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.
I think there's a difference between a flawed protagonist and an unsympathetic one. Protagonists need flaws to make them realistic, no-one is perfect. Also, it's not necessarily these flaws which make readers dislike them, rather more how the writer chooses to present them for whatever reason. I agree that character flaws don't reflect the weaknesses of the writer though, as when I'm reading something I don't ever link writers to their characters unless, like you say, I've done research or know for sure that they're trying to portray part of themselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree that I did not find Neddy to be a particularly easy character to sympathise with, though I'm not sure if it was because he embodied these flaws or because I generally found his outlook and personality to be unengaging. Personally, I think that the best characters have flaws because it's what makes them human and real to us. I agree with you again that I very rarely when reading something think "I wonder if that is reflective of the writer!" unless I've done specific research into the piece.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you wholeheartedly here. Most of the time readers just judge the story based upon the written word, but there are those who love context and are resolute in the fact that something MUST be in this author's writing because of a certain experence they had in their life. Perhaps there are some influences but I don't think it happens all of the time. Personally, I like a story for the story. I never look up context.
ReplyDelete