Honestly, the differences between "bad characters" and "unlikeable characters" can be hard to distinguish. I also feel that there's an argument floating about that because a character is "bad" because they are "unlikeable." However, if an unlikeable character is written well, then they can be some of the best characters in the story.
So, in the end, what's the difference between a "bad character" and an "unlikeable character"? Here's how I differentiate between the two.
Bad characters adhere to one or more of the following points:
- Poorly written
- Fit perfectly in an overused trope or two (i.e. "I'm not like other people")
- Just go with the flow of the story rather than actively participating in it
- No character development
- A flat/cliched personality
- Actions or feelings don't make sense
- They don't add anything to the story
Unlikeable characters adhere to one or more of the following points:
- Well written
- Don't fit well or completely into an overused trope or two
- Actively participate in the story
- Character development (doesn't have to be for the best)
- A rounded personality and seems realistic
- Actions or feelings make sense (don't have to be for the right reasons)
- They add something to the story
These are things I look for when I'm trying to distinguish a "bad" character from an "unlikeable" character. Unlikeable characters may be the "bad guy" - i.e. the antagonist - but that doesn't necessarily mean they're a bad character. A lot of bad guys in today's pop culture - cinema, books, etc. - are actually extremely well-liked, even if they are supposed to be "unlikeable."
There's no right or wrong way of approaching this topic, but it's how I approach it.
No comments:
Post a Comment