Talk:Antihero/Archive 1

Batman
I have read some article on Batman, the author (I forgot who) classified the original Batman as an antihero because the real batman was a psychotic maniac with a deeply troubled childhood. He was a vigilante who would kill the criminals ruthlessly. The original Batman wouldn't care to uphold the law, he had his own law. When the character was brought to the TV screen, the character was watered down to become a hero for the general public. And the comic book character also changed to match.

Someone who know Batman well should add something to this and the Batman article.

Kowloonese 07:12, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Since this was brought up again recently, let me clarify: Batman (not the 60s TV comical version, but the brooding, "dark knight detective" of the comics) has been an iconic vigilante pretty much since his creation. Fundamentally, most comic book superheroes are vigilantes (being enforcers of the law who are not appointed by an established government), but Batman is a special case. His friendship with Gordon notwithstanding, he is NOT acting under the guidance of the establishment, and often acts contraty to its wishes. Killing is a common M.O. for vigilantes, but is certainly not a requirement, and it's certainly much harder to make a killer into an anti-hero. -Harmil 07:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I always thought that part of the mythos of Batman is that he has never, ever killed anyone. Am I wrong? -Pat 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Batman DID use a gun when he started, and he was a vigilante. He killed people. Thee guy who created batman did not spend a lot of time with plot when he was creating that character. The simple reason was he make the first issue in a few days after seeing how much money supermans creators were being paid. He told his own publisher for his bit pieces "For this type of money, I'll have one for you by monday!" He did!

I forget the name of the book, and even if I did remember it, the book was damaged and the library I borrowed it from has probably thrown it out already. I hope someone else can find referances to these things. Corrupt one 02:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the book. I guess I was wrong with some things. He DID use a gun, and some people died, but most of the deaths were in sidestories and filler made by guest artists and other such people. I will look more. One thing I can confirm by just glancing throught the book DC Comics by Les Daniels is that he WAS made quickly and mostly by ripping off things from other people, including villans.

There was also a gun used by him for shooting silver bullets when fighting vampires, but was quickly withdrawn as the comic industry was worried about getting into trouble for promoting violence. I'll have to red more, but I will check up on things. Then I will probably add some to the Bataman article. Corrupt one 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-hero vs tragic heroes
I don't think that tragic heroes really count as anti-heroes. An anti-hero is someone who would normally be considered a villain but is treated as the protagonist of a story. Tragic heroes are simply heroes who fail (usually due to the inability to overcome a fundamental conflict with their environment--Arthur Miller wrote an interesting essay about this). Heroism is not defined by success. - Gwalla 07:23, May 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Great. Why don't you add this to the article (plus the exact title of Miller's essay)?! Wikikiwi 09:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't remember the title of Miller's essay (and I don't have a copy on hand). And I don't really feel comfortable reducing this article down to a stub, which is what removing all of the "tragic hero" stuff would do. I'm conflicted. - Gwalla 19:57, May 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * There are different interpretations of what makes an anti-hero - this article was based on content from the sources listed. Please add other interpretations. Miller did write Death of a Salesman which does have a classic anti-hero in it named Willy Loman. Was that what you were thinking of? --mav 22:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

An Antihero is an unconventional hero. Tragic heroes ARE a type of conventional hero, and are thuse excluded from being a type of antihero for that reason. If it was unusual and unconventional in other ways, then they might be counted.

Also the term classic antihero seems like a contradition in terms. Corrupt one 03:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

King Ubu or Eric Cartman
Where would an anti-hero like King Ubu or Eric Cartman fit in?--Sonjaaa 03:08, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * There is nothing heroic about Cartman. Kenny McCormick is the anti-hero of South Park if there is one (self-sacrificial and loyal despite a lecherous, perverse nature). --TheMidnighters 30 June 2005 07:42 (UTC)


