A protagonist who is distasteful or worse?

lpetrich · Mar 16, 2019

Have any of you tried to write a protagonist whose beliefs or behavior one considers obnoxious or distasteful or offensive or grotesquely wrong?

I have had to do so, in a work intended to illustrate Lord Raglan's mythic-hero profile. In part of it, someone tries to kill the baby hero in his infancy, though he ends up rescued.There are lots of legendary people who suffer that treatment -- Zeus, Oedipus, Perseus, Hercules, Romulus, Moses, ... -- bot hardly any well-documented ones, especially in recent times. We don't see any hard-line royalists trying to kill baby George Washington, slave-plantation owners trying to kill baby Abraham Lincoln, fundamentalists trying to kill baby Charles Darwin, rabbis, Jewish bankers, and Jewish Marxist revolutionaries trying to kill baby Adolf Hitler, psychiatrists trying to kill baby L. Ron Hubbard, oil-company executives trying to kill baby Muammar Khadafy, etc.

So I tried to imagine someone wanting to kill baby Abraham Lincoln and baby Charles Darwin. I tried to make him somewhat sympathetic, and not a cartoonish villain. I made him a southern plantation lord with precognitive powers that made him learn about Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin and what they would accomplish. So he tries to nip those accomplishments in the bud in Lord-Raglan fashion.

DeeDub · Mar 17, 2019

Not sure if you're looking for examples of writing unlikeable heroes or not, but I've had that experience a number of times.

Wrote a screenplay about 15 years ago where the protag was a smart-mouth, wisecracker, etc. It's a funny script and spun through d-hell for a long while. But I got a note back saying the hero was unlikable until later on when some of his back story bubbled up. I didn't want to bring too much of that forward because it felt very heavy-handed, but (and I'm trying to remember here, too lazy to dig it out) I think instead I just had him make some small gesture. Like carrying a cheap transistor radio from a Braves game and he hands it off to a homeless dude, spun back and went "that's your on off, that wheel find your station" and kept going. A 5 sec moment that gave us another perspective of the guy.

I think your example is opining about making a protag the worst that mankind has to offer: Hitler, Stalin, Ed Sheeran. But it does seem that writing styles have changed even in just those 15 years. Not sure if you can entirely get away with an unlikeable guy but someone who you are mostly unsympathetic to works better today and yesterday. Deadpool's a version of that. And it's killin'.

indianroads · Mar 17, 2019

The best example of a dis-likable protagonist / MC that I've ever run across is in James Herbert's Creed.

Herbert manages to make Joe Creed a buffoon. I read this book on a flight from London to San Francisco... back in the late 80's I think. Anyway, there were times when I was laughing at the disturbing and gross little MC that people in the seats around me probably thought I was having a fit.

If interested, you can find the book HERE.

Curlz · Mar 17, 2019

I find that type of protagonist annoying, but there are some books who've made it a success. "Gone Girl" is a recent one. In your example, the protagonist's actions ("someone wanting to kill baby Abraham Lincoln and baby Charles Darwin") don't make the him instantly "obnoxious or distasteful or offensive or grotesquely wrong" especially if you "tried to make him somewhat sympathetic, and not a cartoonish villain". So if the book ends up the way you describe it, the readers won't be put off and that's the main point, isn't it. Or, in case you were trying to make the readers flinch - maybe add something else to the picture?

mrsmig · Mar 17, 2019

Harry Flashman, anti-hero of George McDonald Fraser's Flashman series, is a coward, a womanizer, an occasional drunk, a thief, a toady and pretty much an all-around scoundrel - but the series works because Harry is completely truthful about his failings, and the stories (narrated by Harry in the first person) are funny as hell as well as historically accurate.

angeliz2k · Mar 18, 2019

I'm not asking my readers to necessarily *like* my characters. Heck, I wouldn't want to spend time with most of them. But they are (I hope) fun, or at least interesting, to read about. All our characters can't be paragons of virtue. That would be boring an unrealistic. Even very "good" people have faults, and even very "evil" people are still human.

Pinkarray · Mar 18, 2019

I don't know if he counts because he has good intentions but I am writing an anti-hero who does bad things for his own personal gain. I think that's what an anti-hero is. But he also does drugs, talks bluntly and can be overall troublesome.

