I don't mean like the 'I kicked your dog and I enjoyed it' type. I mean more like...deadpool ish, except not insane. I don't know if asshole is the right phrase for this guy. It is but it isn't. He's like, a super confident eccentric who thinks he can't lose. But deep down he's actually a nice guy? One of those 'if you take the time to know me' kind of people. However I do want the reader to like him in spite of his flaws. I think one of his redeeming qualities is that he's at least aware of his flaws, but he'd rather be himself than force himself to be something he's not. To anyone who watches anime, I guess a fairly close example would be Sanji from One Piece.
I'm told that you should have him save a cat... Seriously, though, that basically is the trick. If he really is "One of those 'if you take the time to know me' kind of people," then you need to take the time for the reader to know him, and that means showing him doing something positive, or at least respectable. Maybe he just doesn't do something bad when he has an opportunity to, showing that his assholeness (a perfectly cromulent word) does have a limit. You'll have to figure out what works best for your character and when in the story to reveal it.
-He could have qualities that rub people the wrong way because the motivations for them are not readily apparent. This means that people who are quick to assume malevolence will not take the time to get to know him, and write him off with the superficial title of "asshole". -Or, a character who is polarizing; a "love him or hate him, at least he's authentic". -Or, his flaws are ultimately outweighed by his virtues, which makes him worth tolerating. And, importantly, he is self-reflective as you say, and tries to improve. -Or, some of his virtues are taken to the point of making him a judge. The Christian God is this type, in my opinion—C.S. Lewis explains this better than I could. This isn't the best quote, but it will suffice: "God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again." This is because nobody is comfortable with truly being judged, especially if the judgment is true and hits an insecurity. Spoiler Or, if the religious example is a turn-off, here is a perfect example from Lord of the Rings: 'I don't know about perilous', said Sam. 'It strikes me that folk takes their per with them into Lorien, and finds it there because they've brought it. But perhaps you could call [Galadriel] perilous, because she's so strong in herself. You, you could dash yourself to pieces on [Galadriel], like a ship on a rock; or drownd yourself, like a hobbit in a river. But neither rock nor river would be to blame...' (That isn't to say it is never okay to make judgments or observations of others. It's quite natural, even necessary. We're human. However, without reflection or having a system of checks and balances, one can quickly have a holier than thou, megalomania attitude.) -A good person may very well often be viewed as "the asshole", because doing the right thing isn't always easy, and it may involve telling somebody they are wrong. And *not* just flippantly wrong, like having the wrong favorite color, but that they are morally or ethically wrong. Living in sin, if we're talking religion. Now, you may or may not like this person's judgment, which is usually what determines if the person is considered an asshole or a good person. That is to say, it is relative to the individual observer. Sometimes it can be tough to make a decision. Sometimes you have to risk being wrong, and other people don't like having that on their hands. An asshole is the exact opposite of being a people pleaser who tries to make sure nobody has to do something they don't want to do. Instead, an asshole does not care if they offend somebody, because they believe that everybody has the right to offend anybody else. But they still have a moral compass because they still have a sense of right or wrong, either some code or creed they follow, or a more private and individualized internal compass. So it isn't like they set-out to offend people on purpose, and they likely avoid it if possible, but it is hardly at the top of their list of concerns. There are more important things in life than whether or not you bruised somebody's feelings, because The Asshole knows from personal experience that sometimes a person grows by having their feelings hurt, and sometimes it is justified (and sometimes it is not). I mean, I think anybody can take an honest look at their own life and think of a time when their feelings were initially hurt, but once they calmed down they realized THEY were being a jerk. Or, at least, were in the wrong. (I am NOT talking about gas-lighting; that is totally different. I am talking about doing something wrong, your soccer coach corrects you, but your ego begins to cry, which has everything to do with an insecurity you have, but you think because your feelings are hurt that that MUST mean they are an asshole. Perhaps they could have "said it nicer", but nobody is obligated to walk on egg-shells around you.) This is the kind of "asshole" you seem to be talking about. The leadership kind. The Gordon Ramsay kind. The Aragorn kind, who wastes no time getting the fellowship on its feet immediately after Moria. Not the angry-at-the-world, misanthropic kind who lets out his pent up wrath on the unexpecting and undeserving. These are the sour people that come through my drive-thru occasionally, and treat food service workers like dog shit just because. They are people possessed by their misery. The best example of a Good Guy Asshole that I can think of, besides Gordon Ramsay, is Robert Downey Jr.'s performance of Tony Stark, i.e. Iron Man. There are some who think that being a good person means being harmless and never hurting anybody's feewings. Anybody who thinks that is at risk of becoming one of those drive-thru yōkai after being mercilessly walked on their whole life. Therefore, I conclude that sometimes an asshole is, in fact, just a good, strong-willed person who you disagree with, and only apologizes when he's actually fucked-up. Which, consequently, makes his apologies genuine and heartfelt. Just my 69 cents. Hope it helps. And I've routinely used "he" because different pejoratives tend to be reserved for members of the fairer sex who are overall good people with strong personalities.
I'm currently engaged in a deep study of just these kinds of characters, that many think of as assholes or even evil bastards, but really they're just hard driven, purposeful, and brusque. They get right to the point and don't sugar-coat everything, which is seen as an unforgivable sin by many. Especially in a time when we're taught never to do or say anything offensive. Morality has nothing to do with if people's feelings get hurt or not, there's such a thing as tough love and in fact it's actually much stronger than weak or shallow expressions of niceness coming from an insincere place. It's very helpful to read a brief overview of Nietzsche's concept of master and slave morality. Don't fall into the trap of believing that one is good and the other bad, he's just pointing out 2 very different sets of values, each of which have been the guiding principles at various times and in different places. And it helps you see through the simplistic idea that nice=good and mean=bad. Master/Slave Morality @ Wikipedia Neither of these paradigms are actually about morality. One says basically might is right, and the other says might is evil and resentment concealed under concern is good. Ethics and morality are really about values. But when people talk about 'asshole' characters, they're judging the person not by their values but by how nice they are. A killer or a rapist can be nice, and a saint or a person living by the most excellent values can be a jerk.
That was a very uncomfortable read. I see myself as admiring the qualities that is depicted as being the master morality, but I've always valued the qualities he thinks as being slave morality. Maybe because I have attained one and not the other? At least that seems to be what he is implying. Plus I think there are some vague undertones of racism/classism going on there as well. Not explicitly, but those extremist elements have co-opted those ideas based on all the things I've read or watched. But it does bring up a very good point, master type morality is about seeing yourself above people. So a likeable asshole would have to actually walk the walk because that would mean his arrogance would become confidence. I would recommend watching berserk anime because it has a character like that called Griffith. There's even some underlying slave/master morality themes in that too now that I think about it.
Here we go— Often after making a post on a subject that fascinates me I think more on it and end up posting again (and maybe again... ) Polis is the ancient Greek word for city. Politikos was their term for the laws (rules) that make a city work. The politicians make the policies, the police enforce them, and the people who follow them are called politically correct. Not all the policies are laws, many are unwritten agreements we use to be able to function well as a large mixed group, by not hurting people's feelings. This is a necessary thing, but often it can lead to everyone being nice while ignoring something very important that needs to be addressed (the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody is talking about). So when somebody ignores the social contract and just tells the unvarnished truth many people see him as a jerk or even evil, but often what he brings to light is something that needs to be addressed. And many in the crowd will admire him while at the same time they're able to keep up their own silence or pretense toward niceness. Basically "Damn, I wish I had the balls to say that! Glad somebody did anyway, now let him take all the slings and arrows." So these bold heedless people are often the heroes that save the society, or at least try to, but are held in contempt by the crowd. This is why we admire some characters of this kind. There's a fascinating push/pull going on, we want to be like them but we're afraid to at the same time. It can be good to live vicariously through such a character, while simultaneously not having to take the chances yourself by living that way. Just read about it or watch the movie. Of course I'm only talking about the truth-tellers in this post. There are other kinds of assholes that aren't so admirable.
It can be hard to keep in mind that these are the observations of a philosopher, neither one reflects his own personal beliefs. He was merely pointing out 2 very prevalent systems of thought or of value judgement that have been widely practiced throughout history. In fact it's pretty hard to deny that most societies have run on one or the other as a prevailing ethical system. Nietzsche wrote this stuff while he was preparing to write about his ideas of the Overman or Superman, the Ubermensch. It was the beginning of a proposed revaluation of all values. In fact, he stated that he himself wouldn't be able to accomplish such a revaluation, he was too firmly embedded in the values of his own time. It would require an actual ubermensch to come into being who would be capable of such a feat. And he said straight up he himself is not such a being, none have existed yet, but he thought and hoped they might come into being. It's a shame he fell into madness and death claimed him before he could write more on the subject. I'd be very interested in where it was going. I'm very curious as to whether he really believed they could exist, or if he was just planning to use them as a literary device to express ideas, the way Plato used Socrates to sometimes expound certain beliefs in his dialogues, or the way Nietzsche himself used Zarathustra. But it's clear to see that strong-willed people live according to what he called master morality, at least to what extent they can. It might make more sense (and be less offputting) to use different terms, say rugged individualism versus the collectivism of the crowd.
I was thinking of one thing that might be good. As a thief he's incredibly lucky, like regardless of his social failings, he's just plain lucky. I'm talking Nathan Drake/ Laura croft/ Indiana Jones lucky (as in he's only lucky when the plot demands that he is, which is most of the time.) He views this as a curse, he's a thrill seeker and nothing can really stop him unless other people get involved. (so he might blame others interfering for any misfortune that comes his way) This makes life 'boring' for him, so he goes out of his way to try to bring excitement into people's lives. That excitement might involve him driving his car over a puddle near a sidewalk to soak someone to the bone. Even growing up he spent most times having everything (more or less) handed to him, and the only thing putting effort in did was get it to him faster. He actually resents this, he's got an active 'problem solver' kind of mind, but he rarely gets the chance to solve problems since you know, the plot. He's self aware of this and seeks out ways to make things interesting. So when somebody does cross him, he relishes it. I had forgotten until now about Tony Stark's unique brand of asshole ness. I think that's kind of what I'm going for. I think one of the things that might be good is that he gives a decent portion of his earnings to an orphanage that he grew up in. Why does he do it? So he has a place to go if things fall through, but also cause you know, he hated being an orphan.
Well, that sort of sounds like a 'I kicked your dog and enjoyed it' sort of asshole if he's driving around soaking people in the rain. I think that's sort of a needlessly cruel trait that will just make the reader question the authenticity of him donating money to an orphanage. I think one thing a character needs to have is moral consistency outside of moral dilemmas. I mean, justifying splashing people because he's bored just sounds kinda silly and stupid. This is not a bad thing, but the tone needs to be lighter so you can get away with it. Like how slapstick humour is funny because the audience knows no one gets hurt, otherwise randomly getting punched in the face isn't funny you know? But if it's about making a likeable asshole, it could work if other characters are even more flawed than him. I.e. "he's an asshole, but at least he's better than the other guys".
That was only an example of what he might do, like he'd consider it, because he might find it amusing in the moment but ultimately decide against it. He has the impulses of an ass, but he chooses not to do certain things that he KNOWS would piss people off. (unless that person deserves it like you said) I have to be careful about the things I allow him to do/get away with, and especially the people I allow him to do it to. Also this story is...fairly light hearted. One of the moments of character development (note: intended to be silly, not serious) is the female lead lamenting that she picked the one human who didn't have a fetish (that she was aware of) and after a few moments of awkward silence between them, the male lead randomly blurts out 'Honey and handcuffs' as a joke. She is, on the same page as the reader, and moderately confused by this outburst at first. But ultimately decides it's a 'what the hell, why not' kind of thing. I should point out that the punchline of that moment is that later in the story, the two are seen making a honey and handcuff sandwich and trying to share it 'romantically' so yeah...not exactly a serious story at all lol
Yeah, he gives only the 2 extremes, doesn't he? I'm not a fan of extremism at all, not in practice anyway, but I do see the value in examining things by looking at the extremes. A society that lives entirely by the principles of turn the other cheek and lay down with lambs is setting itself up for the slaughter. Even many sects of Asian monks were masters of martial arts, they understood the need to protect yourself while practicing their peaceful beliefs. I also see the value in both sides. You need to be flexible, maintain a dynamic balance. Be ready to swing one way or the other, to a measured degree, when necessary. So many people and groups seem to think in black and white binaries where it's got to be one way or the other, but that's not true. Think in terms not of dichotomies (where one side is good and one is bad and you must choose) but of a dialectic, a sliding scale with extremes at each end, and you're a slider that can position yourself where you get the greatest benefit at a given time.
Ways to make the character likable: @AntPoems already mentioned Save the Cat, meaning the character does something good (ideally sacrificing something in the process, even if minor) I'll add to the list: Other characters like them. I'm reminded of a scene from the beginning Plunkett and Macleane where Plunkett's dying friend admits to cheating him out of a ruby, and them lets himself get tortured and killed rather than give up Plunkett to the police. You know Plunkett must have something good going for him to engender that death-bed loyalty. Unyielding and Authentic: shortly thereafter, surrounded by the police firing muskets, Plunkett declares "Surrender's for wankers." In danger: audiences like to root for someone who is in physical danger In pain: audiences like to root for someone who is coming through a tragedy
@naruzeldamaster Further down this forum I answer @Veltman question How to make my antihero lovable? Your OP gives an idea into him and what he’s about. My answer is still the same to you as to @Veltman. Deadpool is an asshole, but because of the fourth wall break he installs empathy in the follower. He’s not a true asshole. Rick from Rick and Morty on the other hand is. Rick knows full well there is no consequence for an individual’s actions within an isolated timeline. However, Rick knowing this still tries to improve his broken relationship with his daughter and her family. You, like Rick as an outsider get this... and that’s why no matter how much of a dick Rick is you get it. Watch the episode where he tries to kill himself S2E3. Rick is the ultimate antihero asshole, but you do believe in him anyway... MartinM
Using your own example of Sanji cause I'm a huge fan of One Piece myself. He's not what I would say is characterised as an asshole, someone like Don Flamingo is an asshole and not at all loveable. Sanji can be an asshole and recognising the difference between being an asshole and can be an asshole is super important here. It's not at all a fine line either so you're pretty safe in being able to figure it out without much effort. Sanji has sarcasm and that's why he can be an asshole. In all loveable assholes the asshole aspect comes from sarcasm which is the avenue in which they can point out unwanted truths that everyone is wilfully ignoring or calling people idiots when they're being idiots but in a way that is easier for others to accept. With sarcasm they can even rip on the most beloved character and not get any blow back from it. Because he works for others and has acceptable morals and values and is a caring person he can be sarcastic and it won't be a point against him. In contrast to this, Don Flamingo is straight up a bad person, he works to have power over others at their expense. The thing you may be having trouble with is differentiating personality from attitude. Sanji is a caring person with a sarcastic attitude, big difference to being an asshole like what is Don Flamingo's personality.
sidenote: I love the fact that there are people out there teaching others how to behave to influence people around them, based on unrealistic ( read as "totally works in movies/fiction only") fictional characters and situations. I think this shows the power of fiction both as metaphor of real life and of tool for transformation.
Give him one or two qualities that outweigh his nature. Like if the other characters in the story tolerate him for this in-character reasons You have a redeemable character that can either stay that way or become nicer over time.
I used my prologue scene to set up that the female lead already had a passing interest in him. Kitsune distinguish good or bad people by their scent (much like dogs do) and although she doesn't know it's him (it's really too dark to make out a face in the scene) she does comment mentally on him having a nice smell. I also don't know if 'asshole' is the right turn of phrase, he's a bit curt and blunt, and has some impulses that people that don't know him might consider asshole-ish. But he's not like, outright mean spirited like your typical 'asshole' is. He's a bit like tony stark, extremely gifted in his field, but he has a few social shortcomings despite maxing out his charisma stat.
I didn't read the other comments so not sure what I'm repeating. The asshole needs charm and to be interesting. Deadpool is very charming. He's a "joyful psycho", meaning he's a-okay with being a violent psychopath. He enjoys doing it with a smile and a joke. He's dark comedy. Hannibal is charming because he has strong morals that everyone can relate to. He hates rudeness and enjoys class. He's also interesting because he's a conundrum of sanity and insanity. He's also interesting because of his ability to manipulate and control others under the guise of helping. You have to have these things. Even sex appeal will fall to the side unless your asshole has charm and/or particularly interesting traits.
You read 'like' as 'lick' didn't you? XD (Not saying you actually did, that's just one of the things I thought of heh) @marshipan I think he has a couple likable things about him. One of those things is that although he initially perceives women as not capable (note: at his job as a thief) once he witnesses a woman being equally capable, he's moderately impressed. He doesn't change his tune because she's female, but because he respects her as an opponent now. (he does admit that it's pretty amusing that she's female because he'd never really heard of female thieves before so the whole concept is new to him) Another thing is that he saves her life without thinking of the consequences. Though at that point he doesn't know much about Kitsune laws and whatnot. He also hasn't drawn blood once in his life, despite encountering certain situations where he'd almost have to. There's also this brief exchange when they're having their eventual dual. Male Lead: "Finally, a worthy opponent" *in japanese. Female Lead: You learned japanese just so you could say it in my native tongue didn't you? Male Lead: uhhh...maybeee? Female Lead: Weeb... Male Lead: Guilty as charged~ (pridefully) I'm trying to think up some other things that work with his personality rather than against him.
Those aren't really character traits though, just two things that happen that don't define him. So for instance, I just wrote a sadist who also frequently beats up his co-workers for fun. He is a love-sick puppy dog to his girl though, going above and beyond to make sure she's comfortable and happy. It's his main driving force. He's also completely ignorant on regular socializing, which is ironic since he's a well loved public figure known for his charm to fans. When he's done something bad he always just tries to smile to smooth it over ("smiles fix everything!"), which frequently makes people more disturbed. For instance, caught peeping on his girl and just smiles widely when they catch him. I'd just go down a list of classic assholes/villains and write why people like them. Usually they are happy, *sometimes* very intelligent, charming, and peculiar in a way that makes us scratch our head and look up personality disorders. Like thinking they are doing something normal/good but it's not at all, comically so. Sometimes they are driven by completely selfless desires (charming) but go about it the wrong way. For instance, in the movie Seven Psychopaths, (**spoilers**)one of the psychos feels bad that his friend is depressed and struggling in his writing career so he starts very publicaly serial killing gang bangers to inspire him.
I'd say there are few aspects to make a kind of "anti-hero" character if you are thinking of characters like Deadpool and Iron Man. You probably want to do all of these to some extent if you want a flawed character to be genuinely likeable and considered "a nice guy when you get to know him". 1. Limits to their flaws. They don't cross too hard a line. They have limits to what they will do, and their flawed actions even when questionable or outright are to some extent understandable to the audience 2. Show the good sides. As mentioned before, you'll want such a character to show when they care and what they are willing to do positively. Show bravery, or loved ones, or their contributions to science or whatever. Various good traits, probably more than one, although one might the most significant redeeming quality in the story. 3. Have other characters encourage them to be better. Flawed characters generally work better if the other characters don't just forgive transgressions or annoying behaviour simply because they're not all bad. If it feels like the character is just getting away with stuff because they are the main character, or a leading character, it will frustrate the audience. It can feel too much like an endorsement if the character is never properly fully challenged on their flaws or encouraged to change. MCU Iron Man mainly did that through the character of Pepper, who is willing to criticise, even mock Tony, calling him out, and pushes him to be a better version of himself and also not to be self-destructive. 4. It never hurts to generally make the character interesting and somewhat relatable. One of the main reasons Ryan Reynolds' movie Deadpool is popular is because he's funny, distinctive and human. He doesn't feel generic and he doesn't feel inhuman, the use of comedy in particular allows the narrative to place him in situations other superhero characters are too polished and airy to be involved in, like awkward taxi-driver conversations or doing something embarrassing in an otherwise serious situation. If Deadpool felt more like a polished above-it-all generic hero who happened to be a dick he would be less likeable, but instead his flaws are specifically portrayed in a way that make him more relatable, circling back to point 1.
It occurs to me all these well-known anti-hero characters that people keep referencing have experienced trauma and it's shown quite clearly. I think it helps a lot to understand some psychology as it relates to trauma and how that affects a person. It's shown quite clearly that Deadpool went through hell and he can't die even though he tried again and again. That's a huge part of what drives him, he's suicidal but finally had to accept that even death can't save him from his inner conflicts. He just has to go on dragging himself though life, and his only refuge is his sarcastic humor. It's the absurdism of life. It might also help to look into Theater of the Absurd, which is built around trauma and depression and suicidal feelings but has a heavy dose of absurd humor to leaven it. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. They're people who have lost their innocent naivete. Most of us manage to hold onto a huge chunk of it through our entire lives, but if it's been stripped forcefully from you then you've been forced to see the bare bones of life in all their stark terror and it's scarred you. Some people come out too severely damaged, they stop caring at all about others, get utterly depressed, or become evil, but some can hold onto a desire to get along with people to some extent and they refuse to commit atrocities even though what's going on inside of them is atrocious and cataclysmic. These would be the somewhat likable antiheroes.
I'd recommend watching this video about Tony Stark from Iron Man: As it points out, he's an arms dealer, selfish and arrogant. He could easily be a villain. Yet the films make him likeable and relatable, and the video breaks down how.
I'm thinking of a pompous, chauvinistic, selfish and womanizing loudmouth who's the only character that can save the main characters.
