This is something I've been thinking about recently especially as I'm starting a new historical novel and nearly finished my previous fantasy one based on Waterhouse's "The Tempest" painting. I have written many, many characters over the years and all seem to have at least one thread going through them; they're all morally upright. I used to think this was because I also have very strong morals which I blame entirely on Japanese anime and subsequently South Korean dramas (if you don't know what I mean just go and watch one of them and you'll see all protagonists are near saintly), but more recently I began to think that it's just the nature of the beast. Your protagonist pushes your story forward and they're the ones that keep your reader abreast of the tale but if they're unlikeable then the reader won't continue. Are heroes/heroines dislikeable if they have no morals? Is having no morals the same as being a "bad" character/person? I am now going to delve into this topic based on sources of books I've read, which doesn't really seem that much but there's a reason. I am now solely into historical mystery/crime and the characters don't really push the story forward so much as the plot's twists and turns do.
The first example that came to mind when I was brainstorming this post was Game of Thrones. With such a vast array of characters it's hard to exclude these pieces of work from any literary discussion. I have read all five of the installments of a Song of Ice and Fire and at the time when the Tv series had just started I was obsessed. What typically happens with an obsession? It dies down and now I'm sick of hearing and looking at them, to the extent I stopped watching the TV series and don't know if I'm going to continue reading. What I don't understand now that I've had time to look objectively is why they're so popular. They're so so depressing! I am a girl who likes happy endings, I like when I have hope during a story that things are going to get better, that good things as well as bad are going to happen to any character. With Martin's works it was always the bad thing that was going to happen to each and every character he wrote about, this happened to the extent where a bit of the stories actually became predictable for me; think of the thing you don't want to happen to Arya, it happens. Towards book 4 and 5 I was beginning to question the point in reading them, nothing was ever going right, and that is exactly the biggest flaw with this series. It's too pessimistic and cynical to be convincing. I know that everyone praises the humanity of the characters, and I will give Martin that, they are quite complex to a certain extent, but his story is just too doom and gloom to have that authentic, real feel to them. Yes, I know it's fantasy, but I like my fantasy to be believable, a mirror of some sort of the real world. Bad things do not incessantly happen to normal people, life is balanced, of which there is none in here.
There are others who follow this same line, Jon Snow wants to do the right thing and is honourable, Danerys Targaryen is reaching for sainthood and even Jaime Lannister starts to become an honourable character when his POV is introduced. Aren't there clear cut lines here between who's a 'good' character and who's a 'bad' one? Delving deeper, Tyrion kills his father, but his father is Tywin Lannister, another 'bad' character. Readers feel less inclined to hate him because of who is father was, some would even say he deserved it. Unfortunately Jon Snow, Danaerys and Jaime have no such moral blunders the entire way through the books and all seem to do the right thing all of the time.
I give an honourable mention to Joffrey Baratheon/Lannister for being a typical, and unrealistic, villain. Martin didn't even try to put some humanity in that boy, and guess what, everyone hated Joffrey.
Moving onto more familiar and less complex ground. Mistresses are looked down upon by women today, being the 'other woman' is something to be ashamed of. There have been recent assaults of mistresses in China by the spouses of the cheating husbands, it has always been a position of scorn and judgment. Novel readers, especially historical (romantic) fiction is predominately women, which means you have to aim at your reader. One of the most popular books of the 20th Century was about a mistress! I've mentioned this novel before, Anya Seton's "Katherine" was published in 1954 and has maintained popularity ever since (which is why they should make it into a TV series) and is about John of Gaunt's long-time mistress and eventual third wife, Katherine de Roet-Swynford. Click here to read my History Sunday segment about John of Gaunt and Katherine. Why is a novel about a mistress so popular?
When I read Katherine I found the heroine morally upright, religiously so, because she was pious. She had a conscience and was somewhat reluctant, for evident reasons, to become his mistress at first. Throughout the novel she continues to display kindness, compassion and every trait that most people want for themselves. Is this what makes her so likeable, or is it the historical setting which takes the heat away from the mistress position?
