Asshole main characters

Emermouse

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 30, 2012
Messages
896
Reaction score
89
Age
38
Location
In America
When it comes to a-hole characters, you have to make them compelling in some way. Like give them a strong voice, making it so you like them in spite of what they do. Though as always, the writer must be aware of the gap between what the a-hole character believes and what is actually true, otherwise it won't work.

Or you can do something similar like Tony Stark in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Because Tony is the kind of character who could have gone wrong in so many ways, but they pulled it off thanks in part to Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance. While he may be something of an ass, he does have some charisma and charm. You understand why people would want to be around this guy. He's a flawed mess, riddled with PTSD, and so much of the Marvel Cinematic Universe involves cleaning up his messes, but what keeps Tony Stark from being a dull, repetitive mess is RD, Jr.'s performance and that no matter what, you do get the idea that for all his faults, Tony Stark genuinely wants to do the right thing and is desperately trying to, but his faults keep tripping him up. Though the fact that he has turned into more of a quivering mess of PTSD with each movie, and none of his friends have suggested that he go into therapy, makes me look all side-eyed at them.

Of course, the whole story behind the creation of Iron Man is interesting in that, to use Stan Lee's words, the plan was to create a character the readers wouldn't like, then make the readers like him, which sounds like what you are trying to do. Link for more information: http://atopthefourthwall.com/tales-of-suspense-39/

Though if you're not trying to make your readers like and root for your a-hole character, they still have to be compelling. For example, I find Cersei Lannister in A Song of Ice and Fire to be a fascinating character. By no means, do I like this character; I will cheer if she is ever good and thoroughly pwned. Yet at the same time, George RR Martin did a good job creating her backstory; you understand why she wound up where she did in life, which helps make her oddly compelling in that you find yourself wondering, "What could have been," when it comes to her. You could make a case that she is merely a darker version of Catelyn Stark. Both of them are mothers driven to protect their children, but Cersei is willing to go to lengths that Catelyn would blanch at.
 

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
230
Location
Colorado
Website
indianroads.net
[camera slowly pans to Henry VIII]

Maybe not everyone.

I'm sure there were some people that thought their kind was awesome! From what I understand, in his younger days with his first wife Katherine he was gentle and charming.
Heck, to some Charles Manson is someone to be admired - women write to him all the time (from what I've heard).

No matter how 'evil' a person is, in their mind they are doing the right thing... most of the time. Sometimes people hurt others just because they can, but that doesn't mean that their entire life is evil. Hitler revitalized the German economy... before he went off the rails. We all are a mixture of good and bad.

IMO Good and evil are malleable concepts that are based on perception of an observer.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Hitler revitalized the German economy... before he went off the rails.

I hate to break the news to you, but Adolf Hitler was long unacquainted with the rails before he ever became Chancellor of Germany. Have you heard of the book Mein Kampf? As for "reviving" the German economy, he did that by, among other things, plundering Jewish businesses and possessions, and ramping up the German war machine. About the only good quality he had was he was that he liked dogs.

caw
 

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
230
Location
Colorado
Website
indianroads.net
I hate to break the news to you, but Adolf Hitler was long unacquainted with the rails before he ever became Chancellor of Germany. Have you heard of the book Mein Kampf? As for "reviving" the German economy, he did that by, among other things, plundering Jewish businesses and possessions, and ramping up the German war machine. About the only good quality he had was he was that he liked dogs.
caw

All I'm saying is that we all are a mixture of good and bad. Any character in your writing that is purely one or the other (Dudley Do-right vs Snide Nasty) comes across as a caricature.
 

CJSimone

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
497
I think everyone has redeeming qualities... don't they?

[camera slowly pans to Henry VIII]

Maybe not everyone.

I'm sure there were some people that thought their kind was awesome! From what I understand, in his younger days with his first wife Katherine he was gentle and charming.
Heck, to some Charles Manson is someone to be admired - women write to him all the time (from what I've heard).

No matter how 'evil' a person is, in their mind they are doing the right thing... most of the time. Sometimes people hurt others just because they can, but that doesn't mean that their entire life is evil. Hitler revitalized the German economy... before he went off the rails. We all are a mixture of good and bad.

IMO Good and evil are malleable concepts that are based on perception of an observer.