Underdawg47 · Mar 18, 2019

In the Old Testament, God commands Abraham to kill his son Isaac. God as a character is not being nice. Isaac is innocent, yet God tests Abraham. Not one of God's better moments.

D. E. Wyatt · Mar 19, 2019

Underdawg47 said:
In the Old Testament, God commands Abraham to kill his son Isaac. God as a character is not being nice. Isaac is innocent, yet God tests Abraham. Not one of God's better moments.

Yeah, God is kind of a dick throughout the Old Testament.

The other thing is, you don't always know how people are going to react to characters. You could go all out making a character thoroughly unpleasant, and yet audiences might end up finding them to the most sympathetic character in the entire story.

Pinkarray · Mar 19, 2019

D. E. Wyatt said:
Yeah, God is kind of a dick throughout the Old Testament.

The other thing is, you don't always know how people are going to react to characters. You could go all out making a character thoroughly unpleasant, and yet audiences might end up finding them to the most sympathetic character in the entire story.

Yeah, I don't tend to like characters that are so unlikeable even if people may find them realistic and well-written as I tend to write characters who are more grounded and take responsibility for their actions. If they've been traumatized or if they're preteens, then that's where I start writing them to be a bit more argumentative and mean but I still try to make sure that they keep their nice personality and show some mature, wise aspects of themselves. People may see them as Mary-sues but I don't really care, I can try to give them a little more flaws but I don't want to make them strictly realistic where they're mean, pushy, and obnoxious. I can write an anti-hero that has good intentions but does bad things for their own benefit.

lonestarlibrarian · Mar 19, 2019

An example from anime-- when I first started watching Junni Kokki, I hated the main character, Youko. She was weak, she was indecisive, she was undependable, she was unlikable. I almost put it away after the first couple of episodes. Why would I care about what happened to a character like that? But it turned out, starting the character in such a bad light gave her room for later growth. Rather than someone starting off as noble and decisive and strong-willed and guided by an inner compass, she had to develop those sorts of characteristics through trials. And it ended up being much more interesting that way, because there was inner growth happening alongside the action of the story, so that the two elements worked together. (After reading the novels, she wasn't nearly as annoying, but she did have a lot of growing to do.)

Whenever anyone mentions a story about time travelers killing Hitler-- I always think of this one from Tor.

But if we're talking about villains-- it might be more interesting to make up a person, rather than trying to do a let's-kill-this-famous-person-everyone-knows. Because if it's a famous person, people are going to bring their own opinions to how a world-without-that-person would play out... especially if someone else steps into the void left by their absence. You don't necessarily have everything-as-normal; instead, you have a thousand other variables you weren't aware of that suddenly bubble to the surface and play out in public, and no control to limit them. But if it's a made-up character who is destined to serve in a critical capacity, people don't have their own ideas about the sort of alternate history that would result getting in the way of the story you're trying to tell.

Pinkarray · Mar 19, 2019

lonestarlibrarian said:
An example from anime-- when I first started watching Junni Kokki, I hated the main character, Youko. She was weak, she was indecisive, she was undependable, she was unlikable. I almost put it away after the first couple of episodes. Why would I care about what happened to a character like that? But it turned out, starting the character in such a bad light gave her room for later growth. Rather than someone starting off as noble and decisive and strong-willed and guided by an inner compass, she had to develop those sorts of characteristics through trials. And it ended up being much more interesting that way, because there was inner growth happening alongside the action of the story, so that the two elements worked together. (After reading the novels, she wasn't nearly as annoying, but she did have a lot of growing to do.)

Whenever anyone mentions a story about time travelers killing Hitler-- I always think of this one from Tor.

But if we're talking about villains-- it might be more interesting to make up a person, rather than trying to do a let's-kill-this-famous-person-everyone-knows. Because if it's a famous person, people are going to bring their own opinions to how a world-without-that-person would play out... especially if someone else steps into the void left by their absence. You don't necessarily have everything-as-normal; instead, you have a thousand other variables you weren't aware of that suddenly bubble to the surface and play out in public, and no control to limit them. But if it's a made-up character who is destined to serve in a critical capacity, people don't have their own ideas about the sort of alternate history that would result getting in the way of the story you're trying to tell.

I haven't seen the whole anime yet but yeah, the girl, while doesn't seem mean is cowardly and a crybaby. I tend to prefer protagonists that are strong, compelling, and badass throughout than the timid, weak, passive kind.

