I’ve read several book reviews lately praising the unlikable lead (which is not the same as flawed). The implication in these reviews is that the traits that make someone likeable are, in a word, dull. Mean people, selfish schemers, folks that can’t see past their own navels–these men and women are more interesting, the reasoning in these reviews goes, than those who are kind, invested in helping others, and working to do as little harm as possible.
Again, this is not the same as flawed. Flawed characters aren’t perfect. They make mistakes, misunderstand the situation, lose their cool. But they can still be likeable. They can still be characters we root for.
Current pop culture adores the unlikeable. Whether it’s the roster of sh*t heads on Succession, or the endless takedowns of other artists that seems to occur monthly in music, we seemingly can’t get enough of not very nice people.
In romance, this is less common. And, in fact, too often in the genre, the leads are so perfect that their very predictability makes them blah. But I am still seeing more unpleasantry than works for me. Heroines who take out their rage at the patriarchy on the men they claim to love. Heroes who belittle other men because they can’t get a grip on their jealousy. Leads who just aren’t very nice to others and whose change in attitude comes too little and too late to make me think they’ve really matured.
I feel different about mysteries–I will always love Gone Girl. If I know going into a book that this is a study in badly behaved people, I can dig that. But, in art where the point is not murder or mayhem, I struggle if the leads aren’t, to me, worth rooting for.
How do you feel? Do you need your leads, especially in romance, to be those you admire? Do they have to be likeable? Or do you enjoy characters whose flaws make them seem not very nice?