I've recently decided to start out as a writer, so I'd like to gauge readers opinion on the core of my first novel.
The world revolves around the classic 'Human in Equestria' schtick, but in this case the main character is an asshole. But not just any asshole, he is an asshole on a mission. To point out and deconstruct the hypocrisy in the fantasy world he finds himself in, with the end goal of making ponies/other races live more honest, authentic lives.

A good way to summarize the character I envision is 'a person who hates humans, but loves humanity'. Would that be something people would be interested in reading?

Fuck yeah I would be interested in this, there really isn’t that many stories like that. Many stories the main character is very loyal.

That sounds extremely interesting, count me in!!!

I'd be willing to try.

6511740
"When you're an asshole, it doesn't matter how right you are, nobody wants to give you the satisfaction."
— Morty, Rick & Morty series

So, problem one is that.

Second problem is:

To point out and deconstruct the hypocrisy in the fantasy world he finds himself in, with the end goal of making ponies/other races live more honest, authentic lives.

Nevermind the fact that it's an asshole who does that, but according to whom and what values does he define as more honest or more authentic lives? What is the moral superiority of the character that allows him to do this, in a non-parody way, while at the same time eschewing completely (according to what I understand from your post) from the most basic virtues (kindness, compassion, respect, etc).

summarize the character I envision is 'a person who hates humans, but loves humanity'

It is now that we come upon an oxymoron since by definition humans and all their virtues and deficits are humanity.

What do you define as humanity in this context? Do you mean values and symbols, culture, goals, what? Keeping in mind that you might mean culture, I have to remind you that we don't have a single unifying one and we disagree on many but the most basic concepts and even them fall on the wayside all too often.

All in all, if you intend to make something that critisizes, say, the Diarchy that Equestria has (as many other ocassions I've seen) then you better have a lot of extremely good points that counteract all the success that the Diarchy has in-universe, it's feat to last longer than dynasties and empires have, and it better not involve what-ifs taken from a massively different culture. I'm not sure what the debate failure is called in that ocassion as English is not my first language, but it is quite the biggie.

6511755

This is really good critique and I’ll try to address your points to the best of my ability.

Point 1: Could’ve been clearer here. No one like a contrarian and I don’t want contradiction for contradiction's sake. I imagine writing and reading about someone who disagrees with everyone about everything would get grating pretty fast. If I may reference something real quick; in the Dark Knight, the Joker convinces Harvey Dent to abandon conventional morality for chaos and anarchy…why? The Joker is a nihilistic sociopath to say the least, why does he break Dent in the end? If the Joker is capable of doing that, what stops anyone else from doing the same, to a lesser or greater extent?

Point 2: I want a character that attacks core beliefs of ponies. Quick example off the top of my head: The flawed nature of cutie marks, and how they can ostracize members of society. What if someone’s cutie mark is in cannibalism, or murder? I sincerely doubt they would be left to ‘seek out their destiny’ and ‘live to fulfill their role in life’. Course that leaves him open to the critique of others, and should he learn something from ponies then so be it.

Point 3: This would subjective in accordance with the main character. He can’t both believe god does and does not exist at the same time, so it will be mostly what the main character believes humanity stands for. My goal isn’t to create a complete foil to the Equestrian life-style—sometimes he’ll be wrong—plain and simple. But the point isn’t to rewrite the entire canon, it’s how the interaction itself cause new way of thinking.

6511781

What if someone’s cutie mark is in cannibalism, or murder?

As far as I remember show stated that you can't get a cutie mark in something that you didn't enjoy doing. So anyone with cutie mark in murder enjoys killing others. Such pony or human at best need to be isolated from society.

6511781
Alright! You're a good sport. I'm just pointing out the holes I see, nice to see you're not taking it personally.

I imagine writing and reading about someone who disagrees with everyone about everything would get grating pretty fast.

