¿Do we have to like the MC?

We don't have to like them but we have to care what they're doing and why.

Do we (as readers) have to love characters to read about them?

Click to expand...

Pretty much, yes. But that doesn't mean characters have to be good. If that were the case, we'd never have assassin or serial killer fiction. They don't even have to redeem themselves. They just have to be someone the reader enjoys spending time with.

Your character can be the most cold-hearted, ruthless, me-first person in the world, but we the readers need to identify with her on some level. We have to enjoy reading about her, even if we don't approve of her actions.

Viola2007 said:

My novel is a historical fantasy. The heroine/protagonist is a character that possesses certain magical powers and a capacity to work for “good” or “evil” forces. In the beginning, she is just starting to learn about her powers. Events will sway her to do right and wrong until she decides which path to follow.
A friend of mine read the first chapters and said she thought the MC (Nikki is her name) was a negative character and she didn´t feel for her. She also pointed out that Nikki lets events condition her moves and she is goalless. Well, in the beginning Nikki is supposed to be an unlovable character and have only one objective, survival. I got the feeling that my friend would not read further since Nikki put her off. Do we (as readers) have to love characters to read about them? What about characters that start as bad and later redeem themselves, as it is Nikki´s case?

Click to expand...

Personally, I find bad characters often have a morbid fascination for me. If I found your Nikki character well-written, I would continue to read just to see how far down she would go or if hitting bottom would change her. As she is the MC, I would stay with her just to find out!

Viola2007 said:

Do we (as readers) have to love characters to read about them? What about characters that start as bad and later redeem themselves, as it is Nikki´s case?

Click to expand...

Do we have "love" them? No, not at all.

However, if we want readers to follow someone through the course of the book, we have to show that the characters are worth following in someway. For heroes, they need definite strengths in the very first introduction that, at least, hints to the reader that this is a good person. The more hints of strengths (and I mean personality strengths that most people want to believe in: courage, honesty, seeking justice, etc) you can put into an evil-appearing character, the more likely people will trust you to redeem that character by the end of the book.

If all you present is negativity and nastiness, then there's no hints that there's anything about this character that a reader can admire, so there's little point in reading a story about them. Unless, of course, the back cover blurb promises that they're going to be soundly trounced and even that can be iffy.

Do we have to love them? No.

Respect, admire, cheer for during the course of the story? Definitely. Loving them is just bonus points.

seun said:

We don't have to like them but we have to care what they're doing and why.

Click to expand...

BINGO! Someone said this to me about one of my stories before my other readers correctly pointed out that they were fascinated what he would do next.

Look at Day of the Jackal; the protagonist was a killer, but quite adept at what he did. It was entertaining to millions, even though they may not have liked him.

I'm struggling with this in a book I"m reading. The writer has hinted at the changes the MC will go through and I see the fall and renewal coming, but for now, he's so darn misogynistic and unlikeable that it's a tough slog to get there.

I'm going with this one. I have a protag whose death at the end was hailed as good and deserved by readers, but not one of them complained that they didn't care what he did or what happened to him. He wasn't "evil," but he was certainly in the wrong for much of the book, and dangerous.

seun said:

We don't have to like them but we have to care what they're doing and why.

Click to expand...

ETA: Take American Psycho, for instance. Patrick Bateman certainly isn't a likable character, but Ellis makes reading about him pretty riveting.

I think the "directionless" issue is MUCH more problematic than the "unlikeable" issue.

If a character just lets things happen to them, that's boring.

I have a character who is unlikeable, and I'm hoping that readers will stick with him, just to see if he gets what is coming to him

The character needs to be interesting and we have to care about what will happen next. We do not have to like the character.
There are some pretty vile Main characters out there which is fine as long as the reader wants to continue hearing about that character's story.

If the main character is interesting enough you probably don't have them be likeable but i think it helps.

I had somebody once tell me about my first book, "I liked everything about it but the main character." I came away from that thinking they didn't like the book.

IceCreamEmpress said:

I think the "directionless" issue is MUCH more problematic than the "unlikeable" issue.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. And the problem is fixable: One possible fix is to start the story closer to the point where the character chooses a direction.

Another is to give the character a goal and frustrate it. It doesn't have to be a big goal. Kurt Vonnegut used to tell his classes to give the character something to want. It doesn't have to be a big thing. It can even be just a glass of water. The way the character deals with the obstacles will tell us something interesting about the character, something we can care about.

Dale

Interesting question and one that I am grappling with right now. One of my MCs is being taken advantage of and is making poor decisions. I've been worried that this will make her unlikeable to a reader.

I have to not dislike the character and I also have to be made to care about the character.

I think you received a helpful critique from your friend. I think that a MC without a goal and who lets things just happen wont make for a gripping story. Nikki will have to take control and be an active player. That might be a nice opportunity for character growth when she finally decides to stop being pushed around by events and starts to do something about it.

