Making a Character Likable in Spite of DEEP Flaws

I'm not sure what the first question of your second paragraph means, but I don't think it matters.

Characters don't have to be likable, they have to be interesting.

I thought having flaws is part of what makes the character likable.

ap123 said:

I'm not sure what the first question of your second paragraph means, but I don't think it matters.

Characters don't have to be likable, they have to be interesting.

Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. (Bolding mine.)

I think it helps if at least one character is likable. It's like if you went to a party and didn't like anyone there, would you stay?

ap123 said:

I'm not sure what the first question of your second paragraph means, but I don't think it matters.

Characters don't have to be likable, they have to be interesting.

Click to expand...

^^^^ THIS. Completely and utterly.

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

I'm in the editing stages of my novel. One of the complaints that I am getting is that the main character, a teenage opiate addict, is not likable. I'm trying to remain true to the mentality of someone who would lie, cheat, steal, and sell out their own mother just to get a fix, but it can be hard to like a person like this.

Click to expand...

I haven't read your story, and I don't know who's complaining, so I'll only address the general.

"Addict" is a very broad brush. Like anyone and everyone else, some are jerks, some aren't. I've known more than a few who are out and out charming, smart, fun to be with, but might still slit your throat if you were between them and their only access to the fix they needed. That's addiction, not the person/character--and also, that's interesting.

As for readers, some people want/need protagonists to be likable, some don't. Using tv shows as quick character examples, think about House, Jessie Pinkman in Breaking Bad, Nurse Jackie. There are a lot of choices out there in fiction--in film, tv, and novels.

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

I'm in the editing stages of my novel. One of the complaints that I am getting is that the main character, a teenage opiate addict, is not likable. I'm trying to remain true to the mentality of someone who would lie, cheat, steal, and sell out their own mother just to get a fix, but it can be hard to like a person like this.

Click to expand...

No one has to find a character likable; they have to find a character interesting, or relatable in some way, even if they're a terrible person.

I don't know what's in your book, obviously, but if people say it's hard to like the character -- is that how you're setting it up? That readers are meant to have sympathy for or like the character? Do you like the character? Is the plot meant to keep the character someone readers should root for?

If so, and the character is unlikable, that can be a problem.

I think what we're talking about here is character sympathy. The idea is to make the reader care about the character. This is often referred to as making the character likable. When someone says it's more important for the character to be interesting than likable, I don't disagree, but I would argue that interesting characters tend to be likable for the purpose of discussion.

So, in general, what makes a reader care about a character? This is a big topic.

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Competence. Characters who are exceptionally skilled or talented tend to be likable.

2. Proactive. Characters who go out and do things tend to be more interesting than characters who passively go with the flow.

3. Giving Credit. The character who gives credit to others is likable. "It was a team effort."

4. Suffering. Characters who suffer are likable. As long as the character doesn't wallow in that suffering, of course.

5. Sacrifice. Characters who make a personal sacrifice for something greater are likable.

6. Similar. Characters we can relate to tend to be likable, but it's tricky because if the character is too similar then the character can be a little boring.

7. Reliable. Character keeps his or her word.

8. Loved. Well, if all these other characters like this character then there must be something likable about this character.

9. Flawed. Yes, flaws make a character more interesting and likable. It's the flaws, coupled with at least some positive traits that makes the character human.

There are certainly a lot more things that can be added to this list.

But it's important to note that flawed characters are not unlikable because they are flawed. Plenty of characters throughout history have been flawed and still we root for them. Dr. House, as an example, is rude, and he's a drug addict, but people still like him. We often cheer for bank robbers. Consider how many people loved all the mafia characters in The Godfather. They were "likable" even though they were doing some pretty dark things.

Understanding goes a long way towards making a character relatable. People generally want to be a good fit within their society, so if the writer can understand what has brought the character to the place they find themselves in now, even if she doesn't write it, it will bring relatability to the character - because the writer will be unable to avoid bringing in glimpses of the little contradictions that show what the "good" version of the character would have been.

(This is my theory. It might not work for everyone.)

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

I'm in the editing stages of my novel. One of the complaints that I am getting is that the main character, a teenage opiate addict, is not likable. I'm trying to remain true to the mentality of someone who would lie, cheat, steal, and sell out their own mother just to get a fix, but it can be hard to like a person like this.

Click to expand...