I hate to break the news to you, but Adolf Hitler was long unacquainted with the rails before he ever became Chancellor of Germany. Have you heard of the book Mein Kampf? As for "reviving" the German economy, he did that by, among other things, plundering Jewish businesses and possessions, and ramping up the German war machine. About the only good quality he had was he was that he liked dogs.

caw

All I'm saying is that we all are a mixture of good and bad. Any character in your writing that is purely one or the other (Dudley Do-right vs Snide Nasty) comes across as a caricature.

I agree we're all a mixture of good and bad, but I don't believe that "Good and evil are malleable concepts that are based on perception of an observer" or that people like Henry VIII, Hitler and Manson are in part "good" people just because they had some good qualities, did some good things or are esteemed by some people. Evil people can inadvertently do things that turn out good while serving their own interests, and some people do good before they turn evil. A lot of people will esteem evil people, but that has nothing to do with how good or evil the person is. Any good that Henry VIII, Hitler or Manson ever did wouldn't redeem them to me, especially while they were still doing evil. And an MC like them, however many positive qualities he/she had, wouldn't redeem that character for me. It would annoy me if I was presented with a character evil to that degree and I could tell the author wanted me to view them as ok or likable based on a few good things about them.

I'm ok with once-evil people turning good; I'm ok with well-meaning people doing something evil without knowing (it comes down to motive and intent a lot for me); and I'm ok with people screwing up-- even a lot. Actually I prefer flawed people in life and as characters in fiction.

I agree some people think they're doing the right thing (or at least a justifiable thing) when they do something wrong, but I wouldn't say everyone does. Even from personal experience as someone who screws up a lot, I often know I'm doing wrong. I'm probably gonna feel like crap about it and regret it, etc., but I'm not usually inclined to justify it to myself or anyone else (at least not fully). I sympathize more with people if they know they're doing wrong / did wrong and are guilt-ridden or remorseful, so that's an important part of making an a-hole character work as an MC to me. But for some readers it can work to just have an interesting a-hole MC, even an unremorseful one.
 
Last edited:

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
230
Location
Colorado
Website
indianroads.net
This is an interesting conversation - and I really hope everyone is taking this discussion as a simple exchange of ideas, and not an actual argument. The best books provoke thought in my opinion. In other words, I'm hoping the mods won't smack me for arguing that people, that history has labeled as evil, had good qualities - or that there are some who see them as good.

How many evil deeds does an otherwise good person have to do in order to be labeled as evil?

Genghis Kahn's legacy was the death of millions of people. Suffering on a world scale. I heard that his conquests resulted in the death of about 10% of the world population. Pretty bad dude I think, and yet he is revered in Mongolia still today. Are his followers crazy or evil - I don't know.

Adolf Hitler (who I hate) actually thought he was doing good. In current times we have ISIS and their ilk, all of whom believe they are liberating the world and serving god. The Roman's called early Christians 'the haters of all life', and look where they are today. Maybe, to be perceived by history as good, you have to win your war?

In my published novel, my MC is an early teen boy. He's the son of drug dealers and when they are caught by the police he is thrown into Juvenile Hall, then into an abusive foster care family. He ends up on the street selling drugs to survive - and at one point he kills someone that murdered one of his friends. Is he evil, or just trapped in circumstance?
 

CJSimone

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
497
Thoughts below.

This is an interesting conversation - and I really hope everyone is taking this discussion as a simple exchange of ideas, and not an actual argument. The best books provoke thought in my opinion. In other words, I'm hoping the mods won't smack me for arguing that people, that history has labeled as evil, had good qualities - or that there are some who see them as good. :Thumbs:

How many evil deeds does an otherwise good person have to do in order to be labeled as evil? Maybe just my opinion, but it's not the number. It's where their heart's at currently.

Genghis Kahn's legacy was the death of millions of people. Suffering on a world scale. I heard that his conquests resulted in the death of about 10% of the world population. Pretty bad dude I think, and yet he is revered in Mongolia still today. Are his followers crazy or evil - I don't know. Misled is the word that comes to mind.

Adolf Hitler (who I hate) actually thought he was doing good. In current times we have ISIS and their ilk, all of whom believe they are liberating the world and serving god. The Roman's called early Christians 'the haters of all life', and look where they are today. Maybe, to be perceived by history as good, you have to win your war? I think there are some who "won" but are perceived as evil and not good, and some who "lost" but still are perceived as good. I don't personally go much by popular opinion as a determining factor.

