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

[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.