There were a couple of fascinating posts and follow-up discussions on Dear Author in the last couple of weeks. The first was a post by Robin on Loving the Unlikeable Heroine, particularly interesting to me as I love to write and read about characters who are at least potentially unlikable characters. Especially heroines (as I’ve blogged about before), I think because I love characters who are rule-breakers and heroines, at least in historical fiction, tend to face many more rules than heroes. Which leads to the follow-up post Jane wrote after Robin’s piece about whether there’s a double standard in the romance genre for what readers consider “allowable” behavior in heroines versus heroes and why.
Which led me to ponder the question of what it takes for me to find a character sympathetic (or unsympathetic) as the case may be. I just read Robert Goolrick’s fascinating A Reliable Wife and found myself empathizing with all three central characters, despite the fact that all three did things that definitely could be called morally circumspect. And yet I have a very hard time sympathizing with a character who hurts an animal. I’ve grown quite fond of Sawyer on Lost quite a bit, but I still haven’t quite got over the fact that he killed the frog in season one.
I’m not sure if my standards differ for male and female characters. My heroes tend to be less morally ambiguous than my heroines. What would I think of Charles if he was the one who had married Mélanie under false pretenses to spy on her? Of course, as Mel points out in Secrets of a Lady, Charles being Charles wouldn’t do that, but what if it was the husband who was the betrayer rather than the wife. Interesting to ponder. I think I’d still be able to sympathize with him. It’s a fascinating situation to play “what if” with.
What makes a character likable or unlikable for you? Do you think your standards differ for female or male characters? Do they differ by genre of book? How would you feel about Charles and Mel if Charles was the betrayer?
Thanks again to everyone who weighed in on the naming discussion. I think my estranged couple now have names–Cordelia & Harry Davenport. She’s Lady Cordelia, he’s a Lieutenant-Colonel. Mélanie and Charles’s alter-egoes are for the present going to continue to be Suzanne & Malcolm Rannoch, but I still open to further suggestions.
This week’s Fraser Correspondence addition is British ambassador to Lisbon Sir Charles Stuart’s reply to last week’s letter from Charles’s spymaster, Lord Carfax, in which he discussed Charles & Mel’s marriage.
March 28, 2010 at 5:12 am
I think the perfect example would be Scarlett O’Hara–as spoiled and manipulative as she is, I can’t help but sympathize with her and hope she gets what she wants every time I reread Gone With the Wind.
I really like Gwendolen Harleth (from Daniel Deronda)as a character, too, but unlike Scarlett she changes quite a bit over the course of the book.
On the other hand, there are lots of saintly characters in books that are just too perfect, like Beth March, and I don’t find them very interesting. I think a really compelling character will have some sort of flaw that a reader can relate to or at least empathize with–something to make him/her feel like a real person.
March 28, 2010 at 6:57 am
Thanks for posting, Julie! I think Scarlett is a wonderful example. I too sympathize with her and with Gwendolen Harlech (I was actually thinking about Daniel Deronda tonight because I’ve been watching my North & South DVD, and it has a preview for the adaptation of Daniel Deronda). I think you make an excellent point that they both change. I’m not sure how sympathetic I’d find either if they remained the pampered young woman they are at the start of their respective stories.
And I completely agree about saintly characters. Perhaps part of it is that characters who are too “good” don’t have room to change. It’s been years since I read Little Women, but from my recollection, Beth grows and changes the least of the four sisters. A lot of girls seem to identify with Jo, but despite Jo being a writer, I always identified with Amy. Partly because she was the youngest, partly because she liked pretty dresses, and partly, I think, because she’s the least “good” of the sisters.
March 29, 2010 at 12:52 am
I’ve always felt that Scarlett’s main “flaw” was being born in the wrong time.
Let’s not forget that Scarlett fed and clothed her family. (who had no problems taking her money while talking behind her back about how unwomanly she was)
I also thought Beth was too sweet to live, like Helen in Jane Eyre. Oddly enough, I picked up a copy of JE recently, and read some pretty harsh (contemporary) review of Jane’s character. Apparently, failure to suffer nobly was a flaw no one wanted to read in female characters.
The sad thing is, have things changed much?
OT, Tracy… what are some of your sources for naming your characters?
March 29, 2010 at 7:17 am
Excellent point, JMM. It’s a bit like Mélanie says about Honoria Talbot, “It’s a pity she couldn’t have gone into the army or politics. She’d have made an admirable general, and I imagine she’d have been lethal at steering a bill through the House.”
Most of the names on the list for these new characters I came up with while driving in my car, thinking of names of real people who lived in the era, characters in novels of the era, and Shakespeare characters. Some of the surnames are surnames from my moms and my Anthea Malcolm books (Philippa Davenport was the heroine of our second book). I do have the Oxford Book of English Christian names, which has great notes on when names first came into use in Britain, when they fell out of and came back into favor, historical and literary references, etc… And I also have several modern baby name books. I also look at family trees of historical families, and I find my atlas great for surnames. Also the credits of British television shows and movies (though if it’s name I know nothing about, I check it’s historical and geographi provenance).
March 30, 2010 at 8:29 am
Beatrice Lacey in Philippa Gregory’s Wideacre trilogy – although I’ve only read the first book – is deeply unsympathetic, yet a fascinating heroine. I know everyone seems to get hung up on one particular aspect of what makes Beatrice so ruthless – forgetting that this is a fictional story, not a reference manual – but she is actually a strong heroine, compared to Scarlet, who is spoiled but spirited!
March 30, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Beatrice is indeed a fascinating character, Sarah. Which brings up the interesting point that not only are there some “unlikeable” characters who some readers find sympathetic and some dislike, whose actions readers may argue about the morality of, there are some characters who are distinctly unsympathetic and yet are fascinating protagonists.