Thread: anti-hero Versus hero

how do you tell them apart/write them apart in a story?

then there is the superhero?

this fine example here which for me suggests a wizardy type male fairish who changes from a human to a gory looking superhero:

Bank clerk Stanley Ipkiss is transformed into a manic super-hero when he wears a mysterious mask??

are we suggesting that superhero can be also vividly unpleasant yet heroish?
I would definetely cross this type of superhero with the fairy tell of Mirror Mirror/snow white?

A hero is the classical 'good guy' who dives into danger and saves the lady and so forth. James Bond and Jason Bourne are heroes.

An antihero, in general, is usually the antithesis of the usual hero formula, with the character being flawed, morally grey, reluctant to do the right thing and to be altogether, in some aspects, more realistic (shying away from danger or running from a crime scene). A good example is the Bad Boy who's antagonistic to the Good Guy until danger strikes. The antihero usually ends up doing the right thing or saving the day or some such, but without the immediate panache of the hero archetype.

I think in terms of writing the two, it's all too easy to write the hero because we've all heard tales of heroes since we were children. Antiheroes, I think, are a very interesting thing to try to write and I'm glad that you've opened a thread about it, because I don't think that it's done properly very often. Antiheroes have to be in some sense unlikable or flawed in a manner that a hero isn't, but still the reader must hold some kind of affection for them.

They need some kind of attractive trait, like a sob-story background or some such reason to explain their behaviour without coming out and saying that they're just evil. An antihero is bad, but not evil.

An antihero, in general, is usually the antithesis of the usual hero formula, with the character being flawed, morally grey

the word antihero reminds of the word antidote, meaning injecting a drug to counteract another.
I remember watching this movie where this guy took the wrong drug and needed another drung to counteract it.

The antihero usually ends up doing the right thing or saving the day or some such, but without the immediate panache of the hero archetype.

I seem to stumble across these anti-words, whoever makes them has an agenda in mind.
the essentail word HERO is there and therefore it brings me to think of the underlaying meaning of the word itself.
panache is mundane when the hero is actually killing for the sake of it.
a real do gooder does the job, tidies up if you like, without the violence or killing and I have yet to come across such a person in films. movies or stories. the ultimate goal of, hero or anti, is to ultimately resort to killing and that I have a slight dislike to.
which brings me to think that hero signals the idea of the person doing it not because the care, but toget a kick out of it, get the recognintion and the title.

An antihero is bad, but not evil

isn't there a fine line between the too? they are the same surely?
or are you basing your differences on looks ..lol

Bad is something that is not good, but is not necessarily intentional or malicious in nature, whereas evil is.

Mickey Rourke's character "Marv" in the movie "Sin City" comes to mind. He is essentially an Anti-Hero.

He sleeps with a prostitute, wakes up to find her dead, and finds himself framed for the murder. He then goes on a killing spree, attacking police and mercenaries alike, seeking revenge and vigilante justice. In the process, he questions his own sanity. When he captures one of the bad guys, instead of killing him, he tortures him gruesomely.

He operates with a set of morals that are noble to him (justice and vengeance, mostly), which makes him a Hero, but he also operates with a disregard for anything that gets in his way (the law, the lives of others). That makes him an Anti-Hero.

My (admittedly loose) definition of an Anti-Hero is a bad-guy that the reader cheers for. Often he has many negative aspects about him, but he follows a moral compass that the reader can sympathize with.

There's a dangling question of Redemption hanging over the Anti-Hero. Can he find it? Will he cross the bridge from Anti-Hero to Hero? Or will he stay on the "Dark Side of the Force"?

Speaking of Star Wars, when Darth Vader electrocuted himself, in order to save his son Luke from the Emperor, I believe he transformed, in that moment, from a Villain to an Anti-Hero.

Originally Posted by felix

Bad is something that is not good, but is not necessarily intentional or malicious in nature, whereas evil is.

humm...Iam going all cryptic now with

BAD

as Blunt and develish as oppose to

EVIL

extremley venemous inside limbers

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

Mickey Rourke's character "Marv" in the movie "Sin City" comes to mind. He is essentially an Anti-Hero.