In Anne O'Brien's novel about Katherine she was also pious and a little reluctant to become Gaunt's mistress but the reasons were purely selfish this time. I never finished this novel but I never truly hated this version of Katherine (I didn't really like her much but it wasn't because she lacked morals).
Another maligned mistress, Alice Perrers, has been the focus of some newer novels, only one of which I tried to read. In Seton's novel she's portrayed as the shunned mistress of the king, a foreboding warning to the young katherine what's at stake when a woman gives up her reputation for a man, in Harper's novel about Joan of Kent she's horrible and ugly if I remember correctly and everyone hates her. Finally, in O'brien's novel about her she's sort of bland but still seems to have a conscience, a far way away from how she's portrayed in every novel that isn't about her. In the novels with her as a secondary character she's selfish, greedy, everything history reports her to be, whilst in novels about her she has some semblance of a conscience. Coincidence?
Finally I'll move onto a character from the world of TV. Dexter is a brilliant show and I honestly can't pin down the reason. The protagonist is a serial killer and he gets away with it! But most people who watch the show love Dexter because to a degree he is as cute as a button.
It's a bit of a steep decision to make, though, for a writer, and a dangerous one. I personally always try and avoid my characters killing anyone because I think it may make them seem a little less sympathetic. Can a person truly be a killer and a 'good' person. Going along those same lines, Taryn Connagh in my novel "Poison Most Royal" is a hitwoman/assassin. I didn't think twice about her occupation because I've always wanted to write about a woman who kills people for a living, but Taryn has her reasons for doing so and questions her own morality throughout the novel. I don't know if Taryn is likeable, it's hard to gain some perspective
Returning to the question of this post. Can a protagonist ever be morally corrupt? Even Dexter has a set of rules he sticks to. It is almost impossible for anyone to answer this question because no one in the world has read all the books in existence. Making characters moral does increase the likelihood that the reader will like them, but simultaneously if you write a bad character they'll be immediately disliked anyway. I've never read a book where the main characters don't have good morals and don't make good decisions. I dislike reading posts and blogs about "how to write a good character" or "how to write ....... well". There is no one set guide to writing! If that were the case then every book published and written would be nothing more than a creative journal article. There is a difference between science and art, there always has been. Writing these guides on how to write is going against the very fabric of creative writing; the clue is in the title, creative! There is no one way to write a novel, novella, short story, poem, or any of these things; it's not statistics, believe me, I know. Scientific researchers, like myself, have guides to writing journal articles and reports, most, if not all, of our research write ups have to follow the same structure, but that's science, we like things that have a format. Art isn't supposed to be like that.
I also love the deviation from statistics reports because at least with this research question I don't have to answer it. There is no answer to my question. Do characters have to be morally upstanding? Personally I think they have to have some semblance of good sense, but above all they should, if possible, make good decisions. There are books and novels where the main character makes a bad decision and it haunts them for the rest of their lives. Characters aren't real people, they shouldn't have to conform to an exact human nature. That being said they shouldn't be unbelievable as human beings. Characters can reflect the best of human natures and the worst, but they shouldn't be saintly or villainous. It's easy to make a character a saint that does no wrong and also, say, to make a villain with no good bone in their body, but neither are realistic. If they do something bad they should have a reason for it, if they're morally upstanding there has to be a foundation for that behaviour. Reason is what makes a character, their history, the things you don't write about, that's what makes them who they are; the nameless relatives also have a good say in that as well. I don't know if my characters are very human, no one has reviewed my novel to tell me otherwise, but the above process is what I go through every time I think of a character, every time I sit down and begin typing their reaction to a scenario or something that has happened to them.
What are your views on characters? Do you think a hero/heroine can be morally corrupt and still be liked by the readers? Who is the most human character you have ever read?
