One of the characteristics of good art, to me, is how strongly it makes somebody feel. Any feeling. If a work of art annoys you, that too should be appreciated. In the same way that an actor who plays a character that makes you HATE them should be admired. That is not only a difficult thing to accomplish but also the least appreciated. If all characters satisfy your personal hangups and pet peeves, then every character is the same person.

Rejoice that you are annoyed by something. That says something about you as much as the work of art

so many people call shelley duvalls performance in the shining subpar just because shes playing a broken mess of a character

Generally speaking whether I like a character or not has very little to do with whether I think they're moral. One of my favorite characters in any book is a horrendously evil man - like approaching Hitler levels, though on a smaller scale - but goddamn is he a fascinating character to read (Vorbis from Small Gods - which if you haven't read it is a masterpiece)

... heh. I remember thinking how real my annoyance was, at different times.

Fictional characters who commit war crimes can be magnificent bastards, but characters who are annoying cannot.

That makes sense. I have often wondered how much atrocity we're willing to forgive in a fictional character if they're charming/charismatic and if it translates at all to real life with for instance the glorification of certain serial killers.

Not saying there definitely is one. I have no idea. But I do wonder about it.

He was just too dang "unlikable!" (i.e., I didn't like him and don't want to explain why)

We all thought of two characters in that first post. And I know my two.

Anakin "I Surrender, Now R2!" Skywalker and Jar Jar Binks respectively.

Bad take

People like Reagan irl