For some reason, most of my short stories seem to evoke the response that the protagonist is "unlikeable" and, upon revising, I inevitably agree. Psychoanalysis aside, are there any good tips for creating characters that readers want to follow? I tend to write flawed and unsympathetic characters, whereas I want to create flawed but sympathetic characters that don't tip into Mary-Sue territory.
posted
In suspense is an answer. A working definition of suspense is artfully delaying an answer to a question posed by a story. At first, suspense can taken as a given. Every reader comes to a story with unconscious questions. What will happen that matters to me (a reader) is a foremost question that a story artfully answers. That matters to readers. A character who matters to readers is one with similar concerns, interests, desires.
Also for likeable characters, cast ones with circumstances that matter to readers. Resonance through sympathy comes from placing characters in pitiable-fearful predicaments that matter to readers.
posted
Have you read OSC's Character and Viewpoint? He has a whole section devoted just to that. To summarize, a sympathetic character must be good, honest, noble, willing to fight on the good side, self sacrificing. To spice them up a little you can add a few negatives. He lists Han Solo as a good example. He's brave, sacrifices to helps the rebels, and basically good, but he's also cocky, and doesn't pay his debts.
posted
I've gotten that too---and, of late, have made a strenuous effort to suppress that tendency. I found it holding true with nearly everything I'd written.
So I've been finishing stories (in rough draft) and putting them in the files, suppressing a few ideas that lacked these characters, trying to shore up a few things with characters that, at least, I like, and maybe the (hypothetical) reader will, too.
(Of course, I haven't put out much since I reached this decision...)
posted
Allowing the reader to understand why a character does what she/he does will often go a long way towards a reader developing tolerance, if not sympathy, for a character.
Maybe the character is a loner and often treats other people in an abrupt or rude manner. If the reader is shown that the character has been deeply hurt in past personal relationships, they will understand the behavior and have sympathy, especially if they see the character struggling to overcome the behavior. If the character treats others badly out of an adolescent sense of "coolness", a twisted sense of humor, or some other shallow motive, it's more likely they will come across as unlikeable.
The other aspect is as others have described, that a character is more likely to be viewed in a sympathetic manner if they have some positive attributes to balance their unlikeable side.
The main this is to let the reader understand the character's emotions (via the character's thoughts) to an extent the character's actions are understandable.
[This message has been edited by dee_boncci (edited January 19, 2009).]
posted
Nick, maybe if you give more of a description of what it is about the character(s) that is unlikeable, we could be more able to comment. Is it from their dialogue, behavior, relationships, etc?
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the character is really flawed and unsympathetic at the beginning, then I'd say the primary goal of the story with that type of character should be to show his/her path to redemption (or toward downward spiral, but I really dislike that type of story arc so I wouldn't personally do this.)
So he starts out a jerk and cold and unfeeling, but over the course of the story we get to see how the things that happen to him, and his reactions, cause him to change his mind. His wife leaves him. His kids mock him. He is down in the dumps in the gutter when he realizes this is all he has in life. He decides to make a change. He cleans up his act. He gets a little place. He makes dinner for the kids. They like it. They start warming up to him. He awkwardly buys flowers for the ex. His former jerkiness now manifests as nervousness. She ignores his overtures. He is at a crisis point now - go back to the gutter, or embrace the new him? Redemption plot says he pulls from his inner strength and decides to keep on keeping on (and maybe meets the cute waitress at the restaurant where the wife stormed out.) The Bummer Plot has him give it all up, fade to black him on a bridge, that kind of thing.
Anyway - that's one set of ideas for you.
Another idea is - create a character that *you* want to follow. I have a feeling you're exploring the unlikable character for some reason. Maybe you should set aside those stories and try something new with the aim to present a more complete character package, a character with fewer flaws (or more superficial flaws. A otherwise nice character who has foot-in-mouth disease, for example. A good girl who is clumsy and shy, etc.) You might also choose character flaws that you notice in friends, associates, or yourself because those might be easiest to pick out behaviors that demonstrate them.
posted
If you have a character that's starts off as a jerk and then gets better, it might be a good idea to use another POV until the reader starts liking the jerk.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you ever watched House with Hugh Laurie (sp?)? You should. You can see episodes on Fox.com. They take an unlikeable character and give him one redeeming characteristic, his ability to solve undiagnosed diseases, and this makes everyone appreciate him. I think this is one of the best examples ever of an unlikeable person being the MC of a great story.
Edited to fix UBB code
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited January 19, 2009).]
posted
As far as your story "War Memorial" goes, I liked Lamar. So using him as an example, I'd have to say you might up the sympathy factor by introducing his tragic history earlier rather than at the end. If the audience can identify with characters in their sorrows, then I can't imagine how a reader wouldn't feel for them all the way through a story. And the voice you seem to use, gritty and masculine, should prevent a story from sounding too sappy or weepy.
Posts: 226 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Sorry for taking my time in getting back to this thread. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions, all of which have been very helpful.
I guess the principle problem with my weaker stories is that the main characters are passive (which I’ve been working on a lot) and whiny. Maybe it’s a question of bad planning, but my characters are often weak and self-involved. They’re basically selfish. In what I feel are the stronger stories, this is not so much a problem, but it’s happening more often than I’d like.