In my published novel, my MC is an early teen boy. He's the son of drug dealers and when they are caught by the police he is thrown into Juvenile Hall, then into an abusive foster care family. He ends up on the street selling drugs to survive - and at one point he kills someone that murdered one of his friends. Is he evil, or just trapped in circumstance? Just my opinion, of course, but to me your MC is sympathetic. And I think the OP can make a sympathetic MC even out of one that killed his abusive family, as long as he's presented in a way that makes us understand and feel for him.
 

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
230
Location
Colorado
Website
indianroads.net
Maybe just my opinion, but it's not the number. It's where their heart's at currently.
So, can a person actually be evil, or is it only their actions that are perceived so? If I were to throw a stone through the house window of a child abuser, am I evil? Can justified evil be good?

Misled is the word that comes to mind.
Quite possibly true, but aren't we all misled to some extent?

I think there are some who "won" but are perceived as evil and not good, and some who "lost" but still are perceived as good. I don't personally go much by popular opinion as a determining factor.
As the saying goes, the victors write the history books. For example, Winston Churchill is widely considered to have been a good person, but if you talk to the Irish, you'll definitely get a different opinion. Some of his actions were good, but others were very evil. What determines our perception? Perhaps actions can be evil, but people are somewhat neutral? Charlie Manson is often used as an example of an evil man. Considering his childhood though, he was defective; as such should we say he was evil, or just his actions?

Just my opinion, of course, but to me your MC is sympathetic. And I think the OP can make a sympathetic MC even out of one that killed his abusive family, as long as he's presented in a way that makes us understand and feel for him.
In my reading (and hopefully in my writing) I enjoy characters of complexity and depth. It's too easy to fall into the trap of single dimension characters, which for me leads to stale reading.
 

CJSimone

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
497
Maybe just my opinion, but it's not the number. It's where their heart's at currently.
So, can a person actually be evil, or is it only their actions that are perceived so? If I were to throw a stone through the house window of a child abuser, am I evil? Can justified evil be good?

Misled is the word that comes to mind.
Quite possibly true, but aren't we all misled to some extent?

I think there are some who "won" but are perceived as evil and not good, and some who "lost" but still are perceived as good. I don't personally go much by popular opinion as a determining factor.
As the saying goes, the victors write the history books. For example, Winston Churchill is widely considered to have been a good person, but if you talk to the Irish, you'll definitely get a different opinion. Some of his actions were good, but others were very evil. What determines our perception? Perhaps actions can be evil, but people are somewhat neutral? Charlie Manson is often used as an example of an evil man. Considering his childhood though, he was defective; as such should we say he was evil, or just his actions?

Just my opinion, of course, but to me your MC is sympathetic. And I think the OP can make a sympathetic MC even out of one that killed his abusive family, as long as he's presented in a way that makes us understand and feel for him.
In my reading (and hopefully in my writing) I enjoy characters of complexity and depth. It's too easy to fall into the trap of single dimension characters, which for me leads to stale reading.

I'm going with yes, people (and not just their actions) can be / are evil to greater or lesser degrees. If a person with full understanding murders innocent people (as opposed to other types of killing), preys on kids, or brutalizes weaker persons, I'm going to classify them as evil. It's a matter of heart and not just actions, but the heart of people can be clear from those kinds of actions. I may be in the minority on my next point, but I'm also going to classify as evil those who approve of the above types of evil acts or have a complete lack of concern over them (in that case it's the heart alone and not the action leading me to classify them as evil). It all gets into slippery judgment area, and for the most part I try not to judge people and I make a lot of allowances for us as flawed humans, but I still do consider heartless people evil.

I personally wouldn't consider you evil for throwing a stone through the house window of a child abuser, especially if you had personal reasons for it (like they abused your kid, abused you as a kid, you were abused by someone else as a kid and acting that out, etc.). I might not even consider it an evil act, depending on the situation, but not an advisable act.

I don't know that there's any such thing as "justified evil." If it's justified, then it's not really evil IMO. But people probably aren't very good judges of what's justified.

I'll agree we're probably all misled to greater or lesser degrees.

Re: people considered good by some and evil by others - the truth probably lies someplace else and not in opinions about the person. I think most highly esteemed people are no more deserving of esteem than less esteemed people, and many scapegoated people aren't worse than others.

As far as what determines our perception - a lot of complex factors, too much to go into, and too debated for here.

