nobody likes you

[terabient]

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 bookfails on her f-list)

Comments

[elbarto252.livejournal.com]

Can I guess what book you're talking about? :)

[terabient]

it wasn't any specific book, just a lot of posts at bookfails citing unsympathetic/unlikable characters as a reason for...bookfailing.

there are a lot of types of criticisms i don't like seeing but this one is a biggie.

[elbarto252.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" now. My history teacher said the book was badly written but it did make people think about slavery more. I'm not sure what's your stance on that kind of thing...so did that book fail or not?

Yeah, I'm sure "Uncle Tom's cabin" had sympathetic characters or stereotypes or people won't question their morals.

[terabient]

hmm, I've never read Uncle Tom's Cabin so i can't make any judgement calls as to its quality. but one of the reasons people write is to convey messages, beliefs, and ideas to other people: if a book manages to successfully get the author's message across to others than that book can't fail, in a sense, because it fulfilled the author's purpose.

on the other hand, even if a book's message is clear, that doesn't mean the story was told in a interesting or sophisticated or entertaining manner. so from a 'personal enjoyment' perspective, a book could 'fail'.

...actually there was a recent post on bookfails that sort of discussed this. a poster said Bram Stoker's Dracula was overrated and boring, and some others said that even if she didn't find it very entertaining personally, that didn't mean the book was overrated, because there are many other reasons Dracula is considered an important book in literature when considered from a social/historical perspective.

basically i just wish people would understand that people read and write books for more than just entertainment, and that sometimes, being difficult or unenjoyable is an intentional choice on the part of an author.