Main character that makes you hate an otherwise good novel?

[LeStat]

Originally Posted by Esmenet

I never had a problem with Khellus. I think because I read a lot about the series before I started it, I knew that he was the "all-knowing" character. It added to the series more than taking away. I love all the other characters so much that it sort of cancelled out. I actually like Khellus. I think the idea of having a character that knows everything is unique in a way.

As for Thomas Covenant, I love him. I don't like some of the things he does, but I do understand his reasons for doing it. You have to look at the life that he has. It doesn't leave much room for rejoicing. He can't help being a cynical bastard, because he doesn't want to trust something that seems good because everything good in his life has been taken away. Whining goes right along with that package. I find his thoughts and actions intruiging, and I don't mind reading about his suffering, it makes things in my life seem less horrible. :P

I have more of a problem with fake/flat characters. Most of Eddings' characters fit this profile. Not to mention the fact that he wrote another series with the same characters only different names. I can't get through a series with characters that are too generic, or don't have realistic enough reactions to things that happen.

Yes, even Caine had a pussy period when he became crippled!

[Zhauric]

Originally Posted by Toma

Rhapsody from Elizabeth Haydon's Rhapsody books. They weren't great or anything, but they were entertaining enough. Sadly, Rhapsody herself ruined them for me.

B][/I]

*laughs* I forgot about little Miss Perfect. This has to be one of the most annoying female characters I ever had to read. She can do no wrong...at all. It was flawless this...flawless that. I won't even bring up how she was umm...remade at a certain point.

[tbrookside]

I found that I really couldn't stand either Lyra OR Will in the His Dark Materials novels.

I found the world[s] and environments compelling, and was immensely entertained by Pullman's dark wit, and so I was able to enjoy the trilogy anyway. But I almost hated it. I can't understand why Lyra in particular doesn't catch a slap in the face from just about every other character she meets.

And I don't know if this counts, but I found that I enjoyed The Stand a lot less after seeing the made for TV version, because Molly Ringwald's portrayal of Fran was so annoying that it retroactively made me find the character equally annoying.

[Yobmod]

Eddings had loads of them: Ce'Nedra, Sephrenia, Flute, Errand, the list just went on and on. If they weren't so perfect to be annoying, they were just completely useless and you wondered why they were included in the first place.

The problem with Edding's is that very often the reason they were included really was obivous: To balance numbers between the evil and good halves of a battle. Although i have a soft spot for Belgariad characters, in later books it seemed that not only the character's existance, but also their powers and personalities were detirmined by some wierd formula, and no characterisation beyond "good magic user, opposes bad magic user" or "good knight, opposes evil warrior" was given.

[Esmenet]

Originally Posted by Yobmod

The problem with Edding's is that very often the reason they were included really was obivous: To balance numbers between the evil and good halves of a battle. Although i have a soft spot for Belgariad characters, in later books it seemed that not only the character's existance, but also their powers and personalities were detirmined by some wierd formula, and no characterisation beyond "good magic user, opposes bad magic user" or "good knight, opposes evil warrior" was given.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Eddings certainly has a formula, and he rarely strays from it. I have a soft spot for him as well but Ce'Nedra almost made me stop reading the series.

[Radone]

Is Kelhus an actual character? He seems like an empty vessel that can willfully supply whatever the audience requires. Is there a core to him beyond a desire for domination? He has all the emotions available to display, but does he actually feel them? For the life of me, I can't really describe or even imagine what he is fundamentally. I wonder if he even knows himself.

[Jop]

I'm surprised this character hasn't been mentioned, but towards the latter part of the series, I found Richard Rahl's pontificating begin to really annoy me - so much so that I stopped reading the Sword of Truth series...Although, that could be more due to Terry Goodkind rather than any of his specific characters...

[algernoninc]

Originally Posted by Jop

I'm surprised this character hasn't been mentioned, but towards the latter part of the series, I found Richard Rahl's pontificating begin to really annoy me - so much so that I stopped reading the Sword of Truth series...Although, that could be more due to Terry Goodkind rather than any of his specific characters...

it's probably not mentioned because the title of the thread mentions a bad character in an otherwise good novel. I think "the good novel" part is the reason we passed over Rahl.

[Jop]

Originally Posted by algernoninc

it's probably not mentioned because the title of the thread mentions a bad character in an otherwise good novel. I think "the good novel" part is the reason we passed over Rahl.

Good point. The series started out strong (for the first couple of books) but then...

