That's a pretty amazing tip! It happened to me a lot of times. I find myself falling in love with an edgy anti hero...and then they go and do something downright awful, killing the whole thing.
Is your character hurting people who don't 'deserve' it? Or is he hurting the people who hurt him first? I'd say if he's just passing on the misery he suffered to innocent people, he's not going to be as likeable as if he's just 'getting even' with the actual people who gave him grief. However, it might be interesting if, at some point, he realises that getting even with these folk doesn't actually matter. High school fallout is a bad place to get 'stuck.'
Comedy goes a long way, whether it's a rogue tossing out quips and one-liners or a surly grump in a dark comedy who can't get ahead because the world just rains shit on him. If you find the humor in his actions, his circumstances or both, you might have a decent anti-hero on your hands despite never redeeming him. You can't really go the Han or Ash route, because they're both begrudgingly altruistic, so I think you can discount the lovable rogue angle. If you want him to succeed in his machinations, he can't be constantly thwarted by fate in humorous ways. Though it occurs to me that a few well-deserved, major setbacks along the way might present opportunities for comedy. I think that leaves a clever and biting inner monologue counter to his outward persona. For example, he says funny, judgemental things in his head, comparing the person in front of him to ridiculous, over-the-top, insulting things while speaking pleasantly to them. That's not the only way to go with clever, obviously, but I would seriously consider making his thoughts as funny as possible.
I've been thinking about House MD and Jessica Jones. Jessica isn't really an anti-hero, more a grudging hero with a gruff exterior, but there are certain similarities and certain differences in their characters that are very enlightening. Jessica is almost nihilistic until something needs to be done, and if you listen to what she says she seems not to care about much of anything or anyone, but her actions show that she does have empathy, though she's severely damaged and takes refuge in alcoholism. In Greg House's case he really doesn't have empathy for other people, except his patients and their family members. And like with Jessica, this is shown subtly, you have to be paying attention to see it. I think he's able to show empathy only because he has no personal connection to them and sees them as puzzles that he can solve thanks to his amazing intellect and Sherlock-Holmes abilities. Despite the fact that his mantras are "everybody lies" and "everybody does everything for selfish reasons" he does sometimes do amazing things for his patients, fixing their life problems even when that goes entirely against hospital policy and convention (usually because it goes against policy). It's as if he can only show empathy that way, never to people close to him. And of course if somebody points out that he did something helpful for another person that he didn't personally benefit from, he'd bristle and deny it and punish them for a while. He's also charming as hell, even when he's being a complete ass. That might be a lot harder to get across in writing than onscreen with an actor like Hugh Laurie. It's hard to see how, aside from telling the readers how charming he is, or maybe having people around him keep calling him a devilish charmer or something. Both characters are severely damaged and self-destructive, sabotaging all relationships and friendships, they both put on a gruff hard exterior to shield their vulnerability, but his bitterness and self-destruction runs much deeper than hers. She's a hero with a gruff exterior, he's an evil bastard with a charming exterior but often this allows him to cut through the bullshit and do things nicer people wouldn't be able to do for people. He does it usually to prove one of his axioms, but the results are often surprisingly helpful and cathartic. House is super vulnerable deep inside but hides it desperately behind his gruff asshole layer, and because that's so nasty he has to hide it in turn behind an outer persona of charm. So he's sort of like Jessica Jones only far more damaged, to the point that he can't be good except unconsciously or accidentally, and he needs that devilish exterior of charm—the spoonful of sugar that makes the bad medicine go down.
I like it because when Flint dies, you feel bad, even though he is thoroughly unlikeable character with one single saving grace that he saves a kid. When I write antiheros I keep one question in the back of my mind: if I kill this character would my readers mourn their loss. If the answer is no, I failed to write an antihero.
Well, "asshole antihero" isn't the same thing as "unlikable jerk." For example, Deadpool is both an antihero and sort of a huge asshole, and yet he's hilarious and can be oddly likable. Same goes for, say, Captain Jack Sparrow or Loki. ...Actually, now that I think about it, "asshole antihero" could be argued to describe the trickster archetype in general. Make him the sort of guy who'd still be fun to hang around, assuming he considers you a friend. Give him charm. Give him some virtues, or at least standards, even if he's mainly out for himself. Aim for Chaotic Good at best or Chaotic Neutral at worst. Don't have him kick puppies or anything. You still need the readers to want him to win. Have him mostly go after people who deserve it, and always make him the underdog. People do tend to like asshole characters, as long as they can be rooted for.
I'm jumping in without having read the previous responses, so apologies if I'm repeating other advice. One way to do this is by manipulating your POV. I read the works of the internet writer Tucker Max (not linking because he's not a good person) for some time. I found his work pretty entertaining, but it was all first person POV. "I did this," "I did that." "I did her in the [REDACTED: BODILY ORIFICE]..." Like Nabakov's most-cited work, it drew me in because it put me into the MC's mind. However (and I wasn't completely oblivious to this beforehand) when they made a movie version of one of Mr. Max's books, I was forced into the third-person POV and I couldn't avoid knowing what a shallow and odious person the MC was. From the inside, he was a bit of a guilty pleasure, but seeing him from the outside made his character unconscionable. My 2yen.
A couple of factors that can make someone likable are a lot of confidence and a sense of humor. Confidence is an attractive quality unless it's overblown and the person is an arrogant jerk. I mean, it's a big part of why we like so many action heroes, male or female. And humor is the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down. Have him be the person who breaks norms, who says what everybody else wants to say but is too timid or politically correct. I'm still getting all these traits from House.
I'm a HUGE romance reader so a lot of the time MCs start out unlikeable and then morph into likeable characters. This may not be the case with your character, but if it is, it's the little things. Like maybe ONCE he's begrudgingly nice to a person or he is selfless one singular time. But if that's not the case, plenty of heroes and MCs in YA and fantasy novels are super unlikable and that's WHY the audience likes them. Sometimes because they're just so good at being bad it's impossible not to root for them? I don't know if you've read it but Evelyn Hugo by TJR has an extremely unlikable MC. She cheats anyone, she's a jerk and she doesn't care about anyone feelings. But, she acknowledges it so it kind of makes it iconic and she does it for the sake of love, too. But she admits that she's flawed it doesn't try to hide and has a greater ulterior motive in the end. I guess my question is, does this character ever plan to redeem themselves or would they be unlikable throughout the whole novel?
You don't have to make him lovable. I love hin already! I feel like fiction needs more asshole MCs. But most of my MCs are morally grey assholes.
Sometimes that can be intentional, a way for the author to wrong-foot the audience and remind them that this character might be likeable and charismatic, but they're still a nasty piece of work. I remember Matt Wagner steadily upped the nastiness of his "evil Batman" character in Grendel, as a way to push back against the "he's a nice guy deep down" fandom the character was picking up, having him explicitly kill or cripple likeable people who did nothing wrong except investigate his crimes.
Great question and also you need to ask why you want to make the character lovable? For me the general asshole is more realistic than the hero with a single flaw. The asshole is more relatable to you or me in everyday life. He’s more interesting. Deadpool was mentioned in an earlier post which I liked. His breaking of the fourth wall builds empathy, but he’s not fundamentally bad. Take a look at Rick in Rick and Morty for a real asshole. Especially the first two seasons. Grabbing the concept that nothing really matters as its already occurred in infinite ways in infinite timelines kills consequence for an individual’s actions. 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... Give it a go MartinM.