 * I know it was a long time ago that that comment was made, but I would tend to disagree. There are certainly episodes where Eric is the protagonist, and even a bit Tom Sawyer-like, though there are also clearly episodes where he serves as the villain. South Park, being episodic, doesn't fit into a single mold across the whole show. -Harmil 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this is a dead discussion, but I could not stop myself from commenting on the absurdity of seeing people engaged in an intellectual discussion about a show like South Park, however brief that discussion may be. 63.215.29.111 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, nothing is too profane to be made the subject of a potentially interesting intellectual discussion. Navel-gazing cultural snobs of the Adorno/Harold Bloom school may sneer from their ivory tower, but yah boo to them. Jonas Liljeström 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since I have looked at the wide range of definitions for Antihero, I would dare to say that they ALL qualify as antiheroes, since the only people excluded are convntional heroes, and none of the characters there qualify as that! Corrupt one 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But, since adding examples to this page does little to improve it, I'd suggest we not go down this road. CaveatLectorTalk 16:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Daredevil
I'm not sure Daredevil is really an "end justifies the means" type, at least no more than any other costumed vigilante. You could just as easily say Clark Kent becomes Superman when the power of the press fails 8-)... Daibhid C 12:45, 4 September 2004 (UTC

I see him as a vigilante in type, although his blindness MAY be considered enough to make him a antihero. Corrupt one 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Daredevil is genrally portrayed as a tragic Hero, rather than an anti-hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.164.236 (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Macbeth
How bout Macbeth? Gkhan 15:22, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

How was he heroic? Corrupt one 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Macbeth is the Ideal Shakespearean Tragic hero, which is slightly different from the Aristotle who did not require or prefer the hero to die at the end.

And when talking about general term such as heroic keep in mind that Creon is considered a tragic hero, meaning that literature from pre-enlightenment has a completely different idea of what is and what is not heroic. Iamprsn9 (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I admite I am no expert in Shakespear, but I seem to recall he murdered his way to the throne and went mad. That is about all that I can remember off the top of my head, except for a few lines. How can he be classified as any type of hero, tragic or otherwise? Corrupt one (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course heroism is subjective, but his character starts out as a loyal follower of the king: a brave and resourceful general. I would class him as more of a "fallen" hero though - the fall ocuring from his and his wife's ambition.--Thehalfone (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I will admit he WAS a brave and loyal servant of his king at the start, and that MAY give him some slight heroic status there, but when he turned on the very things that gave him ANY status of being a hero, he lost any claim to be a hero. Still, this is all OR and we can't add it to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrupt one (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition
I think it should be noted in the article that the definition of anti-hero is controversial, and for a particular character can depend on the reader. (Would be helped by links to varying definitions and examples). Njál 14:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An antihero is braodly defined as a main character who shows few, if any traditional values of a hero. However, the preveouse entry stated that in general terms an antihero is normally accepted as a type of hero that is atypical and can't be defined by heroic values. Whoever it was stated this simply and without using a lot of terms that you are confusing to some people. They summed it up in one little sentecne that is understood by all!

I can hardly make sense of the definition you have there at the moment! Corrupt one 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

anti-heros in the physical sense
would the hobbits from Lord of the Rings and Abe from Oddworld count as anti-heros in the sense that they arent traditional heroes since they are physicly very weak but have a strong spirit?
 * I don't think so. Anti-hero pretty much addresses a character's personality/intentions/moral outlook etc. Although they're unconventional in size their intentions are pretty clearly good on all fronts (at least with the hobbits, I'm not familiar with Abe). One might be able to make a good case for Frodo though, considering his intentions near the end, but that's a pretty grey area. TheMidnighters 23:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Hobbits are classical heroes in that they are loyal, brave, pure of heart, self-sacrificial and value the greater good above their own suffering. Bilbo Baggins in "The Hobbit" is classic reluctant hero.

