Here I am, popping up with another question. I'm like that irritating stepson, only turning up when he needs something. My issue is with my MC. He's sexist. He is also prone to having affairs and flings, and not thinking about how the subject of his "affections" will be effected emotionally. My MC also has some sociopathic aspects and uses people like pawns in his game - especially a woman half his age who he has his wicked way with halfway through the end of the book. He does feels pangs of guilt, but he quickly buries these feelings under the weight of his own needs. Don't get me wrong, he does have redeeming features and when he chooses to use his empathy he can be a very nice, and caring guy. Cut a long story short, it does get his comeuppance big time. In fact, he gets it twice. I like to think I've dealt with the subject of sexism and objectification of women well (as well as male writer can), as my MC learns that women are not weak little flowers put on the earth for his enjoyment. He also learns they can punch just as well as men. My question is will publishers and agents accept this? Is it OK to use sexism and outdated attitudes if we're mocking them?
I think it's okay, as long as you emphasise that he is not a hero. Your Mc should be an anti hero at best, if not an outright villain protagonist. If you manage to put the point that the character's sexismo is not a good quality then I think it will be alright
Any main character can be acceptable to a certain variety of readers, so long as they are written well and placed in the correct role. You wouldn't establish a Hitler-esque character in the role of a daycare teacher unless it was for comedic or satirical purposes, and sometimes not even then. Just don't try to appeal to everyone, write your character to the best of your ability, and everything will work out =)
Yeah. While I don't want this thread to get derailed, 'wicked way' can mean anything from 'he lies to her about his intentions regarding marriage to get her to sleep with him (willingly)—to outright rape. Realise that making a distinction here can have a lot of impact on whether your story, and your character's redemption (if that's what's happening) will be acceptable to many people or not. Unless your intention is to make his selfish actions seem coy and kinda cute, I'd be cautious about using euphemisms at all. But yeah. A protagonist who is self-obsessed and selfish is common enough in books, and has been so for a long time. Just, as @Shenanigator says, make sure that YOU, the writer, see the character quite clearly for what he is, and that you don't actually admire his selfishness yourself. Not using euphemisms can help in this regard. If the character uses the euphemisms, fine. But if you, the writer, use them in narrative, it's going to make you look as if you see him as kinda cute yourself. Fine, if you think he is, but be aware of what your tone telegraphs to your readers.
I agree that you should be careful with the tone you use and make it clear you're not amused. I'd also be careful, myself, about the "he can be a very nice and caring guy" aspect of things. A lot of abusers are "nice and caring" until they don't get their way or they have a bad day or are behind closed doors with the victims of their abuse, and I think it's important to recognize that they're not really nice and caring people, not if they aren't that way with the people closest to them. People who are only "nice" when they feel like it aren't nice people, and if you portray your character that way, like, "oh, he's a pretty good guy, he's just, you know, he's got a bit of a problem with women" then you'd lose me as a reader, for sure.
Yes indeed. It's one thing to have a character who is grumpy, doesn't suffer fools gladly, but has a heart of gold, and somebody who abuses people (mentally, financially and/or physically) and is one of life's born 'takers.' It's hard to see the latter having caring-sharing qualities unless there's something in it for him.
Woah, that's a lot of helpful advice. Thanks everyone. To clarify, my MC has sex with the character I mentioned in my OP. It's consensual and enjoyed by both parties, as the result of a flirty will-they-won't-they type thing that's been brewing for quite sometime. It is needed to advance the story. After they have sex, my MC does actually develop real feelings for her and wants to have a proper relationship with this woman...but his past actions backfire badly, leading her to feel taken advantage of (which she has been). He is certainly not an abuser. The subject of sexual or mental abuse is far too serious for the tone of my book and there's no way I'd want to work with an MC like that anyway. My MC is a tactless dick, he's not an abuser. The reason he tends not to think of people's feelings, is it messes him up when he does. This is made very clear to the reader. In fact, what drives much of the story is his conflict of feeding his needs V.S following his moral compass. Again, thank you everyone. I have some good advice to steer me through my next draft now!
