The Likability of Characters

[Michael Colton]

Here is an interesting article in the New Yorker about the likability of characters and whether it makes sense for that to be a criteria for enjoying or reading a book - it quotes a few authors on the subject: Would You Want to Be Friends With Humbert Humbert?: A Forum on “Likeability” - The New Yorker

What do you think? Do you need likable characters in a book? Do you think that should be a criteria upon which the book is judged?

The first point that stuck out to me was whether an author's need to write a likable character was a projection of wanting to be liked themselves. The original quote that started the article which mentioned Infinite Jest is a pretty good rebuttal to that notion of a character-author likability connection. DFW had a strong and almost universal reputation of being a very likable and friendly person despite his characters - why should the likability of characters travel back to an author?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Yes, I need a character I like. They don't have to be nice, or Mary-Sue-ish, but I have to like them enough to want to read about them. Without it, the book goes back, I'm afraid.

And they're my characters and my creation ergo the responsibility of making them likeable or not lies with me.

 

[Michael Colton]

Yes, I need a character I like. They don't have to be nice, or Mary-Sue-ish, but I have to like them enough to want to read about them. Without it, the book goes back, I'm afraid.

And they're my characters and my creation ergo the responsibility of making them likeable or not lies with me.

Any thoughts on why this is? Unless it is a relatability question, I have always had a hard time understanding why people need likable characters.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

I think you can have a excellent book all about a character you do not like at all, if the character has some psychological depth. As an example, Patricia Highsmith's The Talented Mr. Ripley. Ripley isn't someone you would like to run into, but he's fascinating to read about.

 

[Michael Colton]

I think you can have a excellent book all about a character you do not like at all, if the character has some psychological depth. As an example, Patricia Highsmith's The Talented Mr. Ripley. Ripley isn't someone you would like to run into, but he's fascinating to read about.

That was part of my frustration with the film version despite its overall quality. They made him much more likable in the film.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

For me - and it's a personal view, obviously - I am a character-led reader. There are a couple of characters I've enjoyed, though, who aren't neccessarily nice, but have still kept my sympathy enough for me to empathise with them. (So I wonder if it's less that they're nice so much as I need to empathise.)

Scarlett O'Hara - not nice, at all. A bully, a bit stupid, self-centred, there's not a lot there to like. But, she's funny. And she's active and gutsy and she never falls under anything. So, I like her guts and her voice. Without those qualities, the book would never have gripped me.

Henry from the Time Traveler's Wife (the young Henry, who we first meet) is a selfish flake. But we meet him in conjunction with the older, rounded Henry, so we get a sense of following his path with him. And we feel sorry for him - he's been dealt a crap hand in life. We root for him to become the other Henry.

Heathcliff. When we first get to know him he's a child and an underdog. By the time he's an adult, we're sucked in and then we come to realise we've sympathised with a monster. It's really clever, how she manages an unlikeable character. But if Heathcliff had been reviewed as what he was right at the beginning, would I have read on? I'm not sure. I think it's impossible to answer as there are so much else in the book to draw a reader in.

But, I started Lolita and I hated Humboldt and couldn't go on. Ditto Holden Caulfield. And once I didn't like them, and I didn't empathise, I stopped.

 

[Michael Colton]

Interesting. I have had characters that were too obnoxious for me to go on, but I cannot think of a time where I stopped because I could not empathize. On the contrary, if I feel an author is trying too hard to get the reader to empathize it can make me stop reading or enjoying the book.

So many different approaches readers can have.

 

[tinkerdan]

There is no doubt that for an author it helps when they like the character they create. I think it would be most difficult to create a central character that I'd despise. Yet the challenge is there to take up anytime and I wouldn't rule out attempting to do something with it.

Still when all is done and on paper what you like might not be what every reader likes and you could create something that for someone might seem like the most despicable character yet. Something that would make you go 'HUh' when someone tells you how much they didn't like that character.

In fiction we want believable characters that can be related to but not necessarily love or someone you might want to live with. I'm pretty sure Sherlock Holmes would not be my choice for a roommate but possibly John Watson would and so we have Conan Doyle using the one to make us find the other palatable. After all he's Johns friend so he can't be all that bad.

