Cheever's narratives rarely end 'happily ever after.' Why might a writer choose to have their characters suffer?

Authors choose to make their characters suffer for a variety of reasons.

The main probability is to surprise readers. Books and plots should be unpredictable and keep the reader guessing to sustain their interest and further engage them. If readers think they know where the story is going, they're going to put the book down and give up on it. Similarly to this point, writers want to avoid the same overdone narratives - the boy gets the girl, every key character survives, good triumphs evil. They've all been used so many times. So if the bad guys win or a lot of key characters die, the reader may be upset, sure, but the story will be unexpected and therefore original. Suzanne Collins did this with Mockingjay. She killed off a lot of key characters in this final book, and while this may have been a rewrite of the original plot due to someone leaking her manuscript, it managed to be an effective end to the series. Although killing off Prim was perhaps a tad extreme!

Another possibility for making characters suffer is that it's true to real life. Whilst readers may use books to escape reality, people connect with books that they can relate to, plots that reflect real life. A book is just not going to have a feasible plot if nothing happens and the main character stays happy and has a perfect life. It's just not realistic. The story will have no twists and turns to engross the reader and therefore will be unsuccessful.

A writer should be 'invisible' agree/disagree?

It depends what you classify as invisible. Whether it is used to mean an author who hides from the public eye and gender stereotypes like J.K Rowling did initially or whether their agendas and flaws should be present and obvious in their writing.

To an extent I agree with this statement because it allows nothing to be drawn from context to affect the reader's enjoyment of the plot and characters such as our knowledge of Cheever's alcoholism and its presence in The Swimmer. When the writer is invisible in this sense, the writing is allowed to be enjoyed and appreciated without being compromised by authorial flaws. It also allows the reader to look past any socio-political agenda and messages hidden within, like those of war that Dickinson concealed within her poetry. Without any prior knowledge of her lifespan or reclusiveness, you appreciate the language rather than trying to interpret a deeper meaning all the time.

However I do also disagree. Shouldn't a writer be appreciated for their work and recognised for their achievement? Although, any writer that is widely criticised may want to be invisible as a result of publication, such as Stephanie Meyer. Also, writer's agendas can open readers' minds to see further meaning rather than reading superficially for entertainment. 

Considering both, I think it can be a two way street and as long as the writer's background isn't negative or a public struggle, it shouldn't affect the writing to an extent where invisibility becomes the best course of action for future authors.

'A protagonist that embodies the flaws and weaknesses of the writer distracts the reader from the narrative itself'

I both agree and disagree with this statement.
I think a flawed protagonist in general can distract from the narrative because they're the character that the reader is usually positioned next to, to sympathise and identify with them and thus be engaged in the story. In 'The Swimmer' by John Cheever, I found it very difficult to relate to Neddy and I therefore didn't really care what he did or what happened to him throughout. This made it harder for me to be engrossed in the plot and maintain interest as the story continued. In some stories, the flaws of the protagonist can be overlooked such as in 'The Hunger Games' series, Katniss is full of angst and hatred for the system, but the reader understands why and can still sympathise with her situation. Whereas in 'The Swimmer' there's no backstory due to it being a short story and it seems that Neddy has caused all his problems.

As far as the flaws of the writer goes, I don't think that this affects the narrative much at all. The reader will only know that the protagonist is a reflection of the author if they have done some research into their lives. Most readers tend to judge a book on the fiction and not the writer so would not know a lot about them and therefore would have no idea that Neddy shares the same problems of alcoholism as Cheever does. 

Overall, I'd say that I don't think a protagonist who embodies the flaws of the writer distracts from the narrative because readers judge fiction and not context.

'The Antique Clock': reflection

After reading two John Cheever stories and discussing him in class, I found that writing this piece was not too difficult. Because we had pinpointed his style and the general techniques he employed in his stories,  it was easier to emulate this when creating my own. When we were asked to write down elements that we would then work a story from, mine was originally completely different. I had a Western in the daytime with a main character called McCarthy. Then as soon as I went to write the first sentence, it seemed to take on a mind of its own. The main factor that remained throughout, was the clock being the significant object. 