Part of my wider interests in writing (outside of having fun telling a story) is why good people make the wrong decisions and conversely, why bad people do the right thing if the circumstances are right. I don’t think I’m handling the character issues well when trying to tell these stories.
C L Lynn, I thought your suggestion regarding Lamar was actually a pretty good one. He falls under my exploration of why good people make bad decisions, but it would probably help the sympathy factor if you understood some of his motives for making his decisions. I did feel that it was one of my stronger stories though (once I manage to clarify what happens at the end…damn technobabble).
posted
I think I've only read one piece of yours, so I can't speak directly to your issue. However, I just want to throw a different perspective out there.
Maybe the problem isn't so much the characters themselves but how you convey them. Meaning, if you are too much in their heads, it will sound as if they are wining. Actions go a long way towards defining people. Maybe just let your characters act from time to time, rather than falling back into internal dialogue.
posted
An unlikeable character theoretically can be sympathetic and still be unlikeable. Eg, an evil, megalomaniacal mass murderer, pedophile, terrorist, traitor could plausibly, given the right predicament, be sympathetic. However, it's been done and the general consensus is it's best in small doses and to be avoided at all costs because readers don't like feeling sympathy for the devil. The immediate difficulty is there's only one way the reversal of fortune can logically go, from bad to good.
Likeable characters are noble ones with failings. Aristotle spoke of the need for noble characters. But his era's androcentric and class conscientious attitudes diluted the message. He didn't think common men or women or servants were story worthy. He doesn't mention children at all. In today's society anyone can be noble. We all want to believe we're noble. We trust and thus identify with people who are noble. Is a protagonist trustworthy is a question I ask. Is a nemesis plausibly untrustable, too. In Mickey Spillane's mystery novels the criminals were often intellectual females. Considering his audience was GIs and sailors, blue collar working men, he spoke to his audience's beliefs.
A flaw is not a readily informative concept when casting characters. A flaw might be a genuine medical impairment that's sympathetic or not, alcoholism, for example, or obesity, deafness, or blindness. If nothing else, unforgiveable character flaws remind us of our own that we have little control over if we are even aware of them, bigotry, intolerance, selfishness, egocentrism, cognitive biases.
Failings, on the other hand, are readily identified with our own problems. Failings of character derive from social values. The Seven Deadly Sins are one example of a cluster of social values. The opposing Seven Virtues are another. Humility against pride, kindness against envy, abstinence against gluttony, chastity against lust, patience against anger, liberality against greed, and diligence against sloth. Another culture's virtues, The Seven Bushido Virtues.
Anne, I'm not sure that the one piece you've reviewed is a good example of my overall problem (the prime problem with that one was clarity of concepts). I wrote it in first person, which is a rarity for me. Still, the point about internal dialogue versus action is a good principle to adhere to.
posted
WARNING: SPOILER FOR HEROES This got me thinking about Sylar in the TV show Heroes. What a horrible, evil villain he is. And yet, he was extremely sympathetic for a few episodes as they tried to trick us into thinking that he was going to flip and be the good guy. I was so disappointed when he reverted to evil that I doubt I'll keep watching the show. Writers have to be so careful not to cross that line too many times. Just my two cents.
quote:I guess the principle problem with my weaker stories is that the main characters are passive (which I’ve been working on a lot) and whiny. Maybe it’s a question of bad planning, but my characters are often weak and self-involved. They’re basically selfish. In what I feel are the stronger stories, this is not so much a problem, but it’s happening more often than I’d like.
Part of my wider interests in writing (outside of having fun telling a story) is why good people make the wrong decisions and conversely, why bad people do the right thing if the circumstances are right. I don’t think I’m handling the character issues well when trying to tell these stories.
To make an unsympathetic character sympathetic, he needs 3 things... A "noble cause", flaws and fears. Something happened in his past that wounded him in such a way that he must compensate or hide his wound. Sylar is a serial killer, and he's self centered and whiny, but I felt sympathy for him when I realized that killing people was like an addiction for him, and that the Company had practically forced him to kill as part of an experiment, and that he wanted to stop. If your character is weak and whiny, he can still be likeable IF the reader knows why he is weak and whiny. Because bad things have happened, your character will also have fears, and that is at the heart of making your story exciting, because he will need to face his fears in order to complete his noble cause. If they had been truly trying to make Sylar into a Hero, they would have forced him to confront his fear--that he didn't really belong in the family he had just found--and he would have pushed past it to fight with Peter anyway. IMO, that would have been an awesome story, and they were so close, but they blew it.
Watching an unlikeable character turn into an amazing hero is one of my favorite things in literature, but it's tough to pull off, because you've got to get people to keep reading long enough to watch the change. I've got a character right now, and she's completely unsympathetic, but I have great plans for her. It remains to be seen whether I can pull it off, but this is the plan: She is just a minor character at first, an annoying, mess everything up kind of gal, but when she's given her turn in the spotlight hopefully people will keep reading because of the other, stronger characters, and then in a zany and unexpected twist, she'll become everyone's favorite character. That's the plan anyway... Melanie
[This message has been edited by Unwritten (edited January 21, 2009).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
