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

[shadowkat]

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".

Comments

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

It is a difficult question because I'm not always that keen on the 'star' of a show, or the protagonist in a book... I mean, I may not like them but I might still find the character interesting or compelling in some way.
Or there might be minor characters I love more, but even if I love LOVE them doesn't mean they are 'nice' characters (I adore Spike, but I wouldn't want to live with him... or have him around a lot...).
I wouldn't want 'Dexter' in my life either (I feel so sorry for Deb, when she learns the truth).

But I do need the character to be interesting and compelling for me to watch the show and/or keep reading the book....
I had to give up on 'Sex and the City' because I really disliked ALL of those selfish superficial annoying women (they had been okay for a 1/2 hour comedy I only saw rarely, but when the show was rerun in syndication with three shows back to back I quickly found that I hated having to listen to their voices, much less what they were saying....

So I guess I'm saying that there are characters I like (I could even see wanting to live with) and there are characters I really enjoy even though they are not likable (or would make my life miserable if I tried to live with them)...

the ones I hate are the ones who are boring, superficial, uninteresting, and/or poorly acted (at least I'm not finding anything that connects to me in their performance).

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

It depends. But I think that if your writing is good, you can get away with more unlikeable characters than if your writing is only average or actually bad. For example- Game of Thrones. Pretty much everyone in those books is morally grey, with maybe one or two exceptions. They're all kind of terrible people. But the writing is good enough that nearly all of them are still compelling. Even the villains are usually the kind of villains you love to hate-- Joffrey and, say, the Bastard of Bolton are both pretty straight-up evil, but they still feel like real people even when I want to reach through the book and strangle them. And if they weren't so upsetting, it wouldn't be as satisfying when karma finally caught up to them.

On the other hand, I've read stories where I just don't like the main character, and it's ruined the story for me. The biggest culprit of this was the Dresden Files. I just really, really don't like Harry, and we're stuck in his POV for the books. Part of my dislike is his unconscious sexism, but a bigger part of it is the one thing I cannot stand in characters: stupidity. Especially repeated stupidity.

I can get behind even an unlikeable or annoying character if they act sensibly, but if they keep making stupid decisions I get very frustrated and usually throw the book down. Harry spent something like 8 books continually charging into increasing danger with no plan, being forced to blast his way out with brute strength, and being horribly injured in the process. And then the very next time a problem came up... he did the exact same thing over again. He finally started to come up with decent plans and, you know, call for backup, but by then it was like book 9 and I was pretty much done with the series.

To answer the last section of the topic, though... I don't think it's right to decide that liking a character is right or wrong, but I understand why people do it. We like people who think like us, and liking the same characters or aspects of a show provides a shared connection. It's a lot harder for people to think outside their own standards and consider why someone else might like a character they hate.

[rahirah]

I can find a character I dislike interesting, or worthy of pity or sympathy on an abstract level, but I find it difficult to care on a visceral level what happens to them.

I sometimes feel that all the arguments about authorial intent and whether it's relevant or whether it's wrongheaded to even try to figure it out are missing the point when it comes to serial fiction. With serial fiction, many people are not trying to analyze where the story has been so much as trying to predict where the story will go - and correctly interpreting authorial intent is vital in doing so. I mean, I can interpret S5 of BtVS as a story of growing connection and trust and even love between Buffy and Spike if I want to, but if I try to use that interpretation as a predictor of what S6 will be like... well, I will have quite a lot of Jossed fanfic on my hands.

[agnes-bean.livejournal.com]

I sometimes feel that all the arguments about authorial intent and whether it's relevant or whether it's wrongheaded to even try to figure it out are missing the point when it comes to serial fiction.

I think this is a very good point. "The author is dead" isn't a very useful concept when you're trying to extrapolate where a book or TV series realistically might go next (as opposed to where YOU would like to see it go). Because, well, the author is NOT dead, and even if you disagree with their interpretation of their own work they are the ones shaping the story.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

True. I'm not sure John Green or the other novelists were thinking about serial television writers or serial comic book writers when they said that.

Authorial intent is important when you are trying to a)figure out the plot of the story because the frigging writer is incoherent, b) figure out where the story is headed if it's still in progress - which actually includes GRR Martin's ASOIAF and Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden, not to mention Harry Potter, c)figure out whether certain characters cared about/loved other characters because the writer didn't make it clear and it could be interpreted multiple ways.

