Glass Maze Every jumbled pile of person

Unlikable vs Unbearable

I very much agree with what Robert Bausch has to say about likable characters:

You NEVER have to worry whether or not the reader “likes” your main character–or any of your characters for that matter. You only have to worry that the reader “knows” enough about your character to have an emotional investment in what happens to her. Readers who put down books because they don’t like the characters are not very good readers, so you don’t want them anyway. I’ve heard editors at major publishers say they do not want a particular book because the character is not “likable,” so the philistines are on the march and it’s clear the woods are burning. But it’s a rigorously stupid idea that we should “like” the characters we read about. If that were actually true, we could instantly eliminate fully half of the world’s great literature and forget about it, starting with Richard The III, and coming forward to Portnoy and “Rabbit” Angstrom.

Although … I have to say that I consider Rabbit Angstrom an exception to the rule. I don’t think you can blame my shortcomings as a reader for my inability to stomach Rabbit’s unremitting horribleness. I found him unbearable because Updike did a really excellent job of making him that way. Not unlikeable. Unbearable. Just a loathsome human being. Rabbit, Run is one of the few books I genuinely wish I’d never read.

So I guess I’m proposing an amendment to the Bausch rule. Unlikable: fine. Unbearable: not.

Update: In comments, Keyan objects to Baush’s ad hominem attacks on readers who don’t agree with his view of likability, which is something I should have done in the original post. For the record: I don’t think there’s such a thing as a “bad” reader, and calling someone’s reading preferences “stupid” is … stupid.

From Keyan:

I’m afraid I totally disagree. If I pick up something about an unlikeable character, there better be something else about the story that makes it worthwhile. It’s like real life – if I have to hang out with someone who sets my teeth on edge, there better be a strong reason to do so. Amusement, if he’s witty. Pity. Loyalty or duty. Self-interest.

Books I read for entertainment, and so the reasons need to be stronger. Richard III provides poetry and drama; so does Macbeth. I haven’t read Portnoy or Rabbit (and based on this, I doubt I’d seek them out).

I think it is feasible to write unlikeable characters and still have a good book, but it’s an uphill battle – an additional hurdle to overcome. I might read a protag I don’t like if the world-building is really cool; then I’m in for the “Ooh Shiny!” stuff. But the books I read with the most enthusiasm are those where I really like the protag. Those are the ones I follow through series.

I also don’t go with the idea of a “not very good reader.” There are those who like a particular book, and others that don’t. If they read, they’re readers and they don’t have to justify their quality or preferences. (Neither, I suppose, does the growing army of non-readers.)

Life’s too short to waste time with nasty characters, in person or on the page.

IMO.

From Keyan:

I’m afraid I totally disagree. If I pick up something about an unlikeable character, there better be something else about the story that makes it worthwhile. It’s like real life – if I have to hang out with someone who sets my teeth on edge, there better be a strong reason to do so. Amusement, if he’s witty. Pity. Loyalty or duty. Self-interest.

Books I read for entertainment, and so the reasons need to be stronger. Richard III provides poetry and drama; so does Macbeth. I haven’t read Portnoy or Rabbit (and based on this, I doubt I’d seek them out).

I think it is feasible to write unlikeable characters and still have a good book, but it’s an uphill battle – an additional hurdle to overcome. I might read a protag I don’t like if the world-building is really cool; then I’m in for the “Ooh Shiny!” stuff. But the books I read with the most enthusiasm are those where I really like the protag. Those are the ones I follow through series.

I also don’t go with the idea of a “not very good reader.” There are those who like a particular book, and others that don’t. If they read, they’re readers and they don’t have to justify their quality or preferences. (Neither, I suppose, does the growing army of non-readers.) I found the essay ridiculously judgmental about people who make demands of their reading, and declaring them not very interesting in other ways.

Life’s too short to waste time with nasty characters, in person or in fiction. Non-fiction and the news provides what I need of those.

IMO.

Keyan! Yes, I’m with you, the “not a very good reader” thing is condescending, and calling it “stupid” to want likable characters is stupid.

I do think it’s possible to pull off a fantastic, very readable story with a wholly unlikeable/vile character, though. But you’re right, he has to be awesome in every other way. Someone you love to hate. A Mephistopheles type. The problem with Rabbit is that there’s none of that there. He’s a genius at self-involvement, but otherwise he’s just sort of drably vile.

But I guess you could make the argument that loving to hate a character is not that different from liking that character.

Hm.

[...] made some good points about my post on unlikeable characters from a couple of weeks ago, so I wanted to revisit the issue, and clarify some [...]