How do you maintain an audience's interest with a deliberately unlikable main character?

For some context, I’m really interested in characters whose worldview doesn't revolve around the idea of “morality” and altruism. Instead, it functions on a more primeval stance of self preservation tops everything. Very much like a scavenging coyote looking for its next meal, without any regards to anything resembling human ethics.

In other words, a criminal scum rat who will indulge in any lows to make a buck. How would you maintain an audience’s interest and not come across as an overly gratuitous “edgelord”, with a character like that as your primary lead?

 

Why did people like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones? They could vicariously live through the characters and experience things they would never themselves be able to do/be willing/want to do in real life. Yes, they are a festering sacks of shit that has been left out in the sun but if done well, the story can hold even if the characters aren't likable. The reader doesn't have to like the character to keep reading, they can hate them and still want to see what happens.

 

I'm going to be a slobbering fangirl over one of my favorite books of all time here and say the best character I've read in a book solely driven by self preservation is Hugh Glass from The Revenant. The book is worth your time. The film adds in some BS story about him having a son. He doesn't have a son. He's also partly driven by revenge, too, I guess, but his knowledge of the wilderness helps him with that goal. Insurmountable odds stacked against him, and he's a champ all the way.

I think it's a rare thing these days, but if someone can do that character arc well, I'd be all over that book.

 

Unlikable the character doesn't mean not interesting. When I watch the film The Usual Suspects, I'm drawn into the characters, the story and the overall theme despite none of them being good people.

 

He can be a douchebag, but he's not allowed to be a boring douchebag.

 

From my understanding, most readers judge characters more on how interesting they are, rather than how likeable they'd be in real life.

As a personal preference I like it when there is a potential for the character to see the error of their ways and learn to be better. Not that they necessarily will take that opportunity (I love a good tragedy) but the conflict that they could is very engaging, to me.

 

Your MC doesn't have to be a good person, but they have to be a believable, interesting person. They need to be consistent and they need to have justification for their actions. You cannot expect a one-note mustache-twirling villain to interest anyone. Absolutely no believable character is bad for the sake of being bad. Every villain is the hero of their own story. They think they're acting for good reasons. Make sure your reader knows what those reasons are.

 

As much as an audience can connect to a positive character and desire to see them succeed, so can an audience also connect with a bad character and desire their fall.

I think this is a strange advice that has been discounted / discontinued a while ago. Our very history and even our very present shows that there have been a myriad of people acting for evil's sake. With very little redemption. Some of these evil were the greatest / most infamous in our history, with stories that are re-made into movies and series over and over.

Bad for the sake of bad happens. We are vile creatures. Ted Bundy existed, and I charge you to try any redemption for what he did. You can argue that "racism is reasoned for through weird logic" but any act that is non-beneficial to the self and detrimental to another is by its nature "bad for the sake of being bad". Insults, vandalism and so on.

Villains are not always heroes of their own story. A multitude of WW2 German leadership were wholly conscious about what they were doing, wholly conscious that they were evil. Their reasoning had more to do with "end justifies the means" or "I will be the evil so that others can remain neutral". These are both /far/ from thinking they acted for good reasons. One of the most iconic characters, Hans Landa, precisely portrays this. A character with zero remorse for what he is doing, fully conscious of what he is doing, and seeking zero redemption but simply switching sides at convenience.

This realization is not new. It's exactly what Voltaire expanded upon when he ridiculed the living hell out of Leibniz & the enlightenment optimists.

 

Some people (like me) love a morally grey character and others just don't. I've seen people dislike characters like Scarlett O'hara because she's selfish, vain and arrogant. The very reasons I love her! So just bare in mind those types of characters aren't loved by everyone and some people just like a good guy.

Consider reading books with morally grey/anti-hero characters and if you like and root for them ask yourself why. Do your homework then you can answer the question yourself and apply those elements to your own characters.

Some of those bad characters are likeable because they have equally good traits or traits that are very admirable. Scarlett was determined and really got her family through a very hard time but will power alone. Melanie would have been screwed getting to safety without Scarlett's determination to get home even through the chaos going on around them.

