It is fairly clear from the narrative of Susan Hill's novel that we are supposed to root for Charles and against Edmund as the story of their complex and tragic relationship unfolds, or, at the very least, we should find Edmund to be the antagonist, the traditional "baddy" whose flawed character creates havoc in the lives of those around him. To a certain extent this is true, and we do as we are required to. We recognize that Edmund is a manipulative and spiteful bully whose only reason for being appears to be to make sure that Charles is both miserable and in constant fear of him.
However, Edmund is not really the traditional antagonistic monster of gothic literature. He is a bully, but his is also a child whose own life has witnessed its fair share of loss and tragedy, with nobody there to help him pick up the pieces of to make sense of what has happened to him. Edmund was very close to his mother, but not to his father, who is a cold, emotionless man when it comes to his son, from whom he has deliberately cultivated a significant degree of distance. They have barely any connection at all when Edmund loses his mother, and so in losing her, Edmund also loses the only real connection that he has to another human being.
Joseph believes that bringing Helena into the home will create another family unit for Edmund and for himself, but in Edmund's mind, he is attempting to replace his own son with somebody else's. Edmund does come to love Helena, and to see her as a maternal figure in his own life, but he does not feel the same way about his new step-brother, and fears that he will be replaced as the son and heir of Joseph Hooper. He becomes protective of both his family and his home. He also becomes determined to protect his own position, but this is because he has lost most of what he has cared about in his life, and is scared of the possibility of losing even more.
Edmund's view is that if Charles is to be living in his home, then it must be as a subordinate member of the household. He exists for Edmund as his whipping boy, and far from providing Edmund with the new family that he needs, Joseph has actually provided him with exactly the opposite. This is because he does not know his son at all.
Helena makes a similar error when it comes to Charles. She believes that by offering him the chance to live with the Hoopers, she is offering him the chance to be like them, to have their lifestyle, their opportunities and their future. Helena never actually asks Charles if he likes living at the house, or if he likes Edmund. She never asks him if a new extended family is what he actually wants, but she assumes that it is because it is what she wants for herself, and so imagining that it is her son's secret desire as well is much easier. Her decision is a disaster; her son is literally bullied to his death by the boy she tells herself loves him like a brother.
The story is a study in parental distance, focusing on parents who do not know their sons, and therefore the roles of antagonist and protagonist, although seemingly very clearly marked out for us at the beginning of the novel, are actually blurred. Edmund is technically the villain of the piece, but he cannot be entirely condemned for it because he is a child who has been thrust into the role by a mixture of circumstances and distant parenting, rather than having taken on the role for himself.
