Likeable vs. relateable characters?

Frankenstein.

Well I've frequently seen both of these given as advice:
1) Your main character needs to be likable.
2) Your characters don't need to be likable; they just need to be interesting.

And after reading a bunch about this issue--there have been various threads in the past--I came to the conclusion that there are two types of readers:
a) Those who need, or at least prefer, likable characters.
b) Those who don't care about likability.

There are some very successful books with unlikable characters. Say, Gone Girl. But when people say things like, "Characters don't need to be likable. They just need to be interesting," I think it ignores a not-insignificant segment of readers who don't enjoy these books. And there's nothing wrong with these books, of course--a writer can't cater to everyone. But I think when the pieces of advice I listed above are given, they are often given assuming all readers like the same sort of stories. And some people care about likability--this is a quite common reason given for not enjoying a book in reviews--and some people don't need it. I also think it works better in some genres than others.

Listing my favourite likable characters would just be listing my favourite books. I can enjoy (on rare occasions) but never love books if I don't like the main characters. I see relatability as one aspect of a likable character, and often have limited ability to relate to characters I don't consider likable--that's one of the reasons I don't like them in the first place. So for me, likable and relatable are closely linked.

Nexus 6, but only in the last moments of his life.

I generally go with relateable or interesting over likeable, but yeah, it does depend on the book/genre. Sometimes the MC has to be likeable or very few people will want to read it; other times, likeability doesn't mean anything. I have a couple different authors whose MCs I dislike (one intensely, one is just a bit annoying) - but I still get totally caught up in their story-telling.

Scarlett O' Hara may be the classic "unlikable" but interesting character who is not actually a murdering psychopath. She did all sorts of awful things (stole her sister's husband, manipulated people, exploited prison laborers, was indifferent, even cruel, towards 2/3 of her kids, and so on), spent most of the book obsessed with a man she couldn't have, and she was a flaming racist too (though the biggest flaw of that book was how unexamined that aspect of her personality was, compared to the others--an example of how an author's core values will tend to creep in).

But she had a relatable goal, so the reader ends up rooting for her, or at least understanding why she did the things she did.

And even more unlikable characters, trending towards the murdering psychopath end of the spectrum, would be the ones found in many grimdark fantasy novels. In fact, with that genre, if you start liking one of the characters, even think that he's got a core of decency or is on a redemption arc, he will definitely do something completely beyond the pale in the next scene or chapter.

People seem to vary greatly in their taste for these sorts of stories. I find them intriguing because they can make me root for someone who has no moral compass at all, or whose moral compass is (by my assessment) completely broken. But I find they get tedious for the some reason that tales of unremitting heroism and nobility do--their predictability. And in some cases, it starts to feel like the author has to keep one-upping the shock factor, until it becomes almost a parody of itself.

And in the end, I generally read in order to see the character accomplish something meaningful and to share some emotional experience I can relate to. Life sucks and is often unfair. When I read, I generally want to escape to a world where the little guy can make a difference and where people can salvage some love and happiness, even in dreadful situations.

I'd say likable characters are more common in contemporary fiction and fantasy, and most especially in children's stories. But likable doesn't mean they don't have flaws or make mistakes. A character who is unremittingly good (Polyanna made me want to puke) is just, ergh. Many of the most memorable and likable character have a bit of vinegar in them. Some of the best-loved children's books characters were the kids who weren't goody two shoes, though they were basically decent. Ramona and Tom Sawyer both come to mind (examples from completely different eras).

I think the likeability aspect pertains most to the MC.

Lecter was wasn't the protagonist in the novels that introduced him. He's likeable in a twisted way (or at least compelling) because we don't spend a lot of pages with him. Consider reactions to Hannibal Rising where he's the MC, and how many fans thought the background story tainted the character because it provided us with detailed answers as to why he was the way he was, which some didn't want to know.

Similarly, Voldermort is an interesting villain and could maybe sustain a prequel novel or short story as MC, but no one would have followed him for seven books like we did Harry.

As for novels like Gone Girl, remember initially Amy seems likeable. Her true character is only revelealed after the reader is invested in the story. If Nick and Amy had been as horrible as we know them to be from page 1, the novel wouldn't have worked so effectively.

Even ASOIF, known for its gray or even outright unlikeable characters, started the series with reasonably likeable POVs such as the Starks, Tyrion, and Dany (who was likeable in GOT and only became obnoxious later).

Being an anti-heroe and "gray" doesn't mean a character isn't likeable.

I think an outright unlikeable MC from page 1 is a lot less common in modern fiction than people realize.

It depends on your target audience. I am fine with any of the three, although I think relatable is a good compromise.

Other readers have different preferences.

I don't even understand what most people consider likable. I like Hannibal Lecter just fine!

If we're talking about "people you'd actually want to be friends with," then I have very few favorite characters who fit the bill. And several I'd be ready to push off a cliff after a week.

I think it depends on the character, I like to read about likeable characters, but its not a hard rule. I just finished a book, where I thought all but one of the character's were mostly annoying idiots. But I still liked the book.

