People make a big deal over "unlikable" protagonists
What they really mean is "unpleasant" protagonists
There's a firm difference between unlikable and unpleasant
>>149061663
I think a big distinction is if a character is still enjoyable despite being a nasty person, having major personality flaws or being amoral. It's also something to keep in mind with writing villains with the distinction between unlikable and unpleasant.
>>149061799 >unpleasant
Cartman isn't unpleasant
You like watching Cartman be an awful person because he's hilarious at it
You don't want to be in the same room as him but you enjoy watching him nonetheless
Everyone will admit Lowtiergod's a terrible human being but everyone also will admit he's genuinely hilarious intentional or not.
Unpleasant would mean this character has a voice that decimates your ears, who never shuts up, always whines like a toddler, refuses to let other characters even speak, etc.
THIS is unpleasant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOxJpGI8SWc
>>149061867 >but people "like" to see him.
Yeah, you like seeing Cartman but you don't like Cartman as a person.
It's like Wario, Bender, or pre-character development Kuzco.
Again, you don't want to be in the same room as them and you don't want to even talk to them but you like simply watching them because they're hilarious.
It's been ages since I've seen Sinbad, how bad is he again?
>>149061588 (OP)
I agree to an extent, but since there's a narrative point to him being everyone else's problem that it's somewhat permissible.
Eris would not have bothered trying to spread calamity through a decent person.