Which protagonist camp are you in?
Do you prefer your main character to be flawed but likable, or a complete louse who holds your attention with his sheer horribleness?
I suspect it might have something to do with why you read -- or what you're trying to get out of a particular reading experience.
I suspect this because I find myself firmly in both camps.
I love to love a protagonist -- and I think that I do come to love, to some degree, most protagonists in the books I read. Even if they make stupid mistakes, or stay in crummy relationships, or abuse alcohol, or never grow up, there is something about them that makes them relateable. Something I see in them that I recognize as a part of myself, and so by reading about them, I gain a broader understanding of who I am.
And I love to hate a protagonist, too. Someone who is delightfully despicable, who I can't wait to see get his comeuppance, who I long to see served a just dessert. [NOTE: Is there a Ben and Jerry's flavor called Just Desserts? There should be! It should have tiny chocolate scales in every bite.] I'm told that in the world of professional wrestling, the man the crowd loves to hate is called the Heel. It's fun to have someone to jeer -- it's better when that someone seems to welcome it, inviting the jeers and taunting the crowd.
It seems to me that there is often pressure put on an author to make his character "more likeable." There is a perceived prevailing wisdom that characters must be flawed, but not irredeemable. Not so far to the edge of the cliff that it would crumble, should they try to turn back. But I think that's a little unfair. I mean, I don't want my reading material to be boring. I don't want to spend a few hours with a man whose feet are planted firmly in the state next to the state with the Grand Canyon -- I want to read about the character who maybe started life in New Mexico but has since moved to Arizona and decided to pitch a tent on a tightrope he inexpertly strung up over the gorge.
And so I have to expect that the likeable characters will have unlikeable traits, and I'm ok with that. It's part of what makes them interesting, part of what amplifies their story to the realm of fiction.
But, with the Heels? I think a good Heel is much, much more difficult to write. The author must walk the line between "I hate you, but I can't stop reading about you!" and "I hate you, and I never want to see you again!"
So while the Face (the wrestling term for the hero character) must be safe but not boring, the Heel must be despicable but also delightful, and I think that's harder to pull off.
For instance: I watched St. Elmo's Fire last night. What a bunch of Heels, right? I love to hate Demi Moore's character, when she walks into the homeless shelter and derides the menu options. And Emilio Estevez?! He basically stalks Andie MacDowell, and makes some really dumb shit decisions, and I love to mock him the whole way through. (By the way, her character name, Dale Biberman [pronounced Bee-ber-men], is possibly the most fun character name to say out loud, ever.) This movie does not succeed in uncovering my inner-twenty-something turmoil, teaching me something about my heart and growing up. It, instead, provides a cautionary tale of a bunch of jackasses who I pray I was never like, when I was that age, and who I delight to make fun of now.
So, anyway, I'm beginning to ramble. And I'm curious about you -- do you like Faces or Heels? Or both, like me?
