do you as a writer ensure that particular characters are written to be liked and others aren't to be?
I often read into characters and can see that the writer is particular about what I must like and must not and it kind spoils it. I feel all characters should perhaps be even in their particularities.
the idea of good versus evil characters does in a way tells one which to like and what not to. it teaches one to feel good about particular things and not so about others. there is also a kind of ambivalence of feelings in the way the stories are laid out a feeling of opposite forces and ie nurture versus hatred that one is exposed to or taught unconsciously.
an example: an evil character may get the straight away dismissal as not likeable which means the rest would get an automatic likable feature. it therefore becomes obvious that ''bad/evil'' evens out the likes from the none which makes bad the scapegoat of likeability.
which brings me to think this:
I personally think that a book should also be about the experience of words and their interactive meanings. I like a platonic book that does not involve duality of feelings or involve me directly with the story. I like to read for the pure sense of reading and nothing else. there are different levels of reading and one is reading for reading and the other reading for compassion. I think we have most definitely skipped the first one forsaking the second. I feel one does not always need empathy or feelings in order to enjoy a book.
P.S it would be interesting to find out which type of character is likely to appeal more the general reader.
the hero or the antihero? or is it a draw? it might well be a divided choice between the two which says a lot about the way we read.
