Lately I've been seeing a lot of book reviews that state the reader didn't like a certain title because he or she "didn't really like" a character. I wonder when it happened that we started to think we're supposed to like every main character or that every one of their actions is supposed to make us happy? Isn't an intriguing character supposed to challenge the reader...just as a book is supposed to (though that seems slightly out of favor as well).
Personally, I blame Harry Potter and other mega hits of our time for having an all too clearly defined sense of right and wrong, good and evil. In my experience the differences are often more blurred and characters, like people, are far more dynamic.
If you're interested in hearing me discuss this and other such literary fluff, you'll have the chance tonight...provided you're in the L.A. area.
TONIGHT ONLY: I'll be reading & signing @ Miss Nelson's Toy & Book Shop
1030 Bonita Ave.
LaVerne, CA 91750
I'm going to guess that said readers really meant that they couldn't relate to or didn't find those characters intriguing. Most readers I know are happy to be challenged by grey areas that serve to make characters more complex. But if you're reading a book in first person and the MC is annoying the crap out of you (and not in a good and challenging type of way, but in a "if this person were sitting across the table from them, I'd have to slap them" kind of way), then it becomes hard to keep slogging through.
ReplyDeleteGood point...I think that's definitely true. But there are often reviews where readers decide they don't like something because they didn't 'like' the choices a character made or how a character treated another. Sadly I think a lot readers out there don't want to be challenged. And reading some reviews of books I've read, it amazes me how many readers seem to pay very little attention to what they are reading, at least anything that doesn't pertain to plot.
ReplyDelete