# Does a hero or heroine of a book need to be likable?



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

What is your take on this subject? Do you have to like the main character of a book in order to like the book?
And what makes a character likable? Can a character be edgy or snarky and still be likable?

HP Mallory
Urban Fantasy and Paranormal Romance Author
To Kill A Warlock
Fire Burn and Cauldron Bubble


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

"Likable" isn't necessarily "good."

I can like someone in a book who I would hate in real life.


----------



## izzy (Jun 12, 2010)

I think that its more important to show a character growing throughout a book than to have them be likable. I think any personality trait can be likable its just on how you pull it off with the story. If done right any character is likable.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

I think 'likable' falls as a secondary requirement for me. I first and foremost want a main character to be 'interesting.' Now if a main character is a jerk, that's fine, long as other people are at least somewhat aware that he's just that, a jerk. The most annoying for me is when a main character is whiny, annoying, self-centered, and for the most part, a complete idiot, yet everyone else thinks the world of them.

David Dalglish


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

A "hero" needs to be heroic [insert your definition here...].

A main character can be as annoying as all heck, as long as that suits the book. They don't need to be likeable or sympathetic, but should have some redeeming features or you may alienate all your readers.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I tend to gravitate toward books with likable characters.  But that doesn't mean I don't like books like "A Christmas Carol", where the MC is terrible, but redeems himself in the end.

Vicki


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

The first character that came to mind when I saw this thread was Michael Connelly's Harry Bosch series... I have yet to enjoy any of the books, and I'm on my third one so far. I just don't enjoy the character at all and find him annoying to read about. He's... depressing!

This also proves that opinions are like... oh wait, this is a family board. Obviously, Michael Connelly is quite a successful author, so apparently everyone doesn't feel as I do.


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I think 'likable' falls as a secondary requirement for me. I first and foremost want a main character to be 'interesting.' Now if a main character is a jerk, that's fine, long as other people are at least somewhat aware that he's just that, a jerk. The most annoying for me is when a main character is whiny, annoying, self-centered, and for the most part, a complete idiot, yet everyone else thinks the world of them.
> 
> David Dalglish


I'm with David. I think getting inside the head of different types of people is one of the best things about fiction, even if they're people you would avoid in reality. Think LOLITA or IN COLD BLOOD. And some characters that other people couldn't stand (Scarlett O'Hara gets lots of bad press) I actually liked a lot. I do get tired of icky characters whom everyone else in the book loves, as well as _likeable _characters getting told by every other character how wondrous they are. (To risk the wrath of others, I'll confess it made me want to THROW UP how many times someone in the film version of ANNE OF GREEN GABLES said, "Anne, you're so wonderful!" And I'm an Anne fan!)


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

911Jason,

If you didn't like the first two, why are you reading the third? And if you clearly aren't enjoying the third, why continue? Life is too short to read books you clearly aren't reading. Find something good, man!

David Dalglish


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

A character has to have some redeeming quality, or develop one, for me to be able to stay in his/her head for an entire book. And yes, snarky characters can be likable, but that trait can be easily overdone. (e.g. Dr. House)
L.J.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Stephen Donaldson's characters -- I'm thinking mostly of Thomas Covenant here, but I've noticed it in other books of his as well -- are really pretty hateful to start out.  After a while they become merely despicable, then just supremely irritating, and finally grudgingly acceptable.  They never really become likeable.  BUT, the writing is such that you just keep reading 'cause you just keep hoping.  It takes TC 6 books to get to the grudgingly acceptable stage. . . and even though you can't stand the guy there's something that makes you root for him. . . .I guess it's all the really good people around him.  I don't think SD was as successful with this in his other series. . .they didn't produce the same "gotta read the next one" itch. . . . .


----------



## Aravis60 (Feb 18, 2009)

I find that if I don't like the main character of a book, then the book is a slog for me, no matter how well written it is. I can't think of any exceptions. The character doesn't have to be a paragon or anything, but there has to be some reason that I want to spend time with him or her. Most of my family and many of my friends can be snarky or sarcastic at times, but I love them anyway. The same thing goes for characters.


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> 911Jason,
> 
> If you didn't like the first two, why are you reading the third? And if you clearly aren't enjoying the third, why continue? Life is too short to read books you clearly aren't reading. Find something good, man!
> 
> David Dalglish


Ha! Good question David, and valid... I didn't finish book 2 and have only just started reading the 3rd book on my iPod Touch when my Kindle isn't within easy reach. There have been a few discussions here about the Bosch series and so many people like them and have told me that they get better, I just keep wanting to give the series another try. Plus, I bought the first six books before reading any of them since they were sold in two 3-packs at bargain prices. Then there's the fact that it's an LAPD series and since I work there, I have an added interest.

Believe me though, it's only a sideline to my reading agenda, definitely not the main subject of my interest at this point.


----------



## HP Mallory (Jul 7, 2010)

Thanks for all the posts! Interesting to read...


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I don't think it's necessary at all. This year I read _Of Human Bondage_. Philip Carey was not terribly likeable, but it was a fabulous novel nevertheless.


----------



## Lori Brighton (Jul 10, 2010)

In my genre (romance) it seems that it's more important for the heroine to be likable than the male. Men/heroes can get away with much more. Would be interesting to do a study on that throughout genres.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I need to _care_ about the main character (and preferably all the important secondary characters, too -- and the best authors make me care about even the tertiary characters). By "care" I think I mean that I have a desire to find out what is going to happen to them. If I _like_ a character, that probably will make it easier to care for him or her, but it is not a prerequisite for caring. I cared about Elric of Melnibone, but he certainly was not likable, being arrogant and downright evil at times.

If a main character is not likable, I think I need some good reasons supplied to understand _why_ he is the way he is, not simply have him be a jerk for the sake of causing conflict in order to build the plot. Also, I think the most satisfying books with anti-heroes or otherwise unlikable characters have those characters -- at least to some degree -- work to overcome whatever it is that makes them unlikable and thereby at least show signs that they are not irredeemably bad (see Elric, again, or Thomas Convenant).


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2010)

I think most of the answers here coincide with mine. Having a likable villain is definitely an art form, and it may be even more difficult to have a villainous hero that people respond to. 

With either, it's necessary to have something human in the character's DNA that people can respond to. Even if the hero or heroine is a rampaging psychomaniac, it's important to have them show some affection for a pet dog or something so people can get a more 3-dimensional image.

Great topic!


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

I agree with you Nog Dog. "Likeable" is subjective. I'm looking more for relatable. A character whose actions I may not agree with, but whose motivations I understand.