This is about more then just hobbits. This part can be about ANY type of being that is normally excluded from being a hero due to its physical form. Beings like Hellboy (who is a DEMON for crying out loud) and any other thing. I remember a book where an Ogre was a paladin of the God of Justice. How about we work from there with this segment? Corrupt one (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding category appearance
I have a question regarding the category appearance. Is there any difference between a category listed as, say,, or the variant without the asterisk, which would be  ? I did not see any, but maybe I'll need new glasses, so please help me. Noya Watan July 7, 2005 11:24 (UTC)

Achilles!
Ooh, can we have sources for Achilles being considered an anti-hero, please? Njál 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd like to see that. I can imagine the argument (the destructive nature of his wrath, etc.), but it still seems odd for him to be placed in this category. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If by "odd" you mean "downright crazy," then I totally agree. I'm removing it.  Achilles comes nowhere near being an anti-hero, and the concept didn't even exist in Homer's time, since the modern conceptions of the "Hero personality" had not been formed yet. --CaveatLector 08:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the only way it could possibly work is if you apply our contemporary values to the character, which, while an interesting exercise, shouldn't be regarded as definitive (unless what you're examining is some modern retelling of the story rather than Homer's original). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the author should have labeled the character an anti-hero to fall in that category. If it fits that's it. Then again, for this case you hace a popular contemporary movie which clearly pictures Achilles as an anti hero. Besides, Homer was geek, but didn't he make Achilles heroically betray the greeks at the begining of the Oddisey? No, I'm serious, I don't know, never read it. =P--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 06:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Achilles was dead long before the beginning of the Odyssey.  He does appear, as a ghost, when Odysseus visits Hades, but he certainly never betrays the Achaean (Greek) cause. The only argument for Achilles — at least, Homer's Achilles — being an anti-hero is that his wrath is terrible and merciless, and probably not the sort of behavior that would be considered "heroic" today.  But even that's quite a reach.  Let's not even mention Troy... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the very end on the Troyan war retold at the begining of the Odyssey? I think I heard the Odyssey tells what happens with Odysseus and his crew after the war while going back to Greace. I do know there is no written story from those times describing the war, the story survived through oral tradition. However, greek stories are full of anti-heroes, none of them are really good people. I think the greek stories rather tell morals by showing the protagonist imperfections and weaknesses and how these make them fall. The concept of hero was diferent, instead of the medieval idealism of fighting for your lady and rescuing villages from villains, greek heroes are about the blory of beating thousands foreighners and the ocational huge monster and getting as many chicks as possible. I wouldn't say Achiles is a hero in modern terms. Even if he did as in that movie, his arrogance and principles, rather make him anti-hero. What do you think?--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. The narrative of the Odyssey begins well after the end of the war.  Odysseus does recall the sacking of the city later on, but not in great detail.  And Achilles was killed well before the business with the horse.


 * As CaveatLector suggests below, the question isn't really how a character is viewed in a modern context, but how he is viewed in the context of the narrative itself. (Which might be an argument for the removal of Batman, come to think of it...)  In the context of Homer, a hero is really someone who is great rather than good — it's about magnitude of action, not moral character.  You're right that very few of the Greek heroes would be regarded as positive moral examples today, but that's not really the point.


 * The concept of anti-hero is a reaction to the concept of a hero, and in Homer you can see the notion of a hero in its infancy. A "hero" in Homer is not the same as a "hero" in modern usage — see Hero.  It might be appropriate to say that the Achilles depicted in the movie Troy is an anti-hero, since that's a modern work retelling the story (with many significant changes from the myth — which is why I haven't seen it).  But it's not appropriate to apply the term to the Achilles of Homer, or any of the Greek heroes of myth as they were known to Classical culture. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, a greek hero is mesure not in terms of fighting for the right reason, but in terms of how impressive his fights were. What I didn't know is that there were other clasification for not so ortodoxe heroes besides anti-hero. "Greek hero" will do for me. I didn't think the movie was that bad, after all I went to see it with the idea that the story is original from the movie based on a mith. If no classic literature was hurt in the process, a movie like that might make a good choice when there isn't anything better to watch... And Brad did manage again to look cool. Not a five star movie, but it's sure worth a couple bucks. And I can tell you, that interpretation was an anti-hero; but I definitively agree, if the only classic Achilles is the little mention in the Odyssey, the character should stay as a Greek Hero. For all I care the issue is over. Thanks for sharing your knoledge.--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify — Achilles does appear briefly in the Odyssey (as a ghost, during Odyseus's journey to the land of the dead), and he is the protagonist of the Iliad. Were you were referring to his refusal to fight after Agammemnon takes Briseis when you said he betrayed the Greeks?  That's in the Iliad. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While Achilles is definitely a classical Greek hero (regards his honour as one of his most valuable possesions, defeats his enemies in battle), what about Odysseus, especially the Odysseus of the Odyssey? He denies his own fame on most encounters (eg the cyclops), only revealing his name once he thinks he's safe and he uses cunning and deceit to defeat his enemies; something which caused Virgil 800 years later to regard him as anything but a hero. (unsigned)