My vote is in that Mason himself (and not just his actions) is evil. Even if you call him "defective", he's an evil form of defective; if he's a product of environment or something, that's a tragedy, but he still turned out evil.

I also enjoy characters who have complexity and depth. I'm bored reading about one dimensional characters and I'd be just as bored writing about them. For the OP to make an a-hole MC work, they'll need to be at least as complex as other MCs.

Hopefully this all ties in enough to the OP's question of an a-hole MC.
 

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
230
Location
Colorado
Website
indianroads.net
Interesting discussion.

I think that how we understand and relate to good and evil has an affect on our work.
 

sockycat

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
506
Reaction score
121
Location
Michigan
I'm sure there were some people that thought their kind was awesome! From what I understand, in his younger days with his first wife Katherine he was gentle and charming.
Heck, to some Charles Manson is someone to be admired - women write to him all the time (from what I've heard).

No matter how 'evil' a person is, in their mind they are doing the right thing... most of the time. Sometimes people hurt others just because they can, but that doesn't mean that their entire life is evil. Hitler revitalized the German economy... before he went off the rails. We all are a mixture of good and bad.

IMO Good and evil are malleable concepts that are based on perception of an observer.

[shakes fist] why you gotta ruin my joke
 

greendragon

Registered
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
4,217
Reaction score
475
Location
Beacon Falls, CT
Website
www.greendragonartist.com
I believe some people judged evil (using Manson as a convenient example) are often psychopathic. They don't CARE if they are evil or not. They have no moral judgment for such acts. They do what they want and can get away with, with no empathy or thought to how those acts affect others. The judgment between good and evil often boils down to a person's level of empathy. An example from the other end of the spectrum: Mother Theresa, by most accounts, had a great deal of empathy and worked hard most of her life to help those in poverty. Yet she is said to have believed the sick must suffer, like Christ on the cross, and didn't believe in palliative care.

So, if a character has empathy, and yet performs acts that result in harm, I expect them to be a much more sympathetic character than a character who has no empathy or interest in others and yet does no harm. The former is 'flawed but interesting' while the latter is 'flat and forgettable.'

Just my opinion :)
 

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
2,372
Reaction score
230
Location
Colorado
Website
indianroads.net
Decades ago I wrote a short story with a MC that believed everything he saw was an illusion. That everything he saw, heard, smelled, felt, was something that was only occurring within his own mind. This extended even to himself, that he was an illusion as well, an illusion as the source of all illusions. As such, he had no problem with hurting others, had no empathy, and would do whatever he saw fit without considering consequences.

In my view the MC was interesting only because of his twisted psychology. The writing was actually kind of fun... but spooky at the same time.
 

Linnet_Crawford

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
98
Reaction score
19
Location
Canada
Great thread! I've always thought asshole main characters were aok as long as the reader knows that there's more to them, deep down. If the MC is shallow AND a jerk, then there's a problem.
 

AnthonyDavid11

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
51
Reaction score
2
Make sure the MC is a hero. A hero can be an asshole all day long as long as he's also a hero who comes through when he needs to. However, you have to show the heroic side as early as possible. Have him show concern for somebody early on. One example that comes to mind is the first season of True Detective. Both MSs are a bit assholish as the series shows. However, they start out talking about them solving a homicide which automatically tells us they can't be horrible since they're investigating the homicide of a young girl found naked and tied to a tree. From there, we see many asshole moments and many hero moments as well. It was so effective too. So they can be the biggest jerk ever, but remember to show that hero side early and I mean in the first chapter. We have to have some small clue that they're good when it counts.
 

WriteMinded

Derailed
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
6,209
Reaction score
774
Location
Paradise Lost
Mark Lawrence is the master of asshole MCs. His characters seldom change much. I read all his books. When you are a character in a book, being interesting is more important than being "nice".
 

Spooky

Even the sphinx has eyes O_O
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
147
Reaction score
3
Location
Dead Hand Bunker
If you can make the reader sympathize with them despite them being a complete marauding double crossing snarling disgrace, it elevates their presence tenfold. I also like to try creating characters who are on the whole good folk, flawed but decent and sometimes they make terrible mistakes or deliberately cross the line and have to go through the conflicts that such decisions bring. With the more unsavoury characters they tend to have less worrying but more justifying lol.
 

sideshowdarb

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
352
Reaction score
73
Awful people are sometimes fascinating. Life provides a lot of examples. In fiction, the only real requirement is the MC is compelling. They can be a murderer, or liar, or thief, you name it, but if we aren't compelled by them, invested in their overcoming their limitations or in their punishment, then it doesn't matter. As others have said, an understanding there is more to the character than simply their behavior is key. What drives them? Do they know? Do they want to find out? Is there anything for us to learn about ourselves or the world from reading about someone who is morally or ethically deficient in some way?
 

