Can you define “like the author”? Do you mean like the author’s style, or approve of the author’s morals, or appreciate the cut of his jib?
The author’s voice. Basically all of it. Take China Miéville - very few of his Bas Lag book protagonists are truly both good and likeable, but they are fascinating character studies, and I love his use of language and vocabulary, and I like his leftist political stance as it informs the books (a lot of SF turns me off for the strong rightist views of a lot of those authors, that creep into their work - like Heinlein or Pournelle)
This topic got me to thinkin’; I’m a comics fan and some of my favorite plots are villain caper stories, and one of my favorite storylines of the past few years was Dark Avengers (in which Norman Osborn formed his own team of ‘Avengers’ of villains and anti-heroes). Just what was so entertaining about Dark Avengers and why did that dynamic work for me when, let’s be honest, the characters run the gamut from psychopaths (Karla, Bullseye, Daken) to neurotic cannibals (Mac aka Scorpion/Venom) to alien terrorists (Noh-Varr) to whatever the hell The Sentry is?
- The plot works within the universal framework
All the main characters are already established in the Marvel universe, so the reader is coming in with the expectation of seeing how these characters interact, how their plans affect one another, and whether or not they can pull off this huge con.
Because this story functions as only one part of the Marvel universe, the Dark Avengers can be the protagonists of this storyline as opposed to the only viewpoint characters the reader ever encounters. There is no implicit assumption that we are meant to sympathize with these characters. This story simply furthers along the overall Marvel saga.
- Villains, by nature, are inherently dynamic
This hits the bullseye of why bad guys and rebels are so fascinating. The good guys are reactive; they have nothing to do if some evil-doer doesn’t give them something to do. But the bad guys are proactive. For there to be any story at all, they have to be out there, actively scheming and fighting and painting the town red. That dynamism is appealing to readers who secretly wish they could raise havoc and break shit whenever they felt like it, too. It’s a vicarious thrill-ride.
For instance, Spider-Man will go break up a gang war and bring the perpetrators to justice. Mac will incite a gang war and then puke a half-digested rabid squirrel onto the desk of the owner of the Daily Bugle.
3.** Even within the villains, there are moral and character differences**
Although all the Dark Avengers are bad guys or anti-heroes, they are not cut from the same cloth. Within this group there’s black and shades of grey. Ares is the actual god of War, but he’s also a loving father. Noh-Varr quickly becomes disgusted with his teammates and jumps ship early on.
The reader also gets to see character interaction such as the arch-manipulators Daken and Karla (Moonstone) trying to out-think each other, or Norman Osborn trying to corral his team when he can’t even get a grip on himself. As everyone is out for themselves, the Xanatos Gambits pile up one atop the other.
- The horror/violence is balanced with levity
We’re used to seeing the bad guys from the heroes’ perspectives, in which they are no-goodniks who are up to no good. So there’s a lot of humor to be mined in the sit-com moments where the cackling kitten-eating villains sit around the TV and bitch about Oprah. Some of my favorite moments are things like Mac misusing his celebrity to get laid, Daken hitting on all his teammates, and Bullseye throwing a poodle into Mac’s eye.
Also, while the characters are entertaining, they’re also horrible people, which means that when they get what’s coming to them, you don’t feel too bad. So while Daken is scheming and slutting around, its entertaining to watch from a safe distance, and when his evil ways catch up to him you know he had it coming all along. Whereas by this point, any more trauma in Matt Murdock’s life just seems like a cruel universe snuffing out the merest flicker of hope and joy.
This is one of the most important things about anti-heroes for me. There has to be some ray of light in the doom-n-gloom. It also humanizes the characters since they’re not just flat-out evil. There’s a reason why they turned to the dark side–think Magneto in the concentration camps. It makes you, the reader/viewer, realize that there were reasons, and usually good ones, that led to that choice. And they’re usually more interesting reasons. With the good guys, it’s frequently “I’m looking for the man who shot my pa.”
I love the way you phrased that. 
In humanizing the bad guys, there is the potential, but often at the same time the problem, of the reader wanting to see the bad guys redeemed. This is endemic with comic book fans. As we discover more about Doctor Doom’s past and psyche, he becomes more complex and sympathetic, but the reader often falls into the trap of thinking he’s better than he is. While Heel Face Turns can work, not every villain can or should be redeemed.
