Current Events > is "the characters are unlikable" a valid criticism

(+) Yeah! (+)

not because of poor writing but because the narrative purposefully depicts flawed people

---

I would say what role does the character serve in the story? I mean I just don't think Othello would be a very good story if Iago was even remotely likeable.

---

You have to qualify the statement, both for how they're unlikable AND how that ruins the plot.

---

Freddie_Mercury posted...

not because of poor writing but because the narrative purposefully depicts flawed people

I mean it's valid, but it's dumb as hell.

Unlikable characters is a good reason for not liking a story, but it is a dumb criticism to give.

---

Yes, because there is a difference between flawed characters and characters devoid of any likeable qualify whatsoever.

The occasional irredeemable piece of shit can have their place, but if your entire cast is filled with that then you risk the 8 deadly words.

"I don't care what happens to these people"


---

It depends on their relation to the story.

I don't like Jafar but he's supposed to be unlikable.

---

Context does matter I think. But overall it can be a valid criticism.

---

I guess it all comes down to context and subjectivity. The main characters of Good Time (the movie) and The Edge of Seventeen are written to be unpleasant, assholish characters but I was still invested in them and wanted to see how their story unfolded because I thought their reasoning for them being the way they are made sense in the context of their respective films.

---

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EightDeadlyWords
---

Holden Caulfield is unlikable (and if you like him, seek help), but still a good story.
The narrator in The Great Gatsby is unlikable, Gatsby kinda is too, but it's still a good story.

If a character's motivations and goals are interesting, you can still craft a good story with unlikable characters. I dislike Wuthering Heights because I don't care about any of the characters' goals or motivations - and the characters are unlikable. I would read a whole book about Severus Snape just to get his perspective. Not everyone has to be 20 Charisma Joe the Bard.

---

Umbreon posted...

Yes, because there is a difference between flawed characters and characters devoid of any likeable qualify whatsoever.

The occasional irredeemable piece of shit can have their place, but if your entire cast is filled with that then you risk the 8 deadly words.

"I don't care what happens to these people"

Would "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" be the exception to this?

---

If the characters are terrible people but that's the whole point - ie Seinfeld - then no.

If the characters are terrible people but they're not supposed to be - ie Friends - then yes.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Would "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" be the exception to this?

I never watched, so I couldn't tell you.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Would "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" be the exception to this?

Why make an exception when the premise is wrong?
Smart audiences care for interesting characters, not likable ones. It's the difference between someone who gets turned off by Breaking Bad because "Walt is a bad guy" and someone who asks, "Did Walter do the right thing in killing Jane?"

---

ChocoboMog123 posted...

Holden Caulfield is unlikable (and if you like him, seek help), but still a good story.
The narrator in The Great Gatsby is unlikable, Gatsby kinda is too, but it's still a good story.

If a character's motivations and goals are interesting, you can still craft a good story with unlikable characters. I dislike Wuthering Heights because I don't care about any of the characters' goals or motivations - and the characters are unlikable. I would read a whole book about Severus Snape just to get his perspective. Not everyone has to be 20 Charisma Joe the Bard.

holden caulfield is one of the most likable characters ever in fiction. wtf

Winrawr posted...

holden caulfield is one of the most likable characters ever in fiction. wtf

You gotta be more subtle than that. You can't just immediately go straight to 100.
---

ChocoboMog123 posted...

Why make an exception when the premise is wrong?
Smart audiences care for interesting characters, not likable ones. It's the difference between someone who gets turned off by Breaking Bad because "Walt is a bad guy" and someone who asks, "Did Walter do the right thing in killing Jane?"

This is a good point.

Whether the character is unlikable or not should be irrelevant. An interesting character can drive a narrative forward, keeping it's audience enthralled without even being remotely likeable.

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

You gotta be more subtle than that. You can't just immediately go straight to 100.

Some people think Trump is charismatic and likable...

---

It can be, but I don't personally feel like I need to like the characters for it to be a good though

---

I'm reading On The Road right now and I'm losing my mind reading people's criticisms of the story

"I don't like it because the characters are lazy/selfish/misogynist/etc"

...that's the point. you're not supposed to like them or what they're doing. the narrative isn't bad because you (kind of) picked up on the themes of the story


---

Freddie_Mercury posted...

