I hate it when a writer tries to make readers sympathize with a character by having all the secondary characters be mean or cruel to them. First, it reminds me of a certain time in my life and the only good memory there was that I survived whole. It is not and should not be a fucking game to punish one person for not being part of the crowd. Scape goating is horribly uncomfortable and I feel that a large part of the audience will put the book down to escape when the book is supposed to be an escape.
Second it violates the basic rules of fine story telling. See story telling is a delicate art. A great story teller can define a character not just by describing them, but by framing them. A great story teller can tell you who the character is by describing their menus, or their bedroom, or simply by describing how the secondary characters react to them. You can say so much without ever saying “Blah Blah was a vet, an a yoga fanatic who inspired the people around them.” This is why telling is such a great sin in story telling. You shouldn’t have to tell, the reader should absorb these things as the tale goes on. If you do need to make a frank revelation it still shouldn’t be telling, it should be confirming a fear or suspicion the reader has.
So if Character A is a complete and total asshole when narrating to the reader, but everyone around him seems to genuinely love, trust and respect him then the author is clearly telling the reader that despite how bad this thoughts, this character’s actions and interactions are still worthy of being a hero. Think Hannibal here, who readers were told was evil and dangerous, and even shown were dangerous. But while the people around him fear him, the reader, through Clarice Starling develops a trust in him. In the end she can trust him, and from my understanding, so can the average person since his killings are really a statement to people he considers less than human. (Mind you I only have my own experiences watching Silence of the Lambs and its sequel to compare this to.)
Therefore, if Character B, the lead, is sweet and generous and understanding, but everyone around them treats them horribly, and seems defensive and guarded and restrained against them, then you, the author are communicating to the reader that the narrator is unreliable, and in a bad way. You are telling the reader that this character’s actions do not match up with or deserve love, loyalty or respect.
You are not telling me that the character is dumped on or even abused (because abuse is more complicated than that) or I should feel sorry for them because they are stressed out and misunderstood. You’re telling me that I cannot believe the image the character has presented to me, as a reader.
So when the story goes on, and everyone just keeps picking on the lead for no reason, the story telling device clashes with the story you are saying and it shatters my suspension of disbelief.
Right now I’m reading a story that features the God-tells-me-to-kill-the-evil-doers serial killer as the good guy. The story telling is strong enough to create a conflict in my experience between knowing that the character is imbalanced and a killer, but seeing that he is playing the role of the hero, albeit an unconventional one. But that conflict is also part of the story. And the story telling, so far, is full bodied and consistent, even when it’s supposed to keep you a little on guard and confused as to which side the character is going to end on.
So if you write a story and your secondary character do nothing but pick one the lead, be aware that you are not making the reader feel sorry for your poor abused lead. You’re making them think that there is a reason you aren’t giving them for the ill treatment, and an author withholding information for the purpose of popping it on people later is not writing a mystery, they’re just tricking and manipulating the reader in frustrating and annoying ways.
