Complicated versus Unsympathetic protagonists

EmmaKate said:

What does everything else think??

Click to expand...

I think one reader is one reader, and you may not have a problem at all.

Part of the art of taking a critique is winnowing out what feedback is actionable and what feedback you're going to let lie. You can calibrate - to a certain extent - based on other comments your critiquer gave you, but even that doesn't always tell you anything.

I had a beta once who was thrown by something I did at the very end of the book. They thought it was unrealistic. Because they'd given me other feedback that was good, I thought about it for a long time, but based on my own personal lived experience, what I'd done wasn't unrealistic at all. I didn't change it.

Opinions aren't wrong, but sometimes you get an opinion that's wrong for your book. Only you can decide if that's what's happened here.

Liz is right - one beta is one opinion. But if you find your character sympathetic and more than one reader doesn't, think about maybe using a couple of opportunities to show more clearly what you understand about her.

For myself, I'd shy away from explanations of why she's difficult, and work more on her awareness that she's difficult - perhaps have her trying hard not to be and have it fall flat. Show us what she gets wrong - perhaps that when she tries, she sees a rebuff where it isn't intended: or that her idea of being helpful is to interfere and provide a fix - whatever her quirk is, have her not quite aware of what she gets wrong, but trying to fix it a little and not quite managing.

Also - if she's funny, people will forgive a lot.

EmmaKate said:

Hi Everyone,

First time post. Just looking for thoughts on the line between a unsympathetic and complicated protagonist. I recently got some
feedback on a novel I am editing with a very immersive first person viewpoint. It is a female - if that matters. The reader said at
times she was unsympathetic and that other readers may find it difficult to read. Basically, the reader told me that she was a bit
of a b*&ch. My view is that my main character is cynical, a bit judgement and cold due to years living alone.

I have read other successful novels with unsympathetic protagonists ie. Vanity Fair for a classic and I thought Brooklyn had a difficult lead. So
what's the difference?

Click to expand...

Welcome!

Vanity Fair is one of my favorite books, and I don't think Becky Sharp is entirely unsympathetic – she did some horrible things, true, but she did have good impulses too – but that's not important. What is important is that Becky is a fun character who is always scheming and hustling and it is a pleasure to see what she was up to, especially after Amelia's chapters. I don't dislike Amelia – she is actually a sympathetic protagonist – but she is a bit bland. Becky is spicy. Becky is interesting. That's all a character needs, to be interesting.

EmmaKate said:

I was thinking that instead of 'voice' issues, it may be a problem with the characterization. Mainly, if the reader is given a reason for why
my protagonist is a b*&ch (life experience, distant father), she may become more sympathetic despite her character faults.

What does everything else think??

Click to expand...

Reasons alone won't make her sympathetic. Understandable, maybe, but not sympathetic. Most people have all kinds of bad life experiences, and/or problems with family. If you want to make your character sympathetic, let her do nice things for others, be kind to others, even have kind thoughts towards others. As little as noticing other people around her, and acknowledging their agendas, will do. A lot of main characters don't care about secondary characters at all, don't hesitate to hurt their feelings etc. It might be a challenge especially for books written in 1st person (I know, because I'm writing one too).

But again, sympathetic is not a sine qua non for a main character.

Your main character can be cantankerous, bitchy, rude, whatever, as long as the reader has a reason to root for her. It's the "save the cat" concept--the character just has to do a good deed such as saving a cat so the audience can like her. Here are some examples of successful complicated/rude/brusque characters and why they still work:

- Ove from A Man Called Ove: he is rude, judgemental, harsh, and impatient. But, after much hesitancy, there is a situation in which he takes pity on something. He had a person he would do anything for. The author successfully shows he has a heart of gold underneath it all.

- Expanse series: there's a character in every book it seems that does something terrible and are given a redemption character arc. Often, the person acted out of anger or spite but learns the error of his or her ways as new information comes up and new experiences occur.