While Cheever's 'The Enormous Radio' revolves around the radio to a large degree, 'The Antique Clock' only alludes to the clock subtly in the beginning. I was trying to channel Cheever here, as he introduces the reader to Jim and Irene with a brief description of their backstory before the tale begins. I introduce various aspects of Edgar in the beginning of mine, writing about his family and the type of values Edgar has. However, I decided to have these over the course of the starting paragraphs rather than explain everything in two sentences. In short stories, it is these little, key details that allow the reader to have sufficient information and then engage with the story which, in short fiction, is usually faster. For example, Cheever reveals that the radio broadcasts their neighbour's conversations very quickly. So in my third paragraph I explicitly said that the clock is the object of Edgar's mission although I do not state why. I tried to plant the information within an earlier paragraph, as although Cheever's straight-forward, grounded style is effective, I wanted to surprise the reader somewhat. 

The Antique Clock

The cobbled streets felt cold and foreign underneath Edgar’s well-polished shoes. Somehow they didn’t belong here, or he didn’t. The smell of manure mixed with the acrid smoke that seems to be entwined with city life singed his nostrils. Searching through the darkness, he found the fresh steaming pile that had been left in a carriage’s wake. Curious, for a carriage to be out this late. Though such notions could be attributed to be, should I be seen. With this thought, he shuffled into the shadows, not that there was any light to cast such hiding places. A gloomy light leaked from the antique clock high above the town, but not enough to see by. Nevertheless, he continued moving in what would seem to be a highly suspicious form – tentative footsteps, paranoid surveying of his surroundings. Dark houses rose up in all directions, without so much as a candle on a windowsill to indicate life within. Edgar was pleased with his choice of time, although his choice of activity was not strictly illegal. It was merely a mission of principal and a way to improve his self-worth after its recent decline.

Although his current predicament would seem to indicate otherwise, Edgar was a rather respectable fellow. He came from a wealthy family who put value in morality rather than materials, quite opposite to the rest of the aristocracy they found themselves associating with. For, while they were conscientious, hard-working, self-funded people, breaking the class system was simply detrimental for future prospects in business and relationships.

The clock chimed seven melancholy gongs, signaling to the town that it was only 7pm so the folk should be toasting a supper in their homes. Then why the darkness? Truthfully, it was this strange phenomenon that Edgar’s mission revolved around and the reason for his consciousness at this weary hour.

Direction

And I watch on helplessly,
as the birds fly south for winter
though they won't be coming back.
The North is betrayed but strong,
for East and West need both compass points.

Is there a contrast between the truth of our lives and the story that we tell (ourselves and others) of our existence?

I think for anyone, there is certainly a significant contrast.

Regardless of whether you're a pathological liar or someone committed to honesty, certain aspects and truths of our lives remain hidden, avoided or merely stretched and adapted into more suitable paraphrases. You may not be ashamed of your life, you may have no regrets even, but certain truths are often omitted whether it is for your benefit or for those with whom you interact. There's always going to be a point or scenario where a feeling of inadequacy (whether that's accurate or a reflection of insecurity) where adjustments of the truth of ourselves and lives are more appropriate or helpful. Of course I'm not saying that everyone lies constantly and there's always going to be a perfect exception, an anomaly to the rule. But where would we be without these white lies, these adaptations? Certainly nowhere completely different, but perhaps you'd have different friendships if you revealed that you kissed her brother, or attend a different university if you studied as hard as you told your parents you did. 

I suppose to this extent, the contrast isn't that stark, most people only change or omit little things from the story of their existence, those things that may taint a stranger's opinion of you and cause the judgement you fear. As long as you don't create a whole fabricated world like Adam Sandler's character in Just Go With It. 

For John Cheever, pretending that he was heterosexual was important in the time that he lived, so as not to break the law and continue to support his family through his career as a writer, which could have been a lot less successful, were he to admit to his homosexuality.