Unsympathetic & Despicable

[Birol]

Do you think it is possible for a reader to connect with a character that is thoroughly despicable, that s/he despises? Is it necessary for a reader to sympathize with a character?

[janetbellinger]

Sure because it will remind the reader of his/own similar despicable characteristics.

[Meerkat]

American Psycho.

[RumpleTumbler]

*Fargo voice* You betcha! *Fargo voice off*

I see women gravitate towards the most vile trashy men imaginable all the time.

I see men gravitate towards the most vile trashy women imaginable all the time.

Together I see them produce the most vile trashy children imaginable.

I'd say not only is it possible but a lot of people won't have it any other way.

[Uncarved]

Do you think it is possible for a reader to connect with a character that is thoroughly despicable, that s/he despises? Is it necessary for a reader to sympathize with a character?

I believe so
If nothing else the writer can connect to the ugliness of the character with the ugliness within them.

Wandering off now:)

[WerenCole]

American Psycho.



No way in hell. Read my profile, under "writing goals" it states that I aspire to maim Brett Easton Ellis as the worst popular writer of all time. Really. Nothing he has ever written is worth a damn.



The answer to this question, in my opinion, might come in the form of Confederacy of Dunces.

[rugcat]

I think that's difficult. If you'll pardon the TV reference, look at Tony Soprano, or Vic on The Shield. They are despicable people--thieves, murderers, abusive to women, etc., and yet they do have redeeming characteristics, such as loyalty, bravery, even self sacrifice at times.

Without some redeeming qualities, I think a reader has trouble connecting and caring about what happens to them. Besides, it's as hard to write a realistic character who's all bad as it is to write one who is all good.

[maestrowork]

Interesting, strong characters -- yes. It works better in 3rd person, though. But even in first person, if you have a really strong voice and interesting perspective, it can still work.

[WriterInChains]

There are different levels of "despicable." Some of them are easier to empathize with than others. As a reader I don't have to be able to sympathize with a character to enjoy the book. Having a hard time coming up with examples, though, so I guess I'm no help! :Shrug:

[Norman D Gutter]

I consider it a mark of good writing to make reader sympathize with a character the reader starts the book expecting to not like.

NDG

[Rolling Thunder]

Don't worry, Lori. I'm sure....um....at least one person on AW likes you.

*runs from thread* :D

[ClaudiaGray]

I think Caren is right -- there's despicable and despicable. In I, Claudius, the murderous empress Livia kills countless people who are kinder and better intentioned than herself, but in the end, you end up feeling something for her vulnerability and recognizing that she may have been right about Augustus' weaknesses. OTOH, nobody reads The Lord of the Rings and thinks, "I bet Sauron had a really rough childhood."

[Meerkat]

Aye, Claudia.

[WerenCole]

"I bet Sauron had a really rough childhood."


I bet he did though, really. Give the guy, ummm. . . thing, some credit.

[Birol]

I'd say not only is it possible but a lot of people won't have it any other way.

You were giving real life examples, but do the real life people -- do the women who go for vile men -- think those people are vile and despicable or do they see or think they see something in them that others don't? Will what is true in real life work in fiction?

Interesting, strong characters -- yes. It works better in 3rd person, though. But even in first person, if you have a really strong voice and interesting perspective, it can still work.

Why do you think despicable characters are better told in third person than in first person, Ray?

OTOH, nobody reads The Lord of the Rings and thinks, "I bet Sauron had a really rough childhood."

But Sauron isn't the protagonist; he's the antagonist. As such, aren't we supposed to be rooting against him? Uh... That raises an interesting point. Is it possible to have a protagonist that is so despicable you root for him/her to lose and still have a book that people want to read?

Don't worry, Lori. I'm sure....um....at least one person on AW likes you.

*runs from thread* :D

:wag:

[Tiger]

Do you think it is possible for a reader to connect with a character that is thoroughly despicable, that s/he despises? Is it necessary for a reader to sympathize with a character?

I hope not... Author would get blamed for all kinds of nasty things. I'm kidding, but not completely.

[RumpleTumbler]

You were giving real life examples, but do the real life people -- do the women who go for vile men -- think those people are vile and despicable or do they see or think they see something in them that others don't? Will what is true in real life work in fiction?

They seem to be drawn to them with some type of supernatural infatuation.