 * Odysseus fills the role of a hero through his cunning and his guile, niether of which the Greeks viewed as a particularly bad thing or unheroic. CaveatLectorTalk 07:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Odysseus fills the role of a hero through his cunning and his guile, niether of which the Greeks viewed as a particularly bad thing or unheroic. CaveatLectorTalk 07:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Homer Simpson
Homer Simpson is a good example of an anti-hero?!?! How ridiculous. Can there be a single wikipedia article without referencing the Simpsons as an example?

David R 15:11, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well I see your point, but U.S.Americans and the world in general have a tendency to idolatrate mediocres like Homer & Bart, Seinfeld & ganng(the ultimate anti-hero), Peter Griffin, The futurama characters, Sam Malone, Fred Flintstone, Gilligan, and so on. None of the these are really admirable, charming or good intended maybe, but not admirable. Even Bugs Bunny isn't a very good example to follow. He is not mediocre, or evil, but he sure is naughty and kind of mean.--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 06:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How are they heroic? Corrupt one 00:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees
A villain anti-hero is a villain people feel sorry for.

Who the hell feels sorry for Jason? He's a freaking killing machine. CrazyAussie 23:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish there was a larger body count, with even fewer survivors, and more horrible deaths. About the ONLY goodly things he has done is fight Freedy and kill a small gang. That was for selfish reasons. He is NO type of hero, not even an Antihero. Corrupt one 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

example removal
I've removed Jason and the Dukes of Hazard from the examples given for the catagories for the simple reason that, if characters start getting added again, this page is likely to get turned into a clone of the recently deleted list of anti-heroes. Let's try not to add anymore, I'd say. I'd suggest instead that, if you believe that a character deserves being made an example moreso than another, swap the names. CaveatLector 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'd suggest that we keep it to a max of five examples per anti-hero type for now, that should prevent it from getting too sloppy. --TheMidnighters 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Anti Hero
Why are you removing the anti hero list for? You suppose to edit the list if there is any mistake on it. Please do not do the samething with out any reason real reason. I mean Some real reason beside rubbish such as "This will ruin the page" or "it is irrelevent". (The preceeding unsigned comment by user 218.250.208.174).


 * The list of anti-heros was removed from this page for much the same reason it was earlier deleted through an AfD. Please see Articles_for_deletion/List_of_anti-heroes and Deletion_review --CaveatLector 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge
Antagonist and anti-hero are completely different terms. --TheMidnighters 02:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, these are totally different concepts. --CaveatLector 05:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I can't see any grounds for this merger. --Lunatio 11:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Dostoevksy and Donaldson are non-existent on this page?!?!
I'm writing a mid-term paper for my high-school senior english class and my topic is the anonymous anti-hero in Notes from Underground, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Among the sites I'm using for my research as well as the books, I came across this entry, and have decided to use it. My only qualm is how outraged I was when I discovered that whatever "list" had been made, left Dostoevsky's Underground Man and The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson out. If you all don't mind -- I'd like to discuss a new category of anti-hero to put in here tha would include them both. The certainly have triats of some of the well crafted categories already there, but have many traits that render them neither/nor. There are plenty of others out there just like them, I'm sure.

