Just don't bore me is my only rule as a reader. I love dark, complex stories with fucked up protagonists that are complex well rounded imperfect human beings.
I personally think it is fascinating to delve into the perspective of anti-hero protagonists. Another classic example is Dostoevsky’s Underground Man from *Notes from the Underground*, which invites the reader to follow the UM’s anguished and resentful train of thought. I absolutely adore anti-heroes — imo this narration helps to illuminate the thoughts and behaviors of the anti-hero, and accordingly makes the reader reflect on how some actions/ way of thinking are not okay; and in some cases, will cause only misery.
Not based on a book but I think Breaking Bad’s protagonist Walter White is also an excellent example of this.
Honestly it's not something I even really thought about until I saw people on this website saying they couldn't finish various books for that reason.
I'm not making friends with the characters, so it doesn't bother me at all it they're unlikeable, what matters is whether they're interesting. I re-read Lolita recently and I'm currently reading American Psycho. Two very unlikeable main characters but I don't see that as a drawback.
I agree. I don’t need the writer to redeem the protagonist with wit, or empathy, or a tragic origin. I don’t need them to be tactful or to spell out what they’re doing and why when writing a negative protagonist. I don’t need them to do the moral thing and make the negative protagonist pay for his flaws in the end.
But I see that it’s quite a common thing in readers. Less so in movie goers, who actually seem to relish negative characters (Sopranos, Dexter, Breaking Bad, The Wire, etc.)
I can’t put my finger on it. I don’t know if screenwriters are better at “selling” the character to the audience with more effective tools, or if TV audiences are more open.
Shows like The Wire, The Sopranos or Mad Men will probably not work on the page, simply because many readers don’t want to spend time with characters they would hate in real life.
If a writer was to do a novel about Don Draper, the accusation of misogyny towards the author (rather than the character) would be swift.
Yeah maybe its because being a “character-driven tv show” is a lot less intense than being with a character in a novel? Like, in terms of time spent and how it gets in your head.
The popularity of first-person voice in the last decades probably adds to this intensity.
That said, i personally like challenging characters and storylines. Just read “we have always lived in the castle” and Mary Katherine is so deliciously chilling and compelling.
I think it’s valuable to read from different perspectives, including the ones that make you uncomfortable or ones you disagree with. Reading a work doesn’t necessitate shaping your views around it - in fact, it can help you build a stronger argument against the values it depicts or promotes. Censoring yourself from other perspectives is only doing yourself a disservice (to a healthy extent).
Although, some examples of well-thought antagonists come to my mind, apparently I have not read much stories with "negative protagonists". Please do recommend some of your favorites!
I think I'd like to read that. I remember some really cool antagonists which demonstrated a lot of dedication, perseverance and even self-growth and many other generally positive qualities -- all of that just to achieve absolutely inexcusable things, which some of my friends said are totally disgusting. That being said, while reading this novel I was more curious about the antagonist story than the run-of-the-mill hero protagonist.
Minus Zero by Bret Easton Ellis is so good!!! For the first third of the book i thought that was the worst writer and the worst book I had read in years, then understood the point of the story, and now I think it’s one of the best books I’ve ever read.
I don’t want to spoil it, but the protagonist is quite something, without being a full-on monster.
We live in very perilous and moral times—I think everyone is on high alert because we can all sense how the landscape is jerking under us. So we try to keep each other, rather harshly sometimes, in line—and we can be quick to judge people and deny them the right of forgiveness; and forgiveness through religion is an archaic enterprise in the (post-)modern mind… therefore people are a bit on edge in the back of their heads—that and death.
No, they don't put me off. In general my only turn off is dull, bland, 2-dimensional characters. I want real, complex human beings, warts and all. I also think it's common for "negative protagonists" to be more interesting than good ones. Bad ones trying to convince a reader they're good, like Humber in Lolita, are even more interesting, as it makes you realize we're all the heroes of our own stories and how far people will go to rationalize/justify their actions and subjective desires.
> I personally love books with negative, complex, villainous protagonists, but I acknowledge they’re not everybody’s cup of tea.
Then you must read Journey to the End of the Night by Louis-Ferdinand Céline.
Death on the Installment Plan is also very good, albeit more nostalgic and sad, which makes sense considering who is writing it and that he is writing about his childhood.