I'm reading On The Road right now and I'm losing my mind reading people's criticisms of the story

"I don't like it because the characters are lazy/selfish/misogynist/etc"

...that's the point. you're not supposed to like them or what they're doing. the narrative isn't bad because you (kind of) picked up on the themes of the story

I mean, it can be both bad to them and good to you. Interpretation and appreciation of a artistic work like a book is completely subjective

I didn't like the social network because I thought everyone in it was a giant douche canoe and pretty uninteresting outside of the fact that it's based around the founding of one of the largest social media companies. I get that that's kind of the point of the movie. The story isn't told or filmed particularly poorly, I just didn't enjoy it all that much. And that's fine

---

Freddie_Mercury posted...

I'm reading On The Road right now and I'm losing my mind reading people's criticisms of the story

"I don't like it because the characters are lazy/selfish/misogynist/etc"

...that's the point. you're not supposed to like them or what they're doing. the narrative isn't bad because you (kind of) picked up on the themes of the story

Recall someone made a topic here not long ago saying that that they thought the characters of GTAV were unlikable, bad people.

Bad people, yeah. That's kind of the point. But I definitely disagree on the unlikable part. Love the characters in that game. I guess that kind of stuff just mainly comes down to individual opinions.

---

If they are supposed to be likeable yet do things that are generally unlikeable, sure.

If you make your "likeable" main sexist/racist then thats an odd call.

---

I think people misuse the word. Just because a character is a terrible person, doesnt mean theyre unlikeable.

---

No. The author creating a lack of empathy for the characters is, however.

I couldn't get into the movie Fargo because, not only did I not like the characters, I couldn't even care about them.

In the book and movie L.A. Confidential, the characters were unlikeable, but somehow you could care about them.

I have about 5 other books/movies off the top of my head....

---

The worst thing a character can be is boring.

I'd take an unlikeable but interesting character over a nice and likeable boring one anyday.

V.M Vargas in Fargo the TV show was an amazing character, totally unlikeable, but compelling and never boring.


---

Yes. For example, there are no likeable characters in Attack on Titan. Which makes me feel nothing for any of them.
---

Yes. The likability of characters is a balancing act. You can make them raw and real, but that can turn people away if they have no relatability or likable traits.

Yeah. Like everyone in yiik is completely unbearable and it drags down an already shit game to even worse

---

Sometimes watching an unlikable character fail is the entertainment value. "Oh no, I don't like this character enough to want them to succeed!" Yeah no shit, the point of the story is their selfish behavior leads to shitty outcomes and watching it all unfold, and maybe the character eventually learns something.

I think this is part of the reason I bounced off Preacher. For the protagonists, it seems that they're just in general awful people and that new storylines find new reasons for them to be awful, and to compensate for that, they have to face off against villains that are just cartoonishly evil.

---

It usually doesn't bother me personally.

I saw this criticism for I Care a Lot but I still overall enjoyed it. I don't need to like a character to emphasize with them or find their story interesting.

---

depends

sometimes its intentional, in which case that writers have done their job well

like theres seriously people out there that are like "oh my god, joffrey is such an evil character, game of thrones sucks because people aren't normally evil". i find this is more of an american thing though. you guys are just weird

it's never a valid criticism in any way, in any context. they're fictional characters. they're not your friends

---

The problem with unlikable characters is that people gravitate to them.

---

Joffrey from GoT is a great example of this. Hes written so well that I actively hate him and it creates sort of a paradox

---

i mean, if the characters are supposed to be unlikeable assholes and the actors play their part well, why wouldnt you like them? lol

There's a trope on TV Tropes called darkness-induced audience apathy, which this covers. Like maybe the story itself is too bleak and there's so much hardship that you lose all interest, or the characters are all consistently shitty and hurt other people to the point that you don't care what happens to them.

---

averagejoel posted...

it's never a valid criticism in any way, in any context. they're fictional characters. they're not your friends

I mean it is if the writer is intending them to be likable.