Some are likeable because, although they are naughty, everyone else around them is worse. In the TV show Revenge, Emily was hardly a goodie. She ruined lives whilst ruining the lives of the people that deserved it. But she got those bad people out of the way and prevented them from further damaging other people/families.

Some are likable because they allow us to experience the negative side we all have to harbour in our society.

With some it's more of a psychological investigation of why is this character this way. And the writer focuses on how this person was made this way in depth.

With others it's simple curiosity of understanding the mind of a sociopath, serial killer or assassin. How do they justify their actions? Why do they do it? People read about those characters because it genuine perplexes them. Who could get a thrill out of harming someone who's done nothing to you?

It can be one or a mixture of all those things.

But the number one things that sells a “wicked” character is the writing. Think Lolita. Terrible character written by a fantastic writer who could pull it off.

Decide where on the scale your character is. Are they are bad as Humbert? Are they a Hannibal Lecture? Or someone trying to make the best out of a terrible situation. Do they steal from people just as desperate and hungry as they are to feed their children or sick mother they are devoted to. It's hard to say I'd never steal until you've been in a situation where you had to. I would steal from anyone to feed someone I loved because they come before a stranger. Or are they just a total bitch to everyone but doesn't actually hurt anyone or break any rules.

It's in the writing. So learn your craft. Read. Find out what others did to pull this off and do it yourself. Amazing writers get anyway with cliché plots, rooting for villains and unoriginal ideas.

 

There are always a few exceptions, in my opinion, and I reckon you are right. Never say never. However, the 'ends justify the means' is not the same as 'I'm deliberately going to be evil because evil is fun.' The 'ends justify the means' is rationalising bad actions while attributing them to good intentions. We see many instances of this not only in today's world, but certainly in the past.

That's where you can create an interesting character ...explore that rationale.

And if you do have a wholly evil character (and I'm not talking supernatural here, just evil human with normal 'powers') it's interesting to watch their methods of operation, and also perhaps figure out why they are able to get away with evil behaviour for a while, at least. What do they do to convince others that their behaviour should be supported, ignored or forgiven?

If you reduce your plot to 'moustache-twirling baddies' versus 'goodies in pursuit,' then all you've got is a pursuit story, even if the pursuer and the quarry change back and forth during the course of it. There's nothing of any real character development interest in a story like that ...so the pursuit itself must be edge-of-the-seat exciting.

By the way, 'unlikeable' doesn't mean evil. Somebody who is grumpy or belligerent or selfish or unkind or manipulative isn't automatically 'evil.' We all know people with these characteristics. Some of them have more redeemable traits than others, but they aren't evil. On the other hand, somebody can be totally plausible and likeable ...and may be evil at the core. Turns out they're just very good actors.

 

I will bring another example then. One where evil for the evil's sake is not done by an evil person even. But in spoiler, because it is sort-of off topic.

Spoiler

War's raging; a ship has been struck by a torpedo and is sinking. Survivors paddle towards your ship when your captain suddenly orders you to do the unthinkable. You and the rest of your ship's crew chamber your rifles and start massacring the survivors from the sinking vessel. The sea is painted red; nobody survives and that is exactly what your captain submits as a briefing after the engagement. No survivors, STOP. Lifeboats not engaged, STOP.

Does the captain have any gain? No, none at all. He could have even been awarded if he took ample prisoners. He risked his position by massacring surrendered survivors. They wasted bullets. They gained nothing, but risked much to lose. Why did they do it? You can rationalise. "They hadn't enough food for POWs on the ship" - sure, leave them in the water. No. The answer is far simpler: enemies faced off each other, and when we fight for our lives, we engage in a brutal, primal rage that clouds our vision. This primal rage and instinct culminated in the vengeful massacre of those unarmed who surrendered. There is no excuse. No justification. No reasoning other than primal wrath, anger and hate. Evil for evil's sake, done by someone who is otherwise regarded as a hero.

This happened between the submarine USS Wahoo and the Japanese merchant vessel Buyo Maru in 1943. And then more. Coutless examples of surrendered enemies simply slaughtered instead of taken prisoner, even when the circumstances allowed the latter. The captains ordering these acted amoral, against protocols. Their men acted under them, not resisting, executing the vile orders. This wasn't unique; there are regular, recurring events through humanity where in war, specific groups (either based on ethnicity or combat formation) were given no mercy and were often mutilated or tortured. English Longbowmen and riflemen suffered torture and mutilations in the 100 years and the Napoleonic wars respectively. US soldiers described the Japanese as "animals to be slaughtered" and the Japanese had a similar attitude to the Chinese.