But to get back to the link in question here; it seems that this article had a second purpose which was to make a distinction between writing men as bad central characters as opposed to women and I'm not sure that that distinction can be made without realizing that fiction like the rest of the world has had a dark age concerning women and we still have to catch up so I think perhaps when we see women as dark central figures it does still stand out but the real question that might be asked for either men or women is; what makes the book likable if it's not these central characters.

I've read a number of books that have those types of characters and yet something has kept me reading. Sometimes if I can't put my finger on the reason I finish it; it's like having a bad taste in your mouth.

 

[Michael Colton]

but the real question that might be asked for either men or women is; what makes the book likable if it's not these central characters.

Can characters not keep you reading if they are interesting or intriguing, but still not likable or relatable? There have been some characters that I did not find likable or relatable but I still found them interesting because of how they were written. Their motivations, their mindset, etc.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I don't like anti-heroes.

Whether that be Jean Grenouille-Baptiste, Becky Sharp, Michael Henchard, Holden Caulfield etc

Like Springs i need to enjoy the time I spend with my characters or I put the book down. It was my big problem with Lord of the Rings I didn't gel with any of them.

 

[HareBrain]

For me, a main character doesn't have to be likeable, but they have to be interesting. But if no characters were likeable, or only really minor ones, I probably wouldn't get far with the book.

 

[tinkerdan]

Let's take for instance.

Castles: A Fictional Memoir of a Girl with Scissors by Benjamin X. Wretlind
Amazon.com: Castles: A Fictional Memoir of a Girl with Scissors eBook: Benjamin X. Wretlind: Kindle Store

The girl is clearly insane with no hope for any sort of redemption or cure; yet I found something in it worth reading through to the end. It took me well out of my comfort zone many times and perhaps I had some insane thought that she's miraculously discover that she wasn't insane; that it was all some deep conspiracy.

Not everyone will love that book.

 

[Michael Colton]

Let's take for instance.

Castles: A Fictional Memoir of a Girl with Scissors by Benjamin X. Wretlind
Amazon.com: Castles: A Fictional Memoir of a Girl with Scissors eBook: Benjamin X. Wretlind: Kindle Store

The girl is clearly insane with no hope for any sort of redemption or cure; yet I found something in it worth reading through to the end. It took me well out of my comfort zone many times and perhaps I had some insane thought that she's miraculously discover that she wasn't insane; that it was all some deep conspiracy.

Not everyone will love that book.

While I have not read that book, that is largely the same approach I have. I like different, interesting, intriguing, etc. If a character was likable in the sense of someone I would enjoy hanging out with but did not have much more to them, I would probably begin to lose interest in the book. I would rather go hang out with a friend if that is what I am looking for.

That being said, there are some notable exceptions that help me understand the other viewpoint. There have been characters that I find both interesting and likable/relatable, so the latter connection did seem to drive the narrative deeper for me. But those are few and far between.

 

[JoanDrake]

For all of lot of us know we might be friends with Humbert Humbert. As the book depicts him he was, to all outward appearances, a likable and charming man. How many of us know anything of the deep sexual perversions of even our closest friends, or often even our sexual partners, for that matter. (think of Lolita's mother). You will never know anyone as thoroughly and well as everyone knows the main characters of a novel. Perhaps that is the main point of the article, are any human beings likable once you get to know them well enough?

 

[Hex]

I think a lot of characters are likeable once you know them. I love those classic novels with good characters, like Dorothea Brooke or Anne Elliot. In real life, Dorothea would probably be a bit wearing, but I loved that she tried.

However, for me a character doesn't have to be likeable to keep me reading. I love Lolita, and Humbert Humbert makes me uncomfortable -- not so much, maybe, for what he does, but for his own perception of himself. I really enjoyed John Lanchester's The Debt to Pleasure, and I liked Perfume. They're all very well written, these books, which might be part of why it doesn't matter that the characters aren't especially likeable.

And, just because someone's not likeable doesn't mean I don't care what happens to them (but I hated Heathcliff).

