Jun 18 2009
What makes a character likable?
Here are some of the things that can make a character likable.
- A distinct personality, even if it’s sinister or abrasive. This is one of the reasons that Sylar (a serial killer) and Dr. House (a curmudgeonly asshat) are fan favorites.
- Relatability. Readers are particularly sensitive to age and gender. Usually, the hero is a few years older than the readers (young enough to be relatable and relevant but old enough to be impressive).
- Relationships. These are particularly important if the character is unrelatable. If the character has a thought process that is really unusual to readers, we’ll probably get to know him through how he interacts with other people. If an unusual character isn’t interacting with other people, readers probably won’t find him very interesting because they don’t know enough about him.
- Competence. This is especially important for villains. Readers usually love the villains that scare them, and competent villains are scary. See Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader.
- Style. Most stylish characters are competent, a bit clever and witty.
- A sense of humor. Obviously, not every story is a comedy, but even a bit of humor can make a character more likable. For example, Han Solo only got a few lines like “we’re all fine here now, thank you,” but they were enough to establish his personality.
- Flaws. Often, the flaws make a character more likable than his assets do. Flaws are more unique and they tend to stand out more. There are thousands of brave heroes, but what people remember about Captain Kirk and James Bond is that they’re recklessly brave.
- Limit the complaining! Brooding, moping, crying and angst usually make the character sound whiny. It’s really hard to like a character that whines, no matter how seriously awful his life is.
- Proactivity. This is what distinguishes Sylar (a character dealing with a seriously hard life) from someone that complains about how hard his life is. Readers would much rather see a character try to solve his problems than talk/complain about them. This is one of the (many) reasons that Han and Luke are more likable than C3P0.
- Good intentions for the villains. This is a useful way to add depth to the antagonists.
- Variety. This is particularly important for the hero. Give him opportunities to try different solutions and improvise.
- Stark characterization. Please don’t make your characters “kind of an ass” or “sort of brave” or whatever. Go big! It’ll be more distinctive and interesting than a hero that just sort of does whatever is most convenient for the plot. Also, it will raise the stakes and make the conflicts sharper.
- Growth. Stagnant heroes are usually a bit boring. If the hero’s quest doesn’t change him in some way, what’s the point?
- Vulnerable. This is particularly important for the hero. Ideally, he’s a bit less powerful than the villain and might actually lose. That will force him to be intelligent and will leave readers on the edge of their seats.
- Lone superheroes often benefit from interesting alternate identities. The alternate identity helps establish what’s at stake and makes the character feel real by giving him something to do besides beating people up. Alter-egos are less important for superhero teams because there’s less time available for each character.
There are many more, I’m sure. What am I missing?
An explanation for ‘style’. Granted though the concept of ‘style’ is very hard to pin down, like the definion of the word ‘cool’.
And I disagree with ‘good intentions’, villains (and heroes) don’t need to be well-intentioned extremists to be likable. Look at Palpatine, he pretty clearly isn’t a benign ruler who wants to make the galaxy a better place, he just wants to rule it with an iron, lighting-shooting fist to feed his huge ego, and yet he is considered one of the greatest villains ever.
Also, take Hannibal Lecter, another one of the greatest villains ever. He’s just plain crazy, and people love him for it.
Also, in rare cases you can have protagonists without good intentions. Admittedly I’m struggling to think of one but think of a few anti-heroes. Most will have good intentions but some will just be in it for themselves.
Riddick! *cough*
fangirl …
Hm…
But the currently popular heroes are anti-heroes. It’s kinda overdone nowadays (Batman, V, Light Yagami, Wolverine, Altair from Assassin’s Creed, Rorschach, Catwoman, Alex from A Clockwork Orange…the list goes on).
Well, what about anti-villains, hm? But they usually reform to the good side in the end.
I say stick with Riddick and Wolverine; and we’re all good. ^^ (for the anti-heroes)
I’d say that Batman’s intentions are good, particularly in the TV shows and in Dark Knight. His methods are rough bordering on ridiculous, though.
Likewise, Wolverine is rough and occasionally brutal but I can’t think of any time when the audience was meant to find his goal villainous or sinister.
I wouldn’t classify Light as a hero, or even an anti-hero. I’d say he’s a villain-as-main-character. However, arguably, his motives are good, at least at the very beginning. Initially he focuses on offing criminals. His first killing saves a group of hostages, and I think that’s meant to come off as unobjectionable. (I don’t know whether it’s the same with Japanese audiences, but I’m certain that most Americans would regard it as a victory if a hostage-taker got killed and the hostages and cops got out safely).
Hmm, an anti-villain. That’s an interesting concept for a whole new realm of character. Unless someone’s already done it and I don’t know about it, which is possible. But what traits would anti-villains have?
I might have a weird sense of humour, but “we’re all fine here now, thank you” gets me on the floor laughing every time. Especially the “…how are you?” part. It just kills me.
An anti-villain would probably be a main-character villain that’s trying to do something that’s regarded as evil by other characters of the story but as sympathetic by readers. For example, the audience wanted Dr. Horrible to win against Captain Hammer, even though Hammer was supposedly the good guy.
