I've finally put my finger on a pretty consistent determinant between "good fiction" and "bad fiction." I've noted that in any fictional work where the author has an apparent opinion, or specifically a negative judgment, regarding any or all of the characters, the whole work is tainted because we are forced to "look down" or disapprove of someone, often in spite of how we might feel about the characters ourselves. If an author belittles a character, or conversely obviously feels a character is cute or cool, the insinuation of that judgment overwhelms any other information on that character provided through their dialogues or action. What we are told becomes moot, and almost irrelevant, in the face of being lead on how we should feel.

I've noted that Stephen King, Anne Rice, and John Irving never make this mistake. Even the most evil and vile characters are presented to you without any authorial judgment upon the character (not counting that given by first-person narration of another character). But the recent movie, "About Schmidt" and the novel I'm currently reading, Jane Smiley's "Moo" do it in spades. It's clear how the author feels about Schmidt, or the Dean, or the secretary who really runs the college. (Respectively: He's a clueless schmuck; he's an impotent figurehead except in bed; and she's an under-appreciated genius who should really be the dean, plus she's a lesbian to boot, which only adds to her grandeur.)

"Good fiction" is that which the author trusts us and has respect for deciding for ourselves how to feel about a character. "Bad fiction" is that where the author shows her/his hand and telegraphs out they feel about a particular character, rather than letting us decide.

Note: this was originally posted as a comment on 2blowhards.com, but I've now recycled it as my first blog post.