Does The Main Character Of Your Story Need To Be Likeable?

[William King]

I thought it would be interesting to hear views on whether or not you believe the main character in a story should be likeable. In the past I think it was a general rule that they should be. They might have one or two negative traits, but these would be understandable and even corrected before the end.

 

Today perhaps readers are more willing to accept a protagonist with multiple flaws to their character, some of which get explained as the story unfolds. It's much less pure escapism and much more real world, but are you able to empathise with a leading character who is very far from perfect?

[Graeme]

Since the main character in my first novel was a homophobic teenager, I think I can say that I believe the answer is no. However, there has to be something that keeps the reader reading, even if it is waiting for the main character to get his just desserts.

 

As for empathising with the main character, that's certainly desirable, but it's possible to get away with one that the readers hate if it is done well.

[dughlas]

I've read stories that began with very unlikable main characters only to have them in the end become far more likable. So yes I think it's possible just be prepared for a lot of ranting from your readers.

Edited June 16, 2016 by dughlas

[Puppilull]

Since practically everyone hates one of my MCs, but keep on reading (thank God), I'd say it's possible. As Dugh pointed out, there's a lot of ranting. I wasn't prepared for it, because I honestly didn't see him the same way as my readers. An interesting experience!

[Aditus]

Well...thinking of Red Running Shoes: LBO doesn't read it because she hates Ren. Some wanted to strangle Jonah and almost stopped reading. The discussion was er...lively. I had fun. So...maybe not likable, but interesting. 

[Headstall]

First of all, I believe a writer has to do what's right for him or her. That said, I think a main character can be unlikable, at least at first. Sasha Distan's character Nathan comes to mind from "Lonely at the Top." He was first introduced in "Ladie's Man," and was a despicable character. I believe it worked as well as it did because it was a slow redemption. People can be pretty messed up by life and as a reader, I get that. A character that is unpleasant and doesn't learn though, would soon alienate me. I read to escape, and for the most part, to feel good. Reading about characters who use others or are cruel won't hold my attention for long... not as a MC. What I really have no use for is one who makes no sense. Someone erratic and all over the place. It's frustrating to invest the time in learning a character, and find out you didn't know him at all. When I character does something totally 'out of character,' I usually give up and bow out... maybe not the first time, but for sure the second. I put that on the author looking to create drama in most cases, or not knowing where their story is headed. Hope this helps, William... cheers... Gary....

[William King]

First of all, I believe a writer has to do what's right for him or her. That said, I think a main character can be unlikable, at least at first. Sasha Distan's character Nathan comes to mind from "Lonely at the Top." He was first introduced in "Ladie's Man," and was a despicable character. I believe it worked as well as it did because it was a slow redemption. People can be pretty messed up by life and as a reader, I get that. A character that is unpleasant and doesn't learn though, would soon alienate me. I read to escape, and for the most part, to feel good. Reading about characters who use others or are cruel won't hold my attention for long... not as a MC. What I really have no use for is one who makes no sense. Someone erratic and all over the place. It's frustrating to invest the time in learning a character, and find out you didn't know him at all. When I character does something totally 'out of character,' I usually give up and bow out... maybe not the first time, but for sure the second. I put that on the author looking to create drama in most cases, or not knowing where their story is headed. Hope this helps, William... cheers... Gary....

I think you sum it up pretty well and having a person act out of character several times I agree is annoying because then essentially the author has not succeeded in creating a believable character. The only thing I would add about being out of character is that it is quite difficult when writing about young people who within the story are in the process of discovering themselves and developing their character which changes and forms with experience.

[Headstall]

I think you sum it up pretty well and having a person act out of character several times I agree is annoying because then essentially the author has not succeeded in creating a believable character. The only thing I would add about being out of character is that it is quite difficult when writing about young people who within the story are in the process of discovering themselves and developing their character which changes and forms with experience.