I guess having a likeable character is one way to draw a reader through a book, but it's far from being the only way.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm reading Water for Elephants at the moment. The mc isn't especially likeable, but he's got bags of character and a fighting spirit. Maybe that counts for something, too - gutsiness? It's what Scarlett O'Hara has, and she's nearly impossible to like for the whole book. So maybe something about active characters comes into it? I know I could never warm to Shadow in American Gods due to his essential passivity.

 

[Null_Zone]

As a completely unscientific rule of thumb I use the "could I survive being stuck in a lift with these people" approach to characters I want to read about. They don't have to be friendly, nice or even all that pleasant company. If, due to arrogance or power, I am so insignificant to be below their notice then we probably just stand their in silence ignoring each other. Only interested in sport, well we can make small talk or plan our revenge on the person who maintains the lift.

But whining and angst would leave one of us needing a good lawyer and I would have no interest in reading about them.

 

[tinkerdan]

I think as a reader I look for characters that have redeemable qualities. But it also think that I am often comfortable with some that have a clear motivation [in their own mind;enough that I believe that they believe.] I also think that within those things that I look for there is a lot of hazy greyness to the whole; and that might be in part because we see, or think we see, something that suggest that despite all indications this character might turn around.

Dark Chatter: Andrew Branch: 9780985805708: Amazon.com: Books

I read this through with the hope the character would finally mend his ways, but I was also entertained by the authors overuse of simile and metaphor.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140189300/?tag=brite-21

Honestly speaking it's been so long that I can't remember exactly what it was that I liked about Richard Farina's Been Down So Long Looks Like Up To Me. I do know that I would not have wanted to meet that character.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm reading Water for Elephants at the moment. The mc isn't especially likeable, but he's got bags of character and a fighting spirit. Maybe that counts for something, too - gutsiness? It's what Scarlett O'Hara has, and she's nearly impossible to like for the whole book. So maybe something about active characters comes into it? I know I could never warm to Shadow in American Gods due to his essential passivity.

I'd second you here.

Personality traits can make a character likeable, but IMO it's how active they are that makes them - and the story - more engaging.

An active character is trying to overcome problems, resulting in...conflict.

Even though I think that, I still find it a challenge to apply.

 

[Idealect]

If a book presents characters' perceptions and prejudices as mattes of fact (close style) I usually allow myself to get lulled into the character's mindset (as my mind extrapolates it from the text) rather than observing from a distance. I'm not against reading something with an evil protagonist, like, sorry for this extreme example, nothing better springs to mind, Mein Kampf, but I'll read it at arms length, so that when I come across "and so the Jews must be eradicated", the words are firmly coming out of the character's/author's mouth, not mine.

The extent to which I maintain distance is proportional to my expectation that the character's going to come out with something I don't want reflected in my brain, how otherwise likeable the character is and how tempted I might be by their bad attitudes. I prefer reading characters I like, to reading characters I find repulsive, but far worse than both is a likeable character who suddenly drops some sh*t on me. if I'm playing nethack, I don't mind if some bullsh** happens, but if I'm playing LoZ, I'll be pretty put out if a giant spiked pit opens up underneath me with no previous indication. I won't read Lev Grossman for that reason. In the magicians everything is going along fairly interestingly until, suddenly, somewhere near the the start of act 2 the main character walks in on his male aquaintance/friend getting f***ed by some guy, called a bitch and so on. Quentin, being a so far reasonable guy stays and watches, and pontificates on seeing his friend's "emotional machinery laid bare" and I have to put the book down and go scrub out my brain because I inhabited that attitude for a second.


I read something recently where something twice as bad happens out of left field, but the author clearly signposts that he's into that sh*t, gives you plenty of time to back out, and you know you've got to be on guard reading it.

So anyway it's not unlikeable characters I dislike. It's close style (especially 3rd person) characters who are generally likeable but have some strong "perceptions" that are gonna get dropped every now and then:

If Hannival Lecter calls a woman a fat bitch, just because she's overweight, it's not gonna insinuate itself into my mind. If Tolkien suddenly came out and said that Frodo "saw from her disgusting flaps that she was a fat bitch", my mind might take it at face value for a second.