When a story can be interpreted a million different ways, and you've grown sick of arguing about it - and want a definitive answer on certain points.
I think determining authorial intent is crucial.

The Fault in Our Stars - has a subplot where the two main characters are obsessed with a novel that ended in a middle of a sentence. They want to know what happened next. Nothing major. Just simple things - like who took care of the pet hamster. Did the couple in the book stay together. Stuff like that. The ending didn't satisfy them. So they pester the writer to tell them. The writer refuses to and refuses to divulge his intent. They get very frustrated.

Felt the same way about Buffy actually. I wanted a few questions answered, so I read the bloody comic books. While the comics answered a few questions - they didn't do it in a satisfying manner or a manner that made logical sense or fit with the story that had been told to date. So I got annoyed.
I read the writer's interviews - every single one I could get my hands on and I'm good at digging up stuff when I care badly enough to do it. Even went after actor interviews and Q&A's. All I got for my trouble is what the characters in Fault in Our Stars get - the run-around. Contradictory info.

Some day I'm going to go up to Joss Whedon. Corner him. And say look - I've got one question for you. Simple. "Did Buffy Love Spike? Does she love him?
In a romantic way? Or was she just sympathetic to his plight and loved him like Xander? I know you think you made this obvious...but it's not, or we wouldn't be debating it ad nausem. Also do you see them together as a couple without the abusive sex or not? Shit or get off the pot. Dang it. Plus when did Buffy find out he was alive? Was it how Brian Lynch wrote it in his comic? Details! I want Details! "

LOL!!! So yes, there are instances in which figuring out authorial intent wrong-headed or not is a necessary thing!

[agnes-bean.livejournal.com]

This is a question I've been thinking a lot since Girls came out, because there's been all this debate around Hanna as an unlikable character and whether or not there is sexism at play in people's negative reactions to her despite the popularity of characters like Don Draper, Walter White, etc. in cable TV watching circles.

Many of my favorite characters are very unlikable and/or un-moral in an objective sense. Spike. Jesse from Breaking Bad (who is better than Walter, but still not someone I'd actually want in my life). Gaius Baltar (BSG). Atia of the Julii from Rome. Jaime from ASOIAF. Peter from the Ender-verse. I love these characters. Endlessly.

Yet, I really do dislike Hanna, even though objectively he flaws are far more minor. I also tend to dislike lawful good characters, even though they are generally very moral.

For me, it's not about if a character is likable, it's about if they're compelling to me. Certain flaws (examples: cowardice, selfishness), for me, are almost always compelling. I like characters who display them, even to the point of villainy, perhaps because I see them as exaggerated versions of my own flaws. Other flaws -- like Hanna's, I guess, and the ones lawful good characters often have, which normally involve being too trusting or inflexible -- I just find frustrating.

So yeah, I definitely agree that making moral judgements about people's character preferences doesn't make much sense, but it's also a hard trap to resist.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yet, I really do dislike Hanna, even though objectively her flaws are far more minor. I also tend to dislike lawful good characters, even though they are generally very moral.

I have similar problems with Hanna. It's made it difficult for me to watch Girls. Actually I don't like any of the characters on that series. They all equally grate on my nerves for different reasons. I think because they are too close to people I know or have met...who I have to deal with on and off on a daily basis. Unlike Spike or Jamie or Gaius Baltar, Hanna and her friends aren't fictional to me - they are too real. And too close to people that I've known in real life - for me to put up with on tv as well. Hanna in particular bares an uncanny resemblance to an ex-friend (in both looks and mannerisms not to mention behavior). So I find that show unwatchable. LOL!
Not because it's not well-written, nor because I can't empathize with the characters...but because I find the characters too painful to watch. Hanna is like nails on a chalk-board to me.

For me, it's not about if a character is likable, it's about if they're compelling to me. Certain flaws (examples: cowardice, selfishness), for me, are almost always compelling. I like characters who display them, even to the point of villainy, perhaps because I see them as exaggerated versions of my own flaws. Other flaws -- like Hanna's, I guess, and the ones lawful good characters often have, which normally involve being too trusting or inflexible -- I just find frustrating.

