Unlikeability
Aug. 15th, 2005 11:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ksmithA freeform discussion has been taking place in various parts of the blogverse regarding writerly self-indulgence and unlikeable characters and being taken to critical task for same. I like ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
barbarienne's definition of self-indulgence, which include digressions and other exercises that the writer plugs into a work but that don't have a good reason for being there.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/barbarienne/13998.html?#cutid1
These digressions and such don't enlighten, move the plot forward, or enrich the story. They're the word version of doodling in the margins.
It is mentioned, however, that readers may not necessarily agree as to what constitutes digression, excessive purple prose, word wankage, etc. One reader's doodling is another's masterpiece.
The term I tend to take exception to is 'unlikeability', perhaps because my protag is considered by some to possess that trait. I confess that when I started writing the Jani books, the question of her likeability never entered my mind. She possessed the qualities necessary to live the life she led and to live the life I planned for her. She possessed strengths and "good" qualities that I felt sufficient to trump the fact that she was not a fuzzy bunny girl. These were not the only traits necessary to live a life like hers, certainly, and other writers would have no doubt written profoundly different characters that would have adapted just as well. But I wrote mine the way I thought she needed to be, and I doubt that I'd change her if I had the chance to go back and do so.
The thing is, I have never felt the need to like the protags in the books I have read. For the most part, I don't, even in cases where I read their stories over and over and never tire of seeing events through their eyes. I adore the Mapp & Lucia books, EF Benson's stories of two small town social harpies in the years between the wars. I don't like either of these women, and wouldn't want to meet either of them in person. But I love the stories about them, laugh at and occasionally root for one or the other, and try to reread the whole whackin' omnibus once a year or so. I find Tom Ripley, Patricia Highsmith's psychopathic protag, profoundly disturbing--this is one character that I would prefer did not know of my existence on this planet. But I find his stories riveting, and if he was anything other than he is, those stories would not possess the impact that they do.
I don't even find the term 'unsympathetic' particularly off-putting. What I think I require in order to stay with a character and their story is the ability to care about how they deal with their particular predicament, whatever it happens to be. The tricky thing is that 'care' does not necessarily contain a sympathetic or empathetic aspect. I can dislike a character profoundly, yet care about their story. There's a detachment there that I don't feel when dealing with actual folks in my everyday life.
barbarienne's definition of self-indulgence, which include digressions and other exercises that the writer plugs into a work but that don't have a good reason for being there. http://www.livejournal.com/users/barbarienne/13998.html?#cutid1
These digressions and such don't enlighten, move the plot forward, or enrich the story. They're the word version of doodling in the margins.
It is mentioned, however, that readers may not necessarily agree as to what constitutes digression, excessive purple prose, word wankage, etc. One reader's doodling is another's masterpiece.
The term I tend to take exception to is 'unlikeability', perhaps because my protag is considered by some to possess that trait. I confess that when I started writing the Jani books, the question of her likeability never entered my mind. She possessed the qualities necessary to live the life she led and to live the life I planned for her. She possessed strengths and "good" qualities that I felt sufficient to trump the fact that she was not a fuzzy bunny girl. These were not the only traits necessary to live a life like hers, certainly, and other writers would have no doubt written profoundly different characters that would have adapted just as well. But I wrote mine the way I thought she needed to be, and I doubt that I'd change her if I had the chance to go back and do so.
The thing is, I have never felt the need to like the protags in the books I have read. For the most part, I don't, even in cases where I read their stories over and over and never tire of seeing events through their eyes. I adore the Mapp & Lucia books, EF Benson's stories of two small town social harpies in the years between the wars. I don't like either of these women, and wouldn't want to meet either of them in person. But I love the stories about them, laugh at and occasionally root for one or the other, and try to reread the whole whackin' omnibus once a year or so. I find Tom Ripley, Patricia Highsmith's psychopathic protag, profoundly disturbing--this is one character that I would prefer did not know of my existence on this planet. But I find his stories riveting, and if he was anything other than he is, those stories would not possess the impact that they do.
I don't even find the term 'unsympathetic' particularly off-putting. What I think I require in order to stay with a character and their story is the ability to care about how they deal with their particular predicament, whatever it happens to be. The tricky thing is that 'care' does not necessarily contain a sympathetic or empathetic aspect. I can dislike a character profoundly, yet care about their story. There's a detachment there that I don't feel when dealing with actual folks in my everyday life.
