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

[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!