How do you make a character likeable despite being a d*ck?

The answer is don't. There's no point trying to make a rapist likable.
I think maybe what you're reaching for is relatable? Maybe having these fucked up guys have something that every reader can relate to on some level? Don't make the readers like these characters, but make the readers hate the characters and yet relate to them on some minor level and thus create a crisis within the reader. Show the readers that every one has dark tendencies within themselves and given the right circumstances they might have become the very people they hate, that's a much more frightening and interesting prospect.
-Show these circumstances, what made them like this?
-Don't create excuses for them, don't downplay what they've done (this will just upset the reader)
-Show a vulnerable trait that led to their downfall that everyone can relate to: insecurity, anger, revenge, protection of loved ones, protection of principles (like your doctor)
-If you want a love/hate villain relationship, then show their intellect, their philosophy, their personality (think Hannibal Lecter)

Of course, in the end this is all just suggestions! Do what fits your writing style the best, I hope that helped! Good luck

 

There's pretty much one way I've had explained to me that helps me make more likeable characters. All characters basically have three traits that are directly relevant to how readers relate to them: likeability (as it relates to other characters in your story), ambition (what they do to move their own plot forward), and competency (how good they are at what they do). On a scale of 1-10, if your character is basically all 5's in each aspect, then your character is basically an everyman. If they're all 10's, then you've got a superman. A one in competency and 10's in ambition and likeability, and you've got a character like Inspector Clouseau. Since you're characters are rapists and murderers, to offset the very low likeability score you should probably write them as having both high competency and lots of ambition. Giving them friends also helps and letting the reader know why these people are friends with your character is a way to give the reader some way to relate to your horrible d*ck of a character.

 

This is actually...really great advice. I've never heard of this theory before, but as I said earlier I've written a few dickish MCs, and without exception they're all extremely competent and ambitious. I don't know why I've never realized that before!

 

Honestly, while technically it is possible for a rapist to have good traits, I don't like to have any works of fiction which portray there to be a debate about the personality of a character which is a rapist. There's a sociological term called a 'Master Identity' which is that, regardless of other identities a person may have, this is the one which will override most of them in society's eyes. Now, often this is a bad thing, but when it comes to rapists, that has to be known first and foremost. Theft, murder and assault can be explained away as a need for something else but rape is simply domination in the sickest way possible.

As for the doctor, I can get more on board with that. Honestly, when people are that broken like that they tend to be incredibly cynical and you can have a lot of fun with cynical dickish characters. Get them into lots of dialogue with idealistic characters and just pick holes in it with sarcasm and humour. People just generally like humourous characters.

 

Your could be clever with the rapist.
Start out by writing him as a dick, but a likeable one.
Make him progressively more of a dick as the story goes on, so the reader looses more and more sympathy with him, before dropping the bombshell.

 

I am just going to answer the thread title question. He doesn't know he is a dick. Typically when a character gets things accomplished, and doesn't understand they rub others the wrong way, they get a pass of sorts.

 

Why would you want to send such a mixed message? Hey, my characters are evil but lovable? Nobody likes people who do crap like this. They don't want their families to be involved with them, they don't want to live near them, they don't want to work with them, they'd rather they be locked up and/ or killed. And why should we like them? There's no reason to -- even if they do an occasional good deed who cares it's a washout from their evil deeds, it's too imbalanced -- harvesting marrow for his sick wife -- well, he loves his wife. Actually that doesn't convince me that he does. Willing to do evil for someone shows me they're more scared or death or being alone rather than showing me his love.

I don't know if this is overall fallout from Funny Games, Dexter the series, Hannibal or what but I just don't get this tendency to make evil characters into heros -- they just aren't. Anti hero used to mean like Robin Hood -- stealing to give to the poor --he's pushed by corruption into doing the wrong thing for the greater good. Now it seems to mean ... one man murder sprees or justified psychopaths, or repugnant personalities. I just don't get it.

 

My suggestion is to start with their human side and design them to be good people. Then just add in the fact that they're also lunatics. This really isn't that hard--and if I were you I would ignore all the advice from people about how such and such can't be likable.

 

I'm not seeing the "either/or" here.

My evil human characters are established by the narrative as being humans, and they are established by the narrative as being evil.

Giving villains relatable specifics (caring about specific people) and emphasizing that the whole package is horrifying (not caring about anybody else) seems more effective to me than one or the other.

One of the first scenes in my WIP is my narrator racing through the site of a bombing to find his friend, ignoring everybody else begging for help because he's already looking for someone else. When he finds her unconscious, he grabs two paramedics at gunpoint and forces them to take her to the hospital instead of the guy they'd been previously getting ready to load into an ambulance.

Does the sympathetic part of my narrator (he doesn't want his friend to die) get in the way of everything else about him that's absolutely horrific (his sociopathic disregard for human life outside of his own personal circle of friends)? Or vice versa?

 

I think that the mixture totally works.

And your example adds a nuance to this discussion: I can forgive "disregard" much more than I can forgive causing suffering for the sake of causing suffering. Which is why the rapist scenario that started this thread is, to me, an essentially impossible sell.

 

Fair enough. I just personally don't see a difference between villain protagonists and villain antagonists.

