|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
Ah, the antihero. This character has become especially popular due to society's cynicism. No one likes to see Superman types anymore wielding their magical sword and defeating evil. People aren't that perfect. Enter the antihero.
The original antihero was a hero that didn't fit the mold of the standard Hero. (Just come up with all the positive adjectives you could think of, and you have the Hero.) The antihero is a flawed protagonist that, while performing "heroic" deeds, or feats that are hero like, they don't have the same qualities that a society would believe a hero would have. One of the first popular antiheroes in America was Captain Ahab from Herman Melville's Moby Dick. Ahab is self destructive in his obsession, and pays for it. He is far from heroic. Melville even has a passive aggressive antihero in Bartleby the Scrivener who defies what is asked of him by never lifting a finger to do anything, even react. He is the antihero of inaction, something heroes never do.
Now, while I think my explanation of the antihero sloppy (feel free to correct me on anything), the point of this discussion is to see how you as writers handle your antiheroes. Do you prefer them to be foils for your heroes, or are they the protagonist? Do your antiheroes fit the "bad ass with a heart of gold" mold? Are they just as bad as the villain? Do you like to use them at all?
Start chattering!
|
|
Joined: 4/28/2011
Posts: 60
|
Antiheroes are my heroes!
Truth is, I find most run-of-the-mill heroes quite boring. Where's the drama in them? Where's the moral ambiguity and the will-they-or-wont-they do the right thing uncertainty? It's hard to love someone who's perfect and, as a reader, I find it even harder to feel like they love me in return. After all, our relationships with our favorite characters are a bit like love affairs.
The trouble with antiheroes, though, is they're harder to write. You want him/her to have heroic qualities, even if reluctantly, but it's the flaws that matter most and writing flaws can be a tricky thing. You don't want the flaws to be too overwhelming or too unforgivable or you risk alienating your readers. Your readers have to like him/her, after all, despite and maybe even because of your hero's flaws. Make them too venal or greedy or self-involved or whatever and you may turn people off.
I think the real trick to writing good antiheroes is to be able to explain the origins of their flaws--well the big ones anyway. If you can explain them well, then people will feel empathetic even to some really major flaws.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
I agree. It is quite difficult to make antiheroes that are like-able, but I have come across a couple that have done some heinous acts yet they have a fan base. They are terrible, terrible people. You are right in saying that it all just comes down to how you write them.
I found an interesting list that someone made online of pop-culture antiheroes (I emphasize the pop) that don't have the soft and squishy center like most secretly do. In essence, these guys were just straight up bastards, little more than villains. I can't find the list anymore, since it was put up around the time Game of Thrones hit the air waves, but I'll try to recall it the best I can. From the bottom of the list to the top: Midnighter from The Authority (comic book), Spawn, Deadpool, Vegeta from Dragon Ball Z, The Punisher, Alucard (probably spelt wrong) from Hellsing, Jamie Lannister, and John Constantine from Hellblazer. I'm missing two of the characters from the list, but probably because my little geek mind didn't recognize them. Anyway, as you can see most of them are comic book characters, two of them anime. I don't know if I agree with Jamie Lannister, but I suggest looking these dudes up if you don't know who they already are. Its fun to see what other people's antiheroes look like.
|
|
|
|
Assuming that the antihero is an ordinary person who rises to meet an extraordinary challenge (and therein lies the heroism) could the flaws be those parts of the character that do not grow to heroic proportions because they are not necessary for success? Maybe ordinary parts of the antihero's personality stand out as amusing or annoying precisely because they are not heroic. And what about an antiprotagonist? The evil doer can have qualities that are not required for evil purposes and that, on their own, merit our approval. I'm attempting the latter: My protagonist loves and risks everything to protect his daughter. I think events that forge one ordinary person into an antihero can make another an antivillan.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
@GD Deckard: Even if your protagonist will do anything, and I mean anything, to protect his daughter, then that would make him an antihero. I speak of the antihero in the classical definition when heroes couldn't have flaws or they wouldn't be heroic. Antiheroes aren't necessarily villains, or ever were. They do heroic deeds, hence being called a hero. The term antihero is used to define the fact that they don't fit the classical definition of hero. Antihero is often tossed around in the wrong context because the definition of hero has changed for use in the modern day.
What I think you're getting confused is protagonist and antagonist. Protagonists don't necessarily have to be heroes at all, they are usually the main character of the story. Antagonists are the ones that cause the conflict for the protagonist. You can have villains as protagonists and heroes as antagonists depending on how you write it. Antagonists don't have to be bad dudes at all.
As for the antivillain, I think that if your "bad guy" does acts that can merit our approval, to use your words, then they will most likely be more of an antagonistic antihero not a villain. If their acts "merit our approval" then wouldn't they be heroic?
