How do short story writers pull off unlikable characters?

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
I know it can work. Writers pull off making readers like unlikable characters like in Bullet in the Brain and A Good Man is Hard to Find and many, many more works. I think readers can like characters for the characters they are in these and other cases. But then you take a creative writing class and all of a sudden no one likes your characters, and they tell you it's a problem. How big of a problem is it? My characters aren't trying to be best friends with you. They are caught up in a story where I had them make bad decisions. Why do people say they can't relate to a character? Have they never made a bad decision? Maybe I can't relate to the reader for not being able to relate to my character.

Okay, that was somewhat of a vent. I am in the process of putting my thesis together and going over my written feedback. Some of it seems a lot harsher than I remember. But even if it's all true. How do some writers get away with creating some nasty characters that we still want to read about?
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
Characters do not have to be likable, they have to be empathetic. There's a massive difference between likability and empathetic.

If you want readers to stand by a character who makes a bad decision, you have to make the reader think he or she might well have made the same decision under al the same circumstances. This applies, whether the bad decision is cheating on a spoue, or becoming a serial killer.

What happened in life to make the character the way he is, and what are the circumstances at the time of the bad decision? The reader must be able to say, "He cheated, and that was terribly wrong, but if I were going through the same things he was when he cheated, I might have cheated, too."

The same is true with a serial killer. The reader needs to be able to say, "He's a murderer, and that's horrible, but if I were raised the same way, and if I saw my little brother being fed to a wolf by our stepfather, I might be so screwed up I'd be a serial killer, too. And, hey, everyone he kills deserves it."

And you say "bad decision" as if it's just a mistake, like adding two plus two and getting five. A decision that affects likeability is a conscious choice to do something right, or to do something wrong. If you write it so the reader thinks, "You made a bad decision because you're not a good person", readers are not going to stand by that character.

You have to write it so the reader thinks, "You made a bad decision, and I do not support what you did, but I understand why you did it, and I might have done the same thing were I in your shoes."
 

Tedium

Le sigh.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
222
Reaction score
21
Location
Searching for Willoughby
I agree with James. Readers need to empathize.

A serial killer who kills for unknown reasons or just to kill is not likable, but a serial killer who kills other serial killers because his foster father was a cop is more likable (Dexter).

People also resonate really well with honor. A thief who breaks into a low-income family's house and night and steals their television is not looked at in the same way as a thief who steals from other thieves or a fascistic government (Firefly).

Once you set up a convincing reason why your unlikable characters do what they do, people will have a lot easier time jumping on board and following them on adventures.

ETA: Also, keep in mind that your MFA class is a small sample group, with their own biases. They tend to form homogeneous opinions. I would try to get some more eyes on your story, and see what they say. If they all come back the same then you know it's back to the editing table.
 
Last edited:

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
It seems like you guys are saying if a character is not likable, they should be relatable. But in my reading (like the examples I mentioned in my first post) that is not always true. I didn't feel like I liked or could relate to those unlikable characters, but the stories are brilliant.
 

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
1,853
Reaction score
348
It seems like you guys are saying if a character is not likable, they should be relatable. But in my reading (like the examples I mentioned in my first post) that is not always true. I didn't feel like I liked or could relate to those unlikable characters, but the stories are brilliant.

Out of curiosity, if you don't find the characters likable or relatable then what makes the story brilliant?
 

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
Out of curiosity, if you don't find the characters likable or relatable then what makes the story brilliant?

That's a really good question. I think that's what I was trying to ask. Maybe it's that readers like to not like them. But I'm not too sure. The two examples I gave, I do think are very well done and have become well known.
 

Tedium

Le sigh.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
222
Reaction score
21
Location
Searching for Willoughby
The character in Bullet in the Brain is relatable in the end, though. A Good Man is Hard to Find is another matter. I think those are two different character types.

Not everyone is going to like the choices you make in a story. There are still people that don't like O'Connor for her grotesque stories. Like I said, you're dealing with a small sample size for your feedback. You need to broaden your readership before you declare your stories or characters failures.
 

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
1,853
Reaction score
348
That's a really good question. I think that's what I was trying to ask. Maybe it's that readers like to not like them. But I'm not too sure. The two examples I gave, I do think are very well done and have become well known.

I suppose that's true. :) After re-reading the stories and giving it some thought, I think what makes them compelling is the depth of the characters, particularly as displayed through the strong subtext. They have a complex psychology and so you want to know what happens next when they come into conflict with each other, even if you don't particularly like them.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Even if a character is abhorrent, there's got to be something compelling. Just being a jackass isn't compelling. Universality underneath shocking or disturbing behaviour is compelling. Mystery is compelling.