One of the agents over at Dystel and Goderich (I am repped, but not by them so I'm not pimping my agent!) just had a post about this. Here's the link: http://dglm.blogspot.com/2010/07/unsympathetic-protagonist.html


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

Beth O said:


> I agree with you Nog Dog. "Likeable" is subjective. I'm looking more for relatable. A character whose actions I may not agree with, but whose motivations I understand.
> 
> One of the agents over at Dystel and Goderich (I am repped, but not by them so I'm not pimping my agent!) just had a post about this. Here's the link: http://dglm.blogspot.com/2010/07/unsympathetic-protagonist.html


Hi, Beth. (Love your book cover!)
From my understanding, most agents are so hard to get that one actually being pimped would be really exciting. Ha ha.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Not "likeable" but certainly, a main character needs to be someone I can empathize with in some way. I need to relate to them somehow. They can be male or female, likeable in the traditional sense or not, but I need to somehow have a connection with them or their problem or their quest or their need or whatever motivates them.

Tim Dorsey has a series of novels about Serge Storms, a psychopath and serial killer. Serge is insane and dangerous, but his victims are always people you hate even worse: the guy at the HMO who denies the claim of a person with leukemia, or a greedy land developer, etc. 

Which reminds me of Raymond Chandler's advice about "the detective": He should be the best man in his world, and a good enough man for any world.

Okay, Serge Storms doesn't meet Chandler's criteria, but Tim Dorsey is not Raymond Chandler, either (but then, who is?).


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

The protagonist doesn't need to be likable but he/she does need to be interesting. I just finished reading *Heart-Shaped Box* by Joe Hill and at the start of the novel (and for some time after) I thought the main character was a major jerk - but I was so sucked into his dilemma that I kept reading until he later redeemed himself.

I have to agree completely with Jan regarding secondary characters - I need to be interested in them as well. Too often when I read, the minor characters are just archetypes or simply half-formed sketches. They don't need to be as highly developed as the central characters, but they need to feel like real people.


----------



## lowspark (Apr 18, 2010)

I dont know that "likable" comes into play for me really. Like with the Chelsea Cain series Heartsick. Gretchen is the evil psychopath and constant tormentor of Archie the "hero" of the series. Now I am not sure Archie is really likable, I can relate to him though on some level and that might be more important. Everything that Gretchen did to him with the torture, i mean she is pure evil, which is the idea of the books. I find myself rooting for her though which makes me empathize with Archie even more. I can see why she has a hold on him. He can rationalize it to himself all he wants but I guess thats what the author wants to get the reader to do. Root for the bad guy (girl) and empathize with the "hero". That says a whole lot about me that I dont even want to think about,  that the evil psychopath turns me on. To answer the question posed though, I would say no for me the hero does not have to be likable.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

The older I get the more my answer is yes. There has to be some character in the book that I like enough to want to spend time with. There are several series I reread every few years, and that's the reason I do it - revisiting old friends.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I just finished "The Meaning of Night" by Michael Cox.  In the opening sentence of the novel the narrator tells us that after killing a complete stranger he went out to grab some dinner.  So likable isn't necessarily the point of it all.  They just have to be interesting enough to keep reading about them.  (It so happens that the narrator of "The Meaning of Night" turns out to be both likable and sympathetic.  In spite of the fact that he murders an innocent man.  Go figure!)


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

As a few other people have pointed out, interesting trumps likable. Thomas Covenant and Humbert Humbert are two examples of wholly dislikable but thoroughly intriguing characters. Another good example is James Earl Ray from Hellhound on His Trail. The assassin of Martin Luther King is not what anybody would call a nice or good guy, but readers want to know more about him, what he did, what he thought, and how he made his way through the world after escaping from prison.


----------



## bluefrog (Apr 6, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> The most annoying for me is when a main character is whiny, annoying, self-centered, and for the most part, a complete idiot, yet everyone else thinks the world of them.


Bella? Is that you?


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

bluefrog said:


> Bella? Is that you?


Funny, I've heard others say she came across this way, but I didn't get that impression from the book. I guess it just goes to show how much of a book is in our head, instead of what's on the paper.

Vicki


----------



## bluefrog (Apr 6, 2010)

My daughter and I both spent most of book two wanting to shake some sense into her...


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

bluefrog said:


> My daughter and I both spent most of book two wanting to shake some sense into her...


That's how I felt about book 2 in "The Hollows" series by Kim Harrison: the main character kept doing stupidly risky things regardless of the fact that each time someone or another would give her good advice as to why not to do it. It's one of the main reasons I have not gone onto book 3, along with a few other reasons of varying impact.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

I prefer fascinating characters -- Dexter, Hannibal Lecter, John Rain, Jessica Trent, Kate Daniels, Ian Mackenzie, etc.  Likable but bland characters bore me.  (And TSTL characters are never likable as far as I'm concerned...)


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

Very interesting question - I'm inclined to say from personal preference, that a hero/heroine needs to be likeable OR move from not so likeable to VERY likeable through their actions (character arc).  My guess is (and I'll have to go survey this later) that if you look at bestsellers -- those books that are revered by the masses -- that those heroes are entirely likeable/loveable.  People you want to see win.  The Help comes to mind right off the top of my head.


----------



## austenfiend (Nov 17, 2009)

ellenoc - I agree with what you said.  I find that as I get older I don't want to waste my time reading about people that I would hate in real life.  Granted, since I read mostly romance novels, this is applicable (as opposed to reading non-fiction about sociopaths, murderers, etc. where you wouldn't expect to like the main character) - I recently started a book where the heroine was a complete witch from the get-go.  Mean to everyone, snarly, snarky, etc.  I made it about halfway through the book and finally gave up, deciding that a man that actually fell in love with her couldn't be too bright, so why waste my time?!?!?!


----------



## Tracy Falbe (Jul 4, 2010)

I agree that even a detestable protagonist can be captivating. A reader can certainly find value in exploring darker aspects of humanity. Personally I lean toward the likable hero or heroine. Flaws are important, but I like them deep down to have some moral compass. Situations can certainly challenge morality, but I want them to try to do what is right even if they want to be bad. For me villains are the fun place to explore being likeably bad. I especially like it when a book makes me start to like a character I had previously found reprehensible. My favorite example is Jaime Lannister from the Song of Ice and Fire series. I really grew sympathetic toward him as I progressed through the novels. He wasn't exactly becoming a better person, but his life was hardly a picnic either.


----------



## Davidjb (May 3, 2010)

As othere have noted, not all characters have to be likeable to be enjoyable, we also like to hate some characters. Ian Irving creates some good characters in the Well of Echoes series. Some of these characters are really good but detestable


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

austenfiend said:


> ellenoc - I agree with what you said. I find that as I get older I don't want to waste my time reading about people that I would hate in real life.


Yes. For me reading is spending time in the company of the characters, and I don't want to spend time with stupid, evil, etc. Dick Francis (my favorite author) in one of his books has someone speculating on good vs. evil and his take on it is that evil is what is banal. Goodness is what is difficult and therefore genuinely good people are more interesting. I don't know if decent people are more interesting, but they're sure easier to spend time with and to root for.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

_Pretty sure someone else mentioned this, but I need to identify with one or more of the main characters in some way in order to get through the book. Does the hero or heroine need to be "likable", well, to me yes. He or she could probably still do annoying or detestable things but as long as we share a similar world-view I'd probably be willing to stick with him or her until the end of the novel.

