Talk:Anti-hero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-hero article.
Article policies
Anti-hero is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Literature Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary on the talk page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Proposed definiftion change

Since the definition already in use seems to be causing so much confusion and disagreement with it, found a definition I would like to add to the main article that I found in the Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary (Bay Books and Oxford University Press (C) 1962 (1983 reprint)) I think it sums up what an anti hero is neatly, while allowing for flexability for the changing on conventions.

Hero of unconventional type in novel etc.


Why this definition?

One of the most common definition states, with minor variations depending on the source, that an anti hero is "a character with few, if any, traditional characteristics or values." That leaves the door open for villians and other non hero people to be included as antiheroes.

The other main type of definition I have come across is "A protagonist with few, if any, traditional characterists." This also leaves the door open for villians, and also means that it only refers to one person/ small group of people. That means you can't have an antihero working in the backgrounds as a mysterious figure. You can't have them popping up to help, hinder, and do what they want.


Others try to define why an antihero is different from other heroes, and limit them in that way, so the definition can't include the full range of antiheroes.


I am giving you one month before I add this to the article to present cases why you think it should not be added. Corrupt one 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Areas for clarification left open

I can see only two varibiles in this definition

The first is WHAT is a Hero. For that, I think it would be best to go to the Hero page

What is unconventional?

Does it depend on the culture, the age, the people who make them up, or what? Can an antihero become a conventional hero if that type of unconventional hero is adopted by culture and becomes a conventional type? Can the reverse occure when a culture changes and that type of hero is no longer conventional?

If anyone can find research to help clarify this for the article, I would appreciate it. Corrupt one 00:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the definition proposed by Corrupt one ("an unconventional hero") in favour of the previous one ("a fictional character who has some characteristics that are antithetical to those of the traditional hero"). One reason is that Corrupt one is proposing a definition of anti-hero that describes the class of character as a hero; it's important to clearly differentiate between the two concepts rather than simply state that an anti-hero is an unconventional hero, which is vague and misleading. It's better to state, as the older definition does, that a fictional character described as an anti-hero is more than just unconventional, and possesses traits antithetical to those of the traditional hero, not just ones that are unconventional. --TM 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I was just thinking that maybe it might be benefitial to combine the two definitions. I still have a problem with using the term hero in the lead since all the definitions I've checked (Penguin dictionary, M. H. Abrams' Glossary of Literary Terms and definitions from dictionary.com) refrain from using the term hero. (Most of those sources define an anti-hero as a main character or protagonist lacking heroic qualities.) Perhaps they could be combined into a lead like this: "An anti-hero has variably come to define an unconventional hero, a protagonist lacking heroic qualities or even one possessing traits antithetical to the traditional hero". This definition is broad enough to cover the range of definitions found elsewhere. --TM 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that may work. Mention in the definition area something like "The term antihero has a varity of definitions, ranging from unconventional heroes, a protagonist lacking heroic qualities or even one possessing traits antithetical to the traditional hero."

This will allow for all the definitions to be looked at, while not excluding any. Since the definitions are listed latter on, they can see them more clearly. It will also allow for people to understand WHY there is debate over what is and is not an antihero.

The change you propose to make would sugest that it was all part of the one definition and might of caused confusion.

My intent was to provide what I say as the broadest possible definition while not including all chacters who were not heroes, or excluding all characters other then the protagonist. If the definition I put up does not work, then mention the wide range, by all means.

Hell, I'm no expert, I just have what I admite is my point of view. Just as long as you allow people to see what there is and think for themselves, go for it. Corrupt one 02:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Just on a side thought, with all those definitions, who are NOT included, except conventioal heroes? Corrupt one 02:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Proposal: Develop a new term to replace Anti-Hero

It seems that the term "anti-hero" is pejorative and subjective - it presupposes that there is an "authority" who defines heroic, villainous and anti-heroic values, qualities and attributes.

I propose the following:

It is agreed that the Western Christian tradition is dualistic.

Furthermore, the this tradition divides Creation between the Spheres of Good and Evil. (Regardless of how culturally created these spheres are.)

That the Classical Hero exists in the Sphere of Good.

That the Classical Villain exists in the Sphere of Evil.

That the anti-hero exists on the shifting borderland between Good & Evil. (Otherwise known as Liminality.)

That the anti-hero is a Liminal Being.

Therefore I suggest that the Anti-Hero be renamed.

I suggest the neologism: Limenethos to describe a character who exists in an ethical borderland. (from the Latin "limen"-threshhold, from the Greek "ethos"-moral character.)



As a side note, judging by the etymology of the key words, "Anti-hero", "Hero", "Villain", "Protagonist" and "Antagonist" none of these terms serve a useful descriptive purpose:

"Hero" - from the Greek meaning "demi-god" - does this mean that the Anti-hero is the "against demi-god"?

"Villain" - from the Latin meaning "farmhand"

"Protagonist" - Pro-"in favor of", agonizesthai "to contend for a prize"

"Antagonist" - Anti-"against", agonizesthai "to contend for a prize" (Is Austin Powers a villain because he contends against Dr. Evil's prize of ruling the world?)

