Heroes don't have to
be paragons. They can even be villains, but can they be arrogant,
egotistical and thoroughly unlikable? My belief is: “No.” I
recently reviewed a books with a hero most reviewers disliked. I gave
it a low rating, and I wasn't alone.
The Other Story
by Tatiana de Rosnay sounded like a book I'd love to read. A young
writer Nicholas Duhamel has written a best seller on his first foray
into publishing. If you're a writer, this book beckons. It promises a
glimpse of the creative process and how fame can affect a writer's
ability to create. It also has a mystery about how the book he's
written connects to his own life. However, Nicholas turns out to be a
thoroughly unlikable character: egotistical, self-centered and
demanding. I believe the author created him this way to show that at
the end of the book he realizes that he has been driving his friends
and lovers away and that is responsible for why he can't write.
The problem is that
you have to get to the end of the book to see this, and many reviewers
gave up in disgust before they got there. You have to be very
committed to a book to keep reading about a jerk.
So to answer the
question: Can you get away with an unlikable hero to show character
development? I would suggest that you be wary. There are always
people who like a book that others can't stand, but it you want a
large following, it's better to have a character that is attractive
in some way so that people can feel emotionally connected to the
character. This isn't new advice, but it's illuminating to see it in
action.
