I'm not looking for villains we love to hate, but the characters you don't exactly hate but rather dislike intensely, who annoy you like a bad itch, who make you feel like slapping them, etc. - even if they were meant to be likeable.

My first choice would be Fanny Price (of Austen's Mansfield Park), for being a passive-aggressive little mouse.

Vee, there was a self-righteous mother in some children's book I've forgotten whom I deplored.

Charles Strickland drove me crazy in The Moon and Sixpence.

I found the characters in Picture of Dorian Grey to be very distasteful and didn't finish that book.

Rosefolly

And Rumer Godden bugs me for some reason...

But then there are characters whom the author seems to finds interesting or appealing, but which are only irritating to the reader. For example, I enjoyed the first two novels in A.S. Byatt's The Virgin in the Garden series. I almost stopped reading the third book, however, because so much of it concerned a bizarre character who publishes a sprawling pornographic novel. His trial for obscenity may have fascinated Byatt, but I found it a colossal bore.

Poor Fanny Price. She seems to be taking a drubbing. I think she is one of Austen's most underrated heroines. Her watchfulness and quiet disapproval may be a bit priggish at times, but she is living in a situation in which she has no power nor control. When she refuses to marry Henry Crawford, she shows wisdom and strength of character utterly lost on her frivolous relatives. She gets the last laugh, which I suppose she enjoys silently.

The main character was a drunkard and a womaniser, I found that I disliked him, so that was that, end of book for me.
I was so disappointed as I have always liked Rose Tremain's books

Come to think of it, I don't have much tolerance for characters who feel socially inferior or who want to climb the social ladder. Charles Pooter of The Diary of a Nobody mildly amuses me, but he's such a starched collar that I can't help but be delighted when his wife Carrie and his irreverent son Lupin exasperate him. But I suppose Pooter is supposed to be annoying, in a familiar sort of way, being an 'every man' and all.

Vee, have you ever read or heard of the 'Honey Bunch' books? They were an American children's series whose darling little heroine, with her dimpled knees, was so perfect that, as a child, I hated everything about her, especially her sickeningly sweet name. What were those nineteenth- and early twentieth-century writers trying to impart to young readers anyway, particularly girls?

The eponymous Smilla, in Smilla's Sense of Smell was just intolerably childish as I remember it. Her entire character was built on anger at her father and I found it tiresome. No redeeming traits. One of those books I wished I hadn't felt compelled to finish.

Less annoy than outright hate - Maurice Conchis from The Magus and by the very act of his creating the character also John Fowles. Nasty rationalizing bore. I like Humbert Humbert better and he was a pedophile. Nabokov clearly wrote a vile character. I never felt John Fowles understood just how vile his character was. He seemed invested in making us appreciate Conchis. No fondness from me for the protagonist either.

I can't think of his name, but I thoroughly disliked the namby-pamby man who tried to court Jane Eyre. Was it Saint John, pronounced "Sinjin"? (I've just made a major move and my memory is rather distracted, to say the least).

I think the 'Little House on the Prairie' and the others in the series, although interesting for the 'real life' events they describe, often come across as slightly moralising with Laura reminding us that little children should obey their parents, eat their greens, say their prayers etc. No doubt, all good Victorian sentiments that form no part of the lives of modern young people.

The other book is "The Terror" -- and I'm quite annoyed with the British captain and I'm having trouble going back to the book because of it.

Vee, I came entirely too late to Enid Blyton to ever develop an appreciation for her style. I think it has to be acquired in childhood to be remembered fondly. As for the 'Little House' books, I was forty-seven years old before I read them. Now a dozen-plus years later all I can recall are the food scenes and Laura with her students nearly freezing to death in that one-room schoolhouse. I suspect you're right about the background moralizing; but I was probably immune to it, unlike in those confounded Honey Bunch books which I was absorbing at my most questioning stage.

Re GWTW: I'll defend Scarlett any day! I think Margaret Mitchell was a genius in making her protagonist human and real. I've never found 'perfect' people in real life to be very interesting so that may be why I find Scarlett fascinating. I didn't like Melanie, either, because she seemed to be as mealy-mouthed as Scarlett thought she was, until that scene at Tara when she (Melanie), weak from horribly prolonged childbirth, came down the stairs in only her shift, gripping the heavy saber, ready to help Scarlett. Rhett recognized Melanie's mettle so she was, perhaps, the only woman he really respected. But wasn't it delicious to watch Melanie play-act when Rhett brought Ashley home from the 'political meeting' accompanied by the Yankee captain and his policing agents? What a quick study she was! As for Ashley: he was a man out of his time, place, and element. He was ineffectual and not able to adapt, true; but I suspect that he was much like a lot of actual people when life bewilders them. I'll give Ashley a pass, because there was something in him that Melanie loved and Scarlett wanted to love (for whatever was Scarlett's wrongheaded reason).

Vicki, which captain in The Terror is annoying you? Francis Crozier? I had my own annoyances with him as a character in that book, though I actually like what I know of the real-life Crozier.

Thanks for the link, Chris. I won't check it until/if I finish the book, although I already know how it all comes out.

As for moralizing, I think a lot of it went on in YA and children's books, before post-modern mores. I am thinking of the Little Colonel stories, in particular, where southern misdemeanors were often white-washed. As well, Alcott's "Little Women" is constantly moralizing, even citing John Bunyan as standard bearer. Having said that, something about Jo's family greatly appeals to me, and I find it timeless.

I have found all the characters of Anne Rivers Siddons' novels to be insuffrable, as they are all cliches and copies of each other, IMHO.