Interesting. I wonder if I'm the same way. I find myself nodding along with this at any rate. For me it is not so much that the character is "likable" but if they are compelling. An example? While Gunn in Angel was a nice guy, I didn't find him compelling, but Wesley who was not nice and very dark, I did find compelling. Same with Riley and Spike. Riley wasn't compelling to me. And I found him highly irritating at different points particularly in AYW - he frustrated me.

This is true with other shows as well...often the seemingly nice or sweet characters will drive me up the wall, while other characters - darker one's may compel me. But that's not always the case.

I think for me...I have less tolerance for whiny characters (see Hannah), characters who don't take action in their lives, aren't proactive. Angel bugged the heck out of me - because he never did anything to change his life, he waited for someone else to push him - be it the PTB, Buffy, Spike,
Wes, Holtz, Darla...whomever. It frustrated me. On ASOIAF...I disliked Ned Stark and struggled to like Robb and Catelynn for the same reasons, they were so passive, so righteous, and so frustratingly stupid. While I adored
reading Tyrion, Littlefinger (creepy and evil that he is but not passive or stupid), Jamie, and Ayra.

It's characters who let themselves be victims of their fate. Who don't question things. And don't use their brains. And incessantly whine about their lot in life - that drive me bonkers. Spike on the other hand, I never saw as whiny, because he was so proactive. Even if it blew up in his face.
I liked the fact that he tried and fell on his face. His flaws...resonated on some level and fascinated. While Angel, Xander and Riley often just frustrated me.

So yeah, I definitely agree that making moral judgements about people's character preferences doesn't make much sense, but it's also a hard trap to resist.

So very true. I struggle all the time. I think to myself - how can they like that character? Are they crazy? And why can't they see how great the character I love is? Stupid people. Or I'll think...we'll they have a thing for dark nasty men...what's with that? Then I will flog myself for thinking such things. Being human is not easy.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I think everything depends on whether for you it's stories that make the characters interesting, or characters that make the story interesting. I lean toward the former.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I tried to respond and just ended up confusing myself. LOL!

I don't know, after reading both extremes and watching both extremes, I've come to the conclusion that truly good stories, the one's that stick with me,
are where the story and characters are co-dependent on each other. Both have to be interesting and drive each other at the same time.

[wildtiger7.livejournal.com]

I don't like stories that center on antiheros or unlikeable characters. It can take a lot of persuading to get me to even try these stories, and I am always surprised when I like them (see: A Clockwork Orange. Though I think that was tolerable because it was so short. I won't touch something like The Sopranos or Mad Men with a ten foot pole, and I stopped watching Deadwood and Dexter after four episodes). For me, it's not about value judgment, but the simple question: what do I find entertaining? I can totally see why people find certain shows entertaining, but in the end they are not for me.

[ms-scarletibis.livejournal.com]

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"...

It's possible I misread the questions asked, given that I have a fever and should really be asleep. And I hope I didn't ramble...

I think the general masses are more inclined to like the "bad guy" because they prove to be more interesting than the hero. The Joker. Sue Sylvester. Spike (who got to live to see many more days after his character was supposed to have been killed off). It's always the bad ass who gets the slow mo exit, usually with a giant explosion behind them. No, I don't think it's wrong to feel that way, and yes, one can understand the character from a moral perspective. And if one can't, they can at least enjoy it for what it is--a bit of intriguing fiction :)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Sorry about you're fever, hope you feel better. No you didn't misread the question. I sort of put five-six different questions in there all at once.

And no...you didn't ramble.

Not sure Spike qualifies as a complete bad guy. As Jane Espenson, one of the writers even stated, Spike went from being a bad guy to a hero/good guy over the course of six seasons (he wasn't in S1). Sue Sylvester similarly isn't really a bad guy. At least not on the same scale as the Joker, Angelus, The Mayor, Warren, etc.

Also while people do tend to find the villain or bad guy to be more interesting than the hero - see Spike S2 or Loki in the Avengers, it depends on how they are written or the story. Few characters can rise above a poorly written tale. I think this is true of heroes too.
It's been said that a hero is only as good as the villain or bad guy they are up against. If the bad guy isn't interesting or stupid, the heroes tale is rather dull. Compare S1 Buffy to S2 Buffy...the biggest difference is the villains.

I'm not sure it's likability so much as the story surrounding the character or how well that character is written - which makes the difference.