![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dear book reviewers everywhere:
A book does not require a likable main character to be good. A good book does not require any likable, or even relatable, characters.
The purpose of a book - at least in books that aspire to qualify as literary (itself a sometimes problematic concept, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish) - is to convey a message, an idea, about some aspect of the world to readers. Sometimes, a narrative that contains only unlikable characters is necessary in order to illustrate an author's theme. Reading a book where, say, all the characters are ruthless and cruel and end up winning at everything can be, should be, emotionally unsatisfying, but that doesn't mean it's a poorly written book, because maybe the author's purpose wasn't to write an emotionally satisfying story. Maybe the author wanted to say, "Hey readers, horrible people get what they want and it sucks."
Disagreeing with an author's theme or premise is a valid criticism. Believing a point would have been better made through the inclusion of sympathetic or 'likable' characters is a valid criticism. Pointing out that a character is not likable when it is clear the author intends to have said character be likable is a valid criticism.
What isn't a valid criticism: saying a book sucks because there were not any characters you felt you could 'root for.'
A great many books are written with the intent to challenge people's assumptions, to make readers reconsider the way they look at particular aspects of society or history or human interaction. When I hear someone dismiss a book on the grounds that 'nobody's likable', I often hear it as 'This book challenged my assumptions about something, and I didn't like it.' I know that is not always the case but I believe it is true for many of them.
So. Readers. Stop insisting books need likable characters. They do not.
Sincerely,
terabient (who is beginning to question putting![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
bookfails on her f-list)
A book does not require a likable main character to be good. A good book does not require any likable, or even relatable, characters.
The purpose of a book - at least in books that aspire to qualify as literary (itself a sometimes problematic concept, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish) - is to convey a message, an idea, about some aspect of the world to readers. Sometimes, a narrative that contains only unlikable characters is necessary in order to illustrate an author's theme. Reading a book where, say, all the characters are ruthless and cruel and end up winning at everything can be, should be, emotionally unsatisfying, but that doesn't mean it's a poorly written book, because maybe the author's purpose wasn't to write an emotionally satisfying story. Maybe the author wanted to say, "Hey readers, horrible people get what they want and it sucks."
Disagreeing with an author's theme or premise is a valid criticism. Believing a point would have been better made through the inclusion of sympathetic or 'likable' characters is a valid criticism. Pointing out that a character is not likable when it is clear the author intends to have said character be likable is a valid criticism.
What isn't a valid criticism: saying a book sucks because there were not any characters you felt you could 'root for.'
A great many books are written with the intent to challenge people's assumptions, to make readers reconsider the way they look at particular aspects of society or history or human interaction. When I hear someone dismiss a book on the grounds that 'nobody's likable', I often hear it as 'This book challenged my assumptions about something, and I didn't like it.' I know that is not always the case but I believe it is true for many of them.
So. Readers. Stop insisting books need likable characters. They do not.
Sincerely,
terabient (who is beginning to question putting
bookfails on her f-list)
