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

[prisoner_24601]

I think it's important to note though that Scarlett O'Hara wouldn't probably work as a character if Margaret Mitchell wasn't such a damned good writer. There's a real fine line between characters who are jerks and yet still great characters, and characters who are jerks and are just annoying.

I think two things really make the difference:

1. The author knows that their character is a jerk, instead of thinking they're the coolest thing ever...

which leads to:

2. The author has everyone else in the novel react in a realistic way to said jerkiness.

And that's the difference between an awesome character like Scarlett O'Hara and an annoying character like Anita Blake. Anita Blake is also a raging bitch, and yet Laurel Hamilton seems to think she's not, and it's reflected in the writing by the way the other characters unrealistically react to her (i.e. all want to have sex with her or are total jealous bitches/villains). I can't tell you how many times I've read a novel think "Damn, this would be sort of awesome if the author realized what a bastard this character is and rolled with it" and have instead tossed the book against the wall after the character has been a total asshole, and yet everyone thinks they're the greatest/nicest/most awesome thing ever.

[niniane]

I'm with you on that one. Some characters are harder to write than others. A character who is basically a wild and crazy bitch as protagonist is much harder than one who is basically nice and bland.

I agree as well on your two comments. Scarlett comes off as spunky rather than evil incarnate in large part as it's obvious that she's defying society and actually suffering from doing so in some way. If she was being a raving bitch and everyone was all, "You go girl!" it would feel very off putting. (I mean, the only one who really likes her is Melanie.) And even Scarlett has a few redeeming qualities, and there are reasons given for at least some of her bitchiness. (OK, maybe not her overwhelming desire to steal Ashley, but at least when she nicked Frank from her sister, she was doing it to save Tara, not because she likes pissing off family members.)

Plus, if everyone likes your character (other than the evil ones who are just jealous), it comes off as very Mary Sue. No one is liked by everyone.