Discussion: Sympathetic Characters

[analect]

All right, I figured it was time for a discussion thread. Thought we might throw one of these around every week or so and see where it gets us. Please feel free to make more, and better ones.

In the meantime, your opinions: show me them!



Okay, this is partially a selfish thing. I'm currently revising the last quarter of a romantic drama-thingy novel where the characters are making me lose the will to live. I just want to scream 'Pull yourself together', but they have backstory that necessitates them being irritating for a while.

It got me thinking, though: how sympathetic do characters have to be for us - as writers or as readers - to identify with them and get behind them?

It's an interesting one. As human beings, we all have foibles, and it's often the flaws and failings in characters that draw us to them. Detective fiction, for example, wouldn't work without its stock cast of 'mavericks'.

Of course, characters who are deeply flawed - right up to the anti-heroes and antagonists of fiction - can alienate readers, as can those who are so nice they never do anything to drive the action of a story.

So, where's the line for you? As a reader, and as a writer? Do you enjoy characters whose strength you can identify with, even if they're not 'nice' people, or do you think it's more important to be able to connect with them on a more human, and humane, level?

Comments

[delphi]

Most of my favourite characters (both as a reader and a writer) are people I probably wouldn't get on with in real life, if that says anything. My own personal line doesn't have to do with likeability or even believability: it has to do with intelligence and agency. Nothing will turn me off a story faster than a convenient narrative lack of intelligence or an inconvenient emotional lack of it.

For instance, if it weren't for the setting, built-in mysteries, and interesting side characters of the Harry Potter series, I probably wouldn't have finished it, because I can't stand it when protagonists demonstrate a lack of reasonable curiosity or common sense just to make the author's job easier.

Likewise, I actually never did finish Robin Hobb's Farseer series, despite investing in five out of the six books, because I kept banging my head on the wall out of frustration at the emotionally obtuse decisions the protagonist just kept making, to the detriment of himself and those around him. And despite being told from all corners that I'd love it, I really didn't enjoy Sarah Waters' Night Watch because of how the characters' largely unresolved misery sprang from their own poor decisions and lack of agency.

I don't require a character to be smart, but I want to see them at least attempting to proactively engage with their world instead of merely responding to the people and events around them—and if they're not, I want to know why.

[prisoner_24601]

This is a great point. I agree that a lack of agency and conveniently selective intelligence for the convince of the author drives me crazy and is a real deal breaker when it comes to investing as a reader in a character.

[analect]

Seconded! And *wave* to new members - thanks for being here.

I always think of Fanny Price in Mansfield Park, who gets such bad press for basically doing nothing except look shocked and offended for the entirety of the book. For her time, she was probably more a typical female than most of Austen's heroines, but she's definitely not to modern tastes. Perhaps we require characters to be more active because the function of the novel is more about doing than observing these days?

...or maybe it's just very irritating to endure a character who's apparently too thick to breathe and think at the same time.