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.
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.
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.
