 |
| Photo credit: KendraMillerPhotography on Flickr |
I’ve often heard of people putting a book down (either literally or in a review) because they contain unlikable protagonists. Of course, what qualifies as likable is entirely subjective, but it’s made me wonder—do our protagonists have to be likable?
I don’t think this is necessarily a hard yes or no answer. I think protagonists should be likable to an extent—if they’re entirely unlikable not many people will want to put up with them—but the goal shouldn’t be to aim for perfection by any stretch (in fact, that’d probably only aggravate the situation).
While I don’t think it’s impossible to enjoy a book with an unlikeable protagonist (I personally didn’t find Tris from the Divergent series to be especially likable, nor Warner from Destroy Me…at the beginning, anyway), I suspect this may vary from reader to reader. I have a friend who stopped reading Hunger Games because she found Katniss unlikable, and I’ve seen others rate books poorly because they weren’t a fan of the protagonist.
So now I ask you: do you think it’s necessary for the protagonist to be likable?
Twitter-sized bites:
Do you think it's necessary for the protagonist to be likable? Join the discussion at @Ava_Jae's blog. (Click to tweet)
"Protagonists should be likable to an extent...but the goal shouldn’t be to aim for perfection." (Click to tweet)
19 comments:
I don't think the MC has to be likable, but identifiable in some way. I like to be able to feel their feelings, and I have to understand their actions, whether or not I approve of them. Before I Fall is a case where I had so much trouble understanding the MC's feelings and actions at the beginning that I didn't want to finish (but I did, and it was good). I did stop reading a different book where I couldn't find anything redeemable/identifiable/understandable in the MCs though. I just didn't want to spend my time with them.
I was just talking to someone who hates the Hunger Games because Katniss is too self-serving. Putting aside the ridiculous demands placed on female characters (she has to save the day WHILE being self-sacrificing! And pretty!), I thought it was a pretty weak argument. I don't think protagonists need to be overtly likeable. That is, I don't think they need to be someone I want to be friends with in real life. In fact, I would argue some of the most compelling main characters (Katniss included) are so compelling BECAUSE they are fundamentally flawed.
I have a hard time reading protagonists or narrators who are unredeemable, but a flawed protagonist is not necessarily unredeemable. Katniss is an excellent example - she's so self-serving, she thinks the worst of people, but she has a protective streak a mile wide. Captain Jack Sparrow, while being an anti-hero, is still the person we're rooting for in the first PotC movie (it's not really worth discussing the others). He's dishonest and (again) self-serving, but he's also funny and handsome and doesn't hurt people unnecessarily. He's utterly likeable while also being incurably despicable.
And it's interesting. So, no. I don't think protagonists need to be likeable. I think they need to be interesting, and I think they need to be redeemable. They might never actually be redeemed, but there needs to be something we can root for.
Hmmm...that is an interesting question. I think that as a general rule protagonists should be likeable but I don't think they have to. However if there is an unlikeable protagonist they must be relatable and there must be several other characters you love to balance out the unlikeability of the protagonists. I think the reason many people still love Hunger Games despite the fact that by the end of the last book they hate Katniss was because there were other characters (Peeta, Prim, Gale, Finnick) whom they loved. A story is all about balance and if you have an unlikeable protagonist you must have other elements to balance the story.
Likeable certainly works but so does interesting, and fascinating even more so. What they do and how they go about doing it will hold the reader's attention more and longer than attitude (although it won't hurt to have a bit of both).
I really don't know if I've ever actually liked the protagonist. It's usually the sidekicks and supporting characters I like. The protagonist is just a vehicle for us to traverse the story world. go course they have to want something, or be striving for something which is at least respectable, understandable. I guess I'm more of a detached reader though. I'm just interested in the experience, not the people.
If they aren't flawed, then there is no personal journey and that for me is a put off. They have to be flawed in some way, even the Mary/Marty sue's are flawed in their perfection, it's just that it's been done to death that no one's interested in those kind of characters anymore.
I've had someone put down my MS because the main character slept around. Another person put it down because my MC was sounded unhappy. Sometimes it's just a subjective thing. Above all, as mooderino said, they have to be interesting, but maybe that's a subjective thing too!
Wow. What a great answer. I completely agree with everything you said (including the bit about demands placed on female characters, which is another discussion on it's own). I love flawed characters and I agree that their flaws are a large part of what makes them so interesting to read about—and I think you're right that interesting is more important than likable when it comes to characters, as is being redeemable.
Great, great answer. Thank you so much for sharing, Gina!
Hmm that's an interesting point about balance with the rest of the cast. I hadn't really thought about how the other characters could balance out a protagonist's unlikable nature. Very interesting...
I think interesting is definitely important. Just because a character is unlikable doesn't mean they don't hold the reader's attention, and I think in the end that's what matters. Thanks for sharing!
What an interesting viewpoint! I'm so character-oriented that it never even occurred to me that not everyone reads for the characters. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
It seems most everyone agrees that flaws are massively important. I also agree that it's definitely subjective—an unlikeable or uninteresting character to one person may be fascinating and lovely to another. Thank you, Shay!
Most readers of my sci-fi series "Red Desert" generally like the story because the protagonist is not likeable, doesn't want to be likable and doesn't become so (she is coherent until the end). ;)
On the other hand few people complain about that, but I don't care. Evidently the latter are not my target readership.
I think that's great! Likable or not, it's impossible to please everyone, but I think it's fantastic that you have a lot of readers who enjoy your book not despite the unlikable protagonist, but largely because of it. :)
I think that's a great question with no right or wrong answer.
Personally, while I WANT to like the protagonist, it's more important to me for them to develop as a character and overcome their obstacles. Flaws are not necessarily bad nor are they something an MC can just "get over" because typically they are engrained in a person - and flaws make them more believable and steer away from cliched typical characters.
To a certain extent, I do need them to be likable. Deeply flawed, sure, but at least pointed towards trying to do good. (Or at least not actively do evil.) The recent trend towards sociopathic heroes has never struck a chord with me. However, my definition of "likable" is often very different from other people's. For example, I like Katniss all the more because she's such a prickly pragmatist.
That's a great point about character development and I also agree about flaws—they shouldn't be something that the character can easily get past and they can really add a lot of depth to a character when done correctly.
Also, I think you're right that there isn't really a right or wrong answer. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Liz!
I think whether or not a character is likable definitely comes down to sheer opinion. Interestingly, I think what is considered good or evil can come down to POV—a POV character may not see his actions as evil while characters opposing him might. Nevertheless, I think you make an interesting point about trying to do good. Thanks, Marissa!
I don't think a protagonist has to be likable, really, just relatable. I, personally, did not like Katniss from the Hunger Games either, not because she was unrealistic, but as a person I just didn't like her. However, I respected her character traits and understood where they came from. Also, in Kelley Armstrong's teen series, I didn't like Chloe, the narrator. I didn't even like the name. However, they are one of my favorite book series. That being said, a character doesn't have to be likable, I don't think, just realistic and. . . out of risk of repeating myself, relatable.
But one has to keep in mind that you can't please everyone. Not everyone will be able to relate or like your character and, so, the world moves on.
I agree that it's definitely subjective and there's no way to write a character that everyone will like or relate to. A lot of people are bringing up the importance of a character being relatable though, and I have to say that's a great point. Being relatable in one way or another is important, I think, both for likable and unlikable characters.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Molly!
Post a Comment