Harlequin · Mar 22, 2019

Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever

RookieWriter · Mar 23, 2019

lpetrich said:
Have any of you tried to write a protagonist whose beliefs or behavior one considers obnoxious or distasteful or offensive or grotesquely wrong?

I have had to do so, in a work intended to illustrate Lord Raglan's mythic-hero profile. In part of it, someone tries to kill the baby hero in his infancy, though he ends up rescued.There are lots of legendary people who suffer that treatment -- Zeus, Oedipus, Perseus, Hercules, Romulus, Moses, ... -- bot hardly any well-documented ones, especially in recent times. We don't see any hard-line royalists trying to kill baby George Washington, slave-plantation owners trying to kill baby Abraham Lincoln, fundamentalists trying to kill baby Charles Darwin, rabbis, Jewish bankers, and Jewish Marxist revolutionaries trying to kill baby Adolf Hitler, psychiatrists trying to kill baby L. Ron Hubbard, oil-company executives trying to kill baby Muammar Khadafy, etc.

So I tried to imagine someone wanting to kill baby Abraham Lincoln and baby Charles Darwin. I tried to make him somewhat sympathetic, and not a cartoonish villain. I made him a southern plantation lord with precognitive powers that made him learn about Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin and what they would accomplish. So he tries to nip those accomplishments in the bud in Lord-Raglan fashion.

Dexter.

A terrible person who the audience roots for.

Dom Perkins · Mar 23, 2019

It seems like I'm in the minority here, but I think it's a good idea. I think that creating a protagonist with detestable views - which aren't held by the author - is a great way to offer a new perspective. But the problem is that you have to make the protagonist still be likeable. It's harder to write a protagonist like that. I like your idea, though, and I'd probably read your story.

The thing is, no one is ever evil to be evil, and writing a character that's pure evil is simply unrealistic. In order to make a character be "evil" and likeable at the same time is by justifying their actions, in their own eyes, of course. They have to have a reason to hold their views and justify their actions. You need to make their reasons sympathetic, albeit not entirely justified. For example, a protagonist could passionately hate German people, but maybe their family was Jewish and were persecuted by Germans when the protagonist was very young. That's no reason to hate all Germans for the actions of a few, but it's understandable why the protagonist would feel that way. Their view would be detestable to the reader, but the reasoning behind it is sympathetic.

D. E. Wyatt · Mar 24, 2019

Dom Perkins said:
The thing is, no one is ever evil to be evil, and writing a character that's pure evil is simply unrealistic. In order to make a character be "evil" and likeable at the same time is by justifying their actions, in their own eyes, of course. They have to have a reason to hold their views and justify their actions. You need to make their reasons sympathetic, albeit not entirely justified. For example, a protagonist could passionately hate German people, but maybe their family was Jewish and were persecuted by Germans when the protagonist was very young. That's no reason to hate all Germans for the actions of a few, but it's understandable why the protagonist would feel that way. Their view would be detestable to the reader, but the reasoning behind it is sympathetic.

I'm mildly you're amused that you would say pure evil is unrealistic in the same paragraph in which you invoke the Holocaust.

RookieWriter · Mar 24, 2019

Dom Perkins said:
It seems like I'm in the minority here, but I think it's a good idea. I think that creating a protagonist with detestable views - which aren't held by the author - is a great way to offer a new perspective. But the problem is that you have to make the protagonist still be likeable. It's harder to write a protagonist like that. I like your idea, though, and I'd probably read your story.

The thing is, no one is ever evil to be evil, and writing a character that's pure evil is simply unrealistic. In order to make a character be "evil" and likeable at the same time is by justifying their actions, in their own eyes, of course. They have to have a reason to hold their views and justify their actions. You need to make their reasons sympathetic, albeit not entirely justified. For example, a protagonist could passionately hate German people, but maybe their family was Jewish and were persecuted by Germans when the protagonist was very young. That's no reason to hate all Germans for the actions of a few, but it's understandable why the protagonist would feel that way. Their view would be detestable to the reader, but the reasoning behind it is sympathetic.

This is why Dexter Morgan is the perfect antihero. He is a killer but we root for him. Why? Because he kills people we feel deserve it. It makes him likable even though he is evil.