I think you would have to present it in fiction as they thought they were wonderful. Maybe keep it at infatuation so that reality never sets it. If that happens then the other character either has to be deranged or really bad themselves.

[scarletpeaches]

You can sympathise with a character without condoning their actions. I've read books on serial killers, novels with murderers as the MCs and I've wanted them to get away with it.

Or maybe I'm just sick.

[Uncarved]

You can sympathise with a character without condoning their actions. I've read books on serial killers, novels with murderers as the MCs and I've wanted them to get away with it.

Or maybe I'm just sick.


Was there ever a question to that? But you're the *good* kind of sick Peaches.... *strokes hair* we luvs you.

[scarletpeaches]

*whimpers and dribbles a bit*

[Uncarved]

There there child.... just drink about more of the elixir.... it'll all be better soon.

[Celia Cyanide]

No way in hell. Read my profile, under "writing goals" it states that I aspire to maim Brett Easton Ellis as the worst popular writer of all time. Really. Nothing he has ever written is worth a damn.

I loved Less Than Zero. And American Psycho, but I didn't really sympathize with Bateman.

[Will Lavender]

Neat thread.

An interesting example I've mentioned on this board before:

Gillian Flynn's Sharp Objects. The main character of that book isn't completely despicable, but she definitely does some bizarre things. To wit: she makes out with her own sister. (And it's, I must say, HOT.)

But that book is completely, totally engrossing. My favorite book of '06.

[WildScribe]

If you read George R.R. Martin, you will find that you begin to root for the good guys, the bad guys, and everyone in between. It's crazy.

[Judg]

Loathing a character is also connecting with him/her... But will it keep me reading? Not so sure. They either have to be the antagonist or have some redeeming characteristic.

Flannery O'Connor's "Good Country People" remains in my mind one of the outstanding examples of a thoroughly unlikeable protagonist that we end up feeling real sympathy for.

SPOILER ALERT

O'Connor pulls this off by having her let down her guard, make herself vulnerable, and be nastily exploited by someone much worse than herself. I can remember only two short stories of the many we were taught in high school and this is one of them.

[maestrowork]

Why do you think despicable characters are better told in third person than in first person, Ray?

1st person is very intimate: you get into the narrator's head; he or she speaks directly to you; or you kind of assume his identity while reading the story. In that sense, if the character is truly despicable (without any sympathetic, redeeming qualities), vile, creepy, etc. it's difficult for the readers to be "intimate" with that narrator or even want to sit there and listen to his despicable stories. You won't trust him. You won't like him. There's very little distance between the narrator and the reader, and that makes for a very uncomfortable experience.

3rd person creates enough distance between character and reader and also the presence of a separate "narrator" makes it easier for the readers to take a step back. The reader might still not identify with the despicable character, but at least the reader has a safe distance.

It doesn't mean it can't work in 1st person. I can see how a 1st person psychopath such as Hannibal Lecter or American Psycho could work because that taps into the fear/dread of the readers. It's as if evil is speaking directly to you. So in that sense, it could work beautifully. The House of Sand and Fog has some very unlikable characters and the story is told in multiple first person... it works because the characters, while flawed, still have sympathetic qualities, enough for the readers to go along the ride with them. 1st person creates certain intimacy and intensity so it can work to a writer's advantage if that's the kind of intense emotions she wants from the readers (fear, depression, madness, etc.).

A reviewer said he didn't really like the 1st person narrator of my novel very much, at the beginning. But he said it was "fascinating to watch, as if watching a train wreck." So if you tap into that kind of morbid curiosity, it could work, too.

[Rob B]

If you've got a strong stomach, take a look at Harry Crews, who is one of my favorite writers, but not very well known. Try one of his latest, FEAST OF SNAKES. And fasten your seat belt.

This story goes right to your post. The protagonist is as despicable as one gets, yet a whole lot of "A" grade reviewers in years past reveled at the work. And so did I.

Sometimes, don't readers want to follow the lead baddie (when the protagonist), just to see him/her get his/her just desserts? Didn't Studs Lonigan fall into that mode? There was nothing likable about him (or anyone else in the trilogy, for that matter), yet I stayed with it, as my primary interest was in seeing what was going to befall him. There was no way I could assume Studs was going to pull his life around. It was a case of to what depths he would sink. Horrible thought, but it kept my interest.

You can also look to Shakespeare's tragedies. Or, in his histories, Richard 111, in particular.

