What does "likable" even mean?

[matt0044]

I have... a beef with the term "likable" and "unlikable." Specifically, how it's often used in regards to characters and the protagonists in particular. Many, from what I've observed, put it in a way that seems to refer to whether or not they'd like to hang out with these guys as pals or watch them get up to no good in a inconsequential yet amusing way.

My thoughts on the matter reflect this quote from a producer on House of Cards:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

View: http://nimblesnotebook.tumblr.com/post/90548358385/one-thing-ive-said-in-terms-of-the-word-likable

You could say that this one character is "likable" in how his arc is about moral ambiguity and making harsh decisions or also how this other is a quirky comic relief character who is a blast to watch. You don't have to enjoy one or the other yet I find this pendulum effect prevalent in so many fandoms, casuals and hardcores. Pokemon is no exception.

And I don't want to make it seem like simple characters who are meant to just be likable are inherently bad... but they can run the risk of being bland if it goes on for too long.

 

[Dieter]

If all your characters are likeable, you'll probably have a dreadfully boring story. Cause if everyone is likeable, there's not gonna be much if any conflict. And of course your story doesn't have to focus on interpersonal conflict, maybe you're more interested in exploring a world or a concept. But then the tension is between a character and their surroundings, and even then your protagonist doesn't have to be likeable. They might even hold a very different worldview from the reader and it could still be interesting and attention attracting.

 

[Iggy]

The term "likeable" is too slippery and vague for me. I focus on making actual people out of my characters, with a good diversity that will lead to plenty of conflict. And conflict is story. Readers will figure out for themselves what they like or don't like about them. Even for the more morally objectable actions (regardless of who does it) I think the writer should focus on explaining why that particular character acts like that, rather than trying to soften it up. So yes, likeable aspects are never on my mind during writing. It is acting in accordance to their own moral values that count.

 

[Beth Pavell]

I doubt most authors think "likeable" is synonymous with "perfect". And in any case the opposite isn't necessarily better. Villains can be fun, but just being bad isn't in itself enough to carry the story when it uses a villain as a protagonist.

In this, the US version of House of Cards is nothing new. The Sopranos did it quite successfully (Though not necessarily originally, because little is truly original in fiction) - mainly because, though the story took the protagonist(s) seriously as people, it didn't expect the audience to root for them on that basis. The interesting consequence of that, is that when horrible things happened to them, you could enjoy it as something like karma

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

Something that's popped up in fandom culture this decade is the idea that characters have to be good people for fans to approve of them and enjoy them. How absurd! Of course flawed protagonists and interesting villains can be more compelling and important in writing than heroes with no prejudices or vices. I feel this ties into the idea that people want characters to be 'likeable.' What happened to loving to hate awful characters? To being invested in the strife and struggles of protagonists who really aren't great people?

If every character is likeable, no characters are interesting. And interestingness is the key to good characters, not their charisma.

 

[diamondpearl876]

I've seen "unlikeable" used to describe characters that have no real redeeming qualities and/or no qualities to "root" for in a karmic sense or otherwise. Then comes along the argument of "they're unlikeable on purpose" and "you should make them likeable somehow" but really, I think it's fine. If it's evoking emotions in your reader, even negative ones, you're doing something right.

 

[canisaries]

I've had some people tell me that my character doesn't have redeeming qualities as a critique. I can't really claim against that, but I'm not sure how I could even work on that without completely changing the character. He's a sociopath who idolizes cruelty and violence, has anger issues and has killed multiple people without a trace of regret. He does have someone he loves, but has tried a lot to kill his emotions for them. There's absolutely no reason to like him as a person and I'm not sure if there's any reason to like him as a character. It's part of the reason why I make him get fucked over so much - he has it coming.

People do say he's entertaining, though, so I guess I'm covered in that sense. Still, I'm wondering if there's something missing.

 

[AetherX]

If it's evoking emotions in your reader, even negative ones, you're doing something right.

Unless those emotions are "I don't want to read this story anymore."

I've always used the term "likable" to refer to characters that are either sympathetic or cool/interesting. In other words, the exact same things everyone else is saying is important. I like Darth Vader because he's badass. I wouldn't want to hang out with him in real life and he's totally evil, but I still like his character. He is likable. Loving to hate an antagonist is still liking them. Loving to hate a protagonist is a lot harder to pull of but totally still possible. My personal problem is that hate-able protagonists need to be fascinating characters caught up in a story that I'm incredibly intrigued by, otherwise I'm going to lose interest. And if they don't get what's coming to them, then you'd better have some really poignant messages and themes that get me thinking about life, otherwise I'm going to be left wondering what the point was. Especially in fanfiction, an asshole character who always gets his way and wins in the end reeks of wish fulfillment imo.

If the story acts like I should be rooting for the protagonist, but I'm not, then I lose interest in the story.

Likable does not mean simple, devoid of conflict, or lacking flaws. It means characters that we give a damn about. If the reader doesn't care what happens to your characters, then you'd better be working real hard to keep them invested in other ways. And that's tough. All over the place I see people talking about how characters are more important than plot. Not many authors are up to the task of writing a plot that can keep people hooked despite not caring about the characters.

At least that's the way I use the term.

 

[Incinerawr]

To me, likable and unlikable are very simple terms used to convey what another person might feel toward that character. For example, one might argue that edgelords are likable; they're cliche but nevertheless intendedly so, and they usually provoke a lot of thought from the reader as to their true motivations. Hence they are "likable."

Or, y'know, it could be that a character just acts like an ass like Bakugo fron My Hero Academia, has no real motivations for his actions and hides behind a flimsy frame of humor while continuing to run his mouth. In which case, not very likable. Not even a character you love to hate. Just one you hate.

