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.

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.

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.