People can of course relate to characters who make bad decisions, but the decisions and the reasoning has to be relatable.
 

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
The character in Bullet in the Brain is relatable in the end, though. A Good Man is Hard to Find is another matter. I think those are two different character types.

Not everyone is going to like the choices you make in a story. There are still people that don't like O'Connor for her grotesque stories. Like I said, you're dealing with a small sample size for your feedback. You need to broaden your readership before you declare your stories or characters failures.

That's why I gave those two examples because they are different kinds of characters and because I thought people would be familiar with them. But I don't think they are likable characters. Even if you feel something for the guy in Bullet in the Brain by the end, he sure isn't likable in the beginning. I'm just wondering what makes this work. I know I was venting a little, but I started this thread more to talk about why readers sometimes like unlikable characters.

It's very kind of you to assume that my readers could all be getting it wrong, but there's no need to criticize my sources of feedback. I have plenty of places to get feedback. I don't know why you have said twice that I need to get more feedback than I am. I really don't. It's not a "sample size" anything like you implied or think. If anything, it's too much. It sounds like you might have had a bad experience. I only mentioned looking over my old feedback because I feel like this come up in creative writing classes quite often and maybe people could relate. And I really was curious about hearing people's take on unlikable characters.
 
Last edited:

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
I suppose that's true. :) After re-reading the stories and giving it some thought, I think what makes them compelling is the depth of the characters, particularly as displayed through the strong subtext. They have a complex psychology and so you want to know what happens next when they come into conflict with each other, even if you don't particularly like them.

So do you think it is because of the story that we will put up with these sorts of characters? I don't think the subtext in either of these stories makes these characters more likable. Am I missing something? It would be great if you could explain a little more? I think you might be onto something.
 

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
Even if a character is abhorrent, there's got to be something compelling. Just being a jackass isn't compelling. Universality underneath shocking or disturbing behaviour is compelling. Mystery is compelling.

People can of course relate to characters who make bad decisions, but the decisions and the reasoning has to be relatable.

But that's what I'm struggling with because sometimes I like unlikable characters with reasoning I can't relate to. Do you think that because we know these characters are facing horrible fates that we feel like we can relate to them? We're all going to die, right? I really can't quite figure out how a lot of short story writers pull this off. I see it quite often in literary short stories.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
But that's what I'm struggling with because sometimes I like unlikable characters with reasoning I can't relate to. Do you think that because we know these characters are facing horrible fates that we feel like we can relate to them? We're all going to die, right? I really can't quite figure out how a lot of short story writers pull this off. I see it quite often in literary short stories.

How do you know they're unlikable characters? Just because of the reasoning?

I'm probably not the person to ask if you're talking specifically about literary short stories; I don't really like short stories and I really don't like most litfic.
 

Tedium

Le sigh.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
222
Reaction score
21
Location
Searching for Willoughby
Just offering you some advice. It's nothing personal. I've had some good groups and some bad groups, just like a lot of people. Sorry for offending.
 

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
1,853
Reaction score
348
So do you think it is because of the story that we will put up with these sorts of characters? I don't think the subtext in either of these stories makes these characters more likable. Am I missing something? It would be great if you could explain a little more? I think you might be onto something.

I don’t really think the story matters as much as the characters. Putting characters in interesting situations can certainly bring out interesting character responses, but that’s not crucial. Mrs. Dalloway, for instance, deals with a very ordinary day but the people involved make it interesting. Flannery O’Connor could probably have written a story about two people sitting on a porch watching paint dry and it would have been utterly fascinating.

I hold the general view that character “likability” is an over-simplified idea that can be quite toxic for writers. (Hearing my peers talk about “likability” in workshop sessions just makes my little heart shrivel up into a dry husk.) “Relatability” is closer to the mark, although it still doesn’t account for a number of characters with whom we struggle to identify on the surface. This is why I focus on whether or not a character is compelling. A compelling character is one that we don’t have to like or broadly relate to, but we still want to know what this character will do next.

The question I am always asking, therefore, is what makes a character compelling? As best as I can tell, there are two key components to a compelling character. The first is a complex psychology—the character needs to be recognizably human with all of the variation and contradiction inherent to people. The second is motivation.

Complex psychology is, I think, what separates the genius authors out from the pack. Sometimes it seems like every line gives the character a new dimension through both text and subtext. A reader can believe that they’re seeing a human being on the page and human beings are infinitely interesting. Furthermore, even if the reader cannot broadly relate to the character, the smaller moments in lines and scenes might be very relatable or understandable.