[victoriastrauss]

Do you think it is possible for a reader to connect with a character that is thoroughly despicable, that s/he despises? Is it necessary for a reader to sympathize with a character?No, I don't think so--but it is necessary for the reader to understand the character. A connection between reader and character is necessary, I think, but the connection can be something other than sympathy.

There's always going to be a very polarized reaction to this kind of thing, though. I used to hate Bret Easton Ellis too, until I read Lunar Park, which IMO is a terrific book. The protagonist is a fictional version of the author, and he is completely unlikable--selfish, cowardly, self-deceiving, and weak. Yet it's such a compelling character portrait, and the book itself, with its metafictional frame, is so interesting that I was willing to go with him on his journey. My husband, who often likes the same things I do, stopped reading after a couple of chapters because he hated the protagonist so much.

- Victoria

[jodiodi]

Ah, Richard III. I adore him. He was portrayed as a monster by Shakespeare because WS was writing Tudor propaganda at the time. I'm sure the man did some terrible things, but then so did everyone else back then. And still do today, only we're not as open about it.

But he is a good example of a 'charater' portrayed as completely evil and despicable, but one I kept rooting for.

Then again, I usually pull for the bad guy when the protagonist is just too, too perfect and noble.

ETA: Remember the movie Phonebooth (I think it was called)? Colin Ferrell's character had nothing redeeming about him, but you wound up feeling sorry for him.

[MajorDrums]

I agree that having a despicable character in 3rd person may work better. In my opinion, 3rd person can create a distance between the reader and character, allowing the reader to have some wiggle room in what he/she identifies with and accepts from the despicable character. You don't like this person, but maybe, in certain circumstances, can understand why that person may do A, B, and C. Or, like scarletpeaches said, can sympathize with a character without condoning his/her actions. In first person, a feeling of relatedness or connectedness may bring discomfort instead of understanding to the reader, because the connection is seemingly more direct.

[madderblue]

How about Lolita? Humbert Humbert, first person. I loved the man! And then hated myself for loving him.

[licity-lieu]

I loved Less Than Zero. And American Psycho, but I didn't really sympathize with Bateman.

I think that was the whole point. Bateman was never meant to be admirable-we were never meant to sympathize with him. His repulsiveness sparks a social comment.

[licity-lieu]

Here's another: The narrator in 'We need to talk about Kevin'. I found her altogether too whiney but I couldnt put the book down. The narrator's humour and complete lack of maternal instinct struck a cord. It was so damn funny! I heard an interview with Lionel Shriver on the radio. You either love her or hate her. I found her compelling yet grating at the same time.

[seun]

As long as a character is interesting, the reader should care about them and what they're doing.

[akiwiguy]

Now that I have deleted what our cat had typed while I was away from the keyboard..

I notice Hannibal Lecter is mentioned a bit here, and my personalised number plate happens to be LECTER (with some other wording above and below that). No, we don't eat visitors in our house, the real story is that I was a slightly inebriated one night and my daughter and I were discussing personalised plates, and one of our favourite fictional characters is Hannibal, and the next minute I realised I'd done the deed on the web, credit card transaction completed and that was that.

Anyway, anytime I'm out in the car I'll notice couples pointing down at it having quite a discussion, grinning, chatting away, but fascinating thing is that it is always the female who is very animated and doing most of the talking. And I've always thought that it reinforces my suspicion that Hannibal is a rather sexy character. His intelligence, wit, insight into others makes him rather compelling, to the degree that he'd make for a great acquaintance so long as you weren't the one on the menu. I mean the attraction can't be that we're all vorarephiliacs?

I always tend to think of the movie version, but he must surely rank as one of the most cleverly developed fictional characters ever.

[aruna]

Here's another: The narrator in 'We need to talk about Kevin'. I found her altogether too whiney but I couldnt put the book down. The narrator's humour and complete lack of maternal instinct struck a cord. It was so damn funny! I heard an interview with Lionel Shriver on the radio. You either love her or hate her. I found her compelling yet grating at the same time.

I'm reading this book right now and was going to mention it - you beat me to it! I agree with you completely. I dislike this 1st persomn narrator intently. I hate her voice, her wordy, intellectual style, her attitude, her whinyness, yet I am keen to finish it. (I don't find her at all funny, though, in fact, IMO she takes herself far too seriously!) Another thing: I find myself transferring my loathing of this character to the author; as if the narrator really is the author, which is not necessarily the case. So much so that I had to go and research the author and I found out that the narrator probably IS speaking for her. So I decided the author is not someopne I'd like in person. Though I haven't seen/heard any live interviews.