He sleeps with a prostitute, wakes up to find her dead, and finds himself framed for the murder. He then goes on a killing spree, attacking police and mercenaries alike, seeking revenge and vigilante justice. In the process, he questions his own sanity. When he captures one of the bad guys, instead of killing him, he tortures him gruesomely.

He operates with a set of morals that are noble to him (justice and vengeance, mostly), which makes him a Hero, but he also operates with a disregard for anything that gets in his way (the law, the lives of others). That makes him an Anti-Hero.

My (admittedly loose) definition of an Anti-Hero is a bad-guy that the reader cheers for. Often he has many negative aspects about him, but he follows a moral compass that the reader can sympathize with.

There's a dangling question of Redemption hanging over the Anti-Hero. Can he find it? Will he cross the bridge from Anti-Hero to Hero? Or will he stay on the "Dark Side of the Force"?

Speaking of Star Wars, when Darth Vader electrocuted himself, in order to save his son Luke from the Emperor, I believe he transformed, in that moment, from a Villain to an Anti-Hero.

such a transformation is rather loose.
dark vader the dark force ..I thought he was a nice guy turned evil because he spell-casted by some dark force?
then turn anti-hero is tour de force indeed.
I am a star war fan for the only reason I cannot follow the atual reasoning behind it all.
I do not get the message behind it plus it start with different beginnings.



Episode V
"Empire" raised eyebrows when it was released in 1980. Instead of "Star Wars II," it was titled "Episode V."
Episode VI
With the order more or less in place, "Episode VI, Return of the Jedi" followed apace in 1983
Episode I
The episode numbers of the original "Star Wars" trilogy prompted rampant speculation about the three chapters preceding them. Lucas answered in 1999 with the release of "Episode I, The Phantom Menace."
Episode II
Lucas followed "The Phantom Menace" with Episode II, "Attack of the Clones," in 2002.
Episode III
"Revenge of the Sith," appeared in 2005. Lucas claimed that it was the completion of the saga, though rumors of Episodes VII through IX continue to circulate.


why number it if you are going to give it a title anyway?
I don't get it.

Duke in the TV series Haven is perfect.

Would Sweeney Todd count? I'm not sure if an anti-hero needs a hero to play foil to.

Also perhaps Snape from Harry Potter.

You're misunderstanding the definitions of the words here. A hero goes way beyond just what he appears like on the surface. A hero essentially have good motives, and a moral obligation to do the right thing. An anti-hero is someone who winds up doing the right thing at the right time, but wouldn't necessarily always make the same choice. More of a hero of the day if you will, someone who saves the day one day and wrecks it another time. He doesn't have any motives or obligations other then to his own selfish needs.

A superhero is simply someone whos abilities surpass those of normal human beings. Stanley Ipkiss that you refer to, finds a mask that belong to the God of Mischief, Loke. So when he wear the mask he gets godlike powers, but at the same time he becomes very mischievous.

Your grammar and spelling makes it very hard to make out what you're trying to say though. What do you mean by "wizardy type male fairish" ? And how do you apply the phrase "wizardy" towards Stanley Ipkiss?

There are two definitions of anti-hero. The original (and less commonly used now) meaning was a protagonist who simply isn't heroic, yet remains the "hero" due to the nature of the plot and the magnitude of his effect in it (good or bad). A decent example of this would be Shinji from the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, a boy who's been chosen to pilot a giant robot, yet expresses crippling fear and self-doubt throughout the entire series. More people are affected by his lack of action than by anything he explicitly does, so he's a classical anti-hero.

The modern definition of anti-hero is someone that the audience clearly should get behind, someone who makes a huge difference and often holds the moral high ground, yet they aren't necessarily a good role model. An example of this is the Punisher (in the comic book and movie of the same name). Frank Castle is the protagonist, out to get revenge for the death of his family. His methods aren't anywhere close to being ethical, yet we get behind him because the victims are the bad guys. He's a modern anti-hero because he's "heroic" without being moral.

