "this" if you first do "that" &c. Most of us probably read such commentary with the understanding that the statements aren't true in any absolute sense. But I find that young/beginning writers are more likely to take such comments to heart and believe that such statements are meant to indicate absolute prohibitions. I believe one should learn the "rules" prior to breaking them, but I dislike seeing writers told they cannot do something. There's always a chance someone might believe it.

@popsicledeath - human evolution has bred into us a group mentality. Regardless of setting or subject matter, humans instinctively generate group think, to one degree or another, and the sentiments generated by such thinking take hold pretty quickly. Artists (and I include writers when I use that word) like to think of themselves as somehow being apart from that sort of thing; as being non-conformists and individualists in a world where others conform. But when you look at a discussion site of and for artists and see the prevalence of "you have to" and "you can't" and similar statements, you see that it is not the case. Group think still dominates, it is only the nature of the group that changes.

Reminds me of a South Park episode where one of the kids wants to join the goths at school (and hey, they have good music so why not?). He's tired of conforming. One of the goth kids who is already in the group tells him says (and I'm paraphrasing): "OK, but if you want to be a non-conformist, you have to dress like us, act like us, and listen to the same music as us."

 

Sorry, you're right.

What I meant to say was your statement about an unlikeable, but empathetically written character being tiresome for an entire novel was absolute rubbish.

 

^^^

I said it CAN get quite tiresome, not it will always be tiresome. A short story can depict a loathsome main character and easily have the reader enthralled for that limited period. An entire novel is far more difficult. If you don't strike the right balance the reader can lose interest quickly. Yes this can happen with likable characters as well, but without the sympathetic connection, unlikable ones have a greater challenge. I don't think it's absolute rubbish.

 

Again, I realize that this is not directed at me, but the fact that it can happen if you write in an uninteresting way, and oh by the way this can happen no matter how sympathetic your character is, is a point in the column for rubbish. Because if you write uninteresting rubbish, it's just uninteresting rubbish and it makes no difference if it's short story length rubbish or novel length rubbish. It doesn't matter if your character is sympathetic, empathetic, apathetic, pathetic, or diabetic.

It's kind of irritating when the mentality seems to be that people will tolerate and accept crappy writing as long as it's in small short story length doses.

 

It's a quasi-truth, where it's a reasonable assumption and the kind of thing you can say and generally kinda perhaps probably maybe somewhat seem like you know what you're talking about enough that others believe it (earning what, the feeling of being right about something?), but in actual practice it's not really backed up with any support and isn't really furthering a discussion.

Basically, making a statement of could-be-fact in a discussion and then defending it as it could be true is counterproductive to actual discussion and seems more motivated not by furthering a discussion topic, but by winning a perceived argument or getting people to think you're right.

Congrats, you defending other facts that were shown to perhaps not be particularly valid with new 'facts' that could be facts, by the fact, see, they could be true!

At least others just completely ignore the entire discussion to give their own opinions, at which point they'll never return, as if the dispensing of their insights, whether right or wrong, informed or ignorant, is the end-goal of a topic of discussion on a writing forum.

I know, I know, it's an internet discussion forum, which roughly translates into a group of individual opinions acting in parallel, not in conversation. I get that I'm the odd duck out, and that's fine. But what bothers me are those who actually engage in the discussion, but in a way that simply continually presents new, more truthier 'facts' anytime their previous 'facts' have been discussed and found insufficient, as this is a quasi-discussion with quasi-facts and quasi-insights, all more for the benefit of that person, it seems to me, getting to be right or win a perceived argument, than anyone discussing or learning from a topic.

So, sure, you could say anything could be true. First person says adverbs are evil, second person says that they can be used to good effect and removing them altogether is unlikely anyway, first person responds that adverbs could make your manuscript seem amateurish and rejected by agents!!!!

The implication is this: Well, I may be wrong about that thing I said that was wrong, but oh yeah, I'm still right about something!

You make statements about sympathy and empathy, those statements are soundly defeated, oh, yeah, well empathy is great, but it could be tiresome in a novel.

And the discussion is officially no longer about the original topic, but in an endless statement-defense of could-be-facts, where no matter what, the person presenting things that could-be-true wins, because, duh, they could be true, of course!

I know this isn't a forum to critique the responses of others, but it's frustrating when a discussion basically turns into an argument one person is controlling by continually just throwing out 'well the fact remains' sort of 'facts' into every post after don't like the direction others discuss in regards to their perspectives.

When someone presents a 'fact' or even just their opinion, and it's found to be inadequate or flat-out wrong by others, the intelligent response if one hopes to learn (or hopes others to learn from them) is to then ask questions and engage in discussion, not present a new 'fact' that is 'right' because it could be true.

 

Oh, what I meant to say was:

It could also not get tiresome.

A reader could also not be enthralled in a short story, for a limited amount of time.

An entire novel could be far easier.

If you don't strike the right balance the reader could still be interested.

This could still happen with likeable characters... oh wait, thanks, you covered that one!

With unlikeable characters, it could be easier to do.

You may not think it absolute rubbish, but I think it definitely could be.

 

@ Pops. I'm not sure why your posts have degenerated into an impassioned personal attack and an argument about the actual act of arguing, both being pungent ingredients for a discussion that gets a thread closed. Without dedicating too much time arguing, I'll say that it's not about who's right, and thus I won't launch into a lengthy two post rebuttal pouring scorn and bristling with insults. What would be the point?