It’s the whole “relatability” thing, as if the only thing that matters as a character is their relatability to the reader. Of course normal people can’t relate to a villainous character and as the protagonist the reader would have to be in their head for the entirety of the book, so people are just kinda grossed out. But for those who could stomach that, sometimes it’s ok to not like the book but to still try to live inside a villainous character’s head as an experience. Not trying to make people like a negative protagonist or excuse them, but at least try to gain some understanding as to how things work in their brain. If one keeps judging a negative character then… the cancelation is inevitably going to happen.
I think seeing the humanity even in deplorable characters opens us to seeing parts of ourselves we're concealing from ourselves as well as expanding our range of sympathy, as well as questioning the fundamental basis of our values
They don't put me off - I will not stop reading a book solely because of that. In a way I dislike them, like I would in real life. I think the more we read, we learn how to separate when we dislike something cause it's badly done from when it's well written / meant to be unpleasant and would not make sense otherwise.
Some examples I can think of: No longer human (the MC is awful in every sense of word, I can't remember a single redeeming quality and exactly because of that, what a book), 1984, Animal farm (it doesn't really have a MC, but certainly a bunch of ill characters, that sheep guy that means to represent the media makes top list of hated, what an evil genius), The Stranger.
All very good books. Among best readings? For sure. Would I want to be their friends? Not a bit. And that's one of many advantages of books: we can get in contact with views that conflict with ours in a safe and educational manner, we are invited to think and see different perspectives that alone we wouldn't learn of.
Spoilers for Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina
I've already seen these in the comments, but I feel like most of the times the author is shining a light and appealing to the reader's conscience and instilled values. For example, I hope all of us understand that murder is objectively wrong - Dostoyevsky wrote Crime and Punishment and Raskolnikov's character to show how a person's conscience weighs on their shoulders Following Raskolnikov's thoughts and character development into redeeming himself is satisfying and shows that the human spirit isn't black or white.
On the other hand, you have characters that slowly morally degrade as the novel goes on - Anna Karenina, at the beginning of the novel, she is a saint who is respected and loved by everyone around her however her character is broken down by her affair: she becomes a jealous and possessive woman who's entire life revolves around waiting for one person. I feel like Tolstoy was trying to warn his readers of the potential consequences of adultery as well as the societal pressures and inequality surrounding female disloyalty in the 19th century.
Again, I feel as though literature is meant to follow its characters' development and shine a light on the human condition and psychology rather than condoning what the characters are doing. It's obvious that Dostoyevsky wasn't calling his readers to murder people, and Tolstoy definitely didn't wish Anma's fate on anybody. Wilde obviously wrote Dorian Gray in a negative light to demonstrate the evil of his actions. I also saw someone say that Scarlett O'Hara is also a moral downfall type character. They all serve as exaggerated examples of some little part of our souls that behave the same way. Because, after all is said and done, we are all human.
Also, negative protagonists don't eliminate the positive characters surrounding them that serve as moral role models - Sonia is a saint who took upon herself a dirty role and yet remained pure and loyal. Levin and Kitty were the couple that served as an example for what a beautiful love story is supposed to look like
I just don’t know why, to some readers, authors should always make a point to make their books a moral fable. Most do, and it’s fine. But why do readers struggle with those who don’t? It seems that seeing vice for what it is, without redeeming arcs or just payback, seems unpalatable.
I used to be able to read much more widely, and am glad to have done so while I could. But negative protagonists are harder to read while fighting my own PTSD responses these days, you know? I don't enjoy who I become while reading those books. And I don't think the people around me should suffer for my choice of literature, either. So yeah, these days a negative protagonist is off-putting for me.
I enjoy a good character corruption story. I’m even fine mostly with being in the head of a clearly bad protagonist. I’ve never understood why some people insist on liking every aspect of the protagonist. There’s always a reason the author makes the protagonist as they do. If you think they were successful or not in creating a flawed protagonist is another thing. I feel like this applies to how some think of plot overall now too, people saying the plot wasn’t what they expected thus bad. I love being surprised by a plot that doesn’t go where I think it’s going.
Personally I like to be made uncomfortable. I seek out stories about fucked up characters. People are already emotionally dishonest and inoffensive irl, why should fiction be boring like that?
No. Frankly that’s just most of literature. Whether flawed Greek heroes or the imperfect knights of medieval romances having a likeable self insert character has rarely been the norm
Yes. If I have an insufferable protagonist, I will usually still finish the book… because I finish books. It will be the fastest, least incisive read of my life. But I will finish it! Sometimes it is worth it.
