Claire Messud And Character Likability

Toothpaste said:

Full quote here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/01/claire_messud_to_publishers_weekly_what_kind_of_question_is_that/

I just read this today, not sure if this was posted elsewhere. I found it interesting on a couple of levels.

1. It seems female authors are more scrutinized over the likability of their characters than male authors. Which leads me to the question...why?

And 2. is likability really that important? Especially when creating characters for a fictional work?

Personally I am far more interested in complex characters than likeable ones (not that likeable ones can't be complex), and I am always surprised when people don't understand why I can enjoy a character who isn't likeable. It's a bit how I look at politicians, I don't care if you'll go for a beer with me and be my friend, be cold and unfeeling for all I care, just be good at your job.

Click to expand...

Gosh, I honestly can't think of a writer more scrutinized for the likeability of his characters than Jonathan Franzen. Although Zoe Heller might be in the running.

And I agree with the formers response when questioned on the issue:

"I’ve grown to hate such remarks. It makes me feel like we’re all back in grammar school, talking about which kids are 'nice' and which kids are 'mean.' It’s a willfully naïve and blinkered way to approach a work of literature."

If the character could die on the next page or save their entire village and my emotional response would be exactly the same in both cases, why am I even reading about them? Nice, mean, likeable, dislikeable, whatever, but if I don't care, I don't care, and I'm not reading on.

I wonder if there's a distinction that can be made in this discussion, between characters in stand-alone novels and characters in a series.

I would think that if a reader is going to stick with a series, it would be more likely if the main character(s) is/are likeable. And not in a doughy, cuddly, puppy-saving way, just in that they have redeeming qualities and reflect the kinds of good attributes the reader likes to see in real-world people.

Some of the most beloved characters in literature are "unlikeable" women. Like Scarlett O'Hara. Like Becky Sharp. In a subtler sense, Emma Woodhouse. Less well known but definitely a sister, Wharton's Undine from The Custom of the Country. This sort of character tends to be strong-willed and little concerned with catering to and conciliating others. They make more conventional characters uncomfortable, if not furious.

They're also fascinating, and they all end up unbroken. Three female authors, one male. Comparing their careers and the attitudes of author/readers to them would be interesting.

For me, the only really unlikeable character is a whiny and weak one. Or, even worse, one that's supposed to be tough and active, but who is actually whiny and weak and the object of incessant rescue by other characters. I find that a lot of the "unlikeable" characters in contemporary fiction really are by my standards unlikeable, due to their lameness. From the reviews and excerpts of The Woman Upstairs I've read, Messud's heroine may be one of these, for me. I don't mind that she's angry and profane, if that's what's supposed to make her unlikeable. Her statement that she quit art because it might be better not to try than to fail? That's what I find unlikeable.

I find the handmaid in Handmaid's Tale infuriating. She never does anything. Except boink another man. And then she's rescued by external forces. Ugh. Just ugh.

But I far prefer Elizabeth Bennett and Anne to Emma Woodhouse.

I read this article the other day with great interest. I've been agonizing over the concept of "likability" for months. Some critiquers have called my Women's Fiction protag unlikable. Others think she's handling a tough situation with humor and grace. I think it's fine for characters to be a bit bristly, so long as they have a sense of humor and a reason for not being sweet. I find candy-sweet people annoying in real life, and I like my fiction characters to have some layers.

Obviously everyone does not share my opinion. ::sigh::

Phaeal said:

Some of the most beloved characters in literature are "unlikeable" women. Like Scarlett O'Hara. Like Becky Sharp. In a subtler sense, Emma Woodhouse. Less well known but definitely a sister, Wharton's Undine from The Custom of the Country. This sort of character tends to be strong-willed and little concerned with catering to and conciliating others. They make more conventional characters uncomfortable, if not furious.

They're also fascinating, and they all end up unbroken. Three female authors, one male. Comparing their careers and the attitudes of author/readers to them would be interesting.

For me, the only really unlikeable character is a whiny and weak one. Or, even worse, one that's supposed to be tough and active, but who is actually whiny and weak and the object of incessant rescue by other characters. I find that a lot of the "unlikeable" characters in contemporary fiction really are by my standards unlikeable, due to their lameness. From the reviews and excerpts of The Woman Upstairs I've read, Messud's heroine may be one of these, for me. I don't mind that she's angry and profane, if that's what's supposed to make her unlikeable. Her statement that she quit art because it might be better not to try than to fail? That's what I find unlikeable.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that bit on whiny and weak hits home. The character has to be strong. They have to be willing to stand for something. If I don't agree with what they stand for, so be it, but I'll still be willing to push on and find out what happens to them (Scarlett's the perfect example. What an anti-hero!).

Old thread, I know. But Messud's reaction is pretty arrogant. From what I've read of reader reviews on her books, she's one of these writers for whom the hype is completely unjustified so I guess she has reason to be defensive.

It also seems like she's got a pretty narrow-minded view of "likability". My impression is that she's equating likability with simplicity of character.

