So I'm writing a novel set in Victorian England based on a man who is the patriarch of a upper class family. Without giving much away he is ruthlessly ambitious and kills people off who his father was formerly in a legal agreement with so he can get his share of what is in this agreement . The book is based around this Character doing these things and mixed in with mild legal drama and power struggles ( think House of cards but more 19th century and not as much politics). Anyway the reason I'm making this post is because I'm worried (since this is my main character and protagonist) how the story will be accepted by readers. I mean Kevin Spaceys character in house of cards is liked by a lot of people and so was ian Richardson's character in the UK version of house of cards. Both of these have evil people as the main character and people liked it. Would you read a book like this? Would you be willing to even buy the book? Would such a character be appealing to you from a character flaw standpoint? Thanks
For me, I wouldn't mind reading it. And while I certainly can't guarantee you that everyone will like the character (and chances are, he will not appeal to everyone) but the thing I've noticed about characters, regardless of how bad or cold they are, is that, for most people, they can be redeemed as long as they don't commit the following three: rape, harm children/elderly people, or harm animals. Again, this does not count for everyone, but it seems for most people, as long as they don't commit those three sins, your character can be any limit of bad as long as you give him redeemable and likeable qualities. Personally, willing to read any kind of character no matter how detestable, depending upon what the writer is trying to do with it. Some stories the author doesn't intend for you to root for the character, but instead wants to take you through their psychology, in which case, I'd say a detestable character is fine. In your case, it sounds like you are trying to create a character for us to root for, and from what I read here, he doesn't sound irredeemable or detestable depending upon what you do with him, so I'd be willing to give him a shot.
I have some experience with creating anti-heroes and one tool I have found that really helps me make the audience relate to them is humor. If you can make the reader laugh while they read them you can get them through anything they do no matter how heinous. Another strategy that most authors use to make any protagonist relatable is the undeserved misfortune strategy. Making something bad happen to him before he commits any on camera violence, especially if the event that happens to him is worse than anything he does to other characters. I used both strategies while crafting Lacerto, the protagonist in my first published novel. Please take into account your story and don't change anything major due to this advice. I would like to read your book, and I look forward to seeing how you pull it off!
You will need the audience to empahize with the character. You gain empathy by the reader understanding why the character is doing what they are doing. They don't have to agree with it, but they do need to be a little ok with it; it needs to make sense to the reader. I haven't watched either, but would guess the characters have redeeming qualities (as their positions are viewed by outsiders). TV shows hit when they provide something for the masses at that time (provides what people want when they don't know they want it).
Well...multiple murders goes a little beyond a 'flaw'. I'm not saying that the character couldn't be made engaging, but...
A really good example of a likeable killer is Bates Motel, a series which is a prequel to the movie Psycho. The Norman Bates character in this is definitely one you feel for. He is likeable in a way, and even though you know what he is doing (and if you have seen Psycho, you know how it eventually ends), you're still rooting for him because you want him to be ok.
Thinking again about this, the reason why viewers sympathise with Norman Bates is because he has a kind of innocence and naïvety. He is also unaware of what he is doing. I think that somebody who is killing due to being greedy and "ruthlessly ambitious" would be much more difficult to sympathise with. Perhaps look at characters such as Hannibal Lecter - people "love to hate" these characters, though the line between protagonist and antagonist is fine in some of these examples.
Kevin Spacey's character communicates directly with the audience. That helps because we are directly engaged with him whether we like him or not. I'm not sure what his likable characteristics are honestly. He is clever, articulate and charming. He has weaknesses. Maybe that's what gives us empathy. He overcame difficulties in his past, which makes him a sort of hero. Perhaps he took the dark path because it was his strongest option for overcoming something, like he had no choice and he knows its wrong but for him its a survival. He can't really stop now, he's in too deep. That would escalate or maintain our empathy, if we don't want your character to get caught, we want him to succeed, because we have done bad things too for what felt like self preservation and justifiable. Hopefully not murder! but that's the metaphor. I think I'm rambling
I would say, though, that the two are quite different. Kevin Spacey is somewhat likable; you can forget that he's a bad guy. You never forget that Ian Richardson's version was a bad guy, and I don't remember ever being even a little bit on his side.
What you could do is make someone even more vile than he is. Then as the MC, he is not the most disgusting or reviled. It's a matter of degrees when considering who is 'evil' and who is 'good.' Think of John Wick. The guys a hired killer, but we root for him because he's not as bad as the other baddies.