What I want to know is how do you handle writing an antihero?
|
|
|
|
LeeAnna Holt: Ack! You are exactly right: The next to last sentence in my above post should read, "My ANtagonist loves, and risks everything, to protect his daughter."
You asked: "What I want to know is how do you handle writing an antihero?"
The transformation to legendary hero might be total in the classic myth, but I'm thinking of an ordinary person being transformed only to the extent necessary to overcome an extraordinary challenge. This allows me to transform my protagonist into an antihero and my antagonist into an antivillian. They both rise to the ocassion, if you will. The hero is virtuous and the villian is evil. But neither has been totally transformed. Each retains ordinary flaws to which we as readers can relate. The answer to your question depends on the purpose of having an antihero and the purpose here is to explore what is good and what is evil.
Thank you for catching that error and thank you, very much, for your considered comments.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
@GDDeckard: The way you describe your protagonist and antagonist as being ordinary people that only change so much as to overcome and extrordinary challenge makes them sound more like a modern hero and villain since you still describe them as virtuous and evil. If you want your hero and villain to be an antihero and an antivillain, than I suggest toning down the strong words. Antiheroes may do something virtuous, but they as people almost never completely are. There is usually a selfish or violent quality to their virtuous acts that keeps them from being the hero. Even Bartleby the scrivener's "I would prefer not to," fits into the category despite him being passive agressive.
It sounds as if you are trying to blur the lines between what a hero and villain are, and I commend you for it, but this might be tricky. Like with your anithero, make sure your villain only does acts that could be considered evil and isn't evil as a person, and you could have your antivillain.
|
|
|
|
LeeAnna Holt: You are exactly right. I will blur the lines between what a hero and villain are in order to focus on what good and evil are. And yes, I am thinking of the "modern" definitions of antihero and antivillain as being relative.
I want my story to be a light adventure that anyone can enjoy, with undercurrents that interest readers who like to think about life's bigger questions. What is good and what is evil are such questions. Two things I do not want are lectures and relativism. Lectures would ruin the light tone of the adventure and relativistic morality is a cop out.
Luckily, the genre is hard sci-fi. I can extrapolate from known science a simple adventure wherein complex characters work out fictional answers to good and evil, life and death, love and hate. So far, it has been as much fun to write as it has been difficult.
I appreciate the questions you are raising. You force me to think critically about elements that are crucial if my story is to interest thinking readers. Thank you for your time and your thoughts.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
I'm glad that I could help. I agree that lectures and relativistic morality would ruin something that could be so much fun. Let me know when you have it done. It sounds like something I would like to read very much.
|
|
|
|
LeeAnna Holt: Thanks  I appreciate that!
|
|
Joined: 11/20/2011
Posts: 4
|
I'm new to the community, but here goes. Antiheroes can be loads of fun to write about. Mine have as many good points as bad. If fact, sometimes they are more likeable personally, than my protaganists. But they are at odds with the worldview of others, and thereby are at cross purposes. I find making evil people without redeeming qualities to be a huge mistake.
Wound your villian to make him sympathic, so his horrible deeds have a root in his past scars. As your protaganist grows stronger, becoming more likeable an captures the heart of your reader, give him some connection to you villian. They're both good at chess. They love Mozart.
I like bittersweet endings where the protagnoist wins but pays a price. The villian loses and we weep.
I design all my character with pictures, life backgrounds, hobbies, etc. Hope this helps.
|
|
Joined: 3/13/2011
Posts: 412
|
The great villians are the EFFECTIVE villians. Look at Richard the Third, from Shakespeare's play (not the historical version, heh). He is GOOD at being evil, and the successful way he screws with everyone is part of why we love him.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
Ah, Richard III. He is so deliciously evil. I loath and love him at the same time, but, while I love your reference, I want to know how you handle your antiheroes. Villains and heroes can be much easier to write (depending on the work of course), so I want to know what you think makes the antihero. Due to modern representations of the hero, the antihero has had to morph into something else different from what the original definition used to describe. Which do you like to write; the classic or modern version of the antihero?
|
|
Joined: 3/13/2011
Posts: 412
|
Well, at the moment, I'm writing scripts for a webcomic called... Anti-Heroes. heh. In this case, the main characters are villians, evil, but doing some heroic things, because, well, they need to be done. (also, vengeance.)
You stated your view of what a classic anti-hero is, but what do you consider to be the modern interpretation?