Stew21 said:

The character needs to be interesting and we have to care about what will happen next. We do not have to like the character.
There are some pretty vile Main characters out there which is fine as long as the reader wants to continue hearing about that character's story.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Some of my favorite protagonists have been totally, completely unlikable. Some of my favorite protagonists to write have been totally, completely unlikable. All it takes is a writer skilled enough to draw you into the head of this twisted, awful person so their logic makes sense to you, even when in the real world you would hate them.

IceCreamEmpress said:

I think the "directionless" issue is MUCH more problematic than the "unlikeable" issue.

If a character just lets things happen to them, that's boring.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Readers don't have to like the MC, but they must identify in some way with him or her. And it's much easier to identify with someone who acts or struggles against something, even if it's the evil within, than with someone who just floats along, inert and passive, waiting for the next ripple.

IceCreamEmpress said:

I think the "directionless" issue is MUCH more problematic than the "unlikeable" issue.

If a character just lets things happen to them, that's boring.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Readers need to identify with, more than like, a main character, and it's easier to identify with someone who takes strong action, struggling against something, even if it's only the evil within. A character who floats along passively is hard to put across even if s/he's a good sort.

Novelhistorian said:

I agree with this. Readers don't have to like the MC, but they must identify in some way with him or her. And it's much easier to identify with someone who acts or struggles against something, even if it's the evil within, than with someone who just floats along, inert and passive, waiting for the next ripple.

Click to expand...

The first book that came to mind when I saw the thread was The Stranger by Camus. I didn't like the main character, Mersault, at all but for some reason I could identify with him, and I felt a bit of sympathy for him. Perhaps it was the whole existentialism theme that Camus wanted to portray, but I was surprised when I didn't hate the story, because I surely didn't like his character, or any of the characters or the plot to be honest. Usually that would equal hatred or disinterest for a book, but I read it a year and a half ago and yet I still remember it vividly (and not with detest)? Interesting, hm?

I'm not so sure that a totally unlikable MC would work. He or she can be a really evil SOB, but there must be something in the character that the reader will identify with or admire. I don't think that many readers will follow a story through just to see what happens if they cannot relate to the character in some way even if it is a shared love for goldfish.

All of us have had fantasies of strangling a spouse, dumping a noisy child in the trash bin, shoot your boss, blowing up Inland Revenue or wrecking your best friend's impossibly perfect marriage. We just don't actually do it.
Everyone has got a bit of evil in them, so the evil MC should be written to appeal, just a little, to our suppressed emotions. Even the actual villains in stories need to resonate just that tiny bit, otherwise they are carboard targets set up for the hero to knock down.

I was worried about this while writing my WIP. I wasn't sure whether she is likable or not. So I'm trying to give her a number of qualities including a sense of humor to help make her likable.

Also, I like the idea of having someone start out a certain way, then change as the novel moves along. I think if you can show that someone has a lot of problems which make her act a certain way, readers will understand and identify and accept her more. I think we need to make characters multi-dimensional so that readers will see the whole person and therefore care what happens to them.

I thought about how I react as a reader and decided that, for me, a lot depends on how the writer "places" the character. That is, if I dislike the character, find him shallow for instance, and the writer apparently thinks the MC is a great guy, then I get so annoyed, I stop reading. But if I judge the character is selfish, and the author clearly does too, then I'm fine as long as the character is interesting. In other words, I react to how I believe the author is judging *me* as a reader. What does the author think I'm going to like and approve of?

dawinsor said:

I thought about how I react as a reader and decided that, for me, a lot depends on how the writer "places" the character. That is, if I dislike the character, find him shallow for instance, and the writer apparently thinks the MC is a great guy, then I get so annoyed, I stop reading. But if I judge the character is selfish, and the author clearly does too, then I'm fine as long as the character is interesting. In other words, I react to how I believe the author is judging *me* as a reader. What does the author think I'm going to like and approve of?

Click to expand...

Interesting way of looking at it. I think this is the difference between a poorly written character and a well-written, yet flawed character.

seun said:

We don't have to like them but we have to care what they're doing and why.

Click to expand...

Seun is right on the money. Likable? Worthy of respect? Not necessarily. Interesting? Yes.

One more thing that hasn't been mentioned:

Never, never, NEVER let yourself be thrown into doubt by just one critique!

If three or four people say the same thing, listen. But always reserve judgment until you get more feedback than just one person.

Patrick L said:

Look at Day of the Jackal; the protagonist was a killer, but quite adept at what he did. It was entertaining to millions, even though they may not have liked him.

Click to expand...

I was just about to mention The Day of the Jackal! The guy was a ruthless killer, but he was 1. intelligent and competent 2. single-mindedly pursuing a goal 3. vastly outnumbered by the French police. I couldn't put the book down.