Harlequin · Mar 25, 2019

There are a million and a half examples of unlikeable protagonists being wildly successful books. I really think good unlikeable protagonists are far more popular than the traditional likeable variety.

Dom Perkins · Apr 1, 2019

D. E. Wyatt said:
I'm mildly you're amused that you would say pure evil is unrealistic in the same paragraph in which you invoke the Holocaust.

Hmm, I think you need to read what I wrote more slowly then. Either you didn't get the point or you're just simply intolerable.

- - - Updated - - -

RookieWriter said:
This is why Dexter Morgan is the perfect antihero. He is a killer but we root for him. Why? Because he kills people we feel deserve it. It makes him like ableeven though he is evil.

Exactly.

mccardey · Apr 1, 2019

RookieWriter said:
A terrible person who the audience roots for.

I would like all of you Australians to stop sniggering right this instant.
:granny:

Norman Mjadwesch · Apr 1, 2019

mccardey said:
I would like all of you Australians to stop sniggering right this instant.

I decline your request, as all people need such exercise from time to time. :greenie

Norman Mjadwesch · Apr 1, 2019

Harlequin said:
Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever

OMG, I haven't thought of him in a very long time. One of my friends at school actually refused to read any further after what he did to Lena, and therefore missed all of the guilt that dogged him.

ETA: this post in no way is meant to be read as a sequel to my previous post. Just saying...

ap123 · Apr 2, 2019

Dom Perkins said:
It seems like I'm in the minority here, but I think it's a good idea. I think that creating a protagonist with detestable views - which aren't held by the author - is a great way to offer a new perspective. But the problem is that you have to make the protagonist still be likeable. It's harder to write a protagonist like that.

(Bolding mine)

No, the protagonist does not have to be likable. The protagonist has to be interesting, there's a difference. I love unlikeable protags (both reading and writing them). If they're flat, cartoonishly evil, they won't be interesting and hold reader attention.

Some readers don't enjoy unlikable characters, the same way some readers want a happy ending or they feel unsatisfied. Not everyone is going to be your reader. But if the characters are interesting and the story well told, there are many readers who will happily settle in and enjoy.

Charles Windsoap · Apr 2, 2019

lpetrich said:
So I tried to imagine someone wanting to kill baby Abraham Lincoln and baby Charles Darwin. I tried to make him somewhat sympathetic, and not a cartoonish villain. I made him a southern plantation lord with precognitive powers that made him learn about Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin and what they would accomplish. So he tries to nip those accomplishments in the bud in Lord-Raglan fashion.

Bit of an aside here, but why would he want to kill Darwin? Darwin was pretty straightforward in his belief that the races were anything but equal due to their separate paths of evolution. Wouldn't that support the plantation owner's motives? Or am I missing something?

Coddiwomple · Apr 2, 2019

Charles Windsoap said:
Darwin was pretty straightforward in his belief that the races were anything but equal due to their separate paths of evolution.

Actually, no. If you’re referring to social Darwinism, that’s a rather warped application of Darwin's theories that is far removed from the current state of evolutionary theory.

Because a discussion of this would be a complete derail of this thread, I recommend that anyone who wants further information on basic evolutionary theory visit this excellent source: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

As for a discussion of the social definitions of race and how they impact development (even though from a biological perspective, humans are one species), that would definitely not be a subject for this thread. Information is out there and it’s solid and scientifically sound, but there’s also a lot of crap spun by people with deep-seated beliefs they are desperate to cling to. Tread carefully.

And now back to our distasteful protagonists...

A protagonist who is distasteful or worse?

lpetrich

DeeDub

indianroads

Wherever I go, there I am.

Curlz

cutsie-pie

mrsmig

Write. Write. Writey Write Write.

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty

Pinkarray

Underdawg47

D. E. Wyatt

Pinkarray

lonestarlibrarian

senior bean supervisor

Pinkarray

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!

RookieWriter

Dom Perkins

The Idahoan Horror Writer

D. E. Wyatt

RookieWriter

Harlequin

Eat books, not brains!

Dom Perkins

The Idahoan Horror Writer

mccardey

Norman Mjadwesch

vacuous eyes, will bark at shadows

Norman Mjadwesch

vacuous eyes, will bark at shadows

ap123

Twitching

Charles Windsoap

Coddiwomple

shipwrecked in antiquity