I agree, and that comes back to my point about an unpleasant character who doesn't learn... they exist in the real world, but I don't care to read about them. In the wonderful world of fiction, if they do learn from their mistakes and the author works to redeem them, I'm in. That especially applies to young people, who have that inherent ability to learn, and learn quickly, as they grow and develop. I prefer my a-hole characters on the side... not center stage   . Cheers... G

Edited June 16, 2016 by Headstall

[Valkyrie]

I don't think the main character needs to be likable for the story to be good.  I love a good redemption story. People are flawed in real life so I appreciate a well-written flawed character.  I wrote "Exit to Redemption" for one of the anthologies (I forget which one) about a very unlikable character from a previous anthology story.  I would have honestly never thought to write this guy's story, but I had a request from a reader to do so.  My initial thought was "really?  You want to read about him?"  lol  The story got good reviews, though, so people seemed to enjoy it.  As Aditus mentioned, his story "Red Running Shoes" sparked a ton of debate about the main characters.  I never thought of them as unlikable, even if I did want to smack them upside the head at times...lol To me, they were realistic characters navigating through mistakes and character flaws to a satisfying conclusion.   

[Dayne Mora]

I think even the antagonists feel unnatural if there isn't some sort of humanizing anti-flaw. 

[Puppilull]

I think even the antagonists feel unnatural if there isn't some sort of humanizing anti-flaw.

 

Yeah, that always bugs me endlessly. Characters who are just despicable through and through. No one is that bad. It makes things more interesting if I have to struggle with the fact ordinary people behave in rotten ways. A super villain is too neat, but can be fun in a Bond setting or a comic book.

[Emi GS]

I know for sure that I can agree with all of them. Yeah, I was on both sides. Human life filled with lost of emotions and different characters along with them. Some times we learn to love a character even in bad shape and performance. Some times we don't even think about liking a heroic figure even though he act like a saint.

 

Yeah, it result in interested rantings, as well as full of dislikes. And I agree with Gary full and his reasoning to. Some times bold characters never give interest in reading. And some readers won't take that risk.

 

I definitely gonna hate the character who is scum, because of the situation/mood I have been through. Some times it results in different kind of perspective and may like the same one. I don't judge the people because of their doings presently, but the upcoming doings may give me some flips to not to want like them.

 

I'd be glad if you understand my blathering above...

[metajinx]

Oh this is right up my alley    I love vaguely unlikeable protagonists!

There has to be something that makes them interesting though, human if you like.

 

Malice is an important factor to discern if a character is good or evil. If a character is a macho or sexist, I want to know why and I want to find out if he's redeemable. If the writer subtly shows me that this character flaw is wrong and will be dealt with (either by keeping it to show that this character is just as human as everyone else, or by getting rid of it and showing how wrong this behaviour is), I'm okay with hating that twat for now and will keep on reading. If a character acts simply out of malice, he's not worthy to be a protagonist anymore. I can't deal with rooting for or bothering with (fictitious) people who are just... bad. Blergh.

If the flaw is described in a way that makes me think the writer didn't bother thinking about what consequences the behaviour of his character might have, or if it reads like "yeah, so, rape/violence/homophobia/dickishness happened, but his LI (or family/friends) forgives him so let's move on", the flow is ruined for me. That guy/girl has to suffer for what she did, in one way or another. Consequences have to be dealt out! It doesn't even have to be some kind of direct interaction, I'm good with more subtle solutions. Doesn't have a good job? Loses his job? Gets an earful from his family? Loses friends? Gets hurt himself? Perfect.

Same thing goes for behaviour that has no reason besides "he's/she's evil".

My pet peeve is unreasonable violence, especially torture. Sometimes, I'm unsure if writers actually get how painful half of the stuff they write really is, or how impossible some of the behaviours they give their characters are. There are some writers who really do well with violence and describing how it changes the victim (and the violent counter part), but there are also really bad examples out there. Violence shouldn't come easy to a person. If a protagonist is violent, I want to see how it influences him, because I want to get to some level of understanding why he's doing it, if he absolutely HAS to do it, and if there's a chance to use it for some kind of good.

 

My personal favourite example for a bad guy one can root for is Darken Rahl from the "Sword of Truth" book series. Although he died in the first book, he's the reason I'm so fascinated by unlikable, evil or otherwise antagonistic characters. Okay, him and Riddick.

[The Pecman]

As an experiment, I wrote a novel some years back with a very flawed teenager as the protagonist, a kid who's denied being gay and completely reinvented himself at a new school, new city, new house, new life. Events conspire to eventually force him to face part of the traumatic issues he avoided when moving away from another city 3 years earlier. He starts off a bit cocky and arrogant, but he gets brought down to size by a blackmail scheme and several other dramatic scenes, including being framed for murder. By the end of the story, the kid has been run through the mill to the point where he's forced to re-examine his life and change the parts on which he was dishonest, and the story ends with him a much better person. 