Svader

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
285
Reaction score
16
Location
Zachary, LA
I'm really struggling with this same thing in my sequel. I want the MC to come across as a selfish vain beotch in the beginning, but by the end have her change. The people who read the first book, I'm not too concerned with because they will know the back story. I'm struggling to make her have redeeming qualities at the beginning so that although people may not like her, they will also root for her to change. It's a fine line and I think I'm toe-ing it too close.
 

The Pandion

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
40
Reaction score
4
Make the character interesting and relatable, even in his assholeness, and hint that he can grow. Readers will follow an interesting MC, even if they're a jerk.

No they won't! This is just bad advice if you come at me with an asshole character I am putting the book down and not only that I will voice my disgust about the character loudly. I have a zero tolerance for douchebaggery in RL and in Fiction.

Please have mature characters who maybe don't have all their shit together but are at least likeable as well as genuinely nice! Also please not that likeable and nice don't mean good, take Royce form Riyria Revelations, not a good boy at all yet, nice and likeable.
 

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
2,673
Location
UK
No they won't! This is just bad advice if you come at me with an asshole character I am putting the book down and not only that I will voice my disgust about the character loudly. I have a zero tolerance for douchebaggery in RL and in Fiction.

Oh, the irony.... *bites lip*

Please have mature characters who maybe don't have all their shit together but are at least likeable as well as genuinely nice! Also please not that likeable and nice don't mean good, take Royce form Riyria Revelations, not a good boy at all yet, nice and likeable.

But.... genuinely nice characters are BORING! And emotional drama is BORING! Isn't that what you were saying on the other thread?
 

The Pandion

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
40
Reaction score
4
But.... genuinely nice characters are BORING! And emotional drama is BORING! Isn't that what you were saying on the other thread?

What I am saying is that people don't write for plot anymore. They write for two things, 1. OTT drama which they think can replace a good plot or storyline and 2. Shock and Awe. Shock and Awe is where you have bad characters doing just horrid things to each other in the name of advancing the "story" but really there isn't a story. There is just gore and langue and bad behaviour that gives the written effect of the shaky cam. You don't actually know what the F**k is going on but you still somehow sit through two hours of blur in the hopes that maybe at some point it might make sense.

And unless you are writing horror you only write like that when you are covering up a bad plot or just don't know how to write one. And yes people are not going to like this but it still is a valid opinion if you really look at many modern books. Plots are playing second fiddle to these other elements and they just aren't enough to replace the plot.

At the end of the day if you have a good plot, if you have a good storyline you don't need to keep a reader interested by using overly dramatic emotional plots filled with soap opera esk behaviour or fill your pages with these large asshole characters that no-one likes in order to make them seem more interesting.
 

be frank

not a bloke, not named frank
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
10,305
Reaction score
5,270
Location
Melbourne
Website
www.lanifrank.com
What I am saying is that people don't write for plot anymore. They write for two things, 1. OTT drama which they think can replace a good plot or storyline and 2. Shock and Awe. Shock and Awe is where you have bad characters doing just horrid things to each other in the name of advancing the "story" but really there isn't a story. There is just gore and langue and bad behaviour that gives the written effect of the shaky cam. You don't actually know what the F**k is going on but you still somehow sit through two hours of blur in the hopes that maybe at some point it might make sense.

And unless you are writing horror you only write like that when you are covering up a bad plot or just don't know how to write one. And yes people are not going to like this but it still is a valid opinion if you really look at many modern books. Plots are playing second fiddle to these other elements and they just aren't enough to replace the plot.

At the end of the day if you have a good plot, if you have a good storyline you don't need to keep a reader interested by using overly dramatic emotional plots filled with soap opera esk behaviour or fill your pages with these large asshole characters that no-one likes in order to make them seem more interesting.

Wow. That's an impressive array of sweeping generalisations based on absolutely nothing.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
Wow. That's an impressive array of sweeping generalisations based on absolutely nothing.

Ditto.

And someone mentioned the Flashman novels earlier. Great fun to read.
 
Last edited: