When does a character go from flawed to unlikable?

[TinaMigarlo]

I think, your readers were expecting this...

but then you gave them this...

 

[CountVanBadger]

To answer your questions, I have to go deep into what the book is about.

Thirteen years ago, the Remaking happened. Earth wasn't destroyed, it just became Nyr, and Nyr brought the System that runs everything with it. The only thing from Earth that's still around are the people. 99% of the Earth's population got turned into NPCs, non-sentient flesh robots that can only behave according to the scripts the System programmed into their brains.

The remaining 1% kept their sentience and became Heroes, able to level up, use skills, etc. But their user interfaces are powered by XP, and they become NPCs if they run out, so they constantly have to fight monsters and run dungeons to earn more XP.

When the Remaking happened, Miranda became a Hero and Jeremy became an NPC. It's possible to wake an NPC up by having them be in the same general area as you when you complete a quest or kill a monster so that they'll get a share of the XP. That's what Miranda wants to do to Jeremy because he's the only person she cared about before the Remaking. But Jeremy was never a fighter like her, so she also wants to put him in a position where he won't be in constant danger after he wakes up. That's what the guild she's in is all about. If she can do 100 dungeon runs, they'll let her wake someone up to live with them as a noncom and share their XP with him as long as he can make himself useful to the guild in another way.

Miranda hasn't done 100 dungeon runs yet, though. The run she's going on in the begining of the book is close to the city where NPC Jeremy lives. The guildmaster tried to forbid her from going to see him since that would just distract her, but she ignored him and snuck away when she should have been on guard duty.

Everything else, you already know. She saves him from a monster, refuses the reward, accidentally hires him, he gets woken up, and her teammate dies.

As for Miranda herself, she's kind of... both of the examples you gave. After adventuring for 13 years, she's a 100% certified badass and one of the strongest Heroes in Nyr. But a lot more happened to her during those thirteen years than she's letting on. She's basically an adrenaline junkie, using adventuring as a way to stay two steps ahead of the traumatic memories from before she joined the guild. Basically, she acts bright and chipper, but if you dig even an inch below the surface, you'll see that her emotional state is barely being held together by bubble gum and happy thoughts.

That's what I'm really trying to get across in the story itself. None of this excuses the stuff she's done, but I hope it puts it all into a context where they don't instantly hate her guts.

 

[LiteraryWho]

I don't think "flawed" and "unlikeable" exist on the same spectrum. A good example is Xykon from Order of the Stick, who is total scum, but very likeable. Even Nale (another villain) has his charms. There was also the severely unlikeable paladin, who you nevertheless loved to hate. The problem you might be running into is that your POV character is simply a chore to be around, which is a trait that would exist independent of her flaws. Try making her funny, or cool, or giving her some other magnetic personality trait?

It is also worth noting that WN readers are, well, shall we say, very idiosyncratic. Even if they read regular literature elsewhere, in WN reading mode there are certain expectations, and none of those expectations are "a serious examination of the human character." You're in the literary equivalent of an ice cream parlor, and are asking about how to sell vegetables there. The answer to your question might be, "don't."

To answer your questions, I have to go deep into what the book is about.

Thirteen years ago, the Remaking happened. Earth wasn't destroyed, it just became Nyr, and Nyr brought the System that runs everything with it. The only thing from Earth that's still around are the people. 99% of the Earth's population got turned into NPCs, non-sentient flesh robots that can only behave according to the scripts the System programmed into their brains.

The remaining 1% kept their sentience and became Heroes, able to level up, use skills, etc. But their user interfaces are powered by XP, and they become NPCs if they run out, so they constantly have to fight monsters and run dungeons to earn more XP.

When the Remaking happened, Miranda became a Hero and Jeremy became an NPC. It's possible to wake an NPC up by having them be in the same general area as you when you complete a quest or kill a monster so that they'll get a share of the XP. That's what Miranda wants to do to Jeremy because he's the only person she cared about before the Remaking. But Jeremy was never a fighter like her, so she also wants to put him in a position where he won't be in constant danger after he wakes up. That's what the guild she's in is all about. If she can do 100 dungeon runs, they'll let her wake someone up to live with them as a noncom and share their XP with him as long as he can make himself useful to the guild in another way.

Miranda hasn't done 100 dungeon runs yet, though. The run she's going on in the begining of the book is close to the city where NPC Jeremy lives. The guildmaster tried to forbid her from going to see him since that would just distract her, but she ignored him and snuck away when she should have been on guard duty.

Everything else, you already know. She saves him from a monster, refuses the reward, accidentally hires him, he gets woken up, and her teammate dies.

As for Miranda herself, she's kind of... both of the examples you gave. After adventuring for 13 years, she's a 100% certified badass and one of the strongest Heroes in Nyr. But a lot more happened to her during those thirteen years than she's letting on. She's basically an adrenaline junkie, using adventuring as a way to stay two steps ahead of the traumatic memories from before she joined the guild. Basically, she acts bright and chipper, but if you dig even an inch below the surface, you'll see that her emotional state is barely being held together by bubble gum and happy thoughts.

That's what I'm really trying to get across in the story itself. None of this excuses the stuff she's done, but I hope it puts it all into a context where they don't instantly hate her guts.

Alright, after reading the premise, I have some critique.

Thirteen years is a long time. Like, a really long time. For her not to have made a single friend in that time, even involuntarily, suggests she might have a perfectly wretched personality or character. Even if you aren't subconsciously embedding that idea into the text, readers might pick up on that fact (without thinking about it) and bias themselves against her.

Wandering off to hang out with her meat puppet boyfriend is also a stupid thing to do, especially thirteen years on. If this was a few months into the process, that's one thing, but she's had thirteen years to learn how not to be a moron. I dislike stupidity from characters generally, but totally unjustifiable idiocy that *should* be out of character is aggravating, regardless of how much the narrative agrees that the stupid thing they did was stupid.

Finally, "traumatic memories," "adrenaline junkie," and "barely being held together by bubble gum and happy thoughts" are not a great recipe for a lead, especially if you aren't committed to the bit. What you have is someone on the borderline of unhinged, it's not a stable position to write from.

 

[Dawnathon]

The two main qualities are consistency and sensibility. Consistency just means that the character you're seeing play out in the story matches the way the story focuses on them. For example, if your character is a scumbag who is always picking fights, don't try to suddenly drop sympathy cards all over them while ignoring all of the horrendous things they did. In other words, if you want to write a villain, treat them like one. One really nasty habit I've seen in some stories was they wanted to have a stone cold, cruel and sadistic villain(ess) who does some really horrible things, but as soon as they start losing, the story suddenly starts talking about their tragic past and how much pain and loneliness they feel, and really you should feel so bad for them and they needs to be protected...

You're shooting yourself in the foot with something like that. The sadistic, cruel dominatrix side of a character is suddenly crying on her knees begging for pity, while the innocent little baby side has a Geneva Checklist tallying up. One game I liked had an annoying habit with a character who was like that when she actively tortured and slaughtered her own countrymen as she betrayed them to the invaders as her own power play. It felt like hours of a pity party over her backstory, all while half the population is suffering from serious PTSD from her actions while the other half is dead or dying. There really are some things that are inexcusable. And I have a lot of villain characters I love, whether they're manipulative, psychotic, murderous, vengeful, you name it. Those things alone don't make a character unlikeable. The character themselves can even be a hypocrite about things, as long as the focus of the story isn't full of hypocrisy over them.

Sensibility means there's a throughline with the character's actions. They don't necessarily have to make sense or be the most logical choice. Real people aren't logical constructs either. All that matters is you can see why they would go with one option over another. Have them make mistakes, get things wrong, make bad calls, you name it. It becomes annoying when the audience doesn't go "you should have known better" but rather "why in the world would they do that".

The hero lowering his gun because he fell for the bad guy's bluff is him making a blunder. Maybe he has really good reason to not want to risk things, whether self doubts or past trauma or being naive. On the other hand, the hero lowering his gun when he has a clean shot at the villain, then doing nothing as the villain comes over to punch him in the face and take the gun, then it leads to the villain putting him in a James Bond elaborate death trap that can easily be escaped from... At that point, the audience just assumes everyone is brain damaged and doesn't know how guns work despite clearly intending to kill each other.