[Evaine]

George MacDonald Fraser wrote a whole series about Flashman, the Victorian cad, bully and coward - he does it in first person, so you're right inside Flashy's head as he joins the crew of a slaving ship, or sneaks away from a battle - and you do end up kind of liking him.

[scarletpeaches]

I'm reading this book right now and was going to mention it - you beat me to it! I agree with you completely. I dislike this 1st persomn narrator intently. I hate her voice, her wordy, intellectual style, her attitude, her whinyness, yet I am keen to finish it. (I don't find her at all funny, though, in fact, IMO she takes herself far too seriously!) Another thing: I find myself transferring my loathing of this character to the author; as if the narrator really is the author, which is not necessarily the case. So much so that I had to go and research the author and I found out that the narrator probably IS speaking for her. So I decided the author is not someopne I'd like in person. Though I haven't seen/heard any live interviews.

I liked the narrator...probably because I feel in the same position. A woman who doesn't want children, who constantly feels pressured by 'society' to start breeding because "That's what women do," and if you don't want kids you stick out a mile.

[RumpleTumbler]

What about the apostle Paul? He spent a good deal of time murdering Christians and now all Christians love him.

Even God seems to prefer bad people.

[Meerkat]

I'm not a Christian, but if I recall correctly, Paul (the apostle formerly known as Saul of Tarsus) was not 'bad.' He was killing folks right and left in his previous, unenlightened life, and once he became an apostle, changed his life, his name and became perhaps the most eloquent writer for peace and love of his time. Good book about him: Kingdom of the Wicked, by Anthony Burgess.

[scarletpeaches]

God loved Paul because he was willing to change. And did so.

[RumpleTumbler]

I didn't mean to insinuate that he was bad after becoming a Christian.

I did mean to insinuate that God blesses really horrible people while hanging those out who aren't. The main point being that God really likes bad people and doesn't have much use for folks who aren't bad. So if God really likes bad people and people are made in Gods image then people should like bad characters.

[RumpleTumbler]

God loved Paul because he was willing to change. And did so.

God changed Paul. It wasn't Paul's doing.

[scarletpeaches]

God hates the sin, not the sinner. He gives them a chance to change and loves them if they do, but if they don't, well...their choice. The reason he shows such love to sinners is because (as Jesus said) it's the sick who have most need of a physician.

Which is why 'the sinner redeemed' is such a popular plot device. Readers like to see the bad guy turn good again.

[scarletpeaches]

God changed Paul. It wasn't Paul's doing.

Paul chose to change. He could have ignored Jesus on the road to Damascus.

If it was all God's doing, why doesn't he change all bad people?

Simple. He puts the opportunity before them and leaves it up to them.

[swvaughn]

I think that was the whole point. Bateman was never meant to be admirable-we were never meant to sympathize with him. His repulsiveness sparks a social comment.

Oh crap. His last name was Bateman? I always thought it was Bates.

Dang. Maybe I should use a pseudonym after all...

[RumpleTumbler]

Paul chose to change. He could have ignored Jesus on the road to Damascus.

If it was all God's doing, why doesn't he change all bad people?

Simple. He puts the opportunity before them and leaves it up to them.

I'm not going to look up the scripture or derail this thread with it but if you will look it up you will see that God specifically says that He has chosen Paul and this is before the conversion. If you want to argue about the unfairness of God lets do it in another thread.

[DeadlyAccurate]

This thread reminds me of one of the better bad-guy main characters ever created for television: Al Swearengen on Deadwood. He's abusive to his employees, a blatant bigot, a murderer, and a thief (and more things that just aren't coming to mind right now), yet he's one of the best characters ever created for television. You can't help but cheer for him even as you hate him.

[scarletpeaches]

Pardon me, but I didn't say God was unfair. And I do know my bible, thank you.

It was Jesus (not God) who spoke to Ananias and then said Paul was chosen.

[RumpleTumbler]

Pardon me, but I didn't say God was unfair. And I do know my bible, thank you.

No, you said He was fair. I say He isn't.

[scarletpeaches]

Ah.