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
Haha. Ah, the modern interpretation. This is where it gets tricky. Because the modern definition of the hero has changed to resemble the classic definition of the antihero, one would almost need to establish what their definition of a hero is in their work as reference so a reader/viewer could pick out the antihero. I know, that sounds vague, but that is how it goes. The modern antihero almost needs to not seem heroic at all. As I have stated, they almost need to have a selfish or violent quality to them even if they have a heart of gold snuggled away on the inside. (I'm going to be super nerdy here for a moment.) Take Batman vs Superman. Batman, while considered a hero, fits more in the antihero slot due to the fact that he is prone to excessive violence and extreme measures even though he doesn't kill. Despite his soft spot for innocents, he doesn't trust easily. Superman on the other hand is the Boy Scout. He has the squeaky clean, all American quality that resembles a classic Greek hero. He sees in black and white, fights for justice, blah blah blah. You get the idea. (Of course, I'm talking about the characters in essence without all the strange things that DC has done with them.)
Now, if I were to write an anti-hero in my own modern way, it would closely resemble your premise. Since modern heroes can be extremely flawed, my antihero would almost need to be a villain to make an impact. Surprisingly, this isn't actually very popular. (See the list I posted on the first page.) Most of the best characters who are villain-like (no soft, squishy spot hidden away on the inside/complete bastards) almost only exist in comic book land.
As a side note: I like the premise of this web comic, but I have one nit pick. These villains would only function as anti-heroes when they do something heroic. If they do something villainous, they are no longer anti-heroes, they are villains. The thing that one must be careful about with these labels is that they are mainly there so that we as the audience can understand what role they play in the story. It is really nothing more. That is why they have definitions.
|
|
Joined: 3/13/2011
Posts: 412
|
See, to me, both classic and modern, an anti-hero is a main focus of a story, someone we are supposed to identify with, perhaps root for, who doesn't fall under the traditional "hero" model. This does include both unlikely hero types, and the two main classes of not hero, name, the bad guy who does good things, and the good guy who does bad things.
I consider the unlikely heroes un-heroes, and the other two anti heroes, myself. I think the main challenge in writing the unheroes is WHY? Why do they break their mold and do things contrary to normal? Make that believable, their motivations, and you're gold.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
I agree with you. The reason why I asked this question is to see how people approach the task of writing someone who does not fit the "hero mold." To clarify things I will relate my method.
When writing the protagonist(s), I do not set out to write someone who fits in the antihero/hero roles. I set up my character to be a person. I create their most likely responses, their quirks, their likes and dislikes. I just write. If they fall into a certain label, then fine by me. By the definitions I (remember, I) have set forth on this thread, I have 2 heroes and 2 antiheroes in my little group of characters, but it could be argued otherwise.
Now, those who give themselves the task of creating characters that fit into a mold, or don't, must have a clear understanding of what makes a hero, antihero, and villain in their world. If he/she wishes to play with traditional models of those archetypes, then they would have to know the traditional definitions.
I have noticed that people favor the antihero as the hero which is entirely understandable with the evolution of story telling and writing to fit our time. The new question I want to ask is this, does that make the antihero the new definition of hero? What makes a modern antihero? Many bring up the concept of the bad dude who does some good things, but then, what makes a villain?
Approach these questions like an open forum. I'm not asking for advice.
|
|
Joined: 3/13/2011
Posts: 412
|
I gotcha, I thought you were asking a difference in the term Antihero, from new to old. My misunderstanding. I think we do have a stratification. The heroic heroes are getting more bleached, more perfect, and the antiheroes more rough. These days, it seems like traditional antiheroes are getting the antiseptic treatment, like iron man and wolverine.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
I agree that it does seem these days that heroic heroes are getting more "perfect" (although I prefer the term "pure"). Heroes used to be quite violent, but not necessarily needlessly like an antihero might. Beowulf rips off Grendel's arm and then slays his mother. Percius (sp?) cuts off Medusa's head. These are the characters that heroic epics were written about, and yet now heroes do not kill. I wonder if it has anything to do with the introduction of Christianity and the morals it holds dear into law and society that changed how heroes are perceived. While that is thousands of years ago, societal aspects do play a huge part when it comes to stories. Heroes used to have many aspects before the antihero was introduced. All a hero had to be in Greek mythology was blessed by gods (often part god), physically fit, and intelligent. They always had their flaws.
I agree that it seems that your old school antiheroes are getting the antiseptic treatment. (Poor Wolverine. You used to be a bad guy.) Yet, at the same time, there are antiheroes being introduced that are quite rough, like I said, little better than the villains. This is how I look at it. What are the antihero's motivations for saving the thousand people? Because of those motivations, is he worthy of praise? True heroes should be worthy of praise in some way or another, even if they aren't "perfect." That is what makes them heroes. Antiheroes should be deserving of praise in some sense as well even though they might not be the best human/alien/monster in the world.
|
|
Joined: 2/25/2012
Posts: 20
|
If you have any interest in noir-type stories, I'd say check out some of George Copeland's characters in 'Leverage' and 'The Straw Men' (just look him up under the People section on the site). Best antihero I've seen. I love the idea of non-perfect to slightly-punchable heroes.
|
|
Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 662
|
I should give him a try. Thanks for the suggestion.
|
|
|
|