Not All Main Characters Are Supposed to Be Likable

[Danja]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Fandom Menace: "I hate Burnham! Why can't she be more likable?"

Perhaps that's the whole point? This woman staged a mutiny. This is Star Trek from the POV of someone who ISN'T a paragon of virtue.

The Fandom Menace squawks about how Trek is supposed to be "challenging." Yet when they ARE actually challenged, they pitch a fit! (Burnham, Jay-Den Kraag on SFA).

"If every main character has to feel relatable, you're reading for confirmation, not perspective."

 

[Tosk]

I try not to engage with topics that are simply "these other people say a thing!" because who really cares what they think?

But this feels like you're burning down all the reasons people have a problem with Burnham into being simply "unlikable", which makes it easier to criticize the criticizers.

I do personally like some unlikable characters. But I don't consider it a flaw within myself that I thoroughly dislike certain characters.

 

[Danja]

When I saw this post, she's the first person who came to mind.

I'm just rankled by the hypocrisy of it all.

 

[The Wormhole]

The complaint about likability was only in regards to the first season of Disco, and even then it applied to the entire main cast. IE, people didn't like Lorca because he was a jerk, they didn't like Stamets because he was sarcastic and so on. Those who complain about Michael Burnham have always used the "Mary Sue" line as their Go To complaint, she's too perfect, the center of the universe and the one who is always right. Which ultimately just boils down to sexism and racism, as I guarantee if Michael Burnham were a white male and everything else was the same everyone who makes those complaints about her would suddenly think male Michael Burnham was the coolest guy ever.

As for the other characters being considered unlikeable, you will note the likeability of the characters was one of the course corrections we saw in the second season. Lorca was replaced with the personable and charming Pike and Stamets mellowed out and became more laid back.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Those who complain about Michael Burnham have always used the "Mary Sue" line as their Go To complaint, she's too perfect, the center of the universe and the one who is always right. Which ultimately just boils down to sexism and racism, as I guarantee if Michael Burnham were a white male and everything else was the same everyone who makes those complaints about her would suddenly think male Michael Burnham was the coolest guy ever.

No it boils down to bad writing.

Also it's definitely possible to have main characters you're not supposed to like, but it's risky, especially in Star Trek where the crew is generally supposed to be competent and loveable.

I think an example of them inadvertently making a character unlikeable and it hurting the series, is Captain Archer in Enterprise. I'm pretty sure we were supposed to like him (and I'm sure a lot of people do), but man he drags downs scenes for me and by season 2 he seemed thoroughly tired of being a space explorer.

An example of a good unlikeable character might be Dal in Prodigy, whose redeeming quality is that he learns. The guy can be an arrogant incompetent idiot, but he can also admit that he screwed up and then try harder next time, and that makes him endearing.

 

[Ragitsu]

You are in good company, Danja; many contemporary authors and/or showrunners agree with the notion of "unlikeable protagonists".

 

[DonIago]

As a person I find Michael flawed...y'know, like a human being...but she generally seems likeable enough.

What I don't like was the way every crisis that Discovery played any part in ultimately seemed to revolve around her. But that's not the character's fault, and it has nothing to do with her gender or ethnicity.

 

[Mudd]

"Supposed to be" or not isn't worth a spit.

The TV series that have been successful with supposedly "unlikable"protagonists were those who were well-liked by the audience despite being unpleasant or unsympathetic on paper. Tony Soprano comes to mind. That trick is a tribute to the writers and performers who created such characters.

If you've got an "unlikeable protagonist" and the audience doesn't like them, well on a series you're screwed. People won't keep watching. Because they don't give a fuck what happens to someone they thoroughly dislike.

Is that a contradiction? Pity, because It's true anyway.

The problem with STD was that too many people who should have been reliably a part of the audience never liked Burnham and didn't watch.

 

[Khamsin]

I think if Burnham was a man, it would somehow make the character even more annoying.

In my opinion, there's a difference between a character being unlikable and simply annoying. The latter, when unintentional, is often a product of writing inconsistencies. Burnham seemed driven by her emotions, which felt inconsistent with her being a graduate of the Vulcan Science Academy. Given her backstory, I'd expect a highly professional, balanced, and logical character. Her actual character was hard to reconcile with that. Maybe she gets better in later seasons, haven't watched past season 3 yet.