[aruna]

What about the apostle Paul? He spent a good deal of time murdering Christians and now all Christians love him.

Even God seems to prefer bad people.

I have nothing against people who don't have or don't want children. It's the voice of her I can't stand, and the constant griping. If you don't want kids, then for heaven's sakes don't have them.

As for what society tells you to do: fiddlesticks. If I bothered with what soeciety wanted or told me to do or society's opinion I wouldn't have done anything at all.

I have to say this though: when she came to the description of her Dream House I almost passed out. That is MY Dream House! She got it exactly right! I just loved this chapter.

[Birol]

This thread reminds me of one of the better bad-guy main characters ever created for television: Al Swearengen on Deadwood. He's abusive to his employees, a blatant bigot, a murderer, and a thief (and more things that just aren't coming to mind right now), yet he's one of the best characters ever created for television. You can't help but cheer for him even as you hate him.

Oh! I didn't really have any specific character in mind when I started this thread, but what about Dr. House on House? He's selfish, arrogant, self-serving, and manipulative... and yet he's the protagonist and people tune in to watch him on a regular basis.

[victoriastrauss]

Please, can we keep religious argument to the forums that are appropriate for that? In the context of this thread, a discussion of Paul isn't appropriate anyway, whether you're approaching him from a historical perspective or one of belief.

Thanks.

- Victoria

[RumpleTumbler]

Oh! I didn't really have any specific character in mind when I started this thread, but what about Dr. House on House? He's selfish, arrogant, self-serving, and manipulative... and yet he's the protagonist and people tune in to watch him on a regular basis.

I watched the show for 5 minutes and will never watch it again.

He was handing out money to people who would leave the waiting room. He gave some guy $50 (I think) to leave who was coughing up blood. There was nothing he could have ever done to redeem himself for that in my eyes. I'm a freak about being sick and dying and all that though so most people probably wouldn't have been offended by it.

[victoriastrauss]

Oh! I didn't really have any specific character in mind when I started this thread, but what about Dr. House on House? He's selfish, arrogant, self-serving, and manipulative... and yet he's the protagonist and people tune in to watch him on a regular basis.I love that show. And I love that it refuses to give him redeeming qualities--for instance, the episode in which he faked brain cancer in order to get an experimental drug, or the stint in rehab which had him resolutely refusing to be rehabbed. He helps people, but for all the wrong reasons. You do see some of his torment and self-hatred, though, and occasionally he is stricken by conscience--so he's a bad person, but he's multi-faceted and complex, which keeps him interesting.

The one thing that bugs me about the show is that there's no way he wouldn't be fired for his outrageous behavior, Or that the people around him would keep tolerating his atrocious treatment of them. He's incredibly cruel to his long-suffering friend, the oncologist--can't remember his name. I'd have thrown up my hands long ago.

- Victoria

[DeadlyAccurate]

Oh! I didn't really have any specific character in mind when I started this thread, but what about Dr. House on House? He's selfish, arrogant, self-serving, and manipulative... and yet he's the protagonist and people tune in to watch him on a regular basis.

Absolutely! About half the stuff he does is illegal, and in real life, he would've long been fired, no matter how brilliant he is, just because he's so difficult to be around. But goodness, he's such an awesome character to watch. He gets to say the stuff we want to say but are too polite to.

Meant to add, if he were a real person, I'd hate him. Unconditionally.

[jodiodi]

House is one of my favorite characters. He has a few redeeming qualities that shine through now and then. A lot of what he does is in self-defense, i.e., he is so wary of being open or seen as human, he pushes people away to avoid the inevitable pain and possible vulnerability closeness brings. But you can see with Wilson how he really wants to remain friends, how much he needs Wilson.

Yes, he'd be kicked off staff for some of the things he does, but this is a TV show, not a documentary.

[ccarver30]

I think that's difficult. If you'll pardon the TV reference, look at Tony Soprano, or Vic on The Shield. They are despicable people--thieves, murderers, abusive to women, etc., and yet they do have redeeming characteristics, such as loyalty, bravery, even self sacrifice at times.

Without some redeeming qualities, I think a reader has trouble connecting and caring about what happens to them. Besides, it's as hard to write a realistic character who's all bad as it is to write one who is all good.

You rule.

[ccarver30]

Was there ever a question to that? But you're the *good* kind of sick Peaches.... *strokes hair* we luvs you.

