are writers biased?

[cacian]

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.

[hannah_arendt]

I have to admit that I like some of my characters whereas other I don`t. I would be curious what character will be more popular among readers although for now I don`t have this problem

[Lokasenna]

Surely liking a character (or not) is a laregly subjective response on the part of the reader? Taken Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye, for instance. For some people he is an iconic hero with whom they strongly identify - personally, I couldn't stand the irritating little twerp, even when I was an angsty teenager.

Nor does a character being evil stop them being likable. Shakespeare's King Richard III is magnificent because he is evil. You find yourself admiring his sheer wonderful criminal gumption - terribly, unredeemably evil, but so good with it. Does that make me a crazed homicidal maniac because I identify with him? Of course not.

Oh, and for the record: 'platonic' books, as you define, sound hideously boring.

[hannah_arendt]

I think that we generally prefer baddies. villains.

[Volya]

I don't usually prefer villains, but I almost always prefer an anti-hero to a hero.

Also, how can I enjoy reading a book if it does not evoke any feeling?

[hannah_arendt]

I don't usually prefer villains, but I almost always prefer an anti-hero to a hero.

Also, how can I enjoy reading a book if it does not evoke any feeling?

Agreed. Literature cannot be logic, without emotions.

[cacian]

I don't usually prefer villains, but I almost always prefer an anti-hero to a hero.

what if the villain turns out to be the goody at the end of a story? would that change your perspective of villainy?

Also, how can I enjoy reading a book if it does not evoke any feeling?

I think it depends on what feelings one is trying to induct. I am happy with no feelings whatsoever just a smile at the end or throughout or even intellectual engagement of the mind does the trick. I like a book that tells me things I did not know a book that makes me instead make me feel emotions. A level headed book is more engaging to me.
why do you need an evoke of feelings?

[cacian]

Agreed. Literature cannot be logic, without emotions.

Maths is logic and yet it has no feelings. Emotions are usually personality linked to me anyway.

[Delta40]

Maths is logic and yet it has no feelings. Emotions are usually personality linked to me anyway.

Oh for good math and evil math....algebra takes arithmetic apart fraction by fraction? (somebody hit me please)

[cacian]

Oh for good math and evil math....algebra takes arithmetic apart fraction by fraction? (somebody hit me please)

LOL I guess maths is maths good and bad does not enter into it. I like maths for that it takes no prisoners.

[Indomitable]

All writers like and dislike their characters to various degrees. Thankfully, the author's intentions are irrelevant when interpreting or analyzing a work of literature.

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.

You shouldn't attempt to find the author's intent/meaning when reading literature. It rarely leads anywhere productive.

[cacian]

All writers like and dislike their characters to various degrees. Thankfully, the author's intentions are irrelevant when interpreting or analyzing a work of literature.

I fear I have no such feeligns towards none of my characters. I naturally feel that no matter who or what one character is about first and foremost it is a word or a combination of words rather then a feeling I am dealing with. A character is nothing more then a after a set of words against which I conduct a story.

You shouldn't attempt to find the author's intent/meaning when reading literature. It rarely leads anywhere productive.

easily said then done. I cannot help it

[papillondemai]

do you as a writer ensure that particular characters are written to be liked and others aren't to be? .....
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.

The writer shouldn't concern himself with any of this. Any story should be like life. There will be people you like and people you don't. The writer should just tell the story through the prism of his unique creative vision and try not to get carried away saying pompous nonsense like "prism of his unique creative vision..."