All that said, though, there's no reason to be concerned about writing them apart in your story. Just create your characters the way you want to, and let the terms fall where they may. If the character ends up a hero, great. If he ends up an anti-hero, that's fine too. It doesn't really matter, as long as the character himself is well-written and well-developed.

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

It doesn't really matter, as long as the character himself is well-written and well-developed.

I agree. The best thing to do with a character is write them how you want them to be. The end result can then be given a title: hero, anti-hero, etc. If you write according to the title, your character can end up being a bit generic. I find that flair really blossoms when you forget about all the detail and intricate evaulations you can make about your writing, and just do what you want to do. Then you can fiddle around within however you want.

Originally Posted by SixPence

You're misunderstanding the definitions of the words here. A hero goes way beyond just what he appears like on the surface. A hero essentially have good motives, and a moral obligation to do the right thing. An anti-hero is someone who winds up doing the right thing at the right time, but wouldn't necessarily always make the same choice. More of a hero of the day if you will, someone who saves the day one day and wrecks it another time. He doesn't have any motives or obligations other then to his own selfish needs.

A superhero is simply someone whos abilities surpass those of normal human beings. Stanley Ipkiss that you refer to, finds a mask that belong to the God of Mischief, Loke. So when he wear the mask he gets godlike powers, but at the same time he becomes very mischievous.

Your grammar and spelling makes it very hard to make out what you're trying to say though. What do you mean by "wizardy type male fairish" ? And how do you apply the phrase "wizardy" towards Stanley Ipkiss?

the mask Ipkiss wears, is an object, like the mirror( not the newspaper) in snow white.
both mask and mirror are objects but are portrayed to have superpower to turn anything or anyone to anything.

the only superpower I personally can identify with, is that of a human or a wizar/fairy.

the same applies to the citrouille in Cinderalla story. it turns into a carriage but it was the fairy who magis it into a pumpkin.

Ipkiss is the wizard type/fairy type if you like because I cannot possibly relate to a mask/object having suddenly superpower andis responible responsible for Stanley mischievious and goldy like behaviour.
according to fairy tales and traditions only wizard/fairy/angel can do that.
so I see Ipkiss as the one with the superpower NOT the mask.

I am the type of reader who likes consistancy in myths as well as reality.
I cannot be told one thing one day and then 10year down I am told something else.
I mean if fictions starts off talking about fairies and wizard as being magical super beings then you can't turn around a year later or 10 years down the line and tellme it is now a mask/a car/a robot is being magical too.

you can only have one or the other,not too, or I am not going to be interested in fiction anymore.

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

There are two definitions of anti-hero. The original (and less commonly used now) meaning was a protagonist who simply isn't heroic, yet remains the "hero" due to the nature of the plot and the magnitude of his effect in it (good or bad). A decent example of this would be Shinji from the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, a boy who's been chosen to pilot a giant robot, yet expresses crippling fear and self-doubt throughout the entire series. More people are affected by his lack of action than by anything he explicitly does, so he's a classical anti-hero.

The modern definition of anti-hero is someone that the audience clearly should get behind, someone who makes a huge difference and often holds the moral high ground, yet they aren't necessarily a good role model. An example of this is the Punisher (in the comic book and movie of the same name). Frank Castle is the protagonist, out to get revenge for the death of his family. His methods aren't anywhere close to being ethical, yet we get behind him because the victims are the bad guys. He's a modern anti-hero because he's "heroic" without being moral.

All that said, though, there's no reason to be concerned about writing them apart in your story. Just create your characters the way you want to, and let the terms fall where they may. If the character ends up a hero, great. If he ends up an anti-hero, that's fine too. It doesn't really matter, as long as the character himself is well-written and well-developed.

thank you for that Gamer.
I think I will pass the hero all together.
I like to think that there is a hero in all of us and making hero as being epic is just making sound like the gladiator whose only reason to exist is to fight or die by the sword.