- Broken Earth Trilogy: there are two primary characters in this series who do terrible things, one with a redemption arc and one who made a difficult and terrible decision when given only two terrible choices; both fully carry the weight of what they have done without relying on excuses. The main character is impatient and sometimes verbally explosive, but has had an incredibly challenging life and still steps up to help others although often grouchy about it.

- Han Solo: he is a scumbag smuggler, he shoots first when in danger (don't tell me otherwise), he says he's in it for himself, and he vacillates between charming and childishly rude. But, underneath it all he cares for his friends and will do anything for them.

- Meyer Landsman from The Yiddish Policeman's Union: he's an alcoholic mess, he divorced he believes due to talking his wife into a difficult choice because of his pessimistic view of the world, and he's not very friendly. But, he does care for a few others and believes in justice and will act where possible to see it is met.

- Tyrion Lannister especially in Clash of Kings: he does a number of terrible things including having people killed and much of it for the benefit of his evil family, but all with the intent of protecting the realm.

- Howard W. Campbell jr. from Mother Night: while acting as a spy, he infiltrates the Nazis as a radio personality and gives them encouragement and he gets into a relationship that doesn't honor his late wife. But, he has morals and feels remorse for what he did, although his actions as a spy are morally ambiguous. He comes off as someone who never did harm intentionally.

Is this female character genuinely unlikeable or is she being held to the same double standards that exist in real life? Would your reader have the same reaction if the character were male?

It all comes down to how you carry it off. Irvine Welsh, for example, has pretty much nothing but unsympathetic / complex characters and he's probably my favourite writer of the last 30 years. He knows how to carry it off with the right amount of humour, insight and context. (At least he did in his hay day.)

My most successful character was a Machiavellian bastard - arrogant, manipulative - but maintained a sound momentum of amusing and perceptive commentary on the world and people around him. So readers loved him.

Mind you, a couple of my betas read a first draft and complained the main character was too much of a bastard. So on reflection, I did tone him down a little and am glad I did.

He's still a bastard, and slightly more loveable than he was before so those betas got it right.

Most people have said what I'm about to say, but, you know, for data points and all - 1) one reader's opinion is one reader's opinion, and not necessarily going to be the opinion of the next reader; 2) no, I don't think you need to have a reason for her being cold or cynical or a b#$%$; personally, I'm cold/cynical/a b$#*!& and I have no reason for it other than existing. Reasons are ok but can also easily come off as cliche and aren't necessary for sympathy alone.

I really like mccardey's point that showing self-awareness of her own faults can help (and so might humor). And as others have said, readers just need a reason to want to root for/follow/stay with the character. It's possible that yours is missing that; it's also possible your character just doesn't click with this reader.

In general, though, both as a critiquer and critiquee, I think it is important to keep in mind that every individual cannot help but bring their own biases and likes/dislikes to the thing. I've tried figuring ways around it but I just can't, and this is a big reason why I'm often reluctant to critique things now...I feel like I will say something that may be true for me but not right for the book. This is always a possibility... There are things that don't resonate with me, or downright put me off, that will be attractions for other readers, or just won't bother them. I recently started and then gave up on two different mystery series for this very reason - the MCs seemed all spiteful and obnoxious and judgy, and for me there wasn't anything to balance that besides "they helped to solve a murder." So I chucked them. But there are a lot of books in each of these series, and a lot of online reviews of them were positive, so quite a lot of people *do* like them. If I had beta-read those books, I would have voiced significant objections to the MCs' personalities; but if someone else did...? Would they? I don't know. People can see things so differently. This is why, I think, if you go for critique, you need several different people involved -- or just keep in mind that everything is subjective. Like lizmonster said--you make the final call

Genre matters as well - an unlikable, unsympathetic heroine in a romance is going to be a much more difficult sell than a similar heroine in a historical, SF, etc. There's definitely a double standard here, so best be aware of this in advance.

Tocotin said:

Becky is interesting. That's all a character needs, to be interesting.