There is a whole array of unlikable characters on television and in other media. I think my favorite example of an unlikable protagonist is Yennefer from The Witcher book series. Arrogant, abrasive, manipulative, but extremely well written. Speaking of the Star Trek universe, I'd say Bones was pretty unlikable, definitely Tom Paris, and arguably La'an at the beginning.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

To know them is to love them, I suppose. You might have a fondness for a grouch who occasionally shows their tender side, or a kinship with someone who reminds you of you, or, for that matter, a visceral dislike for someone who reminds you too much of you (exposing your character flaws and weaknesses) You might also like or dislike someone who reminds you of a family member, friend, or foe of yours.

 

[Starflight]

Only seen DSC S1 and S2 but I find it almost impossible to have an opinion about Burnham to start with, beyond that I liked her in "New Eden". Otherwise she's just sort of a cluster of vaguely-defined traits and her general mode is to react in whispered despair to everything.

Real waste of SMG; after seeing her interviewed, it's incredible how much personal charisma and vibrancy she has, and how little of that Discovery's writers and directors managed to infuse her character with. She easily had what it took to be this generation's Shatner or Stewart.

 

[Ragitsu]

Six lethal words: "I don't care about this character."

 

[fireproof78]

When I saw this post, she's the first person who came to mind.

I'm just rankled by the hypocrisy of it all.

Welcome to fandom.

Certain characters can get away with stuff that others cannot.

I've read books were I do not care about the main character. David Gerrold's STAR WOLF is one of those for me. The main character is an executive officer who is difficult to like. Do I still enjoy the story? Yup.

Things will always be to my liking, nor can I get what I want. I'm ok with that.

 

[bdub76]

It depends on why I'm reading the book or watching the show.

Imagine if Game of Thrones had only one POV: Joffrey. Would you watch it?

Recently, I have made sure to watch and read at least one thing that is uplifting and happy. If I want to be depressed, I can turn on the news.

 

[DonIago]

I dunno. Likeability is a challenging concept. Like(!), I'm not sure I found any of the characters "likeable" in Weeds, per se, but I found them interesting to watch and see their misadventures throughout the series, and I suppose I did emotionally invest in them to some degree. Sort of a funnier and lighter weight Breaking Bad, which I really don't think I would have enjoyed...did that show have any likeable characters?

 

[Mudd]

I dunno. Likeability is a challenging concept. Like(!), I'm not sure I found any of the characters "likeable" in Weeds, per se, but I found them interesting to watch and see their misadventures throughout the series, and I suppose I did emotionally invest in them to some degree. Sort of a funnier and lighter weight Breaking Bad, which I really don't think I would have enjoyed...did that show have any likeable characters?

"Likable" is a red herring. The operative question is whether viewers like them - "emotionally invest" in them. And the answer is usually "yes."

It would be hard to call Tyrion Lannister likable. But I liked him.

 

[fireproof78]

It depends on why I'm reading the book or watching the show.

Imagine if Game of Thrones had only one POV: Joffrey. Would you watch it?

Recently, I have made sure to watch and read at least one thing that is uplifting and happy. If I want to be depressed, I can turn on the news.

Star Trek is rarely to my liking. It's a feature for me now.

And I refuse to read Game of Thrones regardless of viewpoint. Talk about depressing.

"Likable" is a red herring. The operative question is whether viewers like them - "emotionally invest" in them. And the answer is usually "yes."

It would be hard to call Tyrion Lannister likable. But I liked him.

True.

 

[DonIago]

Perhaps the question is less about whether characters are likeable than whether viewers find them compelling.

 

[Ragitsu]

Reality is already rife with morally grey and/or annoying (much less despicable) folk; why would I want to follow the perspective of such a character framed as the hero? Before anyone jumps in with a dictionary: yes, I am aware that not all protagonists are heroes (and vice-versa). However, I partake in fantasy and science-fiction tales largely because I want that clearly heroic perspective.

 

[Set Harth]

did that show have any likeable characters?

uh, yes?