Agreed. LOL <3

[Uncarved]

Oh! I didn't really have any specific character in mind when I started this thread, but what about Dr. House on House? He's selfish, arrogant, self-serving, and manipulative... and yet he's the protagonist and people tune in to watch him on a regular basis.


I sooooo want House. In an evil twisted thoroughly sick way.

[Jamesaritchie]

Do you think it is possible for a reader to connect with a character that is thoroughly despicable, that s/he despises? Is it necessary for a reader to sympathize with a character?

It isn't sympathy that matters, it's empathy. I do think the reader must have some degree of empathy for any lead character. It's fine for a character to be despicable, to be a cannibal, to be a murdering SOB, but I think the reader must be able to say "I understand why he's this way, and if I'd gone through everything he has, I might be the same way."

[Jamesaritchie]

I find House full of redeeming qualities. I think they far outweigh all his negative qualities. This is why the show works.

[Nakhlasmoke]

What about Blackadder? Granted, it's not a book, and it's comedy, but people love his character. (well I do, and I'm people). I love the fact that he's a complete and utter bastard and uses, abuses, and insults everyone around him.

On a somewhat more serious note, the antihero is a popular figure in books, comics, and film, so I would think that it is possible, yes.

[Mlshanks]

Of course it's possible to love the villians!

Hooray for George MacDonald Fraser's favorite scoundral Sir Harry Paget Flashman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman), and Raymond Saunders homage to the genera in Fenwick Travers.

And don't all the girls swoon for Ann Rice's blood-sucker Lestat?
(...well, casting as Tom Cruise didn't hurt... :D )

And there's Andrew Vachss' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Vachss)cast of the Burke books... Cons, grifters, a gun runner, rogue cops, a transexual whore, the head of a Chinese crime family... Who's major redeaming freature is that they hate pedophiles...and are willing to scam or kill them.

[RMS]

I happen to love Lestat but I couldn't help thinking of the Frankenstein monster while I read this thread.
Didn't eveybody have a bit of empathy for him?

[licity-lieu]

Oh crap. His last name was Bateman? I always thought it was Bates.



I am takin' a stab here. Isnt Bates from Psycho (Hitchcock)? Wow..if that's the case I only just realised that-duh! or maybe re-remembered it:D

[jodiodi]

Yes, Norman Bates was the Psycho character.

[lfraser]

I don't think a reader can connect with a character that is thoroughly despicable. Lovable rogues, yes; abused children who grow up twisted, yes. But a Hannibal Lector (before the last book was written, that is) -- absolutely not. He is evil without any trace of warmth. A sociopath. I can respect his wit, but I can never connect with him. There's nothing human in him for me to empathize with.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Do you think it is possible for a reader to connect with a character that is thoroughly despicable, that s/he despises? Is it necessary for a reader to sympathize with a character?


The first two words that come to my mind when faced with this question are:

Darth Vader

The guy was despicable, but at the same time was almost lovable as a bad guy. I know I half-wished he would have been re-united with Luke Skywalker in a more, shall we say, nice fashion. I also wished to an extent that he hadn't been the bad guy. He was just too human, even underneath the mask and the fancy mechanics that were supposed to keep him alive, to be completely evil and un-lovable.

OTOH, I don't think it is necessary to sympathize with all characters. There are some characters that are meant to be thoroughly hated, and I think that is one of the things that really makes a lot of fiction as powerful as it is.

A good example of this, also taken from Star Wars, is the Emperor himself. I wanted him dead. I did not like him, and did not sympathize in the least with him in the original movies he appeared in. To me, he was the ultimate evil, incapable of redemption and lacking any ability for good.

But he was a pretty darned good bad guy, nevertheless.

[Birol]

I understand the antagonists being despicable, but there have been a few protagonists named, too, who just aren't that likable as characters, but readers or viewers still connect with them.

To go with House or even the narrator of Nabokov's Pale Fire (I'm truly sorry; my reading is just really limited right now), why do I keep watching or reading? If I wanted to make a despicable protagonist, what would I have to do to get the reader to connect with them?

[paprikapink]

WerenCole called out my classic example: Confederacy of Dunces. My husband quit reading it because he couldn't relate to any of the despicable characters. I loved it! I couldn't believe how funny it is and how transparent, yet real the characters are.