Click to expand...

I think this is true. I will add--and I'll admit this is based on advice I've read, but it resonates with me as very very good advice--that what makes a character most interesting is if they really, really want something. You could call it sympathetic, relatable, or compelling, but a character who really wants something becomes someone the reader identifies with. She may be a bit of a b*tch, but look at her, deep down she's just like me: she doesn't have what she wants, and she wants it! (I mean don't we all?)

It might not be a good thing to want--that's how they make relatable protagonists out of master criminals in heist movies & all--stolen money isn't a good thing to want, but we can identify with wanting it. As long as the guy really wants it, and isn't just doing this b/c yeah, uh, y'know, robbing casinos is all he knows...

It does depend on what you're going for, of course. Do you WANT this character to be likable--someone you or your reader would want to spend an afternoon with in real life? Or are you showing us this person because they have an interesting story to tell?

I had a WIP where a reader liked the ms but noted, somewhat tentatively, that she didn't like the characters. I was a bit surprised. I hadn't expected anyone to really like the characters. They're stinkers sometimes (okay, multiple times). I wanted the reader to be interested in them--to want to learn what mistake they would make next or how they effed over the other characters.

On my most recent WIP, though, I wanted all the characters to be likable. Complicated, perhaps, but likable. It's a different story with very different characters demanding a different approach.

So I think you need to ask yourself, exactly how do I want my reader to approach this character? What do I want the reader to feel about the character? Of course, no two readers will react in the same way. But you should aim to get most readers reacting the way you want them to.

Helix said:

Is this female character genuinely unlikeable or is she being held to the same double standards that exist in real life? Would your reader have the same reaction if the character were male?

Click to expand...

This.

The critters’ use of the word b#tch doesn’t give me a lot of hope

MythMonger said:

This.

The critters’ use of the word b#tch doesn’t give me a lot of hope

Click to expand...

This.

At best "bitch" is a very vague noun that can mean so many things to different people. It's meaningless without more specific explanation of why the critiquer thought her so unsympathetic. If the critiquer found her unnecessarily or unrealistically abrasive, for instance, they should explain why.

At worse, this word is a go-to insult used to shut down and dismiss women who are strong, opinionated or anything but a doormat.

In any case, a character can be unpleasant, even unlikable, and still be sympathetic and intriguing, like Alec from A Clockwork Orange. I can think of numerous examples of such characters from literature. Sadly, the unlikable but still sympathetic protagonist is more frequently male, but there are some female examples out there as well.

It's also important to note, as others have already said, that different readers will see different things in a character. Readers always bring their own biases and baggage to the table when they read. This is something you can attempt to manipulate as a writer, but never control. There are very popular novels with evil, sadistic protagonists that I just can't read. Too much rape and murder and torture of small animals for me to get past to see the protagonist's inner complexity, I guess. Were I critiquing a particular author's draft, I'd have likely told them a murdering rapist clearly not on a redemption arc or in any way suffering consequences is simply too hard a sell for most readers, especially for women or for people who have been victims of such a person themselves. It also would have been a mistake for said writer to listen to me, because this novel was a bestseller within its genre and was critically acclaimed and gave rise to a highly successful grimdark series.

EmmaKate said:

Thanks for your advice. Your words about Becky really resonated. I loved her as well. Mainly because she made the best of every situation she was in and kept fighting. I think my problem is will the 1st person and that the main conflict in the novel is between my protagonist and her sister. They are two people with polar opposite values and traits. It's a love/hate relationship. I might have to soften her edges a bit...or find another beta reader.

Click to expand...

Not every beta reader is cut out for every writer. Go with what works for you.

Good luck!

Ah yes, writing a complicated female protagonist can be hard. Here's some things I've encountered in media/betaing. Don't know if they apply to you, but it's something to watch out for.