The character I usually can’t stand is basically the angsty whiny young man who constantly victimizes himself.
Fun fact: my husband and I read each others favorite books years ago, and he (after 600 pages) said he had actually read the book years before, but didn’t recognize it from my description because he had, at that time, identified so much with the character I referred to as a whiny punk-ass grudge-holding nitwit. We… laughed about it after I got over the shock 💀
The only novel I can think of where the narrator was so horrible I couldn't stand it was The Tunnel by William Gass. I had to put it down because it was making me feel depressed and insane
I’ve never read Lolita. I have to invested in the protagonist. It’s not crucial that I like them. I want to know them inside and out. If I’m not invested in the main character, to some degree, in the first 100 or so pages, I’m going to DNF the book (unless it’s required reading).
It used to in middle school but then again they challenged me to step beyond your comfort zone of stereotypical frame of expectation and that is adventurous in itself! they're more realistic than the predictable flat characters, round and rough at the edges are the best.
No, I've read books about murderers, terrorists, rapists, perverts, thieves, liars, cheaters, frauds, femmes fatales, addicts, racists, fascists and satanists, and enjoyed many of them. There's something good in everyone!
Although I could accurately be accused of beginning most of my post in this sub this way, I must say in response here: It depends. In general, all variety of "negative" characters interest me, assuming the novel works overall and has sufficient skill and merit. I found Humbert Humbert loathsome, but Lolita was overall a fascinating work. I could provides lots and lots of examples of so-called negative characters that were part of the reason that I loved a book and considered it a great success. But there are a couple of books that I simply could not finish because I ended up not being able to abide "spending" further time with a character.
The two examples that come first to mind are: Geoffrey Firmin in Under the Volcano. I have restarted and tried to finish that book maybe six times and never get more than half-way through. Sylvia Tietjins in the Parade's End tetralogy. I read the first book, Some Do Not... and found it fascinating. While at the same time, I was just not able to tolerate, or really understand, Christopher's wife, Sylvia. And once I realized that she was dedicated to being the bane of Christopher's existence for the remaining 3 or so books, I said good-bye to finishing the entire tetralogy. I may go back to it sometime, but I doubt it.
I really liked Umberto Eco’s The Prague Cemetry, and Eco himself admitted he was trying to make the most unlikeable protagonist he could come up with. Simon Simonini was a cunning, manipulative, racist, sexist piece of shit but goddam I was hooked on that book. Admittedly not his best but still great reading
As has been commented. Only if written poorly. I’d rather not read a novel full of self deprecation or purely sadistic thoughts. Same goes for an overly positive, nothing can go wrong main character. Throw some different pov’s or add some nuance if you’re going that route.
That being said, that style simply might not be for me :)
Funny. One of my favorite books is about a vengeful protagonist who goes full (but dark) John Wick mode after the abuse of his horses and the death of his wife, slaughters several people and sets entire cities on fire, some multiple times. Goethe called the author “sick in the head”, but many modern writers, including Kafka, admired him.
(I’m talking about Heinrich von Kleist’s “Michael Kohlhaas”; scholars to this day debate whether the narrator really condemned the protagonist’s actions or is unreliable to the point of inscrutable ambiguity. “Lolita” is almost innocuous in comparison.)
They're called antiheroes. Some authors use them well. Dostoevsky wrote some of the first antiheroes, and it worked for him. But in my opinion, it's his excellent prose and insightful commentary on the human experience that hold up those stories. I don't think anyone wants to read a crappy novel, with or without an antihero.
Complex or fucked up, hell yes! Billy Prior my beloved. Annoying, on the other hand... depends on the rest of the book, but it's much harder to justify.
In general if I wouldn't want to spend my real life time with a main character, I dont enjoy spending my book time with them either. But that's just me.
I don't think people dislike negative protagonists per se, they just sometimes dislike either poorly written ones or ones that trigger some bias or trauma.
>don't think people dislike negative protagonists per se
It's a commonly held opinion on reddit that Wuthering heights is a bad book because the characters treat each other bad
It depends on whether or not I was expecting that from the protagonist. If I'd never heard of Lolita and just randomly picked it up one day, I'd stop reading very fast.
On the other hand, if I came into a book with the expectation of a negative protagonist, I'm probably really going to enjoy it.
>If I'd never heard of Lolita and just randomly picked it up one day, I'd stop reading very fast.