Motivation is similar. It can be complex or simple, or even obscured, but the reader needs to know that it is there. When you put those motivations with complex characters, you can get a lot of texture to their interactions with each other and the world.

I know you might think this utterly bizarre advice, but the best creative writing class I ever took was a first semester acting class. I know you don’t have time to pick up acting—and it probably seems less important for a literary fiction writer than a screenwriter or playwright—but you might consider reading Stanislavski’s An Actor Prepares if you can find the time. It gives you a really methodical way of thinking about realistic characters and I think the lessons are broadly applicable to storytelling and not confined just to performance.
 

LJD

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
4,226
Reaction score
525
Some people are fond of saying characters don't have to likable as long as they're interesting. Are these characters interesting? Do people keep reading because they're curious to know what these characters will do next?

Personally, I prefer stories with likable characters, but not everyone has that preference. And even I'm okay with unlikable but interesting characters in certain types of stories.
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
It seems like you guys are saying if a character is not likable, they should be relatable. But in my reading (like the examples I mentioned in my first post) that is not always true. I didn't feel like I liked or could relate to those unlikable characters, but the stories are brilliant.


You don’t have to relate to the characters, you simply have to understand why they are as they are. I was never abused as a child, so I can’t relate to someone who was, but I can understand how being abused as a child could make that person do bad things later on.

As for Bullet in the Brain, I don’t think it’s a brilliant story at all. I think it’s everything that’s wrong with literary fiction, and with much science fiction. It’s an “idea” story that has no plot. Everything that happens, everything Anders says, is pure manipulation, meant to make the idea happen. The idea, of course, is wouldm’t it be cool is this is what happens when we get shot through the brain.

This said, when you read what Anders does and doesn’t remember, he becomes human, and becomes understandable. And he just had his brains blown out, and the reader thinks he got what he had coming.

A good man is hard to find is different. Just who is it you find unlikable? The kids certainly are. June Star is the most unrealistic character I think I’ve ever read, and completely unlikable, but she gets what’s coming to her, doesn’t she?

The Misfit is neither unlikable or a jerk. If you don’t understand him, you need to read the story much closer. He’s criminally insane.

At any rate, this doesn’t seem to be your problem. If what you, and the others in the group say is true, you’re having character be unlikable for no reason. This makes them jerks, and no one likes a jerk. They just don’t. This is why the reader feels just fine when Anders gets his brain blown out. He’s a jerk. This is why it doesn’t bother us much when the whole family gets wiped out in Good Man. They’re all unlikable, and June Star is a true jerk.

The point is that you can’t have characters do bad or mean things without a reason. If you do, they come off as jerks, and no one will want tp read about them unless they get their comeuppance n some way. Far more often than not, when readers complain that your characters are unlikable, they mean they’re jerks.
 

Twick

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
715
Location
Canada
Short stories are, I think, more concept/plot driven than character driven. An unpleasant or annoying character who would be too much for a novel may work well if something interesting is happening to them right now. The reader knows they won't be stuck with them too long, and they may even get a satisfying blast of karma at the end.
 

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
How do you know they're unlikable characters? Just because of the reasoning?

I'm probably not the person to ask if you're talking specifically about literary short stories; I don't really like short stories and I really don't like most litfic.

The characters in the examples I gave are nasty people. That's why they are unlikable in my mind, but I do love both these stories and many others where I know when I'm not supposed to like a character, but also don't want to stop reading. Are characters generally more likable in genre writing? I wouldn't think the genre really plays too much of a role, but I could be wrong. I would love to hear your take on unlikable characters in genre works.

I'm surprised you don't like short stories. You see to know a lot about them, and I know I've seen you comment on different threads dealing with short stories. Is this a new thing, not liking short stories? Short stories are my favorite things to read. I wonder if these characters would be more likable if the stories were in novel form. Surely, readers would get a better sense of where they were coming from. But short stories are more of a snapshot, I think. We get this is who they are and who they are going to be over the next few pages. With a lot of these types of stories, we get a character who is unlikely to change. In a novel, there is a lot more possibility for characters to change his or her unlikable characteristics or for readers to have more chances to relate to the characters.
 

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
Just offering you some advice. It's nothing personal. I've had some good groups and some bad groups, just like a lot of people. Sorry for offending.