Send me back, or reply to this if you want to help make the category.

Cheers.

Lists
We've been over the list of anti-heroes thing. We don't need extensive lists of popular fictional characters in order to explain the anti-hero archetypes to the average reader. If we wanted to do that, we would create a separate list (which was done, and it was VfDed, so there's that). If someone specifically feels that an example is wrong, then they should either bring it up here, or just be bold and replace it with a better example, but this shouldn't become a dumping ground. That just makes the article hard to read. -Harmil 04:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * People, can someone please at least try to communicate? This constant insertion of lengthy lists of random anti-heroes does nothing for this page. -Harmil 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed my recent addition has been removed; reading through the discussion list, I assume its for the same reason, i.e. that it was a "random list". However, I did not present the characters as random examples; rather, I was trying to point out that the antihero character seems to be common in pop culture today. I listed three well-known and critcally acclaimed TV shows, and provided documentation from NY Times that supported the exact point I was trying to make. I am respectfully asking for an explanation why my edits were removed. It's very frustrating to spend an extended bit of time on an entry only to have it completely wiped a day later. SgtOsiris (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Monsters as villains
Give Frankenstien a read. The monster is actually not a villain at all. He is a tragic figure with deep flaws, but he is not a villain. The two villains presented in that book are abstract: science and fear. As such, I would strongly disagree with the suggestion that the monster and villain archetypes should be merged. I did remove Lestat, however, since he's actually more of the villainous anti-hero. -Harmil 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, my general point in removing Frankenstien's monster was that he wasn't really a 'hero' in the book, much less an 'anti-hero'. CaveatLector 05:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. -Harmil 18:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that, who would you suggest as a second example? I'd like it to be an older example, since Hellboy is a recent one. If not for that, the Hulk would come to mind, but that's isolating ourselves to not only a time-period but to a medium (comics). -Harmil 18:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Frankenstein's monster was more of an anti-villian then an anti-hero, if anti-villain exists. Snake712 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you are talking about antiheroes in fiction, from my perspective in comics the term is limited to the characters that fight bad guys with unnecesary violence and sometimes even punish them. I mean anti-heros as defined on this page is such a wide concept (not that it is wrong), that every superhero fits at least a couple of sterotypes here. Spiderman is a loser (married with a top model, but still portrayed as a loser), Batman uses fear and spionage, wonderwoman is barely dress, even superman has had some weak moments. and in general none of them are recognized by the goverment to take justice in their hands. I think in comics context only the Spawn, X-men, Punisher, Venom or hitman kind are seen as anti-heros.--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 02:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Was that meant to be a response to my comment or something new? I think you've got the definition of the anti-hero a bit confused. Being "barely dressed" or having "weak moments" isn't what an anti-hero is about. Anti-heroes don't have weak moments, they have strong moments (like Han Solo turning back to save the day in Star Wars: A New Hope). Also, while vigilantes are a type of anti-hero, not all anti-heroes are vigilantes (the nior detectives come to mind). Still, that's not what I was asking about, above. -Harmil 03:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hellboy was removed as an example with an edit comment that indicated that, except for his external appearance, he was a traditional hero. Of course, that's exactly correct, and is also the reason for his placement in that specific section. Do we have a better example of the type? -Harmil 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would still like a reply to the above from the parties who feel that Hellboy is inappropriate, but more concerning to me is User:CantStandYa's (IP: 155.84.57.253) repeated removal of this sentence from the Monster section: "Monsters and villains are not identical, however. Often a monster's external and internal nature are in conflict, allowing the monster to be both traditional hero and anti-hero." At least some discussion would seem to be in order here.... -Harmil 17:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit in question: -Harmil 17:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have found no definitions stating that an antihero must be a villian. I found one that states they MUST be a Hero! The only qualification that lead people to think them villians otherwise is lack of heroec traits (those recognized as heroec anyway) I say this is pointless! Corrupt one 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)