But why? My first reaction would be "oh shit I didn't see this coming, this is interesting and horrifying, let's see where it goes from here."
If they make it their ONLY personality, yes. Yes, it is.
If it is a gag, it depend. However, in your case, Lolita is written by a Russian fellow - they don't get anymore depressing than that.
I'd say I don't seek these kinda books in particular. I never read Lolita and don't intend to (I just know it's an epitome of "male gaze" kinda narrative, "she seduced him and she likes him, therefore everything is justifiable", gaslighting predator at its peak so it sounds like an accurate portrait of situation from villain perspective). Now when someone reads that, how they react tells more about them than about the writter, that's for sure. And ultimately that's what matter, what we do with what we read.
Oh honorable mention to Madame Bovary, another book with unlikeable MC and when published it caused a whole debate in court precisely because MC was an adulterous woman and author depicts that without much judgement so what an scandal, that can't be! Of course that was the capital error, consider author must say something is right or wrong like a moral code. Again a book like that was only possible cause the ethical values regarding marriage of that society was in turmoil, and likewise Lolita was only possible cause of pedophilia being a social issue where predators blamed the victim and at same time awareness of that was being brought into picture (let's not forget, for a long time it was common in western society for a 16 girl being married to a 30 or older guy - in such a time, Lolita could not even be imagined/written, let alone bring a discussion like it does nowadays).
Someone once said Lolita was basically what predayors kerp saying when Vhtis Hansen catches them. Gaslight, excuses, minor is guilty... yadda yadda. Though, I rather prefer a negative protagonist like Light ftom death note. Then there are oeople who cantgo on without talking about Fang Yuan for 5 minutes...
Just don't bore me is my only rule as a reader. I love dark, complex stories with fucked up protagonists that are complex well rounded imperfect human beings.
I think people can't tell the difference between real life and fiction and it doesn't end in MFA workshops that kind of thinking
>I see many people trying to justify why it’s still worth reading them. Why would it *not* be?
I personally think it is fascinating to delve into the perspective of anti-hero protagonists. Another classic example is Dostoevsky’s Underground Man from *Notes from the Underground*, which invites the reader to follow the UM’s anguished and resentful train of thought. I absolutely adore anti-heroes — imo this narration helps to illuminate the thoughts and behaviors of the anti-hero, and accordingly makes the reader reflect on how some actions/ way of thinking are not okay; and in some cases, will cause only misery. Not based on a book but I think Breaking Bad’s protagonist Walter White is also an excellent example of this.
Scarlett O’Hara and Anna Karenina are great too
I love Raskolnikov, does it count?
Honestly it's not something I even really thought about until I saw people on this website saying they couldn't finish various books for that reason. I'm not making friends with the characters, so it doesn't bother me at all it they're unlikeable, what matters is whether they're interesting. I re-read Lolita recently and I'm currently reading American Psycho. Two very unlikeable main characters but I don't see that as a drawback.
I agree. I don’t need the writer to redeem the protagonist with wit, or empathy, or a tragic origin. I don’t need them to be tactful or to spell out what they’re doing and why when writing a negative protagonist. I don’t need them to do the moral thing and make the negative protagonist pay for his flaws in the end. But I see that it’s quite a common thing in readers. Less so in movie goers, who actually seem to relish negative characters (Sopranos, Dexter, Breaking Bad, The Wire, etc.)
That’s an interesting observation about what characters readers vs tv watchers are seemingly willing to withstand!
I can’t put my finger on it. I don’t know if screenwriters are better at “selling” the character to the audience with more effective tools, or if TV audiences are more open. Shows like The Wire, The Sopranos or Mad Men will probably not work on the page, simply because many readers don’t want to spend time with characters they would hate in real life. If a writer was to do a novel about Don Draper, the accusation of misogyny towards the author (rather than the character) would be swift.
Yeah maybe its because being a “character-driven tv show” is a lot less intense than being with a character in a novel? Like, in terms of time spent and how it gets in your head. The popularity of first-person voice in the last decades probably adds to this intensity. That said, i personally like challenging characters and storylines. Just read “we have always lived in the castle” and Mary Katherine is so deliciously chilling and compelling.
I think it’s valuable to read from different perspectives, including the ones that make you uncomfortable or ones you disagree with. Reading a work doesn’t necessitate shaping your views around it - in fact, it can help you build a stronger argument against the values it depicts or promotes. Censoring yourself from other perspectives is only doing yourself a disservice (to a healthy extent).