War crimes are perfect examples of "evil for evil's sake". There hardly any justification or explanation for rape, for genocide, for slaughter. There was no justification or moral reasoning for cutting off heads and tearing out skulls for trophies. Simply, in the midst of the war ordinary men who were drafted became animals. This is one preferred trope I include in my stories; that the circumstances and a break-down of society reveals the most vile, most bestial innards of humanity.

Now imagine that the captain previously mentioned is a long-standing character in your novel. Imagine them introduced as a positive, good example. And imagine that they make the order not of their own volition, but pushed by the crew ready for the massacre they so desire. It's exactly the character conflict and development that you wish for - all sparked by "bad for bad's sake".

Here I'd like to point out your pursuit example. The point there is not that bad is being done for bad's sake; the highlight is the general "structure" and lack of depth. Just because Mojo Jojo's (yes, that's my prime classic literature example) backstory is sorrowful and unjust to him does not make the pursuit-defeat repetition any more exciting or developed. The issue is not the story; it's the structure as a whole.

As for the non-evil "unlikeable" characters, I am unsure about your statement. Sure they can be liked, but the audience's "wish" may not be so straight-up and obvious as for "good" and "likeable" characters where they wish for their goals to succeed and a happy end. Here I reckon there has to be a firm goal for them that the audience can get hyped for to retain interest despite the "unlikeability". EG, Sandor Clegane and retained interest with the Cleganebowl meme. This is addition to my initial advice of seeking their "downfall", EG, punishment for the actions that left them unlikeable.

 

I don't think we're at opposing sides of this argument, actually. The 'rationalising' aspect comes into your excellent wartime example. These are not humans, they are animals to be slaughtered is an extreme case of rationalisation, of course. Would the captain have done the same thing or had the same attitude if they'd been American sailors in the water instead? (I would argue that a truly evil person would have enjoyed killing for the sake of it.)

Of course wartime is an extreme situation, and soldiers often have their 'humanity' reduced in training as well as in actual combat, and the aftermath of combat. They are trained not to see a human being at the other end of their weapon, but to see an 'enemy' who must be killed before he can kill 'me.' I've spoken to perfectly nice Vietnam vets who were my real friends (I'm that age group.) They were so freaked out by the situation in Vietnam that they would fire at anything that rustled the undergrowth. They didn't trust any Vietnamese person whom they encountered, because they'd become used to the idea that the enemy was everywhere. Including in the person of women, children, and people who approached them as friends. It was an evil situation, for sure, but these were and still are nice guys, who still have nightmares about what happened and what they did. Killing innocent civilians certainly looks like an evil act, but is it evil if you truly believe they are not innocent, and are out to get you?

Let's not lose sight of the original thread title here:
How do you maintain an audience's interest with a deliberately unlikable main character?
If that captain was the protagonist of your story, how would you portray him? Do we see him in action before this event? How do we see him after the event? Is he, at any point, a likeable person? One whom we readers can understand or empathise with?

I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with Mojo Jojo, and I understand Clegane was a character in Game of Thrones, but I didn't watch that series or read beyond the first couple of books, so I'm unfamiliar with him as an example. So I can't really address the second half of the point you made, unfortunately.

 

I'm trying to do this myself with one of my main characters, so I adore this subject.
Perversely, i'm trying to see how bad I can make him while having people wanting to still read his character, like its a challenge.

I think to maintain the audience's interest, you have to aim for making the reader at the very least -understand- why the character is the way they are, and even gain sympathy for them.

People talk about Breaking Bad but, for me, the greatest example of this isn't Walter White it's Tony Soprano.