Dawn _


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

I think the main character of a book doesn't have to be likeable, as long as there is someone in the book who is. If I don't like a single character in a book my interest wanes very fast. _Something Borrowed _ is a perfect example for me. Not one likable character in it. I finished it because I had to for my book club, but believe me, three chapters in I wanted to put it down and never pick it back up again.


----------



## graykane (Jul 11, 2010)

As everyone else is pointing out here, "likable" is a tricky term. But there's something to it, so perhaps we don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Maybe there's a more precise term we can choose. Doesn't a character have to be at least somewhat "identifiable"? Isn't there some aspect we relate to, even in a cartoonish character? (That is, if we like reading about the character enough to keep reading about him or her.) The character's social struggle, familial circumstance, internal dilemma, plot-driving flaws, attitude, ... something? And when I say "relate to," I don't necessarily mean that we the reader really possess this trait so much as we either would like to possess it or are ashamed to admit we possess it.

Alcoholics love _Leaving Las Vegas_ or Malcolm Lowry's _Under the Volcano_ more than sober people do. Sober people usually find the main characters pathetic.

Gray


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2010)

There is a difference between being "likeable" and being "engaging." I don't need to personally like a character, but I do need to find the character interesting enough to want to follow the story. I don't think any of the characters in _Fight Club_ are "likeable" in any real sense, but they are incredibly interesting and engaging.


----------



## Maker (Jun 22, 2010)

I think yes for the most part. For women's fiction I think it's more important that the main character be likeable. Women can be very judgmental. Ha ha. Okay, generally speaking.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

NogDog said:


> That's how I felt about book 2 in "The Hollows" series by Kim Harrison: the main character kept doing stupidly risky things regardless of the fact that each time someone or another would give her good advice as to why not to do it. It's one of the main reasons I have not gone onto book 3, along with a few other reasons of varying impact.


I kind of felt that way about book one. Didn't really quite understand the motivation behind some of the actions.

Okay, to answer the question, yes. Oh, I"ve read books in the past and it didn't matter so much, but these days? Yes. They don't have to be completely "nice guys" or perfect (and I prefer them flawed) but they have to have some good, likable characters. If I want angry, weird, distorted or annoying, I can go stand in line at the grocery store...


----------



## cherylktardif (Apr 21, 2010)

I think it's important to like the hero/heroine of a novel. You need to care about what happens to them in the end, otherwise you feel ripped off. However, that doesn't mean the character must ALWAYS be likeable. In fact, it's interesting to come across a character you may not like at first. He or she may be too weak, too strong, too mean, too nice...etc.

What I do want as a reader is to be shown the character's growth along the way. I want to know his or her quirks,flaws, weaknesses, strengths, innermost desires...these are what makes a character "real" to me. But I have to care about the character, otherwise I won't bother finishing the book. Why should I?


----------



## CDChristian (Jun 4, 2010)

izzy said:


> I think that its more important to show a character growing throughout a book than to have them be likable. I think any personality trait can be likable its just on how you pull it off with the story. If done right any character is likable.


I'm with Izzy. I don't necessarily want to read books with likable characters but I want to understand them. I'm of the opinion, "The more flaws the better!" but if there's no growth or understanding of why the character is, then it doesn't work for me.


----------



## vikingwarrior22 (May 25, 2009)

CDChristian said:


> I'm with Izzy. I don't necessarily want to read books with likable characters but I want to understand them. I'm of the opinion, "The more flaws the better!" but if there's no growth or understanding of why the character is, then it doesn't work for me.


what you said above


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2010)

Here another answer:

YES. Readers must like the main character, but that doesn't mean the main character has to be good, nice, or friendly. I often find myself enjoying bad characters or dumb characters or anything in between.


----------



## lnealreilly (Jul 9, 2010)

I think it depends on whether you use the term "hero" or "heroine" versus the terms "protagonist" or "main character." "Hero" and "heroine" have a positive connotation implying "likability" and make me think of adventure or romance stories. However, I think a better word for a "protagonist" or "main character" is "compelling." If a character compels me in some way, whether from horrified fascination or irritation or even puzzlement, that can be as satisfying a reading experience, maybe even moreso, than reading about someone who's "likable."

I read _Othello_ recently and Iago is one unlikable sociopath, but boy is he compelling. Probably one of the most compelling villains in all literature. The narrator of Junot Diaz's _The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao_ isn't very likable to me (in fact, I found him rather repellent), but his voice is so unique and the story filled with so much strange and disturbing modern history that I had no trouble finishing the book even when I didn't like him or even it. Liking just didn't seem to be the point or necessary for that book. Mr. Darcy in _Pride and Prejudice_ is rather a jerk for much of the book. Yes, he grows, but we don't see his growth as much as we see Elizabeth's, so it's hard for me to say that he needed to be likable. In fact, that seems to be a big part of the book: learning to like Darcy along with Elizabeth, who has to grow quite a bit through the book.


----------



## CDChristian (Jun 4, 2010)

vikingwarrior22 said:


> what you said above


First Lestat on another thread and now this. We're kindred. 



lnealreilly said:


> I think it depends on whether you use the term "hero" or "heroine" versus the terms "protagonist" or "main character." "Hero" and "heroine" have a positive connotation implying "likability" and make me think of adventure or romance stories. However, I think a better word for a "protagonist" or "main character" is "compelling." If a character compels me in some way, whether from horrified fascination or irritation or even puzzlement, that can be as satisfying a reading experience, maybe even moreso, than reading about someone who's "likable."


I like this breakdown. I know I'm so used to hero/heroine being used to describe "protagonist" that it often causes me to have to clarify in my writing, "Where the hero is a villain..." I don't have anything against fiction with likable characters but if my writing were to inspire "horrified fascination" I'd consider it a bigger score.


----------



## lnealreilly (Jul 9, 2010)

CDChristian said:


> First Lestat on another thread and now this. We're kindred.
> 
> I like this breakdown. I know I'm so used to hero/heroine being used to describe "protagonist" that it often causes me to have to clarify in my writing, "Where the hero is a villain..." I don't have anything against fiction with likable characters but if my writing were to inspire "horrified fascination" I'd consider it a bigger score.


A couple of characters come to mind when I try to recall feelings of horrified fascination. First, I thought of the narrator in Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart." Come to think of it, the narrator in his "Cask of Amontillado" filled me with horrified fascination too, but that's because I figured out before he did that he was going to be murdered. Same with the grandmother and the killer in Flannery O'Conner's "A Good Man is Hard to Find." First the grandmother annoyed me no end, but then when I realized (before she did) that her mouth was going to get her and her family killed, well I couldn't look away. Then there's the MC in Dostoevsky's _Crime and Punishment_. He's literally (temporarily) insane. I couldn't like him at all, yet I couldn't stop reading his overheated viewpoint and when he murders the old woman out of grandiose visions of greatness (after all, great men can murder with impunity), I was both fascinated and horror-stricken.

I'm sure I could think of more if I took the time, but these were the characters that popped into my mind right away.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

First common "fascinating bad guy" that popped into my head was Hannibal Lector. He's insane, murders people, and eats them, but he's just so darn charming.

David Dalglish


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2010)

Thomas Covenant, the protagonist of Stephen Donaldson's sprawling epic, is a despicable, whinging, narcisissistic rapist, but the books worked well nevertheless. I think it's the exception rather than the rule though. Evil characters - such as lector - can charm the pants off of us (just look at Mephistopheles in Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus"), but as protagonists they can (not always) alienate the reader.


----------



## Double Booked (Jul 14, 2010)

I think you can like cads as characters as long as you can also laugh at them. Check out the Preacher in The Prisoner's Tale (by Richard Spanswick) - a crazy, irreverent bastard who is, well, maybe not likeable but entertaining.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Yes and no. I agree that the character might not be someone that you're willing to be best friends with, but s/he should have some redeeming or endearing qualities. We need to have something that we can identify with, even if it's the snide commentary that we would never allow ourselves to say in public. With that said, there are acceptable and unacceptable character flaws....If a heroine is sufficiently whiny, for instance, I put the book down. Period. It's like the coworkers you disagree with but can acknowledge to be interesting or good (or so evil it's comic) people, but there's that one person who makes you want to put your head through the water cooler.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2010)

The problem with "bad-guy" protagonists is one of identification. It's the same problem with fantastic protagonists that Chesterton used to grumble about. He was a big proponent of the ordinary person entering the world of faery and would therefore have approved of Narnia and Thomas Covenant. Tolkien would heartily disagree -- although his Hobbits are really middle-class English chaps.


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

No, the character doesn't have to be likeable.  

Is Hanibal Lector likeable? No.  

Is he unforgettable? Yes.

Gabriela


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

But is Hanibal Lechter the viewpoint character in the books?

I've only seen the movies, which scared me, so I won't read the books.  But my husband loves them.

It's great to have awful, horrible characters in your books (James Patterson, anyone?) But as a reader, I don't want to spend a whole lotta time in that character's head.  It's just too disturbing (in the case of the serial killers, etc.) and too annoying in the case of the rest of them.


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Beth O said:


> But is Hanibal Lechter the viewpoint character in the books?
> 
> I've only seen the movies, which scared me, so I won't read the books. But my husband loves them.
> 
> It's great to have awful, horrible characters in your books (James Patterson, anyone?) But as a reader, I don't want to spend a whole lotta time in that character's head. It's just too disturbing (in the case of the serial killers, etc.) and too annoying in the case of the rest of them.


If I remember correctly, Hannibal was only the main "point of view" character in Hannibal Rising, which was honestly my favorite book in the series. It tells the tale of how he became the monster, what shaped him... very good story and very well-written. Actually made him somewhat sympathetic.


----------



## Dellaster (Jun 18, 2010)

_Generally_ speaking, I agree that the hero(ine) doesn't need to be likable if there's something about him or her that makes the reader care what happens to them. As in the Mark Twain quote:



> The test of any good fiction is that you should care something for the characters; the good to succeed, the bad to fail. The trouble with most fiction is that you want them all to land in hell, together, as quickly as possible.


_Personally_ speaking, these days _I don't care_ about a hero(ine) unless I find them likable. Perhaps it's age and the realization that there's no way I'll ever read all the great stories that have protagonists I like and care about. The ever-expanding availability of new and old titles in ebook form means I can cherry-pick the kinds of stories I enjoy the most. I'm no longer limited to what's on the shelf in the bookstore or library.

Ted


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

Been ages since I read Stephen Donaldson's books, but somewhere under all that pain and self-loathing I kind of felt sympathy for Covenant and I seem to remember that he did struggle with his guilt - so maybe that's why it worked? 

I love an interesting anti-hero, like Bernard Cornwell's Uhtred from the Saxon Tales.  He's impulsive, easily angered, vengeful and arrogant.  But he's also loyal and recklessly courageous.  And he is growing as the series progresses.  Characters like that have room for growth.  They're flawed, but you can see them getting tugged toward goodness.

Gemi


----------



## R. H. Greene (Jul 15, 2010)

This is a really excellent topic for discussion, and one I have to grapple with a lot because I'm also a screenwriter. Here's what I would say to the question of "must a character be likable:"

From a dramatic perspective and in terms of a satisfying story, of course not. Look no further than Shakespeare's RICHARD III--his first runaway hit as a playwright (or so it is believed), about a conscienceless murderer who is fascinating. But likable would be a stretch.

When I decided to write a novel in the form of Dracula's memoirs, I had to face this issue full on. A prominent trend in vampire fiction has been to make the undead protagonists into misunderstood misfits with a lot of pain and longing and frustrated kindness in their hearts. As near as I can tell from the TWILIGHT phenomenon, the target audience responds to Edward Cullen the way their grandmothers did to James Dean.

But Dracula is--well, Dracula. I wanted to make him a lot more fully fleshed out as a character than Stoker chose to (I think Stoker wisely decided that he was more terrifying as a force of evil than he would have been as a Richard III type villain at the center of the work) but it would be a betrayal of a legacy I'm quite fond of to ignore my protagonist's essential trait, which is that he can be unthinkingly cold blooded and murderous when he feels such behavior is called for.

I decided the most interesting dramatic arc, and the one that suited my own internal needs, would be to tell the story of a fall toward callousness--an incremental and totally understandable hardening of the heart that takes place over many years, after loves, both erotic and platonic, are lived through and lost. To me, the result is in the spirit of tragedy.

You get to do stuff like that in a book, thankfully. Movies (especially American ones) are terrified of these sorts of concepts. So if you go there (and I like to), know that most of the money people will turn their backs on you. You need them to make a movie. For a book, all you need is you.

I would also add that if you want to move in the direction of an unlikable character, you may want to think ahead of time about the genre you're going to work in (if genre is something you do). Tony Montana in SCARFACE isn't a conventional "hero," but gangster films let you wallow in decadence, betrayal and punishment, because they respond to our fear of how the world may work rather than our hope for how things will be.

Because I gravitate toward darker characters, horror is also a suitable genre for me.

PS--I'm a Mac user, and there appears to be no way for me to drop a URL image of my book into my posts like you PC people can, so here's a link to the Kindle edition for those who may be interested:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003UN7WNW/?tag=eb_ff-20


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

I think it's easier to watch an unlikeable character in a movie because you're not in that character's head with the same degree of intimacy as you are in a book.  For me at least, if I'm in the character's head, I need to find something redeemable about them, or at least something that sort of explains (and makes me sympathize with) their reasons for being despicable.


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Beth O said:


> But is Hanibal Lechter the viewpoint character in the books?
> 
> I've only seen the movies, which scared me, so I won't read the books. But my husband loves them.
> 
> It's great to have awful, horrible characters in your books (James Patterson, anyone?) But as a reader, I don't want to spend a whole lotta time in that character's head. It's just too disturbing (in the case of the serial killers, etc.) and too annoying in the case of the rest of them.


Hi Beth O - Hanibal Lecter was not the "point of view" character but (to me) he was the strongest character of the book. Everything else (all others characters - the plot) fed into this powerful character (the way Harris did this was a work of genius, in my opinion).

You bring up a very interesting point, which is -how hard is to "live" with a villan of a character as a reader _and also as a writer_. It takes a lot of guts. 
Gabriela


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2010)

Beth O said:


> I think it's easier to watch an unlikeable character in a movie because you're not in that character's head with the same degree of intimacy as you are in a book. For me at least, if I'm in the character's head, I need to find something redeemable about them, or at least something that sort of explains (and makes me sympathize with) their reasons for being despicable.


This makes a lot of sense to me. Even with something like Lolita, I kept feeling like Nabokov was trying to hide the inappropriate thoughts within a million other thoughts, and the effect was just being way too close to the character. So even though there were tons of rationales, there wasn't really anything I found redeemable. I probably would've liked it better as a movie!


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

derekprior said:


> Thomas Covenant, the protagonist of Stephen Donaldson's sprawling epic, is a despicable, whinging, narcisissistic rapist, but the books worked well nevertheless. I think it's the exception rather than the rule though. Evil characters - such as lector - can charm the pants off of us (just look at Mephistopheles in Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus"), but as protagonists they can (not always) alienate the reader.


I never finished _Lord Foul's Bane_. I just couldn't stand Thomas Covenant.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

911jason said:


> The first character that came to mind when I saw this thread was Michael Connelly's Harry Bosch series... I have yet to enjoy any of the books, and I'm on my third one so far. I just don't enjoy the character at all and find him annoying to read about. He's... depressing!


I agree precisely with Jason's analysis of Harry Bosch....I read the first book in the series, and found Bosch annoying, depressing, and seemingly determined to alienate anyone with authority over him. I like John Wayne ruggedly-independent heroes as well as the next person, but this is too much. But isn't it interesting that Jason is on his third depressing novel?  Similarly, I bought a bargain trilogy of the first three novels....Now I only read the first one and stopped, but I did grab the second trilogy of novels at a bargain, but still noticeable price ($9.99 for three novels) in case I decided I wanted to read them and the price went up!

Another novel I found even more depressing and annoying with unlikeable characters was Bonfire of the Vanities. It is supposedly a great novel, and I read it to the finish thinking it would pick up, but it didn't. I disliked nearly every single character in the book, finding them somewhere between contemptible at worst, and eye roll-inducing at best.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Beth O said:


> I think it's easier to watch an unlikeable character in a movie because you're not in that character's head with the same degree of intimacy as you are in a book.


You've just hit on one of my stoppers these days. When I was younger I could and did hack reading from the POV of evil, but any more I won't do it. I also have just had it with serial killers. There have been too many of the ones who are smarter than anyone else on the planet and who get killed in every book just to pop up again in the next one. I still read a lot of mysteries and thrillers but if I see the words "serial killer" anywhere in the description that book is a no go.

P.S. I understand how readers can find Harry Bosch both annoying and depressing, but I find something that engenders a grudging respect in the character - he's so absolutely unyielding and pigheaded.


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

I think the main charactor has to be engaging...not necessarily likeable. Having said that, I can't think of too many books that I enjoyed where I actively _disliked_ the main charactor...with the possible exception of Donaldson's Thomas Covenent.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2010)

D. Nathan Hilliard said:


> I think the main charactor has to be engaging...not necessarily likeable. Having said that, I can't think of too many books that I enjoyed where I actively _disliked_ the main charactor...with the possible exception of Donaldson's Thomas Covenent.


Me too, and I could see myself trying to write something like this, but it seems like such a tricky thing to pull off! There are 100 ways that could go wrong--he could be boring, he could be detestable in a non-likable way...and 98 other ways!


----------



## Sienna_98 (Jan 26, 2009)

_Darkly Dreaming Dexter_ is a good example (if you can ignore the ending, ugh). POV is a sociopath/psychopath? Anyway, one deeply disturbed dude, but the author set him up in such a way that you can accept it, or at least I could.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Many authors seem to truly enjoy the vicarious depravity of their bad guys--Koontz and Patterson high on the list--and I suppose as long as it gets murder out of your system, it works! Give me an unlikeable character over a boring character any day.

Scott


----------



## J.R.Tate (Jul 20, 2010)

I think that the hero/heroine has to somewhat be likable....

Sometimes when I'm reading a story and I despise the main character, I can't finish it.  I think an author should show some redeeming qualities that a character possesses.  Personally, I like a hero who has had a bad past and is trying to get better.  If the reader knows that there is some good within a person, the better. 

I'm a sucker for a good bad guy, but have to be shown that they too, have a heart.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Stephen Donaldson's characters -- I'm thinking mostly of Thomas Covenant here, but I've noticed it in other books of his as well -- are really pretty hateful to start out.


It's funny--reading this thread, I was thinking of exactly the same character, Thomas Covenant. I couldn't finish the first book in the series because I couldn't stand TC and some of his actions. Your comment makes me want to go back and give it another shot, now that I'm a more mature reader.


----------



## Music &amp; Mayhem (Jun 15, 2010)

To me, both the main character and his/her opponent have to grab me. I don't have to like them. Did we like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs? But a well-drawn villain can be fascinating. Someone mentioned Dexter. I haven't read the book, but I love the TV series. 

And I do have to feel some sort of empathy for the hero/heroine. I just stopped reading a book by a fairly well-known author because her female detective just didn't appeal to me. On the other hand, I really like Patricia Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta series. Here's a woman who's good at her job, but has a personal life too, one that seems believable. 

And I love all of Elmore Leonard's characters, good guys, bad guys, ditto the women. He does such a fantastic job of letting the reader know what's going on in their minds.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

Personally there has to be SOMETHING about the main characters I like.... else I have no reason to keep reading.

A prime example for me is our own CJ West's Sin and Vengance.  It was very well written but none of the characters appealed to me and I kind of wanted most of them to go jump off a cliff.  So even tho I paid for the next two books in his series, I doubt I'll ever get around to reading them.  There just wasn't a single, solitary thing I liked about any of them.

Personally I hated Hannibal Rising.  I thought it was horribly written with even worse editing, but I found hannibal's story intriguing.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

In The Great Gatsby, I really disliked the main character Nick Carraway, because I felt he was weak, and his narration drove me crazy, but I liked Gatsby enough to get through the book.  

Just thought I'd throw in a little something that had absolutely nothing to do with psychopaths or sociopaths.

Dawn


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> In The Great Gatsby, I really disliked the main character Nick Carraway, because I felt he was weak, and his narration drove me crazy, but I liked Gatsby enough to get through the book.
> 
> Just thought I'd throw in a little something that had absolutely nothing to do with psychopaths or sociopaths.
> 
> Dawn


In that vein, although not a book, I absolutely love the TV show "House" even though I cannot get through an episode without saying "he is such a jerk" at least once. He has a lot of unlikeable character traits, yet I love him and the show. And it's not about Hugh Laurie personally. It really is about the character "House."


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Beth O said:


> In that vein, although not a book, I absolutely love the TV show "House" even though I cannot get through an episode without saying "he is such a jerk" at least once. He has a lot of unlikeable character traits, yet I love him and the show. And it's not about Hugh Laurie personally. It really is about the character "House."


You make a great point. I watch that show too. I would hate the guy in real life, but I do like him on the show. 

Vicki


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

I love House. Even when he's a complete jerk, I find myself incredibly amused. Maybe it is because I like watching a master work at their craft, regardless if its medicine, writing, painting, sports, etc.

David Dalglish


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

The same could be said for Simon Cowell. He's popular because he's a jerk. Or Gordon Ramsey, who's legendary kitchen tirades are the sole reason some people tune in to watch his show.


----------



## lnealreilly (Jul 9, 2010)

I didn't post this earlier, but I'd already blogged about a related subject -- should we read books that we don't like (which can include books with unlikable characters). I thought I'd share some of my blog posts.

Here's an excerpt of what I wrote on reading "likable" books:



> Should we always read stories that we like or should we sometimes read stories that push our boundaries a bit? One of the best ways that advertising works is actually through negative association because we remember something that annoys or angers us rather than something that is mildly amusing or entertaining. Stories can work that way, too, if they have other necessary elements that are well executed. While I think that it is the author's job to help readers identify with the main character as far as recognizing that character's humanity, it doesn't make a lot of sense to expect stories to just be fictional extensions of ourselves. Stories can act as personal adventures for us, and as such we tend to identify strongly with the main character. But they can also enlarge our understanding of the world and others, and that's only possible if we're willing to try to see through someone else's eyes, even when we don't like them.


You can read the whole post http://www.nealreilly.com/2010/06/03/do-we-have-to-like-a-book-to-make-it-worth-reading/.

I also blogged about House and Don Draper from Mad Men a few weeks ago. Here is part of what I wrote:



> House had enough softness hidden under his prickly shell that my hope response kicked in (or maybe my subconscious desire to reform bad boys, which I thought I'd outgrown, simply revived from a dormant state). I want House to grow and heal enough to be happy. Is that possible with TV? ... [About Don Draper] A few more secrets revealed, and I realized that Don was a tormented soul with some hard-to-circumscribe boundary lines-for example, he didn't sleep with any of the gaggle of secretaries at his ad agency-that nevertheless meant he did have some moral code, even if it was sporadically applied to his life. I came to identify a bit with him, with his upbringing and his double identity, and I wanted him to figure out how to hold on to his dreams without screwing them up too much.
> 
> Why are these two "complicated" men so compelling? Why doesn't the angst they suffer overwhelm and repel us? They are both real and magnetic. Other people revolve around them. They make things happen. They're hard to pin down-they aren't a "type" and are as likely to disappoint as to inspire us. What we don't know about them, what we learn, adds depth and shading to them. We meet people like House and Don in books too. People we'd like to have a beer with. Or shake until they wise up. Or put an arm around and cry with. I'm always on the lookout for characters like these, and I never know where I'll meet them.


It's the author's job to show the reader how to identify, even a little, with an "unlikable" character, especially a main or major character, and keep the reader reading. I daresay most readers have unlikable aspects to their personalities and can find some way to identify with an "unlikable" character. Or they can recognize those aspects in their family and friends. However, I know I also need to be a patient reader because a complex character can take time to develop without the shortcuts of telling the reader what to think (which writers are always advised not to do). And if I don't give the "unlikable" character a chance to grow through the course of the story, then I'm going to limit myself to characters who don't have as much growth potential. Of course, some characters will never grow into people I can like, but maybe I can pity or respect them. Or even fear them.


----------



## Sandra Edwards (May 10, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> The same could be said for Simon Cowell. He's popular because he's a jerk. Or Gordon Ramsey, who's legendary kitchen tirades are the sole reason some people tune in to watch his show.


I hear ya', David. Simon is popular because he's a jerk. But he's also 99% spot on in his evaluation of the AI contestants. I wonder, if he weren't so accurate--would he be so popular?

Hum....

Sandy


----------



## dlanzarotta (Jul 14, 2010)

There is always that one character that we love to hate. lol


----------



## Carolyn A (Jul 25, 2010)

Hi - new to Kindle Boards, but this is exactly the kind of discussion I love. Re the subject question - I used to only want to read about characters I liked, even admired, but in recent years, I've discovered that when it comes to TV, I can enjoy shows where I DON'T like or admire the main character (The Sopranos, Big Love, Dead Like Me, etc. - although Dexter is strangely likable). I find that I can get really involved if the storyline is intriguing.

When it comes to books, it's the WRITING that draws me in, more than whether a character is likable. I want a story that's intriguing and well-told. One recent favorite was In the Castle of the Flynns, by Michael Raleigh. Not that the main character was unlikable, but the big draw for that story was the world created by the author. I really enjoy going into a world that I'll never inhabit in real life.


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Carolyn A said:


> Hi - new to Kindle Boards...<snip>...I really enjoy going into a world that I'll never inhabit in real life.


Welcome to KB Carolyn!!! and very good point, I hadn't thought about it that way, but you're very right!


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

Does anyone here watch "Breaking Bad"?  Talk about an otherwise sympathetic character going to the dark side!


----------



## SimonWood (Nov 13, 2009)

HP Mallory said:


> What is your take on this subject? Do you have to like the main character of a book in order to like the book?
> And what makes a character likable? Can a character be edgy or snarky and still be likable?


I tend to find it is important for most readers that the leading character is likeable. Personally, I am intrigued by characters who go off the rails a bit. I think Scott Smith's A SIMPLE PLAN is a great example of this of illustrating a good man turning into someone thoroughly unlikeable. For me, I loved that about the book. I'm not sure that appeals to everyone. We all want heroes to look up to.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

SimonWood said:


> I tend to find it is important for most readers that the leading character is likeable. I'm not sure that appeals to everyone. We all want heroes to look up to.


I'm not sure the character has to be likable per say, but at least interesting. As I said before, Hannibal Lector isn't really likable, but I found his story intriguing.

Christopher Golden, whom I like a lot, has a series of books called the hidden Cities. I never cared for the first book of it (Which is pretty unusual). I just had no real interest in what happened to the characters, good or bad. There was nothinh about them that drew me in or even made me go hmmmmm. The second book I enjoyed, but the first I will probably never read again.