There's definitely other cases, but these are the two most common factors I notice in stories in any medium. With consistency, flawed characters shouldn't be coddled and shown how their flaws secretly aren't actually flaws at all, just looks cowardly on the writer's behalf in most situations. With sensibility, flawed characters should have their flaws be harrowingly understandable, so they leave a bittersweet taste instead of just a bitter one. The audience should feel disappointed with their decisions and actions in the way you would about a troubled friend, instead of feeling confused about things seeming random and nonsensical.

When a character is consistent and sensible, you can appreciate all the random BS they get up to. The girl who has a gesugao every other scene drove a truck through the wall? Yeah, sounds about right for her. The guy struggling with alcoholism is doing well up until the case he's on crashes down all around him, and he reaches for the bottle? Now it just feels even more tragic, and I'm really itching for things to finally turn around for him. The hockey mask wearing murderer sees a small child, forlornly looks away, and walks off peacefully? That felt out of the blue, but other characters make sense, so I want to see where they're going with this.

That was longer than I meant it to be, but hopefully you can get something out of it.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Sometimes, if you play the "unlikeable" traits of the character for comedy, you'll trigger sympathetic feelings in the reader and make them a little more likeable. This CAN backfire, though, so should be used carefully.

 

[Anonjohn20]

The two main qualities are consistency and sensibility. Consistency just means that the character you're seeing play out in the story matches the way the story focuses on them. For example, if your character is a scumbag who is always picking fights, don't try to suddenly drop sympathy cards all over them while ignoring all of the horrendous things they did. In other words, if you want to write a villain, treat them like one. One really nasty habit I've seen in some stories was they wanted to have a stone cold, cruel and sadistic villain(ess) who does some really horrible things, but as soon as they start losing, the story suddenly starts talking about their tragic past and how much pain and loneliness they feel, and really you should feel so bad for them and they needs to be protected...

Oh yeah. I remember reading the Deadmeat story (one of them at least; Bignt loves to reboot his stories multiple times), and after the MC ruthlessly brainwashes and enslaves an innocent village that took him in, he defeats an evil goblin lord and then spares the goblin ladies without asking for anything in return; 0 consistency. Then the MC went back to being ruthless and evil.

Sensibility means there's a throughline with the character's actions. They don't necessarily have to make sense or be the most logical choice. Real people aren't logical constructs either. All that matters is you can see why they would go with one option over another. Have them make mistakes, get things wrong, make bad calls, you name it. It becomes annoying when the audience doesn't go "you should have known better" but rather "why in the world would they do that".

"why in the world would they do that".

Correct as well. This is why "World of Women" and "The Man of the House" both have so many haters. You won't see them often, as Whatsawhizzer likes to sometimes delete comments.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Here's my psychopathic incel insight, is your MC getting dragged by her own insecurities until everyone else but her is paying her own bill? If so, I hate that.

I get that she's trying to grab both at the same time when choosing A or B, but know that grabbing neither is an option.

 

[Anonjohn20]

Here's my psychopathic incel insight

Your PII sounds like "pee" when I turn it into an acronym. I am sleep deprived.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Your PII sounds like "pee" when I turn it into an acronym. I am sleep deprived.

Well, I just pissed it out.

 

[FRWriter]

Some characters are supposed to be unlikable. Likeability is highly subjective.

I think consistency is way more important than likeability.

 

[Anonjohn20]

Some characters are supposed to be unlikable

Never the MC, or the reader won't want to invest time into reading that story.

 

[FRWriter]

Never the MC, or the reader won't want to invest time into reading that story.

I know quite a few people with evil MC's that are all around scumbags, still, people like them.
Not everyone wants to self-insert into a story. Still, I guess in general what you are saying is true.

 

[Anonjohn20]

I know quite a few people with evil MC's that are all around scumbags, still, people like them.

Scumbag =/= unlikeable. How MC treats others in the story is a different topic/discussion from how the readers perceive him.