He is a loathsome individual, more so than WW because he's been evil from the start and has NEVER been a good guy, he acknowledges what he does is evil. But, you see his mother, who is an eternally depressed and needy personality who makes his life hell. You see his uncle, who always smiles to his face but looks down at him behind his back and even wants him offed. You see (through his visits to his shrink) that the reason he got to be a mafia boss is because that was the natural progression of his life, due to his dad and the environment he grew up in. Most importantly, he wasn't a strong enough person to break away and choose a different life, it wasn't done in his day. That's why he hates his sister; he says she abandoned them when she ran away, but secretly he wishes he could've done the same. And now, he's using his job as a means to try and give his kids a different route. He suffers from panic attack/stress faints because it is all getting to him. He is an awful person, but, because of his background and what he's trying to do you end up sympathizing and even rooting for this loathsome sociopath.

He is compelling not only for these traits, but because of the contradictions he comes up with when he sees the morals that should be and then breaks them himself for "the greater good."
Every aspect of his life, every relative he has, is an insight into showing you the sympathetic reasons of why he is the way he is. If you were told the raw facts of what he is in a courtroom, you wouldn't think twice about sending him to the hangman's noose. But knowing all of this, you would feel a depth of sorrow for him if you were there and saw the sentence being passed.

If you've never watched The Sopranos, and want to know how to make a compelling evil main character from the start, one that, like a car crash, you cant stop yourself watching, you will completely understand the elements of what you need from watching this show.

 

There is nobody in history who acted for the sake of being evil. Hitler wasn't just rubbing his hands together in glee at the prospect of being an evil bastard. He thought he was doing the right thing. He had complete justifications for every action he took. People simply ignore them and think "well he was evil!" That's an emotional response, not an intellectual one. It's a very shallow way of looking at reality. Everyone has a justification for their actions, even someone like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson. They might be bad justifications from our perspectives, but they exist nonetheless.

 

I'm not saying this is the only reason, but one of the major reasons some people do what we consider despicably evil things is because they were unable to grow up properly. I've made an extensive study of this over the last 10 years, including deep research into some of the psychological issues as well as close observation of a few malignant narcissists and similar types of people. A malignant narcissist is basically a child emotionally, a severely damaged child who suffered certain kinds of trauma early in life. If the trauma is severe enough, and that can be physical or emotional, or I suppose could result from some kinds of medical conditions, it results in actual physical damage to the brain—the main component being that the mirror neurons never grow in. Those are responsible for empathy, and if they fail to grow in, well, obviously you have the makings of a monster.

A self-centered emotionally damaged child in an adult's body who has developed enough intelligence and communication skills to pass as a fairly normal person, and often they're charming much of the time. That's a skill that serves children well. But they have no ability to put themselves in another person's shoes, they don't see others as real human beings.

When life is filled with threats for a child and there's no adult capable of protecting them from those threats, the nervous system goes into constant alarm mode, like a car alarm that can't be shut off. Permanent fight or flight—continual signals of danger and panic. This shuts down growth of certain systems in the brain, and it becomes a permanent feature in the person's life. They will always see threats all around, and in childish fashion they will project all their own worst character traits out onto other people around them, then dehumanize and try to destroy those threats by destroying the people. They also fail to grow into what's known as a mindset of plenty, which understands that you can give things to people, or allow them to have things, and it doesn't mean you are losing that thing. Instead they have a mindset of scarcity—they believe there's only so much of anything available, and they need to grab it up before anybody else does or it will be gone forever. They have a permanent sense of lack and loss at the core of their being, and of brokenness, which can never be healed. So their self-image is devastated. They know they're severely broken, but are not mature enough to deal with it and instead it all becomes rage and terror that they project out onto the world and other people, mostly those closest around them (that they see taking or having things they think should rightfully be theirs) and entire classes or races of people.

Because they're so woefully underdeveloped psychologically/emotionally, they're incapable of seeing fault in themselves, and will engage in all manner of self-deception (aka cognitive dissonance) to see themselves as totally justified in everything they do. they shed logic and reason the way a duck sheds water.