I could press the argument between flat and rounded characters, but some characters just want to be normal people and don't have a deep, dark and overly elaborate backstory they're carrying with them.

 

[Gama]

If the story acts like I should be rooting for the protagonist, but I'm not, then I lose interest in the story.

For me, this is the key of this discussion. Lack of likeability is a problem when I feel like I should like or at least root for the protagonist (or any other characters). A story that centres around someone trying to achieve something, e.g. a journey fic, where I don't care whether that person achieves that thing (because I don't care about what's best for them or what they want) is fundamentally boring.

So, I think everyone saying characters need not be likeable are right, but if that's the route you're going down you need to think carefully about why readers ought to care about whatever it is your characters care about.

 

[Dieter]

I've always used the term "likable" to refer to characters that are either sympathetic or cool/interesting. . .

Likable does not mean simple, devoid of conflict, or lacking flaws. It means characters that we give a damn about. If the reader doesn't care what happens to your characters, then you'd better be working real hard to keep them invested in other ways. And that's tough. All over the place I see people talking about how characters are more important than plot. Not many authors are up to the task of writing a plot that can keep people hooked despite not caring about the characters.

But then it's a likeable character, not a character who's likeable. And maybe some people will argue that's semantics, but I just think there's a difference. A likeable character can be build around a trope or archetype, for example the anti-hero. A story centred around an anti-hero has certain qualities that attracts us as a reader. Were we deposited in the story world however, chances are we might not want to hang out with this same character. There's a little oversimplification here of course cause what we enjoy is still a matter of personal taste.

Recently, I read a novel by an author I particularly enjoy. It was well crafted, with an interesting premise, but the characters weren't likeable in the least. They were all deeply flawed (interesting) and more than once I wanted to slap the living daylights out of some of em. They did attract me though. I wanted to know how their story would evolve (and some of them actually grew to be quite likeable)

I might have been a little harsh on saying 'likeable' characters do not make for interesting stories, but over the past years a kind of purity culture has been emerging that more and more should dictate that characters should be likeable, with plenty of redeemable or even noble qualities and who should be devoid of any kind of problematic behaviour. If they do exhibit problematic behaviour however, the narrative (and author) should damn well make sure that it is absolutely clear that this is Not Good, and that indeed this is a Ver Bad Person who deserves only Punishment and if you fail to do so, you're a bad author and a bad person. Like fiction should always be some kind of morality play

 

[lucarioknight56]

Using the word 'likable' implies that everyone will 'like' said character. Problem: we all have varying interests and priorities. While one person may consider a character likable, another person may consider that character unlikable. To make a character completely 'likable', you'd need to appeal to a very general audience--which is difficult to pull of based on the genre of your story and the traits of the character themselves.

Really, likable isn't a good word to describe characters, as we all may or may not like them, no matter their traits. For example, I find the protagonist of the Twilight series (forget her name, don't care to remember) to be unlikable as she's wishy-washy and sappy--at least, in my opinion--yet many others argue that she is a likable character. I don't understand why, but they do.

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

Like most questions of creative writing, this is pretty context-dependent. The topic of outright villainous characters has been raised here, and rightly so. Under the assumption that the protagonist is a hero you should be rooting for, likeability with the audience seems like a sensible goal! When the protagonist is a real worthless stain on the planet, then the reader motivation changes, they're more likely to want to see disaster instead. In the end, what matters is keeping the interest of your readers. Sometimes that means having a charismatic hero to root for, sometimes that means having your villain protagonist dig themselves the biggest hole imaginable before their undoing.

 

[Drakon]

Perhaps the term "likability" isn't exactly the best term to use. I think what people mean is "Can I get invested in these characters/can they hold my interest?" It doesn't have anything to do with liking the characters in terms of morality/protagonists or antagonists.

Poké Wars has Ho-Oh and Uxie, who are both villainous pieces of shit. And yet, it seems that people are invested in them, despite out and out saying they hate them. The readers are invested in them, whether it is to see what horrors they'll unleash or how they'll get their well deserved punishment.

And when people say that a protagonist is unlikable, it means that they can't get invested in them...in other words, "I don't care what happens to them". And when that happens, that means the story is pretty much done for.

Alternatively, people seem to use the term "unlikable protagonist" to mean that the author portrays the protagonist as a hero but the actions in the story show them as a villain.

 

[matt0044]

Alternatively, people seem to use the term "unlikable protagonist" to mean that the author portrays the protagonist as a hero but the actions in the story show them as a villain.

I feel like the lines blur there because of how there are stories of heroes using questionable methods to get ahead of the villain, especially when things are desperate for them. The narrative risks coming off as "their actions are correct" when they want to show it as far more complicated that on the surface.

 

[Natu? Natu!]

I think it's useful to differentiate between a character being likable and a character being relatable. A 'bad guy' can definitealy be relatable, meaning that it is possible to relate to him and sort of understand his motives (preferrably he has motives beyond 'being evil' or 'not caring about others' - psychopaths tend to be rather uninteresting antagonists in my opinion). But that doesn't mean I have to like him. Besides, liking someone can mean different things. I can like a colleague, or a teacher, or a politician, without necessarily wanting to hang out with them. In the same way I can find a character in a stroy likable even if it isn't someone I would be friends with in real life. I want characters to be relatable, at least, in order to enjoy a story, and I want the protagonists to be likable (meaning that I am able to root for them and sympathise with their goals and to a certain extent also with their methods). I have no problems with protagonists making bad choices, or using questionable methods, as long as the author doesn't seem to think that i should necessarily sympathise with their choices or methods. As matt0044 put it, there is no problem with stories where actions or choices are complicated, as real-life actions and choices that matter often are, but I am put off when I am assumed to automatically like the actions of a character just because it's a protagonist.