avatarRochelle Deans

Summary

The article emphasizes the importance of character flaws and growth over initial likability in storytelling.

Abstract

The article discusses the common misconception among writers that characters must be inherently likable to be successful. It argues that focusing on a character's growth and their journey to overcome flaws is more crucial to audience engagement. Using examples from popular media, such as "Schitt's Creek" and "Aladdin," the author illustrates how characters who start off unlikable but undergo significant development can become beloved by audiences. The piece also shares personal experiences of the author in revising a novel to make the protagonist less introspective and more flawed, leading to a more compelling character. The article concludes by advising writers to allow characters to make mistakes and learn from them, as this creates a more satisfying narrative arc.

Opinions

  • The author believes that trying to make characters likable from the outset can lead to them being unengaging and disliked by readers.
  • It is suggested that characters should be flawed and make poor choices, as this provides room for growth and change, which is essential for a compelling narrative.
  • The article posits that a character's lack of self-awareness can be a strength in storytelling, as it allows for a more authentic and relatable character arc.
  • The author asserts that readers are more interested in character growth and thematic resonance than in characters who are perfect from the beginning.
  • The piece emphasizes that characters must have flaws that negatively affect their world and that these flaws should be related to their character arc.
  • The author shares the view that a character's journey should involve overcoming their flaws, learning the theme, and making a choice at the end that they were incapable of making at the beginning.
  • The article indicates that even a character on a negative arc, like the author's own character Celeste, can be engaging if their flaws and choices drive the story.
  • The author endorses the "Save the Cat" beat as a way to show a character's inherent goodness, even if they are fundamentally flawed or engage in questionable behavior.
  • The article suggests that justifications for a character's immoral actions can make them more relatable and understandable to the audience.

The Dangers of Creating Likable Characters

Why likability should never be your focus when writing

No need to tiptoe around character flaws. Photo by Pete F on Unsplash.

At the height of lockdown, I asked my best friend for TV show suggestions. “Watch Schitts Creek,” she told me. “But you can’t give up on it for at least five episodes. This show is a masterclass in character growth.”

Like she’d expected, I found the beginning nearly unwatchable. Talk about some unlikable people. But said best friend is one of my CPs, one whose story sense I trust inherently. So I stuck it out.

The last season routinely had me in a pile of happy tears. It wasn’t just because David and Patrick were simply the best, even though they are. It was because David had to change in order for this relationship to hit us so deeply. The feelings later seasons of Schitts Creek stir up only work because we saw where they started — self-centered, out of touch, deeply flawed characters.

We love them because of how they’ve grown.

But this was 2020. I didn’t have this understanding when I was writing my earliest books. In 2015, as I began writing my first YA contemporary (and third attempt at a novel), I remember thinking to myself “I know I’m going to have her make poor choices, so I need to make her likable in other ways.” I focused on trying to make her a good friend, a good daughter.

I also wrote her extremely self-aware. She would think through every option I could see as her author, and then make the choice most in line with her personality and goals.

Most of my CPs hated her.

In revisions, about eighty percent of my changes to her character was deleting the introspection before the decision. It made a huge difference. I didn’t explain this choice, but sent the book back to a few of my closest CPs, and got a response akin to “whatever you did with her, it works. I like her so much better now.”

I learned two important lessons from this: first, the best characters are not self-aware (look at all the deniability in romance arcs!). Second, writing a character while walking on eggshells around whether or not people will like them is a recipe that all but guarantees they won’t be liked.

Today I want to focus mostly on that second point, partially because in my Enneagram One mind, a lack of introspection is a character flaw, but mostly because it’s a mistake I see repeated with the clients I work with. Plus, in a lot of ways, removing introspection — especially near the beginning of a book — can be a way to solve the likability issue.