----------



## SimonWood (Nov 13, 2009)

Labrynth said:


> I'm not sure the character has to be likable per say, but at least interesting. As I said before, Hannibal Lector isn't really likable, but I found his story intriguing.


That's a fair point. That said, I thought Lector made a great supporting character, but for me, he lost his lustre when he became the focus of the last two books. It proves the point--less is more.


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

SimonWood said:


> That's a fair point. That said, I thought Lector made a great supporting character, but for me, he lost his lustre when he became the focus of the last two books. It proves the point--less is more.


I would say it only proves that taste is subjective. I thought the last book was the best of them all.


----------



## Shastastan (Oct 28, 2009)

I had the experience of having to look at it another way, too. I read a book wherein the "hero" was a professional assassin.  I liked this main character, but just couldn't get past the protagonist being a paid killer.  Of course, that's just my own morality.  The book wan't bad in terms of plot, action, etc.., but I won't be reading another one from that series by Eisler.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

Shastastan said:


> I had the experience of having to look at it another way, too. I read a book wherein the "hero" was a professional assassin. I liked this main character, but just couldn't get past the protagonist being a paid killer. Of course, that's just my own morality. The book wan't bad in terms of plot, action, etc.., but I won't be reading another one from that series by Eisler.


Did you ever see the movie "The Professional"? The "hero" is a professional hitman, but he befriends a little girl (a very young Natalie Portman), or to be more precise, she befriends him, and she ends up redeeming him. Despite all the violence, it's actually a very sweet movie. I love the unconventional hero (probably explains my devotion to "House", although apparently I'm not alone in that) but I don't think it's a big hit with editors/publishers. It's a tough sell in a book.


----------



## Shastastan (Oct 28, 2009)

Beth O said:


> Did you ever see the movie "The Professional"? The "hero" is a professional hitman, but he befriends a little girl (a very young Natalie Portman), or to be more precise, she befriends him, and she ends up redeeming him. Despite all the violence, it's actually a very sweet movie. I love the unconventional hero (probably explains my devotion to "House", although apparently I'm not alone in that) but I don't think it's a big hit with editors/publishers. It's a tough sell in a book.


Oh, I don't mind if there's a "redemption", but, in the book I read, the guy went back to business as usual at the end.


----------



## heathermichelle (Jul 27, 2010)

The answer would depend on your personality, for me I would say yes.  I don't mean that they have to be GOOD, that is something else entirely.  I've read plenty of books where the hero/heroine was a not so nice person and one that I would probably not associate with in life but I loved the character or at least the way the character came across.


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Shastastan said:


> I had the experience of having to look at it another way, too. I read a book wherein the "hero" was a professional assassin. I liked this main character, but just couldn't get past the protagonist being a paid killer. Of course, that's just my own morality. The book wan't bad in terms of plot, action, etc.., but I won't be reading another one from that series by Eisler.


Uh-oh, did you read one of the Rain novels on my recommendation? If so, sorry! I love this series by Eisler, even though I'm not a big fan of the author's political views and his outspokenness about them. It's been awhile since I read this series, but if I remember correctly, Rain was assassinating unsavory characters, so it wasn't like he was just a serial killer. His "work" had a purpose for the greater good. I can understand why they aren't for everyone though.


----------



## Shastastan (Oct 28, 2009)

911jason said:


> Uh-oh, did you read one of the Rain novels on my recommendation? If so, sorry! I love this series by Eisler, even though I'm not a big fan of the author's political views and his outspokenness about them. It's been awhile since I read this series, but if I remember correctly, Rain was assassinating unsavory characters, so it wasn't like he was just a serial killer. His "work" had a purpose for the greater good. I can understand why they aren't for everyone though.


It might be possible that I read it based upon your recommendation, Jason, but I've read a bunch of others you recommended and I'm very grateful. The people he took out were bad folks, but I just can't bring myself to glorify that behavior. I'm not consitent about it though since Vince Flynn's Mitch Rapp is one of my heroes. Go figure.


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Shastastan said:


> I'm not consitent about it though since Vince Flynn's Mitch Rapp is one of my heroes. Go figure.


It's funny that you said that, I was thinking it when I read your post since I know you're a Flynn fan, but didn't want to "call you out"!


----------



## Five String (Jun 6, 2010)

The last few posts raise an interesting point, that is, when the main character has an occupation that requires him/her to perform otherwise unsavory or even heinous acts. One end of the continuum would be a story about war. No one really questions a war hero's dealing death, but that's what he/she does. Further into the ambiguous end are stories like The Professional (I tried to watch it but the kids kept switching back to Cake Boss or iCarly or something) and the series described by Shastastan. 

These sorts of books introduce a lot of uncertainty about the concept of a 'likeable' main character. When the main action of the book is extreme violence, I don't know whether the main character is 'likeable' is so important. This could be the subject of a whole 'nother very long thread, but I think we read books like that because we want to see some kind of justice done, or 'things put right', or justifiable vengeance wrought, or we want to celebrate someone's heroism. Some or all of those things require a character to commit otherwise despicable acts.

Casino Royale, the Bond book, pops into my mind because I didn't think Fleming meant Bond to be likeable, and I didn't particularly like him. In fact, I thought he was kind of a doofus for getting taken in by Vesper, and I thought a guy who's so obsessed with getting ugly, dirty deeds done probably wouldn't have the sensitivity to realize when a woman was using him. Daniel Craig's character in the movie seemed even more so. I had no sympathy for him at the end of the movie.

But I digress. Fleming seeemd to want Bond to be seen as this cold professional, a guy who could get brutish but necessary things done because he was a brutish guy. In an odd way, that was why I liked the Craig character in the Casino Royale movie. It was such an adept portrait of this really determined, really brave, really dedicated guy who was really sort of a jerk, but really compelling. And not particularly likeable.


----------



## lib2b (Apr 6, 2010)

Victorine said:


> I tend to gravitate toward books with likable characters. But that doesn't mean I don't like books like "A Christmas Carol", where the MC is terrible, but redeems himself in the end.
> 
> Vicki


I think this is my preference as well. I prefer my main characters to be likable, but if they're not likable to start out, I need to at least feel they're redeemable. A strong secondary character who is likable will also help if the main character is not likable.


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Five String said:


> The last few posts raise an interesting point, that is, when the main character has an occupation that requires him/her to perform otherwise unsavory or even heinous acts. One end of the continuum would be a story about war. No one really questions a war hero's dealing death, but that's what he/she does. Further into the ambiguous end are stories like The Professional (I tried to watch it but the kids kept switching back to Cake Boss or iCarly or something) and the series described by Shastastan.
> 
> These sorts of books introduce a lot of uncertainty about the concept of a 'likeable' main character. When the main action of the book is extreme violence, I don't know whether the main character is 'likeable' is so important. This could be the subject of a whole 'nother very long thread, but I think we read books like that because we want to see some kind of justice done, or 'things put right', or justifiable vengeance wrought, or we want to celebrate someone's heroism. Some or all of those things require a character to commit otherwise despicable acts.
> 
> ...


