Not really, which is why I didn’t watch more than a few episodes of Seinfeld.
I need someone I can like or have a chance at redemption. I read a lot of history, in particular race stuff. If I wanted something depressing as hell with no justice then I’ll read my books if I’m doing something on my own time then I’d rather have Spongebob or Cinderella Man.
I don’t need the characters to be “good people” or have consciences. I do need the storyteller to have one.
That doesn’t mean I need good people and deeds to be rewarded and bad people to be punished, but I need to get some sense that when a character does something evil the author is aware that an evil thing was done, even if the character isn’t. I’ve stopped watching tv shows and reading books where it seemed to me that the creator/author was amoral.
Also, I’m not going to be bored by characters I don’t like. If they’re not going to be “good,” they really ought to be compelling (they should be compelling if they are good, too - but it’s more essential if they’re bad characters).
Generally no. When I start thinking that the best end of the story would be for an asteroid to kill everyone because the entire society consists of nothing but monsters and victims then I lose interest. When both sides are evil, when a story is about the bad guys winning what’s the point? If I want that I can read history or the news.
What, no mention of The Talented Mr. Ripley? A very enjoyable book without even a hint of redeeming character.
This was my first thought. We have a protagonist, but he’s hardly a good guy.
I frequently don’t root for the “good guys” anyway, so I definitely can enjoy a story without clearly defined “good” and “bad” characters.
I need characters who are interesting, not who adhere to some particular moral code. As has already been noted, being a good guy and being likable are two different things. In the original Dune saga, there aren’t any good guys at all among the major players. The Atreides are, though, generally more likable than the Harkonnens. This is why people who really didn’t pay attention as they were reading tend to think of the Atreides as the good guys.
The Godfather, as written by Puzo, doesn’t have any good guys either. Don Corleone has gravitas, to be sure, and the Corleones are generally depicted as more likable than their opponents. In the end though, we are still left with one group of murderous, dishonest scumbags competing with several other groups of murderous, dishonest scumbags for the proceeds of prostitution, illegal gambling, drug sales, and other criminal enterprises.
In the end, I don’t even require likability from the characters in order to enjoy a story. There are any number of spaghetti westerns I’ve enjoyed that had no good guys, as such, and where none of the characters were even particularly likable IMO.
I said to my mother, after we’d watched Chicago for her first time, that it was really kind of a perverse story…there IS no real hero. The protagonist is an unrepentant murderess, as is the co-starring role. Their lawyer is just slimy. Even the authorities (Mama Morton, for instance) are venal. The only roles approaching “good guy” status, but far from hero, are Amos and the Hunyak. Amos disappears less than halfway into the movie, and the Hunyak gets the drop. There is NOBODY who’s actually truly sympathetic in the whole show/movie.
I didn’t find anyone in the Sopranos to be particularly likable. They all could have been whacked at the end and it would not have bothered me. Yet I watched soooo many episodes.
Good example. Not only were none of the main characters likable, I can’t think of any that could be legitimately described as good either. I watched the first 3 seasons or so of that show with great interest. My eventually giving up on the show had nothing to do with it not having any good guys.
No, I don’t need a good guy, I don’t need a sympathetic character, I don’t need someone to root for. The best literature is ambiguous, just like people.
And The Sopranos is a perfect example. I would be happy to see all the characters fail and fail hard, but I still enjoyed it immensely.
I’ve noticed that some people tend to be a lot more flexible about TV shows with non-sympathetic characters than they are with movies. I know fans of Breaking Bad and Mad Men (shows with main characters who are jerks at best and absolute monsters at worst) who are adamant about preferring movies with likeable characters. I wonder why that is. Is it just a matter of getting used to their awfulness?
Agree completely, and would even go a step further: if a story has Good Guys (or Bad Guys, or both), I generally don’t find it as interesting. Especially if the author is shoving it down my throat how Good or Bad someone is. Because human beings are both. (See: all reality tv/documentaries/non-fiction.)
Taking The Sopranos as an example, it amazes me still that I both loved AND hated every damn character on that show; and, after a certain event in seasons 5, that I could lose all sympathy for these people and their lives, yet still be enjoyably absorbed.
LaBute’s Your Friends & Neighbors and Franzen’s The Corrections are similar examples in film and literature. Not sure how these ideas apply to animated or non-human characters though…
There are no good guys in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and I quite like it anyway.
I wish to underline the distinction between “good guys” and “characters you can root for”. Granted, given my personal outlook, the people I’m inclined to root for are usually the good guys. However, a sufficiently compelling, personable bad guy can fill that role under some circumstances. It helps if said bad guy is not acting in opposition to any real “good guys”, and even more if there simply aren’t any good guys in play.
For an example, I offer Steven Brust’s Taltos novels. Vlad Taltos is not a good guy. He is, in fact, a thug, an extortionist, and a murderer, many times over. On the other hand, he’s a near-constant underdog who’s loyal to his friends, and most of the people he tangles with are at least as bad as he is. The story is also in first person, with Vlad sharing his thoughts and point of view freely. It’s surprisingly easy to forget many, if not all, of the nasty things he’s done and find yourself rooting for him when he gets in over his head.
But if the author is shoving it down your throat how Good or Bad someone is, the problem is that the character is artificial, or the story is contrived, or the author is failing to show-don’t-tell what the character is like, which is a separate issue from how good or bad a person that character is.
I’m trying to think of a book or movie that had no “good guys” AND that had no characters that I found likeable or sympathetic, but I’m drawing a blank. Seinfeld, The Sopranos and Unforgiven all had likeable (to me) characters. Pennies From Heaven is closer in terms of unlikeability, but I had sympathy for the characters.
The book I thought of was Vanity Fair: the good guys weren’t especially likeable (as the author frequently points out!) and the likeable characters weren’t good guys.
I came in to mention Mad Men, but I see it’s already been taken.
I think the best stories are the ones that present a spectrum of good to bad, not a stark dichotomy. Consider Reservoir Dogs: Tim Roth’s character is the only one who might qualify as a “good guy” in absolute terms. Yet Harvey Keitel’s character, while clearly a criminal and murderer, stands head and shoulders as more of a good guy than the rest of the bad guys. And Michael Madsen is as far down the evil side of the continuum as you can get. Everyone else falls somewhere in between on the scale.
It’s sort of like positively and negatively charged ions: it’s not your absolute charge that matters, but how you compare to the ion standing next to you.
I just the other day finished Richard Yates’ Revolutionary Road which has absolutely no likeable characters or traditional good guys. All the main characters were self-absorbed shallow jerks, but the journey the story took them on was what was so compelling. On the other hand, I tried to reread Mists of Avalon, another book populated with self-absorbed jerks and I couldn’t get through it because it was just too shrill. Mainly, I got tired of being beaten over the head with Marion Zimmer Bradley’s all-important Message.
For me, it’s not so much the characters as the story itself. If the story is good, if the plotting and pacing keep me turning pages, I don’t really care how likeable the protagonists are. If all they are is a mouthpiece for a cause then that book gets bounced off my shelf.
I just watched Vertigo for the first time in my life the other night and really came away from it disliking it. I think it was because I hated the main character, Scottie.
He was a jerk to Midge, he gets infatuated with a woman based solely on her looks, he practically forces himself on her even though she’s married to an old friend. Then after her supposed death he finds a girl that looks like her and bullies her into looking like the dead wife he was infatuated with, and when he finds out it’s the same woman practically shoves her up a tower demeaning her the whole time till she freaks out and falls to her death.