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

[analect]

Bonus points for quoting Hark! A Vagrant. ;D
Also, caffeine *is* a viable alternative to food... isn't it?

Seriously, I think it's a really interesting point about the difference in redeemable and irredeemable asshattery for male and female protagonists. Massive, massive debate, but very interesting. Society deems women 'bitches' in the same breath as marking men 'mavericks' or 'single-minded' for essentially the same behaviour, so I think it's a valid point about feminine 'flaws' in fiction frequently being to do with emotional screw-ups. I also think we all love characters - male or female - who have the ability or opportunity to say 'fuck you' to society in the way most of us can't. We all want the bad guy to win at least once in a while.

Also, I think it's important that even dyed-in-the-wool arseholes often act from 'pure' motives; things or causes they genuinely believe in. The male protagonist in my most recent - aside from being dead for most of the book (which didn't cramp his style) - was a manipulative, self-obsessed little sod, yet with some deep-seated and oddly traditional values. Whether you find that irritating or endearing... up to you.

Further to that, picking up on niniane's Mary Sue point - I think the writer always needs to leave interpretation open. Even if you love the character to bits, if they're ever going to feel 'real', they need the freedom for some people to dislike them.