1. Judging/insulting others before that person does something worthy of being judged/insulted.
Criticizing a girl simply for having expensive clothes
Gossiping about someone the reader hasn't met

2. Going into a feminist rant without provocation
Getting snippy with with a Norse god because he's politely asked her to go on a quest, saying "oh, you're finally getting a woman to do
a man's job?!"

3. Sexist double standards
Showing a female character rudely blowing off a polite guy who asks her out, and later showing a man being condemned and screamed
at for politely declining a date because he's in the middle of saving the world.

4. Constant complaining while simultaneously taking no action to solve her problems.
5. Expected to be considered "special" because of something she was born with rather than her efforts.
6. Is never allowed to be wrong.
7. Gets angry and screams very quickly when provoked.
8. Gets offended by everything.

However, any of those things might be used in various ways to make a deeper character, depending on presentation. I think the real key here is to make sure you have very strong positive aspects of the character, so that when she's being cynical, the reader has something good to hold on to to make them keep on. Like Paulie from the Rocky series: he's a terrible person, but has good little moments where he is sympathetic towards others. Like at the end of the first film how he helps Adrian get into the ring. Stuff like that can make a potentially abrasive character go a long way.

Nerdilydone said:

Ah yes, writing a complicated female protagonist can be hard. Here's some things I've encountered in media/betaing. Don't know if they apply to you, but it's something to watch out for.

1. Judging/insulting others before that person does something worthy of being judged/insulted.
Criticizing a girl simply for having expensive clothes
Gossiping about someone the reader hasn't met

2. Going into a feminist rant without provocation
Getting snippy with with a Norse god because he's politely asked her to go on a quest, saying "oh, you're finally getting a woman to do
a man's job?!"

3. Sexist double standards
Showing a female character rudely blowing off a polite guy who asks her out, and later showing a man being condemned and screamed
at for politely declining a date because he's in the middle of saving the world.

4. Constant complaining while simultaneously taking no action to solve her problems.
5. Expected to be considered "special" because of something she was born with rather than her efforts.
6. Is never allowed to be wrong.
7. Gets angry and screams very quickly when provoked.
8. Gets offended by everything.

However, any of those things might be used in various ways to make a deeper character, depending on presentation. I think the real key here is to make sure you have very strong positive aspects of the character, so that when she's being cynical, the reader has something good to hold on to to make them keep on. Like Paulie from the Rocky series: he's a terrible person, but has good little moments where he is sympathetic towards others. Like at the end of the first film how he helps Adrian get into the ring. Stuff like that can make a potentially abrasive character go a long way.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? Complicated characters of any gender are trickier to write!

Or do you mean that these examples should probably be avoided because they're always used to bash women with, although they're just as unpleasant when anyone else does them?

Nerdilydone said:

Ah yes, writing a complicated female protagonist can be hard. Here's some things I've encountered in media/betaing. Don't know if they apply to you, but it's something to watch out for.

1. Judging/insulting others before that person does something worthy of being judged/insulted.
Criticizing a girl simply for having expensive clothes
Gossiping about someone the reader hasn't met

2. Going into a feminist rant without provocation
Getting snippy with with a Norse god because he's politely asked her to go on a quest, saying "oh, you're finally getting a woman to do
a man's job?!"

3. Sexist double standards
Showing a female character rudely blowing off a polite guy who asks her out, and later showing a man being condemned and screamed
at for politely declining a date because he's in the middle of saving the world.

4. Constant complaining while simultaneously taking no action to solve her problems.
5. Expected to be considered "special" because of something she was born with rather than her efforts.
6. Is never allowed to be wrong.
7. Gets angry and screams very quickly when provoked.
8. Gets offended by everything.

However, any of those things might be used in various ways to make a deeper character, depending on presentation. I think the real key here is to make sure you have very strong positive aspects of the character, so that when she's being cynical, the reader has something good to hold on to to make them keep on. Like Paulie from the Rocky series: he's a terrible person, but has good little moments where he is sympathetic towards others. Like at the end of the first film how he helps Adrian get into the ring. Stuff like that can make a potentially abrasive character go a long way.