Doctor Doom, to further the example, is not “noble” or “well-intentioned”, as fans sometimes claim. He is a complex character with complex motivations. He is a huge badass. But he is not noble. He will break promises, send children to hell, and turn on his allies to whom he has given his word to get what he wants. He is not well-intentioned. His “love” for Latveria only goes to far as to what fulfills his psychological need to be worshipped and obeyed. He’d sell every last Latverian to be anal sex slaves for Satan if it suited his purposes.
To go back to the Dark Avengers, we have Daken, who slowly developed into a very interesting character. Daken is the blackest side of the classic dark romantic hero – he is the *explicit *danger to the dark romantic hero’s *implicit *danger. While we might find Rochester’s wounded soul and dark secret thrilling, we are reassured in knowing he will never hurt Jane Eyre. With Daken, there is no reassurance. Daken is the dark romantic hero without a wounded soul to protect. While there’s still the faintest bit of potential in Daken that he might be redeemed, that he will meet someone who gets through to him… knowing his past and knowing what he’s capable of… would *you *take the chance on being The One? I think not.
Everyone who meets Daken – Mystique, Johnny Storm, Marcus Roston, his own father – thinks they can handle him. Or they think they can get through to him… and every single one of them is wrong. Daken is interesting, but best observed from a safe distance.
You rock.
I think the best example of this kind of movie that I remember was Natural Born Killers. I couldn’t stand that movie because I couldn’t sympathize with any of the characters. The movie gave off a feeling that not only were the main characters all bad guys, but so is everybody else in the world. I didn’t like that movie at all.
I remembered enjoying Gone With The Wind as a teenager. I then tried to reread it in my 20s. I could not finish rereading it because I didn’t like any of the characters. Scarlett and Rhett deserved each other, and I felt nothing for either of them when Bonny died. That was when I knew I was done with the book. I have heard other say that is the point of the book - no one is good and it is good that all are gone with the wind. The movie is stunning to look at, but once I got past how lovely is was (the 4th time I watched it I admit) there is no one who I want to see win, and no one does.
I need someone to root for, but they don’t necessarily need to be “good guys.” As long as they’re interesting enough and I want them to succeed, at least to some extent, I’m good. Magneto comes to mind. I was able to enjoy Dune because it’s Paul’s story, and it’s interesting seeing what happens to him and his kids in the next two books (didn’t read the 4th or beyond). My favorite Star Wars stories tend to be the ones where I can root for guys like Boba Fett, Vader, or Kir Kanos (an Imperial guardsman). Joe Abercrombie’s fantasy series is a great example where every character is shades of grey… the “heroes” all have glaring personality defects.
On the other hand, there have been stories where I had trouble getting into it because I didn’t like any of the characters. For example, I hated R. Scott Bakker’s Prince of Nothing series because the main character came off as a total asshole Mary Sue. I ended up rooting for Cnaiur, a barbarian who ends up going insane (and IIRC rapes someone) simply because he was the only one who wasn’t putting up with Mary Sue’s shit. Somewhat similarly, I’ve had a bit of trouble getting into Mark Lawrence’s Prince of Thorns, not because the main character is a rapist/murderer/would-be world ruler, but because he whines and comes off a bit like Anakin Skywalker in Episode II after listening to some screamo.
House of Cards, with Ian Richardson as Francis Urquhart (F.U!) LOL
I have to have at least one character that I like and care about, though not necessarily a “good” guy. If I don’t like any of the characters, I won’t read the book or watch the movie. Real life is full of awful people one must get along with; I’d rather have more enjoyable folk in fiction. I also prefer fiction that inspires me or makes me laugh, and makes it possible to keep on keeping on, and not fiction that depresses me.
I can’t think of any legitimate good guys in “Rome,” and yet I loved the series. The closest the series came to a hero was either Lucius Vorenus or Titus Pullo, both of whom were cold-blooded murderers.
I find it extremely difficult to enjoy a book without sympathetic characters, I find this is a problem with recent British science fiction, it seems to be a race to make things as depressing and cynical as possible and you don’t really care if all the characters end up eating each other.
And then I read something by John Scalzi and all is right with the world again… 
Actually Iain M Banks is an exception to the rule, although there are plenty of grotesqueries in his book even his bad guys are usually compelling…and most other characters are downright likable even when they are being cynical.