Not everyone wants to self-insert into a story.

That's not what anyone here was implying. BTW, a lot of selfish scumbag MCs or rancorous MCs were self-inserts by selfish or rancorous authors. Have you ever noticed how so many cultivation stories are just revenge fantasies against the upper class?

 

[MC-Stories]

Generally, this line is crossed when the character refuses to acknowledge their flaws, and/or refuses to do anything about them.

Someone can constantly screw up and remain likeable, so long as they make meaningful progress towards improvement and understand that they need to improve.

It also helps if a lot of the problems are happening to the character rather than caused by the character, or shift towards this.

If every problem is caused by the character and their flaws, then people will become frustrated with them. However, if the problems happen to them, rather than because of them, and then are exacerbated by their flaws, readers will remain tolerant longer as it is not purely their fault every time.

The core of it is thus acknowledging the issues and meaningful change.

If those exist, itll probably work out.

I respectfully disagree, I think the line is crossed if that character is so fervant in their beliefs that the obviously think that their way of doing things is the ONLY way, to the point where others are put in danger, or if someone is so arrogant and racist, they don't even realize that they are isolating themselves from the rest of the world.

 

[K_Nishi]

Simply put, if a character has strengths that make up for their flaws, they will become compelling.

 

[MFontana]

When I wrote Miranda as one of the main characters in XNPC, I wanted her to be heavily flawed but still sympathetic. According to the comments I'm getting on Royal Road, I failed at that pretty hard. We're less than twenty chapters in, and people are already saying that she's completely unforgivable.

The story starts with her abandoning her post as lookout while her teammates sleep to go see her fantasy-comatose boyfriend, Jeremy, which sets off a chain reaction that ends with Jeremy waking up from his not-coma and the rookie in Miranda's party getting killed.

Miranda's whole thing is divided loyalties. She was pretty much an abandoned child growing up, and the only person she was close to was Jeremy, her best friend and eventual boyfriend. So when the world ends and Jeremy gets put in a not-coma, waking him up is her main goal. But she's also loyal to her party, who she's been adventuring with for over a decade at this point.

When the rookie dies, the party leader is justifiably pissed off and kicks Miranda from the group. Miranda makes getting Jeremy to safety her new goal, but once again her loyalties are split because her old party is being hunted by a rival guild, and it's all her fault. The guilt leads to her repeatedly leaving Jeremy alone in this dangerous, unknown world so she can try to go and help her friends. She knows it's wrong, but the guilt is more than she can handle, so rather than decide which is most important to her, she tries to do both at once, only making things worse for her and everyone else until everything culminates in a gigantic climactic battle where she makes a horrible sacrifice in a last ditch attempt to set things right.

None of this is presented as a good thing. Miranda spends the first couple books making the wrong decision at every given opportunity, but the story and the characters are constantly calling her out on it. It's also made clear that she's a heavily traumatized person who's struggling with more problems than even she knows she has. She also never does any of this out of malice. Every bad decision she makes is a desperate attempt to fix the problems her previous bad decisions caused, which just inadvertently creates even more problems. So in that way, I was hoping they she would still be sympathetic.

In your opinion, where does the line get drawn between a flawed but sympathetic character, and a permanently unlikable one?

For me, it ultimately comes down to the execution.
What role is the character meant to fill?
Are they believable?
Are they relatable?
What is their psychology?
What are their motivations/goals?
Why do they do what they do?
What are their conflicts?
Do they have regrets?
What do they believe? How do those beliefs inform their actions?
Are they consistent with their beliefs and actions?

Character preferences are purely subjective.
What one person likes, another is sure to hate.
What you presented there for Miranda, for example, sounds perfectly reasonable to me if she is meant to be antagonistic towards the party.
Though, the presentation also makes her feel distinctly human.

As for me personally, a character becomes unlikable when they no longer feel "real" or break verisimilitude.
Beyond that, it is a matter of how much I like them, and how well they fill their narrative role.

 

[Emotica]

I'd say it's about intent. Flawed characters make mistakes. Shitty characters never learn or do awful things on purpose repeatedly.