What else are they, besides an addict? What are they like, besides the addiction? How does the character see their own addiction/behavior in relation to who they are?

An actor friend had the same problem when playing bad guys. One of his mentors said to find something he liked about the character and play with that. In one case he liked the character's twisted sense of humor. In another, the character was a real psycho, but adored his cat.

You may want to study up on literary anti-heroes. Hannibal Lector is an utter tool, yet people like him, at least they do the film version. As awful as he was, he was fond of Clarice.

But don't go overboard on the flaws. I especially dislike sarcastic people, having had to share a room with such a specimen at a convention. Her "Here's a quarter, call for a clue" reply to reasonable questions got old fast. The one time she shut up was when I burst into the room and turned on the TV and told the others to quiet down and listen. Her "Why the **** should we?" dried up as the video of Princess Di's death came on finally showed her to all to be an unlikable fool.

Overdoing flaws grated on an editor friend who does critiques. The heroine of an urban fantasy was so heavy with the snark and clever turns of mean phrase that she reached her limit on page one. She thought the writer was attempting to imitate other writers with clever, snarky heroines, and left the brakes off.

I like a flawed hero, but she can't be kicking babies as an introduction. A better alternative to baby kicking is disliking the noise they make and their habit of puking on one's nice clothes. That's something most readers can identify with.

For a flawed, likeable hero, you might try the Dortmunder novels by the late and much lamented Donald Westlake. Dortmunder is often the perennial loser as he guides his gang of thieves through heists that go wrong. He's got a mournful, pessimist's outlook on life, but somehow gets through the day in spite of well-meaning help from his eccentric crew.

Many of the books were made into movies, but it's best to read the originals to see how a skilled writer walked that tightrope between crime and hilarity with this character.

Another flawed hero is Miles Vorkosigan, a 4-foot nine guy on a planet of 6 footers who think his short stature is catching. Miles is brilliant but hyperactive, lots of energy--or it could be manic-depression--but inexperienced, a natural born con artist when needed. Lois McMaster Bujold won a number of Hugo awards with that series.

It's good to pose questions on how to write such people, but far better to ransack the library and see how other writers did it. It's all the difference between telling and showing.

He walks onto the scene cloaked in black, his face hidden by a hood. He uses a cane he doesn't really need and speaks softly to feign weakness, yet is perfectly capable of summoning lightning at his command. Once his elderly man disguise is shed in private, he cackles and sneers and drips with sarcasm. He's supremely overconfident, yet his cunning and ability to scheme justify his confidence. He's two steps ahead of everybody else at all time, and he looks like he's having a blast showing everybody else up.



He first appears on a hologram, whining about the fact that his troops can't blockade a single planet. He flings his underling across a starship bridge in a pointless, thoroughly-slapstick display of power that makes him look pedantic and pathetic. His "powerful" military force can't catch up to a tiny ragtag fleet due to awful screenwriting. When he's shown in person, he lounges around in a gold lame outfit and engages in more pointless public humiliation of an underling. He comes across like a whiny, spiteful child, destroying any air of mystery or quiet menace about him.

Long story short, they need to be intelligent and cunning, with an intimate understanding of how the world works, and two steps ahead of everybody else in the story (until the finale). But you can't just tell the reader they're intelligent and cunning--show, don't tell--it needs to be communicated through their presentation and their role in the story.

Flaws make our characters real. Squeaky clean people are boring - the most interesting stories are of our misadventures.

You like a character when you see a little of yourself in them, or a little of what you'd like to be.

And it doesn't have to a nice bit of yourself, either. For example, the Dexter character was very likable because he was a serial killer who only killed bad people--and who hasn't had a dark flash of wishing we could just wipe out vile people selectively so the rest of us could get on with being good to one another?

Vampires are basically a dream of pure selfishness--hurt others and never suffer any consequences. Yet people like vampires because they recognize their own darkest urges in them. There's a part of themselves that is thinking, "Yeah, that'd be a sweet deal..."

Villains are often attractive because they really don't care what others think of them. They're incredibly confident and secure. If you're a person who struggles with confidence, even if you hate what they're doing, that character can still be quite appealing.

So with these unlikable characters, work to show something in their character that a reasonable reader can relate to. A kind aspect, or a strength, or joy in life. No one is all bad, and if you show both the good and the bad, readers will see themselves in that.

ap123 said:

I'm not sure what the first question of your second paragraph means, but I don't think it matters.