Being able to relate is usually more important. Except on occasion, some antagonists can come across as pure evil just based on the fact their frame of reference, their mind set is so completely alien to regular people.

If a character is too likable, they are often forgettable. Or annoying, like a headache from overconsumption of sugary sweets. In my books the likable characters are usually the first to die.

Relatability... do we have control over this as writers? Readers may come with their own set of definitions regarding whether they relate to a character or not. But, sometimes a character is written that is so captivating that you cling to their every word, observe their every action because you can't possibly know what it's like to be that person... and yet you do. Or you want to.

Hazel Motes from Wise Blood is one of my favorite relatable character. Not likable, but damn do I want to walk in his shoes. Also maybe Bernhard Gunter from Philip Kerr's Berlin Noir series. He sits right in the middle of justice and corruption, willing to tip whichever way can pay him the highest price... at least in his first two stories. I have yet to read the rest.

No character, including the main character, has to be likeable. That's lousy advice, and a misunderstanding. It's telephone tag.

Empathy and sympathy are very different things, but if a reader has empathy for a character, he'll want to spend time with him, and he'll understand why that character is as he is The reader can say that under teh same circumstances, had he gone through what the character has, he might well do the same things.

This is why we like Hannibal Lector, but it is a fine line, and Lector usually kills people most of us would want to kill, too.

Anyway, you have to draw empathetic characters, if you want readers to spend time with them, and these characters need a streak of good underneath the outside shell. "Likeable" just means like to spend time with them because we find them interesting, and we understand why they do what they do.

If you write about an unlikable character, I'd advise at least constructing an interesting one. I use Cersei Lannister as a primo example. Do I like her as in root for her to succeed and agree with what she does? Heck no! I will cheer if and when she dies. But thing is George RR Martin did such a good job constructing her character, giving her a compelling backstory and showing you how she wound up where she wound up in life, that I want to read more about her even as I hate her. So yeah, make your characters compelling, if not likeable.

Lillith1991 said:

One of the most common pieces of advice I come across is that characters need to be likeable in order to appeal to people.

Click to expand...

Right. This is why Tony Soprano, Walter White, Francis Underwood, and Raymond Redington have become the most-compulsively watched characters in TV series in recent years.

You need interesting; you don't necessarily need likeable.

caw

blacbird said:

Right. This is why Tony Soprano, Walter White, Francis Underwood, and Raymond Redington have become the most-compulsively watched characters in TV series in recent years.

You need interesting; you don't necessarily need likeable.

caw

Click to expand...

Oh Walter... RIP. Talk about characters.

LJD said:

And after reading a bunch about this issue--there have been various threads in the past--I came to the conclusion that there are two types of readers:
a) Those who need, or at least prefer, likable characters.
b) Those who don't care about likability.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I think that's why any blanket statement about it ("Characters must be likable!" vs. "Likability doesn't matter at all as long as they're compelling!") always brings out a ton of people disagreeing in either case.

For some readers, likability is important. I'm one of them. I've rarely managed to stick with a book in which I truly dislike the main character. But other readers truly don't care; my husband is one of those. Neither group is right or wrong. (And on top of that, one person's likable character might be another person's insufferable jerk.)

I don't really pay attention to whether or not the reader is going to like or relate to my characters, because readers either will or won't.
It's impossible to write a character which everyone can relate to, like, or find interesting, so I just write characters. They are who they are, and I'm loathe to change them for anyone or anything.

I can't say I've ever paid that much attention to how much I like the MC when reading, either.

I recently asked something similar in the short story forum, following workshop feedback that all my characters were "too damaged." I think the problem in that story was that it was ALL the characters. There was no one to root for. Or at least that was what I was told. This is something I am struggling with a little bit because I think it might be true.

I feel like it kind of goes hand in hand, where a character is likeable BECAUSE you can relate. That's why you can still like a serial killer or even hate some "nice" characters. An example would be Things Fall Apart's Okonkwo, right? You definitely don't hate him, but he's pretty terrible and unlikable. But he's likeable in the sense that everybody has something they don't like about themselves and everyone over compensates for something. But we like him and want him to do well because we relate to him.

I tend to like "unlikable" characters better than stereotypically "likable" ones, but two things influence that:

1. Does the character really want something, have a strong motivation, like Shakespeare's Macbeth or Richard III? It's fun to read about people trying to achieve goals, even when their goals are awful. It's not so fun to read about unlikable people who are just sitting around whining about their lives.

2. Can the reader tell somehow that the author KNOWS the character is unlikable and made him or her that way on purpose? I'm not talking about intentions the author states in an interview or whatever. I'm talking about clues we gather from the book itself. Based on Gone Girl, I know Gillian Flynn doesn't expect us to see her characters as role models, and even takes pleasure in exploring the petty, nasty extremes of human behavior. Based on Madame Bovary, I know Flaubert does not share Emma's romantic delusions.