No problem. You didn't offend me. I just didn't want this thread to turn into another MFA or writing classes debate. And this topic goes way beyond feedback. That said, I think the two most likely workshop comments are that characters are unlikable or relatable and what are the stakes of the story. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard this sort of thing. I tend to like reading stories with unlikable characters. I'm thinking I haven't quite pulled off a likable unlikable character in some of my stories. It's not something I attempt to often, and I'm not usually even aware that I'm doing this. Okay, maybe I do attempt this often, but I really don't think about it while I am writing. I had a family member read one of my stories and he hated my MC. He said there was nothing likable about her, and the more he read he hated her. I thought readers would be able to relate (I think that is what I was going for). But then when I workshopped the same story, no one said a things about not liking the character in that story, even though it had been said about other stories I wrote. Too much feedback on stories can confuse a writer just as easily as it can help.

I like the whole workshop environment, but I know some students seem to be trying too hard to say the right things at times. I think it's very easy to just say they couldn't relate to the character or say they were unclear about the stakes of the story. I'm not just talking about my stories. I think it is because they are trying to say something smart or at least look that way in the eyes of the professor. Now, granted these comments can be totally legit, I think the person giving the feedback has to be able to explain what they mean for the writer to know how to process this. And most of the time the professor will try to get the student to explain more about what they are thinking and that creates interesting discussions. I think the best feedback can come from discussions about your work. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was complaining about school or writing workshops.

I'm also part of a writers group. Their comments seem more direct and clearer at times. I do like the smaller group, and we are all pretty much on an even playing field, though, some of them have been published and are much better than I am. And it's aways great to crack open a beer right before everyone tells you what they think of your writing. I enjoy having access to both more formal school workshops and more laid back writing groups. On top of that I know have a thesis advisor and other thesis readers from my university. And I have some people here I trade stories with. Plus, I have family and friends that will read a story for me almost anytime I ask. That's why I said getting feedback was not my issue.

And now I have side stepped from the topic. All I'm saying is that suggesting to get more feedback could help some other writers, but right now, it's not what I'm looking for.
 

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
I don’t really think the story matters as much as the characters. Putting characters in interesting situations can certainly bring out interesting character responses, but that’s not crucial. Mrs. Dalloway, for instance, deals with a very ordinary day but the people involved make it interesting. Flannery O’Connor could probably have written a story about two people sitting on a porch watching paint dry and it would have been utterly fascinating.

I hold the general view that character “likability” is an over-simplified idea that can be quite toxic for writers. (Hearing my peers talk about “likability” in workshop sessions just makes my little heart shrivel up into a dry husk.) “Relatability” is closer to the mark, although it still doesn’t account for a number of characters with whom we struggle to identify on the surface. This is why I focus on whether or not a character is compelling. A compelling character is one that we don’t have to like or broadly relate to, but we still want to know what this character will do next.

The question I am always asking, therefore, is what makes a character compelling? As best as I can tell, there are two key components to a compelling character. The first is a complex psychology—the character needs to be recognizably human with all of the variation and contradiction inherent to people. The second is motivation.

Complex psychology is, I think, what separates the genius authors out from the pack. Sometimes it seems like every line gives the character a new dimension through both text and subtext. A reader can believe that they’re seeing a human being on the page and human beings are infinitely interesting. Furthermore, even if the reader cannot broadly relate to the character, the smaller moments in lines and scenes might be very relatable or understandable.

Motivation is similar. It can be complex or simple, or even obscured, but the reader needs to know that it is there. When you put those motivations with complex characters, you can get a lot of texture to their interactions with each other and the world.

I know you might think this utterly bizarre advice, but the best creative writing class I ever took was a first semester acting class. I know you don’t have time to pick up acting—and it probably seems less important for a literary fiction writer than a screenwriter or playwright—but you might consider reading Stanislavski’s An Actor Prepares if you can find the time. It gives you a really methodical way of thinking about realistic characters and I think the lessons are broadly applicable to storytelling and not confined just to performance.

I will check out the book. I took a class in undergrad that was about preforming literature. It sounds a little similar, but it was a long time ago for me.

I like the idea of trying to create compelling characters rather than likable characters. That may help me moving forward. This is going to sound stupid, but how do you know when you've written a compelling character? I know when I've got a likable character. But sometimes I don't realize when my characters are not likable. How will I know if they are compelling? I would like to think all my characters are compelling. Surely, that's not the case, but this thing is a little tricky to put my finger on. Is part of making a compelling character playing around with subtext?
 

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
Some people are fond of saying characters don't have to likable as long as they're interesting. Are these characters interesting? Do people keep reading because they're curious to know what these characters will do next?