Originally Posted by Nacian

what I mean by Ipikiss is that the mask, is an object, like the mirror( not the newspaper) in snow white.
both mask and mirror are objects and are portrayed to have superpower to turn anything or anyone to anything.
the only superpower I,personally, can identify with is that of a human or a wizar/fairy that are of human appearance.
the same applies to the citrouille in Cinderalla story that turns into a carriage, again it was the fairy who magics it to become into something else.
Ipkiss is the wizard type/fairy type if you like because I cannot possibly relate to a mask having superpower that makes Stanley mischievious and goldy like because according to fairy tales and traditions only wizard/fairy/angel can do that so I see Ipkiss as being the one with the superpower and so dismiss the mask.
in other words Stanley had all those powers all along .
I am the type of reader who likes consistancy in myths as well as reality.
I cannot be told one thing one day and then 10year down I am told something else.
I mean if fictions starts off talking about fairies and wizard as being magical super beings then you can't turn around a year later or 10 years down the line and tellme it is now a mask/a car/a robot is being magical too.

you can only have one or the other,not too, or I am not going to be interested in fiction anymore.

It's very hard to make any sense out of what you're saying here, but it seems to me that you either have not seen the movie, or have completely misunderstood the story behind it. Consider the mask an object similar to the master ring in LOTR. The object gives the user abilities, but at the same time the object has a will of it own, infused in it by its creator. In The Mask the creator of the mask is revealed to be the God of Mischief from old Norwegian religion, Loke. So while wearing the mask it brings out the mischievous side of the person wearing it, while undermining their other character traits. Stanley Ipkiss however is just an average Joe who ends up finding the mask, and start using it. Whenever he wakes up in the morning he has no memory of having worn the mask or what he did while wearing it. The abilities are all related to the mask itself, so Ipkiss is definatly not a fairy or a wizard, the same things that happen to him happen to anyone else who puts the mask on during the movie.

Originally Posted by SixPence

It's very hard to make any sense out of what you're saying here, but it seems to me that you either have not seen the movie, or have completely misunderstood the story behind it. Consider the mask an object similar to the master ring in LOTR. The object gives the user abilities, but at the same time the object has a will of it own, infused in it by its creator. In The Mask the creator of the mask is revealed to be the God of Mischief from old Norwegian religion, Loke. So while wearing the mask it brings out the mischievous side of the person wearing it, while undermining their other character traits. Stanley Ipkiss however is just an average Joe who ends up finding the mask, and start using it. Whenever he wakes up in the morning he has no memory of having worn the mask or what he did while wearing it. The abilities are all related to the mask itself, so Ipkiss is definatly not a fairy or a wizard, the same things that happen to him happen to anyone else who puts the mask on during the movie.

Hi SixPence
I have never heard of Loke. It misread it earlier as Love.
what does Loke means in norwegian?

Originally Posted by Nacian

Hi SixPence
I have never heard of Loke. It misread it earlier as Love.
what does Loke means in norwegian?

It's the name of a God from old Norse Mythology, and doesn't have a deeper meaning that I know of. Abbreviations of the name has been used as a slang word in more modern times though, portraying a person as michievous and up to no good. Loke was the same way, he was a prankster and a joker without thought for consequences, and thus became the God of Mischief. Loke had a brother, by the name of Balder. Balder was a God of beauty and all good, he was the best of the Gods, and because of that his mother went out into the forest and made all living things, flowers, trees, and animals alike swear they would never harm do Balder harm, all except for the misteltoe. She didn't find the misteltoe, so she never got to ask it to swear to protect Balder. As they grew older, the Gods had fun with Balder showing off that nothing on this planet could harm him. He let them throw spears and boulders at him, and he didn't get a single scratch. Loke was envious of his brother, then he learned that the misteltoe hadn't sworn the oath. Loke got an idea for the ultimate prank to play on Balder, he went out and found a misteltoe, and sharpened it into an arrow. Then he asked another one of his brothers, Hod who was blind, if he would shoot the arrow at Balder. He thought that the blind Hod would miss his target, and the arrow would scratch Balders arm to hurt him. It would be a funny joke, he thought. But alas, Hod shot the arrow, and pierced Balders heart, and Balder died from the one thing in the world that could harm him. And Loke was cast out from Asgard for having killed his brother.

You might recognize him better as Loki. I know that's the spelling I'm familiar with.