Click to expand...

What do any of these things have to do with being complicated in a character of any gender?

Being prickly or or overly sensitive, never accepting blame for one's failings or admitting to be wrong, or holding people do different standards than one does one oneself aren't complicated traits, in fact they're rather stereotypically childish (not that children can't be interesting and complex characters too). I can think of certain public figures who fail on all of these counts without giving any impression of complexity at all.

The hard part with critiquing partners and beta readers is finding one who is likely representative of a potential target reader for your book. This is harder than it seems, because even within a genre there are so many subgenres and writing styles.

Nerdilydone said:

Ah yes, writing a complicated female protagonist can be hard. Here's some things I've encountered in media/betaing. Don't know if they apply to you, but it's something to watch out for.

1. Judging/insulting others before that person does something worthy of being judged/insulted.
Criticizing a girl simply for having expensive clothes
Gossiping about someone the reader hasn't met

2. Going into a feminist rant without provocation
Getting snippy with with a Norse god because he's politely asked her to go on a quest, saying "oh, you're finally getting a woman to do
a man's job?!"

3. Sexist double standards
Showing a female character rudely blowing off a polite guy who asks her out, and later showing a man being condemned and screamed
at for politely declining a date because he's in the middle of saving the world.

4. Constant complaining while simultaneously taking no action to solve her problems.
5. Expected to be considered "special" because of something she was born with rather than her efforts.
6. Is never allowed to be wrong.
7. Gets angry and screams very quickly when provoked.
8. Gets offended by everything.

However, any of those things might be used in various ways to make a deeper character, depending on presentation. I think the real key here is to make sure you have very strong positive aspects of the character, so that when she's being cynical, the reader has something good to hold on to to make them keep on. Like Paulie from the Rocky series: he's a terrible person, but has good little moments where he is sympathetic towards others. Like at the end of the first film how he helps Adrian get into the ring. Stuff like that can make a potentially abrasive character go a long way.

Click to expand...

On the subject of double standards...

Nerdily Done, your list actually said to me something other--that a reaction from a character should happen in response to a stimulus, and it should be ... logical, proportional, ... it should seem appropriate to the reader

Wasting your time worrying over one opinion. Some people will like your character and some won't no matter how you write her. Changing a character to please someone else or many someone elses will only harm your book.

Sorry to have offended people, but quite frankly I was only trying to answer the question. Sometimes it's a matter of reader biases, but sometimes it's really the character's problem. Also, all of the things I've mentioned I have seen in writing. Things that seem to happen more to female characters than male ones, for some reason. In the case of some betas I did, it was unintentional, but the author really did write her female leads as horrible people that only cared about themselves. One was the above girl who mocked a guy for politely asking her out, another was a girl who threw a fit over a menu change, and the other was self-absorbed and worshipped by basically everyone around her. They were so unlikeable that I and the other beta reader both sympathized with the secondary antagonist.

A lot of this seems to stem from female characters not being written with flaws, or having excuses for said flaw. This can make a character seem unnaturally perfect, or like it was meant as a way to preach to the reader. Stuff like, oh, Rey from Star Wars (completely bland) or the main female lead from Spark's book Message in a Bottle (constantly blames the lead male for not compromising, when she herself never compromises at all). Stuff like that is generally particular to female characters, at least in this day and age.

Just because sexism exists doesn't mean it applies to every situation. Likewise, sexism does not go only one direction.

OP: I scanned the opens of the two books you mentioned for comparison, the ones with difficult lead characters.

You asked what the difference is between those and yours.

One difference is that neither of the books you mention for comparison are written in first person. Omniscient, in particular, (Vanity Fair) allows you to go elsewhere in the world to highlight something about the protagonist to impact the reader.

Immersive first person is good for intimacy with the protagonist, but it might be limiting you to the exact reader response you've gotten, if (as you say) your protagonist is cynical, judgmental and cold. You are asking the reader to spend a book's worth of time in that head space in immersive first person.