Personally, I prefer stories with likable characters, but not everyone has that preference. And even I'm okay with unlikable but interesting characters in certain types of stories.

I would like to think I have interesting characters. I do my best to make everything I write interesting. I mean everything can be interesting, right? But would having an interesting character in a unique situation acting like a jerk be enough to make you keep reading?
 

VeryBigBeard

Preparing for winter
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
2,449
Reaction score
1,505
It's largely the circumstances that make these character's interesting to the reader. They have a situation we can empathize with, seeing how they took the decisions they did even if those decisions were dodgy. Or the stakes are so strong, the need to act so severe, that it helps to justify a rash judgment. This isn't a science. It's ALL in the execution.

You can't just put Flannery O'Conner up on this pedestal and say that there's some secret to this story just because it's a part of the literary canon. Of course it is. So is The Lord of the Rings, especially for fantasy writers, and doing everything Tolkien does would be a massive mistake. It's situational. It works at one time, in one story, with one voice, style, and execution. You can mimic these and learn by doing that, but you have to actually do it, which is why it's so hard to respond to detailed questions like this without having some sort of SYW post as a reference.

Just analyzing the story, categorizing its technique and tropes, is textual analysis. An English literature degree. A very valuable thing, but not a degree in writing a book. I had two profs I very much looked up to (among many), one a huge sci-fi fan and one who read mostly Litfic. One of the only things both agreed on was that writers don't always make great analysts and analysts don't always make good writers. They're not exclusive skillsets, but they are very different skillsets. The reason the MFA is relevant is that this is a common problem with workshops affiliated with a university where there's a curriculum and sometimes a certain "prestige" that has to be upheld. It's very easy to get sucked into trying to figure out why something works when the only way to actually do it is to do it.

Neither is this a genre or literary thing. For every O'Conner you look at, look at something on the fringes. Some works get put up on a pedestal because they're valuable in all kinds of cultural ways. We can learn from the experience of reading them. Try to achieve exactly the same effect and you will forever be left with a hollow imitation.

Do what works for Your Story. You mentioned some of the people in the workshop had critiqued the stakes. Start there. If there's no reason for a character to do anything, it's very hard to care about what he or she is doing, no matter how heroic or villainous he or she is.
 

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
You don’t have to relate to the characters, you simply have to understand why they are as they are. I was never abused as a child, so I can’t relate to someone who was, but I can understand how being abused as a child could make that person do bad things later on.

As for Bullet in the Brain, I don’t think it’s a brilliant story at all. I think it’s everything that’s wrong with literary fiction, and with much science fiction. It’s an “idea” story that has no plot. Everything that happens, everything Anders says, is pure manipulation, meant to make the idea happen. The idea, of course, is wouldm’t it be cool is this is what happens when we get shot through the brain.

This said, when you read what Anders does and doesn’t remember, he becomes human, and becomes understandable. And he just had his brains blown out, and the reader thinks he got what he had coming.

A good man is hard to find is different. Just who is it you find unlikable? The kids certainly are. June Star is the most unrealistic character I think I’ve ever read, and completely unlikable, but she gets what’s coming to her, doesn’t she?

The Misfit is neither unlikable or a jerk. If you don’t understand him, you need to read the story much closer. He’s criminally insane.

At any rate, this doesn’t seem to be your problem. If what you, and the others in the group say is true, you’re having character be unlikable for no reason. This makes them jerks, and no one likes a jerk. They just don’t. This is why the reader feels just fine when Anders gets his brain blown out. He’s a jerk. This is why it doesn’t bother us much when the whole family gets wiped out in Good Man. They’re all unlikable, and June Star is a true jerk.

The point is that you can’t have characters do bad or mean things without a reason. If you do, they come off as jerks, and no one will want tp read about them unless they get their comeuppance n some way. Far more often than not, when readers complain that your characters are unlikable, they mean they’re jerks.

Thanks for the post. This makes a lot of sense. I think it ties into what another poster said about motivation. Maybe I need to make my characters have a clearer sense of motivation and, in some way, justify their actions and behaviors. I thought I had reasons, but maybe not enough reason. Is this a matter of character development? Or am I just mixing things up?
 

gettingby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,748
Reaction score
170
Short stories are, I think, more concept/plot driven than character driven. An unpleasant or annoying character who would be too much for a novel may work well if something interesting is happening to them right now. The reader knows they won't be stuck with them too long, and they may even get a satisfying blast of karma at the end.

It's often said that literary fiction is character driven. I am pretty plot heavy with my short stories. Maybe I need to try to be more character driven.