Uh, where's the real conflict in your story? If you're turning the MC into some milquetoast version of an abuser what's the point? Your original post said your MC has sociopathic tendencies... sociopaths don't shake off their behavior like a bad haircut. They are, and always will be sociopaths. There is no cure nor do they even have the capacity to feel the better emotions of our nature. You might want to read American Psycho, by Bret Ellis. The story is wonderfully disturbing.
Um, I think 007 is the only acceptable womanizer. I think it all comes down to how you handle it. While most of this type of man preys on the less intelligent and drunkard types, it really makes them look like bastards. Though anyone that bed hops, clearly has emotional and commitment issues. They use sex like food to fill that empty hole inside them. But if he is just an average guy, with a decent childhood and all that. He might just be a prick. Tread carefully.
To clarify, my MC has sex with the character I mentioned in my OP. It's consensual and enjoyed by both parties, as the result of a flirty will-they-won't-they type thing that's been brewing for quite sometime. It is needed to advance the story. After they have sex, my MC does actually develop real feelings for her and wants to have a proper relationship with this woman...but his past actions backfire badly, leading her to feel taken advantage of (which she has been). He is certainly not an abuser. The subject of sexual or mental abuse is far too serious for the tone of my book and there's no way I'd want to work with an MC like that anyway. My MC is a tactless dick, he's not an abuser. The reason he tends not to think of people's feelings, is it messes him up when he does. This is made very clear to the reader. In fact, what drives much of the story is his conflict of feeding his needs V.S following his moral compass. Again, thank you everyone. I have some good advice to steer me through my next draft now![/QUOTE] Alright so he's not really a sociopath, at best a morally torn individual who's afraid of his deeper emotions rather than being incapable of them. Your initial description lead down a different path.
I based my answer solely on the OP initial description as well. Just sleeping with multiple people, IMHO, is not the thing that, in the case of the initial post, makes it not OK. The defining factor, for me, is whether or not those people mutually consented to be one of a group and/or felt used or deceived. That's why, OP, the character's motivations must be clear to the writer so the writer can make it clear to the reader at the appropriate time in the story. Things like...Does the character believe in monogamy as a concept? (Many people don't.)Does everyone of the group know they're one of a bunch? There are also cultural factors in all this. In some cultures, monogamy is just not a big deal. People have different definitions of "womanizer" too. To me, "womanizer" implies someone who doesn't care, who uses deception or deceit to get what he wants. To me, not every guy who has been with or is with a lot of women is a womanizer. I know a guy who has been with many, many women, but he adores women, and they adore him, and everyone who goes out with him knows the deal. He's actually a warm, kind, caring person whose profession requires more travel than being home, and he's blatantly honest about the terms of the deal. He's still good friends with the vast majority of the women he's dated, even the ones who were simultaneous. I applaud his honesty in that. There's no trail of destruction behind him. I would never call him a womanizer, because everyone's consenting to those terms and he's not treating them as objects. Everyone's having fun. Others would have a different definition. What's important is that the writer knows the character's definition and intentions and can express them in the story.