[Headstall]

Oh this is right up my alley    I love vaguely unlikeable protagonists!

There has to be something that makes them interesting though, human if you like.

 

Malice is an important factor to discern if a character is good or evil. If a character is a macho or sexist, I want to know why and I want to find out if he's redeemable. If the writer subtly shows me that this character flaw is wrong and will be dealt with (either by keeping it to show that this character is just as human as everyone else, or by getting rid of it and showing how wrong this behaviour is), I'm okay with hating that twat for now and will keep on reading. If a character acts simply out of malice, he's not worthy to be a protagonist anymore. I can't deal with rooting for or bothering with (fictitious) people who are just... bad. Blergh.

If the flaw is described in a way that makes me think the writer didn't bother thinking about what consequences the behaviour of his character might have, or if it reads like "yeah, so, rape/violence/homophobia/dickishness happened, but his LI (or family/friends) forgives him so let's move on", the flow is ruined for me. That guy/girl has to suffer for what she did, in one way or another. Consequences have to be dealt out! It doesn't even have to be some kind of direct interaction, I'm good with more subtle solutions. Doesn't have a good job? Loses his job? Gets an earful from his family? Loses friends? Gets hurt himself? Perfect.

Same thing goes for behaviour that has no reason besides "he's/she's evil".

My pet peeve is unreasonable violence, especially torture. Sometimes, I'm unsure if writers actually get how painful half of the stuff they write really is, or how impossible some of the behaviours they give their characters are. There are some writers who really do well with violence and describing how it changes the victim (and the violent counter part), but there are also really bad examples out there. Violence shouldn't come easy to a person. If a protagonist is violent, I want to see how it influences him, because I want to get to some level of understanding why he's doing it, if he absolutely HAS to do it, and if there's a chance to use it for some kind of good.

 

My personal favourite example for a bad guy one can root for is Darken Rahl from the "Sword of Truth" book series. Although he died in the first book, he's the reason I'm so fascinated by unlikable, evil or otherwise antagonistic characters. Okay, him and Riddick.

Okay... you had me at Riddick. I loved those books! And I love the movies... Pitch Black was a terrific introduction and the next two built on that.. a new one is coming... Yay... sorry for the off topic post

[Krista]

No, they don't have to be likable. They just have to be interesting enough to hold our attention. A lot of the main protagonists in Young Adult fiction aren't necessarily the most liked characters in their world (Bella - Twilight, Clary - The Mortal Instruments, Katniss - The Hunger Games), for example, have their own hate groups for sure. 

 

Flaws make a character interesting and those can really take central spots in the story. Right now I am writing a character that has likely really tested the forgiving nature of readers. He has so many unlikable moments that some reviews have been very interesting. Which I love, that was my intention when I began writing. I wanted to write a character that people may not like, but 'they' do have to be interesting and deep enough to keep the readers invested. If there isn't moments of depth or possible redemption, some tenderness, etc. Then there really isn't a point to remain invested in them, so there is a line like in all things writing... you can do it, but when it becomes too much you lose whatever you're trying to accomplish.

 

There should be a 'reason' for them to be unlikable as well. Just don't do it for shock value. I am more likely to stop reading a story if I can't seem to follow the motives of the character. 

[Dayne Mora]

My personal favourite example for a bad guy one can root for is Darken Rahl from the "Sword of Truth" book series. Although he died in the first book, he's the reason I'm so fascinated by unlikable, evil or otherwise antagonistic characters. Okay, him and Riddick.

the Sword of Truth...so many awesome parts, and so many cool AF characters, and then he goes and pillages from Robert Jordan and goes off the rails on weird rants. 

 

But, I agree, there has to be a "reason" for their actions, even the most unreasonable.

[Parker Owens]

I doubt that all main characters must be likeable. But it is terribly challenging to write a story with such a person. Fun, but challenging.

[Brayon]

For me, as a reader, unlikable characters as the main are alright. I like the Bad Boys, as much as I like the goody two-shoes. Just as long as they don't degrade into a Mary Sue, Gary Stu type character.

 

Back when the Dragonlance Saga from TSR/WotC/Hasbro was first being published, Raistlin Majere & Dalamar the Dark were two of my favorites. (Granted this was High School. Reading those stories now, not sure how I feel about them.) Raistlin by far was a Major Main Character to the world. He was an evil person. He did stuff that you hated. But, you ended up loving him for it.

 

Just my two-cents.