Very well said! I just bought your book because of this post! =)


----------



## Shastastan (Oct 28, 2009)

911jason said:


> It's funny that you said that, I was thinking it when I read your post since I know you're a Flynn fan, but didn't want to "call you out"!


You can call me out, Jason; I'm retired and don't wear a gun anymore. . As you can see, I'm somewhat "conflicted" with my emotions. In real life, one of the witnesses on one my cases, was an admitted hit man. He treated me like a nephew at the time.


----------



## Five String (Jun 6, 2010)

911Jason - Thanks so much! Let me know what you think.


----------



## segsurfer (Jan 5, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> Not "likeable" but certainly, a main character needs to be someone I can empathize with in some way. I need to relate to them somehow. They can be male or female, likeable in the traditional sense or not, but I need to somehow have a connection with them or their problem or their quest or their need or whatever motivates them.
> 
> Tim Dorsey has a series of novels about Serge Storms, a psychopath and serial killer. Serge is insane and dangerous, but his victims are always people you hate even worse: the guy at the HMO who denies the claim of a person with leukemia, or a greedy land developer, etc.
> 
> ...


Serge is one of my favorite literary heroes, bar none. Having grown up in south Florida and witnessed first hand the rape of the state's natural beauty, I can certainly agree with serge's ideals; in spite of the fact that his methods may be a bit "extreme".


----------



## 911jason (Aug 17, 2009)

Shastastan said:


> You can call me out, Jason; I'm retired and don't wear a gun anymore. . As you can see, I'm somewhat "conflicted" with my emotions. In real life, one of the witnesses on one my cases, was an admitted hit man. He treated me like a nephew at the time.


Wow... with personal experiences like that in your life, maybe you should write a book or two yourself!


----------



## Bar steward (Jul 29, 2010)

> Does a hero or heroine of a book need to be likable?


I hope not or else my book is screwed!

However I would say not because not too long ago I read a very funny book called 'How to kill your friends', it's done well in the UK (I think they're making a film of it) but I dunno if you have heard of it in the US? The main character in that is despicable in every way but its his behavior you find so fascinating


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

SimonWood said:


> That's a fair point. That said, I thought Lector made a great supporting character, but for me, he lost his lustre when he became the focus of the last two books. It proves the point--less is more.


I actually ignored what I felt was horrid writing on Hannibal(


Spoiler



Where she runs off with him at the end... not sure if that's Hannibal Rising or what...


) because how he got there was interesting enough for me to over look it. Would I read another book with him as the main character? meh, probably not.

Sorry, too lazy to go back and see who posted it originally, but I agree with whomever said the main character had to have something I could identify with. Dexter Morgan pops to mind. Also a serial killer but was raised by a man who taught him that since he can't ignore his urges, to put them to good use. His sister, TV series wise anyway, is so annoying and predictable that I can't watch the show. I want to ring her neck.

Edited cause my brain and hands weren't moving at the same speed.


----------



## Shastastan (Oct 28, 2009)

911jason said:


> Wow... with personal experiences like that in your life, maybe you should write a book or two yourself!


Nothing really exciting to write about, IMHO. Although I've done some art stuff and am now heavily into music, I've never had the desire to write a book and I lack the creativity to. I really admire authors who have the requisite talent and even those who just give it a try. I'm thinking that it's no easy feat. But we are digressing from the OP. Sorry.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

I think "likable" and sympathetic" are two very different things.


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

For me they just need to be interesting.  A lot of times I'm rooting for the villians.  Someone mentioned Hannibal, and I love how that series got in his head.  There are some things that would make me hate the villain (child molestation for instance), but murder/torture/rape isn't one of them.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

The question of likeability is complicated by the fact that people forgive _a lot_ of protagonists because of the POV advantage.

It's also complicated by the fact that the same character will be likeable or unlikeable depending on the reader or the target audience.

Reading the synopsis of _Eat Pray Love_ it struck me that if the protagonist was male he'd be universally reviled as a slimebag and the book would be an expose and not a memoir. But people seem to love the book and the author, so I assume she really exploits the POV advantage and really understood her target market.


----------



## Maker (Jun 22, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> The question of likeability is complicated by the fact that people forgive _a lot_ of protagonists because of the POV advantage.
> 
> It's also complicated by the fact that the same character will be likeable or unlikeable depending on the reader or the target audience.
> 
> Reading the synopsis of _Eat Pray Love_ it struck me that if the protagonist was male he'd be universally reviled as a slimebag and the book would be an expose and not a memoir. But people seem to love the book and the author, so I assume she really exploits the POV advantage and really understood her target market.


Agree with you 100%. I was irritated by the main character in Eat Pray Love also and I don't think I was forgiving of her overall selfishness -- but I was taken in by her adventures so that made the book a good read.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Maker said:


> Agree with you 100%. I was irritated by the main character in Eat Pray Love also and I don't think I was forgiving of her overall selfishness -- but I was taken in by her adventures so that made the book a good read.


True. And remember, there are lots of people who _like_ her.

You and I are irritated with her, but other people like her. So is she likeable or not?


----------



## Maker (Jun 22, 2010)

"So is she likeable or not?"

Ha. I think if most people seriously thought about that question they would admit that they don't truly "like" her. They may like what she did and wish they had the "courage" (or lack of accountability, irresponsibility, whatever you want to call it) to just jet off to the ends of the world to "find themselves," practice yoga, meet some foreign dude and eat exotic food and be generally annoying and then get a huge advance to write all about it. Who wouldn't like that? (Except the yoga part).


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

Maker said:


> Ha. I think if most people seriously thought about that question they would admit that they don't truly "like" her. They may like what she did and wish they had the "courage" (or lack of accountability, irresponsibility, whatever you want to call it) to just jet off to the ends of the world to "find themselves," practice yoga, meet some foreign dude and eat exotic food and be generally annoying and then get a huge advance to write all about it. Who wouldn't like that? (Except the yoga part).


Sign me up! I'd even do the yoga.


----------



## Hair of the Dog (Jul 19, 2010)

Often when people speak of "unlikable" narrators or protagonists, a few careful questions reveal that what those speakers mean is that the narrators or protagonists are intelligent, at which point I as questioner am flummoxed.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

For the most part, yes. I can only think of one exception and that was "Forever Amber" - the main character was vain, selfish, jealous, vindictive - pretty much zero redeeming qualities. But her life was just so interesting, I couldn't put it down!


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Grierson Huffman said:


> Often when people speak of "unlikable" narrators or protagonists, a few careful questions reveal that what those speakers mean is that the narrators or protagonists are intelligent, at which point I as questioner am flummoxed.


Now there's a depressing thought. Apparently we're more interested in people who can't think for themselves?  Kidding. I actually like intelligent protagonists. They tend to be insightful, and you don't want to throttle them every five minutes for being whiny / incompetent / foolish / generally annoying.


----------