When I read a story about a villain antagonist, I want the villain antagonist to lose because what he wants to do is horrifying, but I also want it to be clear that the villain antagonist has a chance of winning. If the villain antagonist loses, I want it to be in spite of how competent he is, not because of how incompetent he is, and if the villain antagonist wins, then that's a gut-wrenching ending and a terrifying subversion of the standard "good always triumphs over evil" narrative. If the villain antagonist wins in a stand alone story, then that's an even harder hit, and if the villain antagonist wins in one story out of a series, then that cranks up the tension for the next stories in the same series: we've already seen the villain antagonist win once, so why couldn't he win again?

Villain protagonists read (and write, when I'm the one coming up with them) exactly the same way for me.

I'm no more offended by a specific villain (like either of the ones in the OP) being the protagonist than I would be by the same villain being the antagonist because I know for a fact that them being the protagonist does not mean I'm supposed to be on their side.

If I was reading the OP's story, every hideous thing the villains did would make me more invested in reading further to find out whether or not they eventually lose in the way that I hope they do, and every hideous thing they did would make it even more gut-wrenching for me if they win.

Them being the protagonists wouldn't change this for me in the slightest.

 

As someone who is both a dick and is likable; you make them charming. No matter how evil they are, as long as they have a gleam in their eye and can turn anything into a joke then it'll work. Trust me, charisma covers literally every sin.

Edit -

To provide context; I once was at a party with a bunch of girls all of whom I had slept with. I went outside to smoke and when I came back everyone was strangely quiet. I just acted like all was normal. And finally one of them laughed and said "Yeah, but he is very charming."

I have barely stopped smiling as a result of that.

I was happy with being the charming guy.

 

My issue is who do you route for? Is the protagonist the 'villain'? If so what's the point ... to watch him fail? I actually wouldn't think that would be what the bulk audience would be doing. I would assume most would be reveling in their sins. Kindof escapist fiction. I recall the slave pulp of the 70s -- pretty gruesome stuff. Kinda snuff-y where in everyone dies but it's okay because everyone was a bastard. Lol.

My own two mc's aren't sweethearts but their evils are -- lying, creatively stealing, cheating, being abusive. Those are pretty much relatable. And in some way they're anti-heroes one less so than the other. But how can you get a reader to relate to a rapist and a murder? If the book is intentionally dark then aren't these things being wielded as exploitative values rather than objectionable behaviors? I don't know. I don't envy the OP I think you'd need to be a very sophisticated writer to pull off the balancing act of his evil behavior versus his justification or motivation or reasoning. It's not that it can't be done I just don't see why there's no voice of reason (good guy) to create some balance.

 

Exactly!

Wouldn't those same readers read villain antagonist stories the same way?

 

"Who do you root for" isn't a problem, per se. Take Game of Thrones, for instance; after the first season, I just wanted them all to die horribly.

 

You root for the one with charisma.

You can't underestimate how important it is. Look at, well, almost everyone that Jeremy Irons has ever played. That dude has some for real charisma; he can literally play a pedophile and still make you sympathize with him.

You want to know how to make people root for any character? Watch Lolita. That's how you do it, my dude.

 

I don't think that's what I was talking about, but ok.

 

You could write of a benevolent priest who's worked wonders in giving to the poor and helpless, provided food, water, shelter, etc. The moment you tack on "but he murdered an innocent in cold blood" or "raped a young village girl", it completely invalidates the good he had already done. There is no more relateability, likability, or sympathy between that character and I. One act of pure evil will always outweigh any number of good acts, in my mind. If even that kind of character becomes unrelateable, than a bandit who rapes and murders consistently is even farther from likeable, no matter how "funny" he might be.

 

So, if evil is the opposite of good, then if a character performs an act of pure goodness, then they can do all sorts of nasty things and still be a good person?

 

Sounds like an interesting topic of discussion. Shall we take this to the Lounge?

 

I know what pure evil looks like, but I don't know what pure goodness looks like, so until I have seen it, no. I myself have never done an act of pure good or pure evil, but I have done many good things, and many bad things, and for me, the bad things I've done outweigh the good, even though I feel I've done much more good.

 

I'll use one of the OP's characters that he described as an example. Bonesetter kills people and harvests their bone marrow for his dying wife. Is he a good person for trying to heal his dying wife out of pure love, despite the expense of all the lives he's taken to do so?

My own father in real life is dying of pancreatic cancer, and at one point he was receiving treatment at a facility, which had a decent survival rate for patients. However, months after my dad had poured thousands of dollars into his treatments, one of his nurses pulled my aunt aside and told her that the treatments were not even helping him, and might in fact be making his condition worse. So a clinic that reportedly had saved people, was now taking advantage of my dad's condition to make profit, even though it was readily apparent that the treatments were in fact hurting him, and not saving him. So despite the people they HAVE saved, they chose to rip off the dying and their families. Are they still good people even though they saved a few? No, I think not.

 

I actually have a response to this, and think it would be a delightful discussion, though this isn't the place for it I don't think. To that end, if you'd like to start a thread in the debate room, I'd be happy to join - if not, I'll just sit on my hands quietly.

 

I shall. I apologize for muddling the thread a bit, though I was trying to stay within the realm of the topic. You'll see a debate thread shortly.