Like I don't think the writers of How I Met Your Mother wanted the audience to hate the protagonist of the series. But I have never met someone who actually liked Ted. So calling Ted unlikable is a valid criticism.

---

I think "the characters are unlikeable" is just a confused way of saying what people really mean. Someone mentioned Joffrey, and he's not likeable at all yet people want to read about what he does and see what happens next with him. Same with Jafar or Scar. They're not likeable in the least.

What people really mean when they say characters aren't likeable is that they aren't interesting. People like interesting characters. They hold their attention. Interesting characters make you want to keep reading whether they're likeable or not.

Breaking was a great example brought up earlier. How many times have you heard of someone disliking the show because Walt was a bad guy? It almost never happens. Meanwhile, a huge talking point while the show was airing was that the fans are misogynists because they didn't like Skyler. Lots were, to be fair, but the truth was that while Skyler did some shitty things fans really hated her because her purpose was to try and block Walt from doing interesting things. Skyler was overall a decent person and Walt was a piece of shit, but fans hated her and liked Walt because Walt was interesting.

---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Just because a character is a terrible person, doesnt mean theyre unlikeable.

This is the main distinction.

Glorious Bastard is a trope for a reason. Theres a difference between someone like MCU Loki (pre-heel turn), or someone that is just outright unlikable and terrible.

There is no hard rule. Its all contextual. Uncle Ruckus in Boondocks is racist, and can be called a bad person. But how hes portrayed in a comedic light makes him likable to an audience.

So merely being a bigot, or a murderer or something isnt automatically an unlikable character.

The role doesnt matter either. Light in Death Note is not a good person. Hes just the protagonist. But plenty of people find him likable.

I find unlikable characters to be ones that have no entertainment value, nor do they serve any thematic purpose (or the intended purpose I disagree with). Jim from The Office, for example, I find unlikable. Hes never funny and what he does that should be criticized (being a slacker, annoying peers, homewrecking etc) gets praise and awards in the show. As a result, I dont even feel satisfied by what happens to him. Thus, hes unlikable.

But a character having flaws or making errors like Korra in The Legend of Korra isnt unlikable. You can argue a bad character. But Korra isnt an unlikable character to me.

---

Lairen posted...

If they are supposed to be likeable yet do things that are generally unlikeable, sure.

This is why i couldnt even finish the first ep of that new Netflix show Outer Banks.

---

Compsognathus posted...

I mean it is if the writer is intending them to be likable.

Like I don't think the writers of How I Met Your Mother wanted the audience to hate the protagonist of the series. But I have never met someone who actually liked Ted. So calling Ted unlikable is a valid criticism.

I don't think author intent is at all relevant to this conversation, because you can't ever actually know what the writer intended

---

Depends imo

A good example of a well written unlikeable character is Luke from Tales of the Abyss.

---

averagejoel posted...

I don't think author intent is at all relevant to this conversation, because you can't ever actually know what the writer intended

You can by how the character is treated in the world.

---

codey posted...

What people really mean when they say characters aren't likeable is that they aren't interesting. People like interesting characters. They hold their attention. Interesting characters make you want to keep reading whether they're likeable or not.

this might be true. and I do think "this character isn't interesting" is a much more valid criticism than "this character isn't likeable." but... I dunno. I try to engage directly with what people say, and I generally assume that people are careful enough with their words that I can do that

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

You can by how the character is treated in the world.

that is just flat-out false

---

averagejoel posted...

that is just flat-out false

If a character gives a speech about how they are best fit for the job of leader, and the crowd cheers and the character constantly gets a pat on the back how their words changed people and exemplifies their leadership

But to a reader/watcher, if the speech comes off as ignorant and privileged

The writer clearly intended for the character to come off as charismatic and rootable.

But thats not how they come off.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

If a character gives a speech about how they are best fit for the job of leader, and the crowd cheers and the character constantly gets a pat on the back how their words changed people and exemplifies their leadership

But to a reader/watcher, if the speech comes off as ignorant and privileged

The writer clearly intended for the character to come off as charismatic and rootable.

But thats not how they come off.

it's not clear at all. there's basically an infinite number of possibilities; including the writer showing that the people around the character are easily manipulated

---