brutus said:Could this be why there are so many published books that do so poorly? They are well-written, but, like one I struggled with recently, uninteresting and downright bland. But well-written.
And somehow the reverse is also true: there are many interesting, engaging stories out there that are very poorly written.
I don't see much wrong with Mr. Barber's statement. He's been in this business for a long time, and he makes valid points. But likewise, a character he may see as unsympathetic in a manuscript he just can't possibly represent could be exactly what the next agent is looking for.
I mean, the unlikable character thing is really hard for me to understand. If I don't like a character, why would I want to spend four hundred pages with them? Why would you write a whole book about them? Am I wrong about that?"
Nah. Nobody wanted to read about Hannibal Lecter. That Flashman series by George Macdonald Fraser, that was a complete flop, too.
caw
There's a big difference between an unlikeable character created with the depth and eloquence that Nabokov brought to bear on Humbert Humbert and the unlikeable characters who mope through a lot of would-be commercial fiction.
Yet those people -- outlandish or even horrifying as they are -- ARE likeable. They're likeable AND unlikeable, with abilities and wit that coexist with their flaws.
I means that if you've got an unlikable MC, send it to another agent.
One agent cannot speak for every agent out there, and I don't even think this one was trying to.
What's more, Nabokov (arguably) makes us empathize with Humbert Humbert, as much as we despise his actions. As uncomfortable as it makes us, on one level we come to understand his obsession, while simultaneously questioning it (she's such a brat!) and condemning it (she's a child!). Such is the power of the complex, beautiful masterpiece that is Lolita.