Alternately, an anti-villain might be an antagonist that the audience wants to succeed. For example, in Death Note, L is a detective that’s trying to stop the main character, who is a psychopathic killer. L’s methods can be rough, but he’s a lot less creepy than the killer is.
Or an antivillain might be a character that starts out villainous but later joins the heroes or makes an important contribution to them. For example, Darth Vader saves Luke from the emperor.
“But the currently popular heroes are anti-heroes. It’s kinda overdone nowadays(Batman, V, Light Yagami, Wolverine, Altair from Assassin’s Creed, Rorschach, Catwoman, Alex from A Clockwork Orange…the list goes on)”.
I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of anti-heroes. I think they’re among the best types.
Also, Light Yagami = win! Haha. I don’t know why I like him, seeing as he’s a manipulative, backstabbing liar who murders people left and right. I think it’s probably because he geniunely tries to do the right thing, even if his means are less than sane.
I’d say that Ozymandias in Watchmen is an excellent example of an anti-villain. He wants to save the world, but goes to extreme measures to do so.
“That’s an interesting concept for a whole new realm of character. Unless someone’s already done it and I don’t know about it, which is possible. But what traits would anti-villains have?”
Actually, TV Tropes has an entire page on Anti-Villains. I’m not sure what defines one, but I’m thinking it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say that Prince Zuko from Avatar is one, at least in the beginning.
I’ve found several new things to be a fan of, and Avatar is one of them. Zuko has to be one of my favourite characters from the show, along with Sokka.
I like Zuko because he is dead set on his goal and won’t let anyone get in the way, but he’s also in a lot of emotional pain and looks like he needs a hug. I like Sokka because his sense of humour is a lot like mine, with lame jokes galore. But he also comes up with some clever ideas, like in “The Boiling Rock”.
Would you really class Zuko as an anti-villain? It depends on the definition. Tropes defines it essentially as ‘a likeable villain, possibly to the extent that you can imagine people rooting for him’. If that’s the case, Zuko fits that to a T. Zuko really stole the show in Avatar, with many fans liking him more than Aang. There’s a reason about 50% of the fandom wanted the protagonist’s love interest to end up with Zuko. But yeah, if it weren’t for the fact that his goal is to capture the main character, most people would be rooting for him (and some still did).
(Spoiler: all this before his Heel Face Turn anyway).
It’s a good point about relationships making a character likeable. Ursa (Zuko’s mother) was only seen in flashbacks and pictures, but I like her because of what she did. (Spoiler) When Fire Lord Azulon said that Zuko must be killed to punish Ozai, it’s implied that Ursa murdered him to protect Zuko and was banished for it (end spoiler). She did the unthinkable in order to save her son, even though it meant her own misery and possible death. Now that’s a brave, likeable woman.
Ah, I know something else that makes a likeable character; their actions.
Say, for example, Bob is hit by a bus. That information alone isn’t enough to make him likeable, but if we say he was hit by a bus while he tried to save a small girl who had fallen and broken her leg, that makes him a lot more likeable.
Similarly, Ursa (spoiler) was banished for murdering a man who was going to have her son killed. If all we knew was that she was banished for murder, we’d think “good riddance” (end spoiler)
Hello. I’ve added four items to my list of likable traits: variety, stark characterization, growth and vulnerability.
Tom said: “Also, in rare cases you can have protagonists without good intentions. Admittedly I’m struggling to think of one but think of a few anti-heroes. Most will have good intentions but some will just be in it for themselves.”
I suspect that a protagonist that acts with bad intentions is probably unlikable. Usually, when a character with bad intentions is likable, it’s because his bad intentions don’t actually end up affecting the plot. For example, Han Solo talks like he’s selfish but acts like he’s not. He still ends up helping the Republic.
…
It is REALLY hard to write a book where the audience does not want the main character to succeed. I do not recommend it for a first novel.
Okay, maybe protagonists should have good intentions, but that’s definitely not the case for villains. It’s easy to make a likable villain who has no good intentions (see Sylar, he just wants braaaaaaains).
I actually watched an Avatar marathon the other day (I was really, really bored) and did find some of the scenes during *spoiler* Zuko’s Heel Face Turn rather funny, it showed off a side of him that, being an ultra-serious villain, we never saw before.
Why am I so bad at being good!?!
- Wings, with a seriously weird sense of humor
I’m still without internet. I’m just dropping by to say hello and let everyone know I’m still alive. Good luck in whatever everyone is doing!
Same, RB!
Wings:
I love that part. I also found the scene before that hilarious, where (Spoilers) Zuko is practicing his speech about how he is good to a frog, and when he utterly fails the frog jumps on his head. I laughed so hard at that, but I don’t know why. Also, in a later episode, they are all around a campfire.
Aang says: This is just like old times.
Zuko: If you really want it to feel like old times again, I could… chase you around for a while and try to capture you.
I liked Zuko in the first couple of seasons, but he quickly became my favourite in season three. I loved seeing all his character development; how he changed from being obsessed with honour and violent to a somewhat more cheery guy who joked around a little. He had a few Crowning Moments of Awesome, too.
Also the amount of crap they get past the radar in that show. TVTropes has a long list.
(End spoilers)