What they most crave is praise and reassurance that they're good people, so if you give them that you enter into their charmed circle. Not a friend exactly, they're not capable of real friendship, but you're now exempt from their worst projections, until suddenly you do something that knocks you out of that circle, and then you garner narcissistic rage and dehumanization. They've learned from early in life that nothing they do is good enough to get them positive attention, so they have inverted normal human values so that bad attention is a suitable substitute. And if they''re far enough gone, they actually prefer bad attention to good, infamy to fame. Since they don't see others a real human beings, they actually get a dopamine rush from seeing hurt flash across someone's face because of something they did to them. It's an addiction. So yes, these people actually enjoy hurting others, but it's complicated. They refuse to admit to themselves that they crave causing pain to others, and they often only do it in brief bursts followed immediately by the opposite behavior (usually), to convince themselves and the person they've hurt that it never happened. It serves their purposes best to keep people around that they can continually hurt to keep getting the dopamine rushes. So, often the hurting is restrained, only little insults and occasionally bigger ones, often disguised—backhanded compliments etc. But at certain key moments, if something good happens to you or you have something they envy, you'll get the full blast of narcissistic rage and hatred, their own self-loathing turned outward.

Malignant Narcissism, AKA Narcissistic Personality Disorder, is the root condition shared also by sociopaths and psychopaths, and one of its main components is egomania. I've found most of their behavior is explained by literally seeing them as 2 year-olds, subject to frequent tempter tantrums when they don't get what they want.

Wanted to add—Narcissists will also gloat and smirk to a ridiculous level. They're almost mustache-twirling villains, but it's complicated (unlike in the melodramas).

 

Just wanted to add- like any other story that confronts a difficult subject (Rape, racism, murder, abuse, ect) how the story is perceived is hugely dependent on the writers skill and ability to tell the story. What this really comes down to is that with a unlikable character, you will have to work harder to polish and fine tune the story to get the same level of investment from a reader as a lighter story would get. With the darker material, often the readers have to put down the book, calm down and relax before they can pick it back up. That is what you need to make sure you have-an interesting enough story that after one of the nasty happenings the reader is still willing to keep going.

 

Anyway I think you hit the nail on the head here Cephus. I immediately thought of a book series/trilogy I read where pretty much none of the main characters are 'likeable' in the 'I would want to be friends with these people IRL' sense. But exactly because they are so 'unlikeable' I love them all. (@Oldmanofthemountain the book trilogy is 'The First Law' trilogy by Joe Abercrombie. There's also companion books set in the same 'verse outside of the main trilogy.)

Speaking as a reader more than a writer, because I've yet to really dig deep into 'unlikeable' character-writing myself, I like a character that I can understand. I don't need to be able to be sympathetic to them, but if I understand them, and I find them interesting, then I'm good. And there's a lot of ways to make a character interesting. Also what helps is when they have a goal that I find fairly relatable. The First Law books pulled it off because while the characters weren't out to make the world a better place, they were muddling around trying to make their world a better place.

 

That is an awkwardly positivist outlook on humanity. See my other example. People carving out skulls of their felled enemies or gunning down prisoners of war.

You will, at one point, reach "primal rage" or "hatred" or "anger" for justification. At that point, it's evil for evil's sake.

What reasoning is there behind war crimes? The fact that "one can get away with it" is not a reasoning - it only underlines evil for evil's sake.

 

Oh yes. Sand dan Glokta. I mean, can you imagine a character less 'likeable' whom the readers really grow to like? He's a character I'll never forget. I mean, he was an official torturer ...who was very good at his job. Yet he's one of my favourite characters of all time. Okay, his backstory helped, but I liked him as a character long before the entire backstory was revealed. He's just a great character. The inner workings of his mind are open to the reader, and we realise that he's vulnerable, in pain himself most of the time because of horrific injuries he suffered at the hands of torturers, he's treated with contempt by his superiors, is hated and feared by just about everybody else, he has no friends, doesn't trust anybody... etc. Yet the eventual resolution of his story arc in the third part of the trilogy made me punch the air in glee. It was so unexpected.

The First Law trilogy is indeed a masterclass in how to write unlikeable characters that the readers like. Glokta isn't the only one in that category either. Abercrombie is really good at creating this kind of character.

 

Have you seen or read The Talented Mr. Ripley or any of the other Ripley novels?

This is one very rare case where I will say watch the movie over reading the book. I know, I know. Heresy. But trust me on this one. Get the film and watch it with an eye to Ripley's character, how he ingratiates himself into the jetset life of Dickey Greenleaf and Marge Sherwood.