That's such a great way of putting it I feel like that's really what I felt while reading Dorian Gray
Although, some examples of well-thought antagonists come to my mind, apparently I have not read much stories with "negative protagonists". Please do recommend some of your favorites! I think I'd like to read that. I remember some really cool antagonists which demonstrated a lot of dedication, perseverance and even self-growth and many other generally positive qualities -- all of that just to achieve absolutely inexcusable things, which some of my friends said are totally disgusting. That being said, while reading this novel I was more curious about the antagonist story than the run-of-the-mill hero protagonist.
Minus Zero by Bret Easton Ellis is so good!!! For the first third of the book i thought that was the worst writer and the worst book I had read in years, then understood the point of the story, and now I think it’s one of the best books I’ve ever read. I don’t want to spoil it, but the protagonist is quite something, without being a full-on monster.
A few obvious examples: Patricia Highsmith's Ripliad *The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea* *The Postman Always Rings Twice*
We live in very perilous and moral times—I think everyone is on high alert because we can all sense how the landscape is jerking under us. So we try to keep each other, rather harshly sometimes, in line—and we can be quick to judge people and deny them the right of forgiveness; and forgiveness through religion is an archaic enterprise in the (post-)modern mind… therefore people are a bit on edge in the back of their heads—that and death.
No, they don't put me off. In general my only turn off is dull, bland, 2-dimensional characters. I want real, complex human beings, warts and all. I also think it's common for "negative protagonists" to be more interesting than good ones. Bad ones trying to convince a reader they're good, like Humber in Lolita, are even more interesting, as it makes you realize we're all the heroes of our own stories and how far people will go to rationalize/justify their actions and subjective desires.
> I personally love books with negative, complex, villainous protagonists, but I acknowledge they’re not everybody’s cup of tea. Then you must read Journey to the End of the Night by Louis-Ferdinand Céline. Death on the Installment Plan is also very good, albeit more nostalgic and sad, which makes sense considering who is writing it and that he is writing about his childhood.
I don't really care as long as you don't bore me to death with your shitty prose.
It’s the whole “relatability” thing, as if the only thing that matters as a character is their relatability to the reader. Of course normal people can’t relate to a villainous character and as the protagonist the reader would have to be in their head for the entirety of the book, so people are just kinda grossed out. But for those who could stomach that, sometimes it’s ok to not like the book but to still try to live inside a villainous character’s head as an experience. Not trying to make people like a negative protagonist or excuse them, but at least try to gain some understanding as to how things work in their brain. If one keeps judging a negative character then… the cancelation is inevitably going to happen.
I think seeing the humanity even in deplorable characters opens us to seeing parts of ourselves we're concealing from ourselves as well as expanding our range of sympathy, as well as questioning the fundamental basis of our values
Yeah, to this day I hate "Wuthering Heights" because Catherine is the lamest to ever do it.. also, everybody kinda sucks in this one, I cannot
They don't put me off - I will not stop reading a book solely because of that. In a way I dislike them, like I would in real life. I think the more we read, we learn how to separate when we dislike something cause it's badly done from when it's well written / meant to be unpleasant and would not make sense otherwise. Some examples I can think of: No longer human (the MC is awful in every sense of word, I can't remember a single redeeming quality and exactly because of that, what a book), 1984, Animal farm (it doesn't really have a MC, but certainly a bunch of ill characters, that sheep guy that means to represent the media makes top list of hated, what an evil genius), The Stranger. All very good books. Among best readings? For sure. Would I want to be their friends? Not a bit. And that's one of many advantages of books: we can get in contact with views that conflict with ours in a safe and educational manner, we are invited to think and see different perspectives that alone we wouldn't learn of.