Another example is Wicked. Again, using my husband as the example of the reader who just doesn't get it... he read it as the witch being cast in a sympathetic light. Just kidding that he doesn't "get it." Maybe that's true. I read it as the witch being the "untrustworthy narrator." It's not first-person, but it's mostly told from her pov. She justifies and rationalizes everything she does -- but she does some wicked stuff. I think it's part of the skill of the author that he doesn't lead you by the nose: let's read about a despicable character, kiddies! He tells what's going on in her head and what she does and you have to figure out for yourself which justifications and rationalizations are valid to you.

[DeadlyAccurate]

If I wanted to make a despicable protagonist, what would I have to do to get the reader to connect with them?

Being funny works wonders. Imagine if House were, in addition to all his negative qualities, a humourless git. It would be much harder to enjoy the few times his positive traits show through.

Other ways: showing their reason, even if it's twisted, for doing what they do; showing attempts, even if they fail, to change the despicable behavior.

Also, no one is evil all the time. Show them being just human. I'm reminded, during Saddam's incarceration, of a report talking about how he liked to eat Doritos (I think) and how he was always polite to his guards, often giving them fatherly advice on picking appropriate wives.

[rugcat]

One thing that's being overlooked in the discussion of House as an unsympathetic yet fascinating character is that we're not solely talking about a written work. The brilliant acting of Hugh Laurie is what makes the character work. I think in the hands of a merely competent actor, people would be far less forgiving, and far less interested.

[jodiodi]

I agree about the reasoning and showing how someone has a human quality somewhere (providing your villain IS human or at least human-like). For example, Hitler, in his mind, thought he was doing the right thing for Germany, and he loved dogs. Sure, he was a murderous Oedipus that should rot in hell forever, but if one were to write something making him the protagonist (hard to believe, but what a challenge that would be), one might emphasize thouse points.

[maestrowork]

If you have a 3-dimensional, complex and INTERESTING character, your readers will follow even if they don't necessarily like the character.

There will be someone who will put down the book because they can't "connect" with the character -- they expect to like the protagonist. An agent rejected my first ms. because she couldn't "connect" with my protagonist. She wanted to fall in love with him... LOL.

Some genres require certain likability -- romance, for example. It would be difficult to root for the hero or heroine to have a HEA if they're despicable. Thrillers tend to require a "good guy" as the hero. But other genres may be more forgiving as long as the character is well-developed.

[Birol]

One thing that's being overlooked in the discussion of House as an unsympathetic yet fascinating character is that we're not solely talking about a written work. The brilliant acting of Hugh Laurie is what makes the character work. I think in the hands of a merely competent actor, people would be far less forgiving, and far less interested.

This is true. Dr. House is portrayed by an actor, but someone, presumably a writer, had to come up with the character before Hugh Laurie brought him to life. I remember hearing once that Hugh Laurie didn't realize he was auditioning for the lead role because he couldn't imagine House being the lead; he thought House was a secondary character. So, even the script Hugh Laurie first read from portrayed House as unlikeable.

[jodiodi]

Hugh Laurie is wonderful as Dr. House. I like that he says what others think but won't say ... Kinda like Cartman on South Park.

...Made you eat your parents ...

[chartreuse]

Oscar Wilde said something like "It's useless to divide people into groups of good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

Fact is, even the most despicable character will be sympathized with if they are charming enough.

And even the nicest character will fail to gain our sympathy if they are too tedious.

Characters need to be INTERESTING. Whether or not they are nice people, at least for me as a reader, has nothing to do with it.

[Namatu]

Oscar Wilde said something like "It's useless to divide people into groups of good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

Fact is, even the most despicable character will be sympathized with if they are charming enough.

And even the nicest character will fail to gain our sympathy if they are too tedious.

Characters need to be INTERESTING. Whether or not they are nice people, at least for me as a reader, has nothing to do with it.
Well said. I concur.

[scarletpeaches]

Hugh Laurie is wonderful as Dr. House. I like that he says what others think but won't say ... Kinda like Cartman on South Park.

...Made you eat your parents ...

Are you suggesting a House/jodiodi/Cartman threesome?

Disgusting.

[jodiodi]

Are you suggesting a House/jodiodi/Cartman threesome?

Disgusting.


Oh, I don't know. Cartman has a certain ... something. ;) Besides, House would more than make up for any of Cartman's two-dimensional qualities.