I came across this piece some weeks ago by Annie Cardi, weighing in on likeability. The whole piece is worth a read, but for the time constrained, I'll sum it up. Cardi believes readers miss out on meaningful experiences in literature when they gravitate only towards "likeable" or "relatable" characters. As in politics, if readers encounter a character--particularly a protagonist--they wouldn't want to have a beer with, they'll dismiss the work. So, she urges readers to look instead for characters that seem human, who express important facets of the human condition or challenge our worldview. Remove "likeable" and "relatable" from your review vocabulary, she suggests.
Cardi, I think, is mostly right. "Likeable" means too much to too many people; it puts too much stock on individual taste. And anyone can point out the heap of stories that have been told by, and about, terrible assholes: your Patrick Batemans (American Pyscho), your Alexes (A Clockwork Orange).
Or this fella, from one of my very favorite films, which I won't talk about further here lest this post run about 10,000 words:
Or this fella, from one of my very favorite films, which I won't talk about further here lest this post run about 10,000 words:
 |
| Seriously, I could go on and on about how much I love this damn crazy movie. |
I see Cardi's point regarding "relatable"; it too is a relative term, relying on individual taste. Still, I don't think we should dismiss relatability so quickly. Or at the very least, consider that relatability tends to factor in what we can find human.
