Post History
A thoroughly despicable character with no redeemable qualities can be absolutely likeable. Avoid conflating the notion of likeable with any form of goodness. Plenty of irredeemably monstrous char...
Answer
#3: Attribution notice added
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/36412 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
A thoroughly despicable character with no redeemable qualities can be **absolutely** likeable. Avoid conflating the notion of _like_able with any form of _good_ness. Plenty of irredeemably monstrous characters are relatable in one way or another. We can potentially become fascinated with, and by extension, like, any character trait that resonates with us. Particularly if: - the traits result in actions which, if not necessarily predictable, make some sort of cohesive sense _in the context of the character_. - those traits are combined to create a novel personality that makes us feel something differently, or more strongly than usual - including loathing, disgust, and, especially, fear. Consider [Anton Chigurh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chigurh), the assassin from _No Country for Old Men_. He kills coldly and brutally, and we are offered no real hints about his "backstory" that might provide insight into his chosen profession, methods, or indifference to death and suffering. Yet he is a popular villain. This owes in part to the slow reveal, over the course of the story, of his attitude and moral code. The reader is permitted to build a sufficient (if not complete) picture of his nature, and by the end of the story we _get_ him. He believes that he acts as an instrument of fate; going so far, from time to time, as allowing a coin flip to dictate whether or not he takes a life. Despite this, the reader is likely to feel that Chigurh is _less_ random a killer than [others](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(character)), that we have a strong sense of how he might behave in a particular situation. It is clear that his philosophy is the result of substantial thought and consideration, even if its internal logic is alien to us. On the contrary, a villain who lacks both novelty and complexity isn't much of a character at all - rather they represent a hurdle to be overcome (or succumbed to) by the protagonists, the way a natural disaster might. And like a natural disaster, if a villain is truly banal, the details might be best omitted, so that the unimportant parts of the story do not compete for the reader's attention.