By contrast, when I read Andre Gide's The Immoralist, I suspect I judge the character more harshly than the author himself does. Same with Catcher in the Rye. Same with Twilight. This doesn't necessarily ruin a book for me, but the less likable a protagonist is, and the more I suspect the author expects me to find the protagonist totally awesome, the less engaged I will be.

With Breaking Bad, there was a lot of online debate about whether you were "watching it wrong" if you found Walt totally awesome. Personally I think you were, and the show's creators went out of their way to make it obvious this was the tragedy of an anti-hero. But that ambiguity will always be there with any art form unless an omniscient narrator steps in to say, This Guy Is a Jerk, Don't Root for Him.

blacbird said:

Right. This is why Tony Soprano, Walter White, Francis Underwood, and Raymond Redington have become the most-compulsively watched characters in TV series in recent years.

You need interesting; you don't necessarily need likeable.

caw

Click to expand...

Agree, but how do we make them realistically interesting? My 2 cents, I think, it's by focusing on relatability instead of likeability. As long as a reader can relate to some aspect of your character's personality, needs, wants or goals, they'll be compelling. They don't necessarily need to be "liked", just understood regarding their feelings or motivations. Understanding creates empathy.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but to be frank as a reader I think it all boils down to empathetic characters. Not necessarily ones you personally can relate to or ones you like, but ones you CARE about. If I hit a point in a book where the protagonist (let's call him "Tommy") is in danger and it's clearly intended to be a hook to pull you into reading further, but I have something else I could be doing - even if not important - what it comes down to is a simple question: "Do I care if Tommy dies?" If the answer is either no or even just indifference, I put the book down and I might not pick it up again. I only keep reading if I care, because that makes it worth my time.

I can think of plenty of instances where the character was clearly likeable or I found something about them similar to myself or, heck, maybe they were completely fascinating, but I just didn't CARE about them. It didn't affect me at all if they lived or died, succeeded or failed. And those books I generally didn't finish. To be honest, I've had books that I was required to read for various reasons that I ended up WANTING the MC to die just so I could stop reading about them.

This is why, as a writer, I believe it's most important that a character can draw an emotional response from the reader. And to do that involves more than just the character. It's also the setting, the tone, the choice of words, everything that creates the mood of a scene to help influence the reader to a certain emotional connection with the character in that moment. I've had readers contact me to tell me a certain scene had them in tears or yelling out loud with excitement or fear and those are the reviews that let me know I managed to hook them.

I feel that if you're driven to a visceral reaction by what is happening to the character, you care about that character. If they're hurt or desperate, you feel scared for them. Them dying is a shock for you. You don't have to LIKE them or be able to relate yourself to things about them to feel that connection. You just have to care what happens to them - negatively or positively.

I have to second Scarlett O'Hara. Through most of the book I detested her but I kept on reading cuz she was so damn interesting. By the end of the book I kind of liked her.

Still, it's one of my fav. books, first read it when I was thirteen.

Fuchsia Groan said:

I tend to like "unlikable" characters better than stereotypically "likable" ones, but two things influence that:

1. Does the character really want something, have a strong motivation, like Shakespeare's Macbeth or Richard III? It's fun to read about people trying to achieve goals, even when their goals are awful. It's not so fun to read about unlikable people who are just sitting around whining about their lives.

2. Can the reader tell somehow that the author KNOWS the character is unlikable and made him or her that way on purpose? I'm not talking about intentions the author states in an interview or whatever. I'm talking about clues we gather from the book itself. Based on Gone Girl, I know Gillian Flynn doesn't expect us to see her characters as role models, and even takes pleasure in exploring the petty, nasty extremes of human behavior. Based on Madame Bovary, I know Flaubert does not share Emma's romantic delusions.

By contrast, when I read Andre Gide's The Immoralist, I suspect I judge the character more harshly than the author himself does. Same with Catcher in the Rye. Same with Twilight. This doesn't necessarily ruin a book for me, but the less likable a protagonist is, and the more I suspect the author expects me to find the protagonist totally awesome, the less engaged I will be.

Click to expand...

1. I find it even better when the villain's motivations stem from something we'd consider good. In a previous post, I mentioned Cersei Lannister as a character that I continue to find fascinating even though there is much to loathe about her. Why? Because the bulk of her motivation stems from something we'd consider noble and good: a mother's love. Without blowing too much of the series, most of her actions are driven by the love she has for her children and the fact she's desperate to protect them. Granted, she has no qualms about killing other peoples' children in order to protect her own, but that little bit of nobility in her character keeps her from being a one-dimensional villain and touches on one of life's truths: sometimes the worst evil comes about as a result of good intentions.

2. I understand what you mean with this one. It's okay to have loathsome people as characters so long as the person writing them realizes on some level how awful these people are. I use Seinfeld as an example in that series; it was a show about horrible people, but it worked because those involved knew how awful their characters were. What's worse is when they don't realize just how awful the characters are and keep expecting us to love them. The movie How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days was particularly grating in that aspect. For those of you who've forgotten that film, here's a link to a review that lays out just how awful it is in a way that's both funny and entertaining:

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2003...n-10-days-and-deliver-us-from-eva-review.html