This essay on HuffPo by professor Evan Gottlieb makes a thought provoking point that it is not imperative for all main characters to be likable, even though there seems to be a demand for that.
This last paragraph sums it up:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-gottlieb/book-protagonist_b_2918131.html?utm_hp_ref=books
I think he has a very good point that the protagonist doesn't have to be likable or even relatable for a book to be good. There is more to a book than the protagonist. And also, I don't think making the MC likable is being true to human nature. Meaning, we all have flaws and we all do dumb or nasty things, and not everyone is black and white.
However, there were times I got annoyed with a book, or even a movie, when I didn't like the MC. Scarlett O'Hara annoyed me a great deal, but I wouldn't brush off Gone With The Wind as terrible altogether. I had trouble reading the last book I read, Kushiel's Chosen by Jacqueline Carey because the MC, Phedre, annoyed me but then again she wasn't written well.
So I don't think it's imperative for all protagonists to be likable or even relatable, but at least tolerable. Then again, I don't think it's right to judge a character based on what you would do or wouldn't do in their situation. It's just sounds self-centered to me. Maybe I'm wrong
Thoughts?
This last paragraph sums it up:
And so we return to the question of whether fictional protagonists need to be relatable in order for readers to enjoy ourselves. If relatable merely means likable, then I think the answer is no: many classic fictional heroes and heroines, including Catherine Earnshaw in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights and Rodion Raskolnikov in Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, are not particularly likable. But if we expand our definition of "relatable" to mean psychologically plausible, then I think the answer is yes. We may not always like, or even approve of, fictional protagonists like selfish Catherine and obsessive Raskolnikov. But I think we have much to gain from learning to recognize reflections of ourselves in them, even -- or perhaps especially -- when we want to deny any resemblances. There are, of course, many other good reasons to read literature: for entertainment, for instruction, for inspiration. But from the 18th century onward, novels have shown themselves to be remarkably effective, durable technologies for encouraging us to extend our understanding to others, no matter how different or unlikable they might initially appear. And if that isn't a good reason to pick up a good book, then I don't know what is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-gottlieb/book-protagonist_b_2918131.html?utm_hp_ref=books
I think he has a very good point that the protagonist doesn't have to be likable or even relatable for a book to be good. There is more to a book than the protagonist. And also, I don't think making the MC likable is being true to human nature. Meaning, we all have flaws and we all do dumb or nasty things, and not everyone is black and white.
However, there were times I got annoyed with a book, or even a movie, when I didn't like the MC. Scarlett O'Hara annoyed me a great deal, but I wouldn't brush off Gone With The Wind as terrible altogether. I had trouble reading the last book I read, Kushiel's Chosen by Jacqueline Carey because the MC, Phedre, annoyed me but then again she wasn't written well.
So I don't think it's imperative for all protagonists to be likable or even relatable, but at least tolerable. Then again, I don't think it's right to judge a character based on what you would do or wouldn't do in their situation. It's just sounds self-centered to me. Maybe I'm wrong
Thoughts?