How creepy can an MC be?

You should read Perfume by Patrick Suskind. His MC is a murderer whom nobody liked and was repeated referred to as non-human/subhuman, monstrous, alien, outcast, disgusting, revolting, absolutely evil and deeply, deeply terrifying. And when I read that book, I was torn - you couldn't hate him, but you certainly didn't love him, but you were irresistibly intrigued by him and I couldn't help but read on.

In other words, it all depends on how you write it But given the above example, I'd say there's no such thing as a "kill-point".

I'd say the kill-point would come if your character preached too much, like in Terry Goodkind novels - the MC preached for about 20 pages...

 

I assumed we were talking about the scientific term, since "chimera" was used to refer to a genetically modified organism.

 

Hmm would that make my character that is half bird/half immortal a chimera ? He has some bird characteristics, his main appearance is human. His eye colour is definitely sparrow, his eyes also work independently. His facial features have the hint of beak like/birdlike features. He also talks fast, joins in with the dawn chorus, waggles his tail feathers and desires a secure nest to come home to. His sister on the other hand is a little flighty

Never had him described as a repulsive character.

 

In my view, a scientific chimera would make a much creepier (and much more interesting) MC than a mythological chimera. But that's just me.

 

I don't believe I actually mentioned mythology; lab-born hybrids/chimera are more interesting to me as well.

 

Make your MC as creepy as you like. probably the more creepy the better. Mind you I'm not saying that I would read the book if you were lucky enough to get it published.

 

Well, Lolita is pretty popular and well known and I am curious enough to read it, and I am not sure if there is anything creepier in my book then a pedophile.

/shudders

So I think it is a YMMV kinda deal. Also, it depends on how you portray them. If the guy in Lolita was portrayed as being right and good, I would say 'HELL NAW' and burn the book. If he is portrayed as a creep, it draws a odd sort of fascination for me, to try and understand how these people do these sorts of things, or how on earth these things can happen. Kinda like a train wreck. You can't look away.

 

Lolita is a great book. The narrator (pedophile) is a smart, witty person (a Professor of Literature). He's also self-deluded, short-sighted, and full of rationalizations. Completely unreliable as a narrator. He doesn't come across as sympathetic, but he is engaging. It's well worth the read.

EDIT: The interesting thing is that the narrator is essentially trying to make his case in the novel. He's trying to persuade you, the reader, that he's right. It's not the author making the case, but the character, who as I said is self-deluded and unreliable.

 

Gyah, my list of must-reads is getting longer! Darn school, curse you for interfering with my list!

 

It's very cool to see how Nabokov pulls this off. It would be easy to write such a story with a pedophile who is utterly repulsive and revolting from page one. But Humbert Humbert (the narrator of Lolita) is not. He's never likeable. I mean, he's a guy who is sexually and emotionally drawn to prepubescent girls, so he's a sick bastard. But he's compelling. He has a certain charm of personality to him, despite the fact that you can't trust a word he says. I think Nabokov walked the line very nicely in that book - he doesn't want you to like Humbert Humbert, but he doesn't take the easy out of just presenting you with some disgusting low-life who repulses you on every page. And, of course, Nabokov's playing with the language is always fun and quite interesting since English was not his native language (third language, maybe? After Russian and French? I forget).

 

See, unreliable narrators is one thing I have not read enough of yet, and something which I need to since one of the short stories I have has a unreliable narrator. Or, a narrator who you are supposed to doubt the reliability on. So the Lolita sound like it should go into the list with 'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest'. Then again, perhaps it should eclipse it in order for me to perfect my villains... I have a hard time at points making villains not out-right detestable at times. Mostly because that is what I have encountered before.

I personally love the psychological drama that goes on in works like that. Hopefully I will have time this weekend to grab it, it sounds even more interesting then I thought.

 

I agree with that....emotional connections matters a lot.

I enjoy Dexter (have not seen the recent season...yet...) and he's a disturbing character because he's a serial killer and the MC of the entire show. He would not be enjoyable if he just killed for killing sake. He is enjoyable because there's an emotional connection to why he chose to do it. He's someone people feel for and understand and get and those that he kills no one misses anyway (helps a lot).

Ugly as in looks?
Beastly is a book that's a take on Beauty and the Beast in modern times. The main character (there's a film coming out this year that makes the MC even more uglier than in the book) looks like a beast, but the movie he looks (to my imagination) worse. But if it goes like the book the sympathy will rise and emotional connection to him will grow as the story does....and his looks won't matter.

I couldn't handle more disfigured looking people like in Goonies. For me it's complicated. I can't feel that comfort with so much distortion. In Goonies (a great movie to me) I felt bad for how they treated him and it annoyed me, but I couldn't like him as much as those kids did. If I met someone like that or see someone in public, I will treat them as I'd treat anyone. I wouldn't even look again at someone who looked different because I know that that's something that's unnecessary. I saw once...that's good enough.

X-Men has some "ugly" characters. But they are not disfigured in the way that the character in Goonies is. I think that's the best character to measure how someone likes such a look.

 

And long before genetics were discovered, so the "genetically altered" definition isn't authentic either. If you want to go back to roots, the chimera was one particular monster, the offspring of Typhon (part human, part dragon and part snake) and Echidna (half woman, half snake).

 

I would LOVE to see an book where the MC is chitinous, in ANY capacity. That's hilarious.

The simplest answer I can give is "It depends on your audience."

I guarantee you that no matter how bad you make it, you'll find a reader for it SOMEWHERE, even if it's just your shrink. Just be aware that the creepier you make it, the narrower your field will be for the rest of the story.

Some people might worry that dehumanising them will threaten the empathy that the reader might have for them, but as long as you can forge a strong link between the reader and MC I don't think it will be a problem.

Alien bugs need love too.

 

Indeed.

 

What a great question

I really liked this question and I think that Purple Candle nails it with the response that it is in the writer's ability to make the readers care about your main character.

Recently, I read a trilogy of books by TJ Hackett about the end of the world following a solar storm. Very interesting subject matter, but I had some qualms with Hackett's writing. There were NO shades of grey in any of his protagonist characters. Even when the main character in his first book shoots a police officer, he rationalizes it in a narrative fashion to the reader and we never hear about it again. No guilt trips, no consternation. Bad guys are ALL bad - they all have greasy hair and slimy teeth and rape every woman they come across. Good characters never cross the line. Nobody is essentially good, but desperate enough to steal food to feed their starving babies.

It is a fantastic exercise, in my humble opinion, to take your examples or other scumbag-type characters and try to write them so that your audience feels something for them. Your audience doesn't necessarily have to LIKE them, but they should be interested in them. Carl Hiaasen does this all the time. One of my favorite scumbag characters of his is a bloated redneck drug addict who sneaks into nursing homes while he is between criminal capers and steals fentanyl patches from the skin of unsuspecting demented patients. He does this by posing as a random family member, and ultimately gets caught up in some kind of surrogate relationship with a cancer victim who willingly gives up her patches and tries to get him to go straight. Now, you never end up liking this character, but he is very interesting (and not a MAIN character, but he could have been, just as easily).

As an exercise, I am writing a piece where the action hero is so fat that he hasn't seen his own penis in years. He wakes up in the hospital as ten staff are dragging him into an extra large bed to accommodate his massive girth, and I am enjoying writing his food breaks. This guy is hot on the trail of the villains, but wait, he has to make a pit stop to eat a couple double cheeseburgers to keep his energy up and he can wash it all down with a vanilla malt with extra caramel syrup.

I would rather eat horseradish yogurt than plain yogurt. I would love to see a sci-fi piece where the main character is an intelligent slug or whatever.

 

Hmm ... I'm not sure why you're asking this question. It can't actually be answered in the abstract, can it? The context and the way the story is written will matter. I would hope your friend is not trying to create a creepy character just for the sake of creeping people out? Surely there must be some bigger goal in mind, here. Are you asking if readers can identify with a creepy character? I think the answer is yes - it's been done before. But how creepy...well, surely that's up to individual taste and the writer's skill at getting people sucked into the POV.

 

Creepy characters work, especially insanely intelligent creepy characters. I'm just about half way through a brilliant anime called Death Note (which I'm sure any anime fans here will have heard of and probably watched) - Yagami Light is one of the most detestable yet intriguing characters I've ever come across. He's the lead and he's the murderer who actually enjoys murdering.

As for book examples, Perfume by Patrick Suskind is the other. The main is also a murderer who thinks himself to be some kind of god.

 

Hannibal Lecter. Dexter Morgan. Norman Bates. Even Willy Wonka is pretty creepy.

 

And one reader's creepy is another's "wow, cool!" E.g. my sister would've hated Patrick Bateman's character but I found American Psycho an interesting read (although if IRL anyone like him would ever approach anyone I loved, I'd go for my gun).