Characters don't have to be likable, they have to be interesting.

Click to expand...

This is a very good point. Walter White isn't likeable. Really none of the Breaking Bad character are. Yet it's one of the best TV shows of all time.

JoB42 said:

Consider how many people loved all the mafia characters in The Godfather. They were "likable" even though they were doing some pretty dark things.

Click to expand...

There's two totally different things that "I like (name of character)" can mean. A work colleague told me he utterly hated the film Godfather - I think he said it's the worst film ever and he can't understand why anyone would like it. I was rather taken aback* as I consider it to be a cinematographic masterpiece. He said it's because Michael Corleone is a total and utter psychopath. I was too gobsmacked to say anything, but kind of wanted to say "yeah, but that's kind of... the point?"

*in the British understatement sense of the phrase

Anyway, kudos to my colleague for speaking his mind and having his own opinion. Nothing is universally likeable and I appreciate honesty. But it got me thinking. To him, if he doesn't like a character in all sense of "like", he won't like the film. But for me there's different meanings to "like." For example Snape in Harry Potter. In one sense, he's my favourite character in the whole series, but I don't like him in the sense that I'd want to socialise with him. I'd probably actively avoid his company. Same with the Michael Corleone, in terms of how the character's written and acted and how scenes involving him and how the film was shot and edited - genius. Would I like him as a person to socialise with? HELL NO!! I'd want to be in an entirely different city, a long way away from him.

Liking a character at an artistic level isn't the same as liking them as a person.

neandermagnon said:

Liking a character at an artistic level isn't the same as liking them as a person.

Click to expand...

Also a good point.

For me as a reader/viewer, it's a question of how relatable they are. Everyone else has listed excellent ways to make characters relatable so I won't add to the list. But it also matters how you present the character (sort of with the Palpatine/Snoke comparison above).

For example, I recently read a book with a huge ensemble cast. It started out with the family patriarch and described his care for his mother, his grief when she died, the way he met his wife. It was told so vividly and engagingly that I really started to like him. And I enjoyed reading about him far longer than I should have, even as he started to be revealed as a horribly abusive man. Pretty soon I wanted to murder him slowly and painfully. But by that time I was already invested in his character, and at least found him interesting enough to keep reading, to figure out where he went wrong, or if he'd been this way all along. The author also continued to weave in bits that would have made me like him if he wasn't such a horrible person—showing him confused and helpless as a recently-widowed father, showing an odd moment of tenderness or restraint in his behavior, etc. It was masterful. The takeaway I'm trying for is, it's not just who your characters are and what traits they have, but how we meet them.

I don't know about reading them, but I would much rather write an unlikable and flawed characters than a likable one. Just more fun, you're constantly asking yourself "What are they going to do/say next?"

I think the best way to keep a character relate-able, which is more of what I think you're looking for than likable, is to give us a path into his / her mind. Show us his thought processes, conflicting feelings, etc.

When you're character steals something to feed his addiction, is he conflicted about it? Does he know it's wrong? Does he hate himself afterward? Maybe he rationalizes why it's okay for him to steel something. Or maybe he's a total ass and gets off on the trill of it, and in that case, allows us to debase ourselves along with him without the ramifications.

It's giving us this glimpse into his psyche that will make us care about him.

Dexter is a very good example of how to accomplish this (and the majority of people would say he's deeply flawed). My memory of the TV show is much clearer than it is for the book. A few stray observations I picked up: Dexter seems to like and is protective of children. He's protective of his partner. He adheres to a strict set of ethics ("the code") when engaging in his little hobby, referring to a broad mythology put in place by his adoptive father, Harry.

In other words, it's easy to get invested in a character who is loyal to something, a code of ethics, a person, etc even if they clearly fall outside mainstream society.

You could start (as has been suggested above) by making your character likeable, before you introduce their flaws. Even the nastiest people (aside from genocidal dictators and comic book villains) normally have at least one redeeming feature.

Alternatively, you could go the other way. Show their worst side and slowly explain why they are like they are. A good example is Jamie Lannister in GOT. He starts the story as one of the most hated characters and gradually becomes more likeable as the story progresses.

BlackKnight1974 said:

You could start (as has been suggested above) by making your character likeable, before you introduce their flaws.

Click to expand...

Yes. First impressions count for a lot.

OP: what's the first impression of your character? What do you show them doing?