I say watch the film over reading the book in this case because the book versions of Dickey Greenleaf, Marge Sherwood, and particularly Freddy Miles are impenetrably dull in the original sense of that word. They are monolithically oblivious, entrenched in money and an enviable life, but they themselves are light years from being enviable.

Their film counterparts, on the other hand, are much more lively and vigorous. They make a much better foil against which to portray the grifter's grifter, Tom Ripley.

Unlikeability is not to be conflated with not being interesting. Tom Ripley is a smart little rat of a dude, slipping into and out of costume at will. The book version paints a rich set of individuals who are pathetically easy to infiltrate, invade, and enact a silently hostile takeover. The film counterparts are more savvy. Tom has to deploy much more skill.

That's what makes him interesting. He's a grifter and no one really wants to be associated with a grifter in real life, but when he's shanking and bamboozling trust-fund dildos, suddenly there you are rooting for him. His unlikability takes a back seat to one's interest in the character.

ETA: What makes an edgelord an edgelord?

To avoid it, we must ask what it even is.

The defining characteristic is one that is common to a number of different personality traits that all boil down to someone trying to impress you by trying to impress you. It’s like the Kardashians who are famous for being famous. When you scratch past that, there’s not much else.

An edgelord is constantly trying to buy your attention by being a provocateur, and on the internet, this kind of behavior is amplified by the utter lack of accountability provided by a computer screen. It’s all show, no substance. The very acme of juvenility. A child's idea of what it means to be iconoclastic.

Tom Ripley is the exact opposite of that.

How he does what he does is by being a gifted natural chameleon, by leveraging the lack of OPSEC most people have, by paying close attention to the banal minutiae other people constantly spew in order to repackage that minutiae for later redeployment. He uses it to construct a passably casual social bona fides. He never overworks the information. He understands that you drop the tidbit and move on. These are people with very short attention spans because the world is their oyster. If you try to actively corral them, the gig is up. Affected boredom and apathy are the colors of this world. Eagerness and vivacity set klaxons to blare.

Edgelording would draw the kind of attention he does not want. Smugness and playing with his prey does not suit the goal, which is to appear as though where his is is precisely where he belongs.

There’s a moment in the film where Marge goes to the palazzo Tom has rented with Dickey’s ill-gotten money. It’s ancient and on the cusp of having seen much better days and overlarge and slightly sagging and threadbare, and utterly perfect in its imperfections. It becomes a metaphor for the persona Tom is curating. It is a shell of history and prestige and old money and European decadence and all the things that give the moneyed few what little substance they have.

Marge has been suspicious of Tom for some time now and says “To the manor born” after taking it all in. It’s a line fraught with meaning. But the phrase itself has ever been a double entendre because it can just as easily be “To the manner born”.

It’s the one moment where Marge stops being thick as two short planks and finally voices her sentiment. It’s a rhetorical question. She’s asking, “Which one is you? Is this really your world, or are you merely a consummate thespian inhabiting this role?”

 

Except it's still not and if you ask those people why they are acting, their answer is never going to be "because I'm evil".

 

That's actually not true for Ted Bundy. For others, they will make claims why they did what they did - obviously not going to say "evil because of evil". But any act that leaves no benefit for one's self yet leaves disbenefit for another is an act of evil for evil's sake. Especially so if it brings disbenefit to both self and the target. What I'm highlighting here isn't that moustache-twirling evils exist; more so that each of us are capable of various levels of evil for evil's sake. Bullying is another example that brings little to no benefit if not outright disbenefit to the bully, and causes great harm upon the victim.

Mind, I'm a realist. For me, a lengthy psychological answer or a cumbersome reasoning behind actions will always be inferior to the 19th century realisation of "people can be evil - and people are evil"; because I favour Occam's Razor in logic.

I would define "anger" or "dehumanization", even "hatred" as evil for evil's sake. These feelings prompt such actions. Once again, actions of choice where there is disbenefit on both sides.

Sure I understand now that what you reason against are moustache-twirling villains worshiping evil for evil's sake and claiming they act out evil thereof - That's sheer bad writing and it's been a long while since I've seen an example for that. Nowadays what I "complained" about is far more frequent: a villain where a "reasoning" or "justification" is given, but one that's either ridiculous or wholly lacklustre.