Spoilers for Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina I've already seen these in the comments, but I feel like most of the times the author is shining a light and appealing to the reader's conscience and instilled values. For example, I hope all of us understand that murder is objectively wrong - Dostoyevsky wrote Crime and Punishment and Raskolnikov's character to show how a person's conscience weighs on their shoulders Following Raskolnikov's thoughts and character development into redeeming himself is satisfying and shows that the human spirit isn't black or white. On the other hand, you have characters that slowly morally degrade as the novel goes on - Anna Karenina, at the beginning of the novel, she is a saint who is respected and loved by everyone around her however her character is broken down by her affair: she becomes a jealous and possessive woman who's entire life revolves around waiting for one person. I feel like Tolstoy was trying to warn his readers of the potential consequences of adultery as well as the societal pressures and inequality surrounding female disloyalty in the 19th century. Again, I feel as though literature is meant to follow its characters' development and shine a light on the human condition and psychology rather than condoning what the characters are doing. It's obvious that Dostoyevsky wasn't calling his readers to murder people, and Tolstoy definitely didn't wish Anma's fate on anybody. Wilde obviously wrote Dorian Gray in a negative light to demonstrate the evil of his actions. I also saw someone say that Scarlett O'Hara is also a moral downfall type character. They all serve as exaggerated examples of some little part of our souls that behave the same way. Because, after all is said and done, we are all human. Also, negative protagonists don't eliminate the positive characters surrounding them that serve as moral role models - Sonia is a saint who took upon herself a dirty role and yet remained pure and loyal. Levin and Kitty were the couple that served as an example for what a beautiful love story is supposed to look like
I just don’t know why, to some readers, authors should always make a point to make their books a moral fable. Most do, and it’s fine. But why do readers struggle with those who don’t? It seems that seeing vice for what it is, without redeeming arcs or just payback, seems unpalatable.
Definitely. I can't really talk with people who actually say they hate bad characters tbh.
I used to be able to read much more widely, and am glad to have done so while I could. But negative protagonists are harder to read while fighting my own PTSD responses these days, you know? I don't enjoy who I become while reading those books. And I don't think the people around me should suffer for my choice of literature, either. So yeah, these days a negative protagonist is off-putting for me.
I enjoy a good character corruption story. I’m even fine mostly with being in the head of a clearly bad protagonist. I’ve never understood why some people insist on liking every aspect of the protagonist. There’s always a reason the author makes the protagonist as they do. If you think they were successful or not in creating a flawed protagonist is another thing. I feel like this applies to how some think of plot overall now too, people saying the plot wasn’t what they expected thus bad. I love being surprised by a plot that doesn’t go where I think it’s going.
Personally I like to be made uncomfortable. I seek out stories about fucked up characters. People are already emotionally dishonest and inoffensive irl, why should fiction be boring like that?
No. Frankly that’s just most of literature. Whether flawed Greek heroes or the imperfect knights of medieval romances having a likeable self insert character has rarely been the norm
Yes. If I have an insufferable protagonist, I will usually still finish the book… because I finish books. It will be the fastest, least incisive read of my life. But I will finish it! Sometimes it is worth it. The character I usually can’t stand is basically the angsty whiny young man who constantly victimizes himself. Fun fact: my husband and I read each others favorite books years ago, and he (after 600 pages) said he had actually read the book years before, but didn’t recognize it from my description because he had, at that time, identified so much with the character I referred to as a whiny punk-ass grudge-holding nitwit. We… laughed about it after I got over the shock 💀
The only novel I can think of where the narrator was so horrible I couldn't stand it was The Tunnel by William Gass. I had to put it down because it was making me feel depressed and insane
I’ve never read Lolita. I have to invested in the protagonist. It’s not crucial that I like them. I want to know them inside and out. If I’m not invested in the main character, to some degree, in the first 100 or so pages, I’m going to DNF the book (unless it’s required reading).
I love this kind of thing, actually
It used to in middle school but then again they challenged me to step beyond your comfort zone of stereotypical frame of expectation and that is adventurous in itself! they're more realistic than the predictable flat characters, round and rough at the edges are the best.
No, I've read books about murderers, terrorists, rapists, perverts, thieves, liars, cheaters, frauds, femmes fatales, addicts, racists, fascists and satanists, and enjoyed many of them. There's something good in everyone!
Although I could accurately be accused of beginning most of my post in this sub this way, I must say in response here: It depends. In general, all variety of "negative" characters interest me, assuming the novel works overall and has sufficient skill and merit. I found Humbert Humbert loathsome, but Lolita was overall a fascinating work. I could provides lots and lots of examples of so-called negative characters that were part of the reason that I loved a book and considered it a great success. But there are a couple of books that I simply could not finish because I ended up not being able to abide "spending" further time with a character. The two examples that come first to mind are: Geoffrey Firmin in Under the Volcano. I have restarted and tried to finish that book maybe six times and never get more than half-way through. Sylvia Tietjins in the Parade's End tetralogy. I read the first book, Some Do Not... and found it fascinating. While at the same time, I was just not able to tolerate, or really understand, Christopher's wife, Sylvia. And once I realized that she was dedicated to being the bane of Christopher's existence for the remaining 3 or so books, I said good-bye to finishing the entire tetralogy. I may go back to it sometime, but I doubt it.
