Does Character Likability or Lack There Of Get in the Way of Enjoying/Appreciating a Story?

Have to go to the Porgy and Bess musical soon. Before take off for that, and get a bit of eat...stumbled upon the following juicy brain-bit courtesy of one of the people on my flist.

This is from:http://onlyifyoufinishedtfios.tumblr.com/

John Green is answering questions from his fans on the book "The Fault in Our Stars". And one of the fans asked this question about authorial intent:

Anonymous asked: I know you always say that books belong to the reader, but how much credit do you give to the author's intent? We were talking in English class a while ago about how the author wanted the reader to feel about a certain character, and whether or not that held up for us. Obviously, you had intentions when writing, but were your intentions to make us feel a certain way, or are feelings for the reader to decide?

John Green's response for the record is similar to the ones that James Joyce, Faulkner, Twain, and various others have given at different points:

John Green (Author of The Fault in Our Stars): I think trying to divine an author’s intent is generally pretty wrong-headed, although I guess it shouldn’t be dismissed entirely (and obviously I’m willing to answer questions about intent).

That said, it can be a way into an interesting discussion: whether you suppose I wanted you to like Margo Roth Spiegelman, for instance, is not an interesting question to me. But if you go from there to discussing whether characters in novels need to be likable for a book to be good, and whether reading experiences need to be straightforwardly fulfilling in order to be positive, and what (if anything) the point of reading and telling stories is, and whether we can be empathetic toward people we dislike, and if shared values are at the core of human connection or if it’s something altogether less noble, and whether we can reconcile ourselves to the distance between who we want ourselves and one another to be and who we turn out to be…well, that’s pretty interesting to me.

The portion in bold is the part that interests me as well. Authorial intent tends to be a bit boring to determine after a bit for the reasons Green mentions.

But how we relate to characters and how that affects our reading or watching experience fascinates me. It's why I did those Buffy Character Wars Polls and speculate on the responses. What is it that makes a character interesting in a fictional novel? Do we need them to be likable? Do we need them to validate our own values and moral perspective to be legitimate? Can we enjoy or find it interesting to read or watch an irredeemable character, who is clearly "unlikable", such as Walt in Breaking Bad? Or even say, Angelus in Buffy? Can we feel empathy towards someone we dislike? Is it more or less noble to feel empathy for a serial killer? Can we put a value judgement on such things?

Is it wrong to prefer Holtz to Wood? Or Darla to Willow? Or Spike to Faith? Can we even evaluate such preferences on a moral scale? Can we understand them from a moral perspective.

For the record I don't believe we can. I don't think you can make a moral judgement or place a moral value on how others view or enjoy a character - since you can't know their heart or mind on the matter. And I don't think you can place such a value on your own. The reasons to me seem...undefinable and various.

But I find it interesting...that people do. That I do. Wondering how someone can like Amy over say Faith or Willow. But I can see it...and I do feel empathy for Amy. In some respects as much empathy as I feel for Tara. Even though I have nothing in common with either.

I don't know. Yet..I'm struggling to like stories like Breaking Bad or Atonement...because I did not "like" the characters or found them to be "likable".

(no subject)

Returned from seeing the Broadway Revival of Porgy and Bess - which unfortunately had an understudy performing Bess. Which was disappointing. But it was still quite good. The understudy had a great voice. Porgy and Bess is the Great American Opera - a mix of blues and jazz by George and Ira Gershwin. This version has a lot of dance numbers - so as a result I enjoyed it more than the film version or most operas. People standing still and singing...tend to bore me. I prefer dance numbers.

At any rate - here's a historical note regarding Porgy and Bess.

From Playbill: In the spring of 1936, the production went on tour to Philadelphis, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Washington, DC. When the cast arrived at the National Theater in DC, they discovered the theater was segregated and only allowed white patrons. Todd Duncan refused to perform under this condition. [Duncan was a classically trained singer and Professor of Voice at Howard University - he performed the role of Porgy]. When the theater manager offered Wednesday and Saturday matinees to black patrons, Duncan would not compromise. The theater manager then offered to open the second balcony to blacks for every performance, but Duncan stood his ground, with Anne Brown and the rest of the cast at his side. In March of 1936 - thanks to the resolve of Duncan and company - the National Theater became desegrated for the first time in its history.
( brief review of Porgy and Bess )

Just finished watching 1776 on TMC. It's pretty much what this Holiday is about - on July 4th, 1776, the American Colonies declared their independence from the British Empire. Note, we didn't win the War on that date, that came later. All we did was declare our independence - which inevitably lead to the War, because the British weren't about to pull out meekly. ( musings on July 4th )

Too tired to respond to all the deep meaningful comments I've been receiving. Except to thank you for them. They are interesting. But my mind is tired and not all that coherent, yes, still. Not helped by lack of sleep...had a horrible headache last night which would not go away for at least two hours - think sinus plus tension, with a touch of migraine.

So..Give me a few days...;-)