The Problem with Tiptoeing around Imperfections

I was recently working with a coaching client of mine who felt like she was stuck on moving her plot forward as she reached the second act. She sent me a synopsis of act one, and where she saw the rest of the story going. I read through it, enjoyed the setup, and found myself spacing out as I read the rest. I told her this, and said I didn’t think the problem was the plot at all.

The problem was that the plot had nothing to do with the character’s flaws.

One of my first checks when I’m doing a manuscript evaluation is, “what choice does the main character make at the end that she was incapable of at the beginning?” Ideally, this choice requires her to change something about herself. To learn the theme. To move past her flaws. This is pretty difficult if:

  • she doesn’t have any flaws to start with
  • the imperfections she does have are entirely unrelated to her character arc (I’m looking at you, clumsy, awkward, weird manic pixie dream girls. Clumsy and awkward are not imperfections as far as story is concerned.)
  • the flaws are there on some level, but they don’t negatively affect the world around her

When we tiptoe around these imperfections because we’re hoping people will like the people we write about, we ironically rob our audience of the chance to grow to like them — to root for them as they overcome their flaws.

Writing Characters Your Audience Will Love

My 2015 book went through some of the most intense revisions I’ve ever done, and it still was my least successful book in the query trenches.

I followed it up with the first draft of Enchantress. I’ve written a lot about that book, but one of the things I haven’t talked about specifically was what it’s like writing a fall arc: what it’s like writing someone I want people to dislike.

It took several drafts to get there, but eventually I found it freeing. Celeste is deeply flawed, and she only gets worse. The choice she makes at the end of the book that she was incapable of making at the beginning is one that harms, rather than saves.

I was never concerned with making Celeste particularly likable. My CPs liked her anyway. I have a lot of comments yelling at her poor decisions, but not a lot of “I hate her and I don’t think you wanted me to” comments like I got on the book before that.

Focus on Character Growth

There is a reason my first check in a manuscript evaluation is “what choice did the character make at the end she was incapable of making at the beginning.” Actually, there are several reasons. One is that it’s an easy yardstick, measurable in an instant. But easy isn’t the most important part. There are other easy checks, like “is the grammar decent?” that don’t have the same return on their investment.

People read to see characters grow. They will enjoy a plot, but they read for the characters. Sometimes this means their quirks and personalities, but often it means what they learn, thematic resonance, and choices.

The flip side of this is that you can’t start with a perfect character. They need to suck at something. They need to make mistakes. They need to hurt people. Their approach to life needs to be at a tipping point where it either already isn’t working or is about to stop working.

Okay, you ask, but why would people want to follow around someone who keeps hurting people? Enter the reason the Save the Cat formula has that name.

Save the Cat

The beat of saving the cat has more or less been removed from the formula that shares its namesake (which I’ve written about here), but the gist of this moment in a story is that your character must do something likable. We must see that there is something good in them even if they are, say, a thief.

Provide Justifications for Immorality

While we’re speaking about Aladdin, let’s look at “One Jump Ahead.” Basically the entire song is him saying, “Look, I don’t want to steal but it’s not like I have a choice when I can’t make money otherwise.” He then goes and proves that it’s only out of necessity with his save the cat moment shown above.

We get the same thing with Katniss, who does everything for her sister (and literally saves a cat, it should be noted). I haven’t watched it, but I hear Breaking Bad draws us in with similar justifications.

Not to mention Schitts Creek above. The family sucks in a lot of ways, but they’ve lost their wealth through no fault of their own, and we get the feeling they have been essentially sheltered from the real world by their wealth, and it’s ignorance that makes them kind of awful at first. This gives us hope that they’ll change — and change they do. I know I’m not the only person to sob my way through the finale.

So, should you create likable characters? Maybe, but definitely not with that goal. You don’t want to be walking on eggshells around their morality. Let them mess up. After all, the characters we find most endearing aren’t the ones who never make mistakes, but the ones who grow past where they started.

Writing Tips
Save The Cat
Novel Writing
Developmental Editing
Schitts Creek
Recommended from ReadMedium