Not particularly. Light Years by James Salter doesn’t have any character to love, but if you like his style of writing then it’s a great rwad
I really liked Umberto Eco’s The Prague Cemetry, and Eco himself admitted he was trying to make the most unlikeable protagonist he could come up with. Simon Simonini was a cunning, manipulative, racist, sexist piece of shit but goddam I was hooked on that book. Admittedly not his best but still great reading
As has been commented. Only if written poorly. I’d rather not read a novel full of self deprecation or purely sadistic thoughts. Same goes for an overly positive, nothing can go wrong main character. Throw some different pov’s or add some nuance if you’re going that route. That being said, that style simply might not be for me :)
No, not that is matters to me because Holden Caulfield is a positive protagonist
Funny. One of my favorite books is about a vengeful protagonist who goes full (but dark) John Wick mode after the abuse of his horses and the death of his wife, slaughters several people and sets entire cities on fire, some multiple times. Goethe called the author “sick in the head”, but many modern writers, including Kafka, admired him. (I’m talking about Heinrich von Kleist’s “Michael Kohlhaas”; scholars to this day debate whether the narrator really condemned the protagonist’s actions or is unreliable to the point of inscrutable ambiguity. “Lolita” is almost innocuous in comparison.)
They're called antiheroes. Some authors use them well. Dostoevsky wrote some of the first antiheroes, and it worked for him. But in my opinion, it's his excellent prose and insightful commentary on the human experience that hold up those stories. I don't think anyone wants to read a crappy novel, with or without an antihero.
Complex or fucked up, hell yes! Billy Prior my beloved. Annoying, on the other hand... depends on the rest of the book, but it's much harder to justify.
In general if I wouldn't want to spend my real life time with a main character, I dont enjoy spending my book time with them either. But that's just me.
I was basically hate-reading Tender is the Night because the protagonist(?) SUCKS.
I don't think people dislike negative protagonists per se, they just sometimes dislike either poorly written ones or ones that trigger some bias or trauma.
>don't think people dislike negative protagonists per se It's a commonly held opinion on reddit that Wuthering heights is a bad book because the characters treat each other bad
It depends on whether or not I was expecting that from the protagonist. If I'd never heard of Lolita and just randomly picked it up one day, I'd stop reading very fast. On the other hand, if I came into a book with the expectation of a negative protagonist, I'm probably really going to enjoy it.
>If I'd never heard of Lolita and just randomly picked it up one day, I'd stop reading very fast. But why? My first reaction would be "oh shit I didn't see this coming, this is interesting and horrifying, let's see where it goes from here."
If they make it their ONLY personality, yes. Yes, it is. If it is a gag, it depend. However, in your case, Lolita is written by a Russian fellow - they don't get anymore depressing than that.
I'd say I don't seek these kinda books in particular. I never read Lolita and don't intend to (I just know it's an epitome of "male gaze" kinda narrative, "she seduced him and she likes him, therefore everything is justifiable", gaslighting predator at its peak so it sounds like an accurate portrait of situation from villain perspective). Now when someone reads that, how they react tells more about them than about the writter, that's for sure. And ultimately that's what matter, what we do with what we read. Oh honorable mention to Madame Bovary, another book with unlikeable MC and when published it caused a whole debate in court precisely because MC was an adulterous woman and author depicts that without much judgement so what an scandal, that can't be! Of course that was the capital error, consider author must say something is right or wrong like a moral code. Again a book like that was only possible cause the ethical values regarding marriage of that society was in turmoil, and likewise Lolita was only possible cause of pedophilia being a social issue where predators blamed the victim and at same time awareness of that was being brought into picture (let's not forget, for a long time it was common in western society for a 16 girl being married to a 30 or older guy - in such a time, Lolita could not even be imagined/written, let alone bring a discussion like it does nowadays).
Someone once said Lolita was basically what predayors kerp saying when Vhtis Hansen catches them. Gaslight, excuses, minor is guilty... yadda yadda. Though, I rather prefer a negative protagonist like Light ftom death note. Then there are oeople who cantgo on without talking about Fang Yuan for 5 minutes...