But a likable character does NOT mean a character who is two-dimentional or simplistic. A character can still be complex but likable.

Maybe Messud and some of her other literary snobby compatriots should go back to fiction writing basics and learn that most readers will be turned off by characters who are not alive for them and for me, one of the ways a character comes alive is some likable traits. He/she doesn't have to be an angel, but some likable characteristics that make a reader want to find out more about him/her is essential.

Sorry for the mini-rant here. I spent a lot of years being pulled into the uber-literary intellectual scene and I've changed my thinking about it. I realize now that some of those writers (not all, mind you) are so self-involved that they don't realize that fiction is about the reader, not the writer.

Djuna

Toothpaste said:

And 2. is likability really that important? Especially when creating characters for a fictional work?

Click to expand...

I don't know if a character has to be likable, but readers need a reason to care about the main character and become invested in his/her journey and experiences. Personally, I think it helps - why would I care what happens to a character who's a complete jerk? However, if there's a way to make that jerk interesting or compelling, I'll give him/her a chance.

I'll buck the trend and say that there are plenty of books I have stopped reading because I didn't like the characters.

For example, Phillip K. Dick writes just awful, awful people. I hate them all. I have no desire to spend time with any of them. Result = I do not read Phillip K. Dick books any longer (I slogged through a few because my ex loved them.)

Movies made out of Phillip K. Dick books I enjoy thoroughly, however, because the plots are very clever and the actors can do a lot of make the characters sympathetic.

If I don't want to spend time with the character, why on earth am I reading the book?

RedWombat said:

If I don't want to spend time with the character, why on earth am I reading the book?

Click to expand...

I could personally see plenty of other reasons, but these are indeed my reasons, that need not apply to other people; character likeability is thus a perfectly valid thing to look at for people to whom character likeability is part of the enjoyment of reading — but if people are looking for something else in a book (as I am), then it is perfectly reasonable to have unlikeable characters.

So again it all comes down to who we're writing for.

"Likeable" is such a varied word. Different people find different things likeable. What attracts me to one character may put off another person to that same character. I like darkness in characters - that's something that instantly draws me to them. Other people may shy away from that trait because it's not something they desire. I think a lot of this argument is moot because we're all different people with different tastes and appeals. You like what you like, and I'll like what I like. And then we can be friends in between.

I have to admit that I have a weakness for books with anti-heroes. One of my favourite character's is Anne Rice's Lestat, who is not likeable in the least (preferable to the whining Louis of course!) I don't need characters to be likeable/sympathetic, just interesting.

I have had a couple of comments about my MC (beta readers) who say he's unlikeable because of some of his actions, and my first thought was 'good.' He's a Roman soldier living in a Roman world, I don't want he spewing 21st century values about blood-sports or the use of torture. He is a spy after all, and I want him to be morally ambiguous.

RedWombat said:

If I don't want to spend time with the character, why on earth am I reading the book?

Click to expand...

I'll be the first to bring up George RR Martin in this thread and say that I don't really like most of the characters in his books, but I stay with them because he does a good job of showing how they wind up where they did. I use Cersei Lannister as an example. Do I like her? I loathe her, yet I find her fascinating at the same time because Martin does such a good job of showing how the environment and everything shaped her.

*grin* And now I'll admit that I stopped reading those because eventually the cast of unlikable thousands exceeded my interest in Tyrion and Arya, who I did like.

There are very good books I am undoubtedly not reading because of this--the nice thing is that there is also no end of good books out there, so I can afford to be picky.

Likeability has little to do whether I read a novel. I don’t expect a character to be likeable. I demand that a character is interesting. That’s why I’ll read GRR Martin, that’s why I’ll read Thomas Harris.

I don’t know. I’ve always had a bit of trouble with the standard writing advice of making characters ‘sympathetic’ because it always seems to lead people down this way. That they have to make the characters likeable.

That said, uninteresting jerks are some of the worst characters. I’m looking at you, Thomas Covenant, you snivelling whinging excuse for a main character. God, I hated that character. Give me a Mary Sue character anyday.

Likeability is not the same as being a good moral person. Actually, if someone seems too 'good', we tend not to like them- either out of jealousy or because we see them as fake or too naive.

There are some monstrous characters who are still likeable. Humbert Humbert has qualities that some would deem likeable: intelligent, intellectual, caring, devoted, etc. Of course, it's a persona and his monstrous actions outweigh his nice qualities. But this is why he is a seductive/interesting figure, because we are intrigued by him.

Pretty much every human quality can be presented either as a virtue or vice. For example, ruthlessness could be seen as callous or an example of determination. The old Twilight debate of whether Edward is devoted to Bella or a stalker is a prime example of how qualities that repel some people attract others.

To explore the concept closer, write a list of qualities that you like but others may find them negative. There's many qualities that in small doses people secretly admire. If there's nothing to like or admire, even if it's a guilty admiration, people just won't read.