I've always been a Scarlett fan, too, for the reasons you gave.

Mary, the Little Colonel books may moralize, but I have always loved the advice her father gave her on choosing a husband and that was to remember that she would also be choosing a father for her children. More young women should know that, IMO.

As for Enid Blyton, my English friend adored her work and still keeps her complete set in her condo, albeit she is in her Seventies.

But it wouldn't have been GWTW without Scarlett!

My 8th grade English teacher Miss Jordan once told our class that the original name Margaret Mitchell chose for her heroine was 'Pansy'. She did not change it to 'Scarlet' until after the book had been accepted for publication. I think most would agree that GWTW with Pansy would somehow be make quite a different impression than GWTW with Scarlet, even if nothing else about the book were changed.

I don't think I liked any of the characters in Wuthering Heights. Jane Eyre was much better.

I think Scarlett had her own sense of "self" and her own "integrity".

I read the first Winnie the Pooh book to my children when they were 4 and 6 and could not yet read themselves. It was a great success probably because it was the right moment for them to appreciate it. I had to do a little play acting and stress all the funny bits, of course.

My 11-year-old granddaughter is listening to Alice in Wonderland and finds it too strange. On the other hand she has read all the Twilight books and loves them. I haven't read them but I had to go with her to watch the Eclipse movie. Needless to say I found it very strange and even stranger that Mai should have liked it. She is a very playful and childish pre-teen now but perhaps she is training herself to become a real teenager?!

Count me in for Gordon Comstock in Aspidistra - what an arse.

I'm also reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles and Angel Clare is such a precious, sanctimonious git - and Tess is a damn fool for loving him.

Martin, Tess is my least favourite Thomas Hardy book.

Another character I don't like is Mr Rochester. He may have been dark and brooding, but he was a nasty bully to Jane Eyre (not that I liked her either) and obviously expected to get what he wanted by throwing both his money and his weight around.
And I agree about Wuthering Heights. Amazing to think of a young woman brought up in a quiet vicarage having such a disturbed imagination.

I agree with TimAllan. She was stuck between a rock and a hard place: she was living in a home not her own family's; she lived in a garret like a pet mouse or something. She couldn't very well just walk off and get a job, and apartment -- be independent, like girls today. The master of the estate she lived at was decent to her, and I can see how she felt beholden to him. (One thing that does bother me about "Mansfield Park" is that he had a sugar cane business in the Caribbean, which almost certainly means slaves were used .... something Austen didn't address in the book; yet, he's supposed to be such a great guy.)

Yes, I know she's a grizzler (someone who sobs, tears-up easily); but I liked her sensitivity of mind when it came to sizing up the effect a situation would/could have upon someone whom she cared about. Her sensitivity wasn't self-focused, as is sometimes the case with so-called "sensitive" types.

One of my very favourite books of all the ones I've read in the last 10 years! I will never get rid of that book; it's in my permanent library. A whole lot of posters at another Website kept raving about it; so I bought it. From page 1 I was HOOKED! (Two women I've given this book to as presents, loved it so much they're keeping it "forever.")

Why anyone would be irritated w/Cassandra is puzzling. It's been around 9 years since I've read it; so can't remember her very clearly. I remember a lot of her character traits -- intelligence, independence, perseverance, good nature, sense of adventure. And her love of the funky old place that she and her family lived at -- "the Castle." I loved that weird place,too!

If anyone was annoying, it was the father -- just drifted through life w/his head in the clouds, planning on his next great novel. He let his wife and children live in misery. Unless, I've forgotten, he didn't even have a part-time job or inheritance; just bummed around all day. Oh, just remembered something else about Cassandra: the way she "hijacked" her father -- a sort of kick-in-the-pants therapy to get him to write again... . It worked!

Well, as much as I like Cassandra, I do see how she could be a tad annoying sometimes. Just a couple of examples: 1) Stephen, the son of the Mortmains' deceased housekeeper, was sweet on Cassandra, but she was uncomfortable with his devotion to her. I still have the impression that she thought he was beneath her in social status, although she and her family were dependent on him, as he was the only one who knew how to work and make money. I have never liked this aspect of Cassandra. 2) Stephen worked and saved to buy Cassandra a wireless. She appreciated the gift, somewhat, until Simon gave her a fancier model that included a gramophone (no hardship for Simon). Now whose was the greater gift? It's so poignant and realistic, I'm afraid, and I'm not proud of Cassandra's reaction.

Mortmain irked me, too, for being so lazy and languishing with his writer's block. But I think Cassandra's sister, Rose, annoyed me even more: she was so self-conscious, pretentious, and "willing to sacrifice" herself -- for the good of her family -- by marrying Simon. But in the end she was too self-centered, which I suppose was a good thing, in a way.

If ever there was book I detested more than "Wuthering Heights", it was "Lady Chatterly's Lover." I despised every single one of its characters and could not finish this greatly over-rated novel.

As for your putting "I Capture the Castle" back in print -- 1999 was when I bought it! Also, maybe you're responsible for the movie version-- ha-ha! -- made in the early-2000s.

I admired Rose for breaking off her engagement to the wealthy Simon, and marrying the man she really loved -- and going to live her life on a ranch in California, something I couldn't see her caring for.

I love to hate Pollyanna. I am a terrible pessimist and optimists can easily annoy me if they urge me to think positively. If I could meet Pollyanna I would tell her that overly enthusiastic optimists are, in my estimation, in denial.

I never read Pollyanna, but got a chuckle out of your post.

BTW (by the way) -- Looks like you come from the same state I do -- NY

laura

Join in with the link below. Can things get any worse?