Writing flawed characters is extremely satisfying. An antagonist in my book The Mechanical Crown was convinced she was the hero, despite doing awful things and essentially .working for the villain. Readers really latched onto her: a case of loving to hate her, but also relishing in the dramatic irony of a character who is not self-aware and cannot see their own mistakes.
In my latest book, which I'm serialising on Substack, all the characters are flawed in some capacity. They all have contradictions to a greater or lesser extent. Many of them are quite unpleasant, while also doing 'good' things.
It' not unusual to see people disliking a story because there are no 'likeable' characters, though. Not just some of your work, John - films, books, comics, anything really can have a problem with some audiences if there are no clear heroic characters. I don't think this is necessarily due to a 'misunderstanding' on the readers' part; it just suggests to me that they're not the right audience.
Your antagonist in The Mechanical Crown follows the rule I always employ for creating dynamic antagonists: Everyone is the hero of their own story, no one sees themselves as the villain.
The funny thing about the negative reactions to my characters from the small number of critical reviews is those complaints run counter to the majority opinion. Many readers love the same characters and say they are likeable and easy to root for as the story progresses. I firmly believe reading comprehension does play a role in how a reader perceives a story. One reader can see subtle themes, wordplay, and other nuances within a story and gain a greater appreciation of the narrative. Another reader can read the exact same work, miss these things entirely, and dismiss the story as trite and boring.
I think these characters sound really interesting! I like when characters and stories reflect human nature as it really exists, not as it theoretically should exist in some perfect world. A lot of readers are probably given false expectations by lazy, made-for-tv style writing, but after a while, all those characters blend into one another. Perfection would make everything identical. Our unique combination of flaws are what make us individuals, and make us interesting :-)
Writing flawed characters is extremely satisfying. An antagonist in my book The Mechanical Crown was convinced she was the hero, despite doing awful things and essentially .working for the villain. Readers really latched onto her: a case of loving to hate her, but also relishing in the dramatic irony of a character who is not self-aware and cannot see their own mistakes.
In my latest book, which I'm serialising on Substack, all the characters are flawed in some capacity. They all have contradictions to a greater or lesser extent. Many of them are quite unpleasant, while also doing 'good' things.
It' not unusual to see people disliking a story because there are no 'likeable' characters, though. Not just some of your work, John - films, books, comics, anything really can have a problem with some audiences if there are no clear heroic characters. I don't think this is necessarily due to a 'misunderstanding' on the readers' part; it just suggests to me that they're not the right audience.
Your antagonist in The Mechanical Crown follows the rule I always employ for creating dynamic antagonists: Everyone is the hero of their own story, no one sees themselves as the villain.
The funny thing about the negative reactions to my characters from the small number of critical reviews is those complaints run counter to the majority opinion. Many readers love the same characters and say they are likeable and easy to root for as the story progresses. I firmly believe reading comprehension does play a role in how a reader perceives a story. One reader can see subtle themes, wordplay, and other nuances within a story and gain a greater appreciation of the narrative. Another reader can read the exact same work, miss these things entirely, and dismiss the story as trite and boring.
I think these characters sound really interesting! I like when characters and stories reflect human nature as it really exists, not as it theoretically should exist in some perfect world. A lot of readers are probably given false expectations by lazy, made-for-tv style writing, but after a while, all those characters blend into one another. Perfection would make everything identical. Our unique combination of flaws are what make us individuals, and make us interesting :-)
You hit the nail on the head. Flawed characters are better characters. It opens the door for richer character development.