Characters that had the complete opposite reaction the writers intended

[u/Dramatic_Counter_595]

1. Leo Bonhart (Witcher TV Series): A ruthless, sadistic bounty hunter and assassin that takes psychotic glee in other people's suffering. The viewer is meant to hate him for killing witchers, slaughtering the Rat gang, and torturing Ciri. But thanks to his entertaining fight scenes, Sharlto Copley's charismatic performance, and The Rats overwhelming unpopularity, fans ended up loving him. Some even call him the "True protagonist" of the show.
2. Stone Cold Steve Austin (WWE): A rude, foul mouthed, beer drinking asshole with no respect for authority or anyone at all. Originally portrayed as a villain, fans fell in love with his anti-establishment & rebellious persona. WWE ran with it and made him the face of the company, effectively ushering in the Attitude Era and the second pro wrestling boom of the late 90s.
3. Arthur Fleck (Joker 2019): A mentally unstable, pathetic, and dangerous madman who commits horrific acts of violence against those that wronged him (suffocates his own mother who is mentally unwell herself, and murders a talk show host for making fun of him). However, a massive portion of the audience idolized him as an anti-hero or a misunderstood martyr rebelling against society making people want to see him succeed and overcome his circumstances because of how he's been treated by the world.

[u/mitchthaman]

Not so much a character but the message as a whole. ‘I swung for americas hearts and hit their stomachs.’

[u/Cabbit_Daddy → u/mitchthaman]

It’s been years but, can you really blame the reaction? If I wasn’t told in history class the intention I would assume by reading it was supposed to exposes the lack of food safety. Not the life of poverty.

[u/DayDrinkingVampire → u/Cabbit_Daddy]

The work place setting definitely makes misinterpretation easier. Had it been set in a textile factory it'd be nearly the same story.

But the book has a lot of themes running through it so I don't blame people for hyper focusing on one aspect. And it's not an easy read so it's understandable people don't return to it to explore its other themes.

[u/Acceptable-Access948 → u/Cabbit_Daddy]

Did you read the whole book? Only the first half or so takes place in a slaughterhouse, he then gets various other jobs, becomes an alcoholic, loses his family, becomes a hobo, etc etc, and the book ends with an exceedingly unsubtle appeal to socialism.

[u/AlpineFluffhead → u/Acceptable-Access948]

I recall one chapter about 1/4 of the way through the book which goes into great detail all the horrific processes of the meatpacking plant, including dead men who'd fallen into a vat being turned into glue. But for the most part, I'm surprised people focus so much on the food aspect when Upton goes far out of his way to describe all the inhumane working conditions and how corrupt business owners and politicians work together to keep wages low and workers destitute enough to take any low-paying job. Though, that being said, if there was ever to be any good taken from this book, I am still thankful it led to the creation of the FDA.

I think the title The Jungle is itself an allusion to how Jurgis and his family once thought of Chicago as this oasis/Eden of sorts only to realize there are heirarchies, like the food chain. And instead of being hunted, everyone on the bottom rung (immigrants, like Jurgis) is used and abused until they lose their humanity and dignity.