[Julian]

Originally Posted by Winter

These ring a few bells:

- Thomas Covenant does not bother me because he is a bastard who does some nasty things, he bothers me because of all of his whining and yes, I hate him for this. I quit reading Lord Foul's Bane three-quarters of the way through. I do not like travelogues as it is, I especially don't like them when the person traveling never quits whining between mood swings.

(...)

-The two oldest children from Acacia come to mind, though I cannot remember their names.

I liked (and like) Thomas Covenant. He's a mean-spirited bastard, who has everything going against him, and he's one of the genre's few great heroes. I can't quite imagine how one might like the series, whilst disliking Covenant; the two are one, I would think.

I also like all the kids from Acacia (as characters, but not necessarily as people)*. The beginning of the second book, The Other Lands, gives some more background; perhaps that might help?


_______________________

* The two oldest are Aliver and Corinn, I believe. The two younger are Mena and Dariel.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Julian

I liked (and like) Thomas Covenant. He's a mean-spirited bastard, who has everything going against him, and he's one of the genre's few great heroes. I can't quite imagine how one might like the series, whilst disliking Covenant; the two are one, I would think.

I also like all the kids from Acacia (as characters, but not necessarily as people)*. The beginning of the second book, The Other Lands, gives some more background; perhaps that might help?


_______________________

* The two oldest are Aliver and Corinn, I believe. The two younger are Mena and Dariel.

Got to spoiler this, for Acacia:

I did not like Aliver or Corinn for reasons that involved their decisions and how they were written. Corinn's sudden turn to murder, then rise as ruler came out of nowhere and I couldn't for the life of me find it at all believable. She's really not so bad though, it is Aliver that gets me. This kid, when we first meet him, is not all that good with the sword, in fact the people below him are better. He is then sent to live with the tribes for however long, the duration of which it can be reasonably assume he has no access at all to a sword and uses only a spear for fighting and hunting, and occasionally a knife. Okay, well, that makes sense. Then we get to the latter part of the book, where he is finally given a sword after all of these years... and is described as being quite good with it. For someone who was never all that good with the sword to begin with to take a very long break from using one to use an entirely different sort of weapon, only to pick it up again, I would think his ability would be rather poor. Guess not. Couldn't force myself to believe that in the slightest. Then it only gets worse. He chooses to get in a ritual knife fight with a person who has trained in the style all of his life. I cannot wrap my head around the sort of logic that would allow him to ever think he could win. I can only assume it was the logic borne of a complete idiot. The bit with Corinn, not so bad. The bit with Aliver, even if I was not all that enamored by the novel, pretty much turned the end to a shambled ruin.

**Disclaimer** Everything in this post is opinion, duh.

---

Last edited by Winter; November 5th, 2009 at 07:41 PM.

[Raule]

There is a variation of the Mary Sue type I like to call Mary Shrew. Exhibit A: Rachel from Sharon Shinn's Archangel. Decent story, shrewish (or go ahead and sub the b word here) heroine. After a while, I found myself wishing Gabriel would just let her plummet to her death.

[Esmenet]

Originally Posted by Radone

Is Kelhus an actual character? He seems like an empty vessel that can willfully supply whatever the audience requires. Is there a core to him beyond a desire for domination? He has all the emotions available to display, but does he actually feel them? For the life of me, I can't really describe or even imagine what he is fundamentally. I wonder if he even knows himself.

I think that was Bakker's point. He is the "perfect" human prototype, with the ability to think and feel and manipulate. He was conditioned for it. I think some part of him feels certain emotions, like uncertainty, and confusion (especially in TDTCB) because he isn't sure where his father is, or what his father wants of him. And you mentioned his most obvious emotion: desire. He desires domination above anything else, which puts down at the lowly level with the rest of us humans. He has a complication. He desire overrides anything else. Has it gotten him into trouble? Not really. But it is still an intersting sidenote. As for knowing what he is, I think he has a good clue of what he was trained to be, but he could never know what he would have been had he been born somewhere else. But isn't that the same with all of us? What we could have been vs. what we are/pretend to be?

[NickeeCoco]

Originally Posted by tbrookside

I found that I really couldn't stand either Lyra OR Will in the His Dark Materials novels.

I found the world[s] and environments compelling, and was immensely entertained by Pullman's dark wit, and so I was able to enjoy the trilogy anyway. But I almost hated it. I can't understand why Lyra in particular doesn't catch a slap in the face from just about every other character she meets.

That's why I liked Lyra. She had balls.