I will respond to the almost as impassioned Trish, who at least doesn't get so personal.

Ah but you misinterpret me. My post was specific to a protagonist. Most effective novels have a character arc as you know. This is the internal journey of the main character, as the plot progresses so does the main character. The events of the story leave the character changed in some way and this development is intrinsically linked to the original traits of the character. Stagnant main characters can be hurt a novel . If the story molds the character into something greater, then there's significance behind that story. Now creating a character arc for an unlikable protagonist is very challenging. We're not talking about the heartless scumbag who finds redemption in the end. We're talking about a despicable character who remains despicable. By not endowing him with any redeemable qualities, even at the end, you make that arc difficult to create. Not impossible, but far more difficult than other character types.

But this only applies to novels. Short stories don't rely on a character arc the way most novels do. You glimpse a small snippet of the protagonist's life. Many short stories deal with an isolated event, and told through the perspective of a terrible character, doesn't require this character to develop much through the narration. So that additional challenge isn't very significant when crafting a short story with a loathsome lead, and that's why it's so much easier to use an unlikable protagonist in a short story than in a novel.

 

First I'll address the short story issue. You say "many short stories deal with an isolated event". Why, yes, they do. Many short stories also deal with romance and may have one of the characters owning a dog. I don't need to look up statistics to realize it would be unwise to make a leap of faith suggesting "most" short story writers harbor a secret bestiality fetish because I already know that's crazy nonsense. Hmmmm.

There is an arc in a short story. It may be a shorter arc, but it should be every bit as developed as the arc you would find in a novel. If it isn't it's just lazy. Even a 101 word flash fiction story has an arc. Saying that the arc doesn't have to be as challenging is a cop out, I think, as I would argue it's more challenging in a tighter, shortened version. Though, really it should be tight either way if you know what you're doing.

You misinterpret the word "arc" to automatically mean "better". My repulsive character could actually get more repulsive. That would be an arc. It would be a beautiful mess that you couldn't help but keep reading. Like Intervention and Survivor. "Worse" still equals "arc".

 

@Joker

The interesting thing in the book I mentioned is that the character goes on that same journey of potential transformation, and isn't transformed. Given the fact that most often you'll find the transformation, I found it interesting that as one circumstance followed the next, the character did not transform in the way you're talking about. One more than one occasion I thought "Surely these circumstances are now going to make him a little better" or "Surely he's now going to see what others have sacrificed and come around." Nope. The book was a very interesting study in how to write an engaging novel where the protag doesn't do the things a reader has come to expect a protag to do.

There is external transformation, by the end, but who he is never changes.

 

Yes, Steerpike I looked up that book earlier today, and it's got some impressive reviews. The first chapter is also quite intriguing. I wish it was on kindle though so I could have bought it. Might be difficult tracking a copy down here.

Trish, there are countless short stories which have no character arc. There's a story arc yes, but little character development. So I still don't think a character arc is essential in very short works. And your analogies are becoming increasingly more hyperbolic.

And yes in terms of a novel, a character arc could comprise a moral deterioration of the MC, which is why it's not impossible to still create that progression, but it is that much more difficult to do it effectively.

 

Yeah, too bad it isn't in electronic form.

It was Graham's first novel as well, and that's the sort of thing that makes me like to see "new" writers follow their vision for a story, even if it may be risky and unconventional.

 

I was being facetious, not hyperbolic, but that's beside the point.


Have we switched views? I thought you were the one insisting that there had to be a character arc. And I don't believe I ever used the phrase "character arc" - pretty sure I only said "arc". Whether I was referring to character or story was beside the point, though you've now made it one. Did I miss something? Maybe I really do need an IV drip of coffee.


Perhaps the issue is that I see nothing as impossible (in writing - I swear I do actually realize that I cannot fly without some sort of flying contraption) so it rubs me the wrong way when things start being called extremely difficult, not for beginners, rookie mistakes, etc. Maybe that's it. I don't know. I think it gives off the wrong impression to those "rookies" who are looking here for guidance.

 

I was clearly talking about how a character arc isn't at all required in a short story. And then you said but all short stories have arcs, and to not have an arc is just lazy. If you were referring to a story arc and not a character arc then why even bring that up as this discussion is about protagonists, not plots.

 

I don't know, why did you go from empathy to short stories? It seemed like a good idea at the time I guess.

It isn't required in a novel either. I can write a novel about a house. The entire novel can revolve around the house. The house won't change a bit, not the paint, not the floors, only the people who can come and go. So that doesn't hold either. That's the point I'm trying to make, that I can have a despicable character as an MC and people may still want to read it, that he may actually not arc at all, and people may actually still want to read it, that I can even make this novel length and people may still actually want to read it.

That about sums it up I think.

 

Sheez, why so polemical?? we are simply discussing writing, it's not a matter of life and death, it's not a war to win or lose, it's not about us as persons. relax.

 

keep it civil, folks.

 

I am perfectly relaxed, perfectly civil. Polemical? Me? LOL.

 

@Trish

Hey I just mentioned it's easier to use the loathsome character in a short story than in a novel. You elaborated on that.

And now I'm going to say I agree with your above post, and add that just because it can be done, like anything can be done, doesn't make its correct execution as easily achievable as story's with character arcs or reedemable MCs or sypathetic protagonists. And then I guess you're going to say something along the lines of, anything is possible, and it's pointless discussing what's more challenging and what isn't, because everything in writing is a challenge, and then we would have come full circle. I guess that marks the end of this discussion.

Take care