@Partridge: Your question makes me think of "Undead: Punished" by Jackson Lowry. In my opinion the book isn't a great one, but it's a good example of how to deal with a main character who is--by today's standards--kind of a dick. In the case of Vincent Bayonne, that's putting it lightly. Bayonne is a Southern plantation owner whose family was killed when the Union liberated Bayonne's slaves. One slave in particular murdered his family, so Bayonne has traveled to find the man and kill him. Even though his revenge might be justified, the racism Bayonne adheres to is not. He ends up in California (San Francisco, I believe) where several Asian immigrants (they're all Chinese to Bayonne) have settled. We follow Bayonne as he cheats, steals, gets violently drunk, beats or shoots several people in racially motivated crimes, and gets away with it...until he finds his former slave, who curses him to be undead. When he becomes an outcast to mainstream society, he has to rely upon the "Chinese" and African-Americans he has previously looked down upon. The story isn't told magnificently well, but it's an ongoing series in which Bayonne's attitudes begin to change at a realistic pace. He's a Confederate sympathizer, but he made a deal with a medicine man, and he'll see it through as best he can, even when it means trying to rescue the medicine man's relatives. He's got selfish reasons to do so, but we see the beginning of change in him. I haven't read the rest of the series to see how he progresses, but for a day-by-day walk through a few weeks of his life, "Punished" shows that change realistically. There are a few "unforgivable" attitudes I don't see publishers putting up with. I probably don't need to mention the specific kinds of minds people absolutely don't want to hang around in, no matter how redeemed the character will be. Misogyny, while reprehensible, is tolerable if we see it fading from the character's life, or see them miserable for it. Someone once told me it's fine if your characters have a bad mindset, so long as you as the author separate yourself from it. As long as you write in a way that keeps you as the author away from sympathizing with misogyny, you should be fine, if you also develop the character and don't go overboard with driving home his misogyny. One thing I absolutely despise about "G.I. Jane" is that all the men in the movie are such over-the-top misogynists. There aren't any men who are even close to moderate or subdued in their derision. It's entirely unrealistic. Demi Moore even met with real SEALs, and said they were courteous and respectful. As long as you don't beat a dead horse by making the character a stereotype, I think you'll be fine.
Sexist MC's are nothing new in literature (see: every Bret Easton Ellis novel ever), so with your main question, whether or not publishers/agents would be fine with it, I think it would be totally acceptable. I don't even think having your MC needing to see his actions as deplorable and having a moral awakening is necessary. Plenty of morally grey characters trip down ever blacker paths, and don't ever become the wiser for it (not a book but Walter White is a great example). So yeah, to sum up, I think it's okay to portray characters with sexist and outdated viewpoints if we're mocking them, or even if we're not.
Thanks again, people. I've read and taken it all in I think it's possible that I'm being a bit unkind to my MC. I think emotionally immature is probably a better way to describe his outlook, rather than misogynistic. For whats it's worth, I believe there is a sliding scale of sociopath tendencies. I mean, a lot of us have been in a position where we've seen how we could use somebody as a pawn in our game or something to have a "use" in our lives. But you don't have to be a full blown sociopath to see things that way. That's my take on it. American Psycho has been added to my reading list as well...
The whole "it's ok if we're mocking them" path has been my rationale so far. You can get away with anything that way. Even the Nazis are fair game.
I've been thinking of writing something along these lines.... I don't think there would be a snowball's chance in hell of it ever getting published these days. Publishers want, puppies, kittens, and "don't expect me to think" type stories.
There's always self pub. The MC of my WW2 (and later saga), Flt Officer Lucky Lawson is a complete and total bastard to women (not in the violent abusive sense but he doesn't do fidelity ). But his behaviour is partly excusable by the pressure hes under, if you're living day to day and watching your friends die, sleeping with everything in a skirt becomes much more normal, along with gambling, cheating at cards, and drinking too much (Guy Gibson VC - of Dambusters fame - was supposed to be in that mold, he reputedly cuckolded many of his officers and shagged his way through the WAAF/ATC contingent at Scampton, despite being married to a show girl )
Without derailing the original purpose of the thread, personally I prefer stories where the narrator or author doesn't lace the tone with heavy judgement of their characters. It is the author's job to be impartial to our characters I think, no matter how morally reprehensible. The reader makes their own deductions evident from the characters' actions, leading to "okay, this is a decent human being" or "wow, this guy is a walking trashbag", without it being necessary for the author to do so as well. Actions speak louder than words. Men who view women as objects is nothing new in literature, from the Greek classics to 50 Shades of Grey. Your character wouldn't be the first, and definitely not the last.
As a side note, the thread seems to be assuming that a woman wouldn't be interested in casual sex, so a man who has many casual encounters is always a bad guy. I'd say that if he's clear from the beginning, he's not a bad guy. I may disapprove of him, but that's different. Edited to add: ok, I missed @Shenanigator 's post, which makes the point just dandy.