It's not whether the character is an eternal contrarian (in fact that would make for a fun character if taken the right way). The issue lies on whether the character is an asshole, and being contrarian has absolutely no verdict in that. You can be extremely likeable, kind, respectful, AND a contrarian. Being an asshole means that the character is rude, selfish, petty, and other negative qualities in a lesser or greater degree. His opinions don't matter that much as how he communicates them.

If I may reference something real quick; in the Dark Knight, the Joker convinces Harvey Dent to abandon conventional morality for chaos and anarchy…why? The Joker is a nihilistic sociopath to say the least, why does he break Dent in the end? If the Joker is capable of doing that, what stops anyone else from doing the same, to a lesser or greater extent?

I really don't see what this has to do with the issue of having an asshole character, but the Geek Inside commands me to answer.

The Joker doesn't convince Harvey. What the Joker does is give Harvey Dent a way out. If his fiance died because of a random choice or series of events, a flip of the coin if you will (represented by who got where first and who chose to save who) then perhaps everything else is nothing but that random. Dent was no longer able to believe in a justice that saw someone innocent and loved die like that, so a philosophy that already he had an inkling to, magnified by the wounds he received, the damage to his beloved coin, and the Joker's words, was all it took to break him in such an emotionally fragile headspace (remember, his love died only hours ago). It also ties in to the Joker's philosophy that he sometimes partakes in, that madness is only one bad day away.

And don't forget we only see Dent being like that for a few hours. Unlike the comics, cinematic Dent might have been mentally fine if he was given time.

I want a character that attacks core beliefs of ponies.

Well, the core beliefs seem to be pretty much the same ones we have. They are not aliens. Heck, in their world we see that love and friendship is an actual superpower.

The flawed nature of cutie marks, and how they can ostracize members of society.

Okay, let's go.
1) Cutie Marks are not a core belief or a cultural change. They are pretty much their equivalent of puberty is a way. It it not something they can choose to change unless they take to hiding them (like hijabs in a way) or remove them surgically (which brings in mind the mutilation of young girls in mainly African countries).
2) I don't believe we have seen ostracisation of anyone in the show (I'm a few seasons behind) unless we take in account the irrational fears of a filly in a dream where she was having nightmares of not having a cutie mark or keep having the wrong one. That is headcanon territory and you're shooting against a strawman you set up yourself.

What if someone’s cutie mark is in cannibalism, or murder?

6511795 answered perfectly. In fact, your example is a massive one-up for cutie marks IF they worked that way for such stuff. You immediately know where mental conditions are there and get the ponies who have them the help they need, be it a permanent stay in a mental hospital or whatever measures are appropriate.

Course that leaves him open to the critique of others, and should he learn something from ponies then so be it.

I think there would be bigger issues in mind than whether he learns that cannibalism is bad from being criticized for it. There is a point where tolerance becomes sheer stupidity, and I don't think we've seen ponies reach that point so far.

My goal isn’t to create a complete foil to the Equestrian life-style—sometimes he’ll be wrong—plain and simple. But the point isn’t to rewrite the entire canon, it’s how the interaction itself cause new way of thinking.

Now THAT is far better, and especially knowing that your character can be wrong. Having a main char, especially an OC, be infallible or have the worldbuilding and narration bent over like being a prison bitch is seen far, far too often.

If you go that way, I would suggest making a Devil's Advocate character. Maybe even the main char doesn't believe what he says is right but he will debate it in favor of making the current system better if it is (this would also serve to make him more likeable to the reader as well). It would also give you the freedom to go after issues that normally an honest character wouldn't or even employ what-if tactics for the sake of the argument WHEN he uses them in a proper context, i.e. testing the endurance of a current belief or system. That way you don't have to make him an asshole, especially since I think you might be using asshole in the term of 'jerk with a heart of gold' or the way Doctor House and such characters are done where they carefully skirt the edge and rarely that much.

It somewhat sounds like the fic Diaries of a Madman.

I say anything goes so long as it's written well.