Eh?Why? 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, 'anti' does not always mean 'against'. It can mean 'the opposite of' or something that's not really an opposite, but backwards or swapped in a way, like a reflection in a mirror. Antithesis is an example of this. It's not negative or pejoratives. Secondly, we do not 'develop new terms' on Wikipedia. We write articles on terms that already exist. See WP:NEO. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to trying to change the term Anti-hero. It is an accepted word. We do not MAKE words, but make an encyclopdia of words that already exist using referances from the real world.

Also, a few other things. If we DID somehow rename antiheroes, we would still have to have an article on antiheroes to show what they are, since people who know the term will look for it.

Another matter; I believe you know that litteral translations do not count as the meaning of things. I base this on the fact that those examples you gave would mean you had a pretty stuffed up educvation if you believed they still meant their original meaning I state quiet freely that I believe you are trying to stir things up. I can appreciate it; just try to be more subtle and amusing in the future. Corrupt one 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between Byronic hero and anti-hero

The articles don't seem to be clear on this. Although the two are very similar, the difference is not outlined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.64.10 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Question regarding category appearance

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

[edit] 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... ""worst vandal ever"" 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... ""worst vandal ever"" 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#The Greek "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... ""worst vandal ever"" 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)

[edit] 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... ""worst vandal ever"" 06:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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... ""worst vandal ever"" 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: [1] -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)

[edit] Willy Loman

Willy Loman is most certainly an anti-hero (the modern pop-interpretation of the anti-hero as a "dark hero" not withstanding). To make that point, here's a bit from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press:

Literary characters that can be considered anti-heroes are: Leopold Bloom in James Joyce's novel Ulysses (1922), Willy Loman in Arthur Miller's play Death of a Salesman (1949), the bombardier Yossarian in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22 (1961), and the protagonists of many of Philip Roth's and Kurt Vonnegut's novels.

I'm starting to think that the right way to deal with this page is to nuke the examples. I know, I know, but stay with me a second. The actual content of this page is a mess, and only recently did I add a small amount of the historical context for the term. Why would that be? Well, for the most part people come to this page and see examples. They then want to add their favorites rather than doing actual research. If, rather than breaking down categories of anti-hero (and honestly, our categories are on shakey ground as O.R. in the first place), we were to make the article more about the development of the term over the course of the history of western literary criticism; contrasts with non-western literary devices; and two or three VERY historical examples, then we might actually have a shot at making this the kind of article that people benefit from reading. Just my $0.02, but think it over. Meanwhile, yes, Willy Loman is an anti-hero. -Harmil 23:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, just as long as we don't get List of Anti-heroes cropping up in a seperate article again, I would love to see this article actually become encylopedic. CaveatLector 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as somebody who only came upon the article today, I would agree. - DavidWBrooks 01:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't personally have anything against a list of anti-heroes in another article (there's a List of super heroes, List of super villains, List of villains and List of fictional apes, after all), but that's a side-point. The key thing is that it seems we have consensus on deleting the list of examples, and expanding the article. I'll do some research over the coming weekend and see what I can come up with for the history of the concept and try to build a framework for the expanded article. Once I have that, I'll be able to reasonably start on such edits. I don't think it's worth deleting the examples until we have some meat to replace them with.
Ultimately, there will always be some form of exmaples in this article (it would be hard to cite sources without them), but I'm thinking that they should be inline, and based on the development of the anti-hero in literature not the latest re-hash of the originals (e.g. "In 1949 Arthur Miller further expanded the archetype to include the utter failure with his play, Death of a Salesman. His Willy Loman is the American theater's 'most tortured antihero ... stand-in for the bottomless terror of American life, the fear of being branded a failure.' as The Washington Post described him. [2]") Then it becomes a history with some footnotes, rather than a cast of characters, which should attract far fewer "oh, what about my favorite" type edits. -Harmil 04:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
For the list issue, check out the articles AfD archive: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_anti-heroes. Basically, it was deleted for the same reason why the examples on this page threaten to overflow. Naming somebody an anti-hero is a lot more subjective than listing them a hero or a villain or a super hero, etc. I like your idea, however, of adding two or three small examples and making the article focus more on how the anti-hero functions within the literary tradition. CaveatLector 06:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I never got to it last weekend (buying a house), but I'll get back to it ASAP. -Harmil 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Assassin / Spy

I thought I would float this one before putting it on the page. The spy/assassin was once considered contemptuously, even by the people whose side he/she was on. For example, Mata Hari from World War I. It has only been since the introduction of James Bond by Ian Flemming in the mid 20th century that the assassin/spy has gained any respectability. Even so, the spy/assassin remains outside "respectable society." Good examples (forgoing Bond, who is a bit too mainstream) would be the Jackal from Day of the Jackal and The Bride from Kill Bill. Thoughts anyone? 155.84.57.253 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would add a note to a paragraph toward the beginning. Something like:
One archetypical character, the assassin or spy, has changed in literature during the course of the 20th century form a villain to the subject of the sub-genre of spy fiction. Some spies and assassins are still villainous, while others are heroic. Some few fall into the middle as one of the established archetypes of anti-hero.
The key here is that assassins and spies aren't an archetype of anti-hero, they are instead members of professions that pre-dispose them to one of the other archetypes based on their characterization. -Harmil 17:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In Sun Tzu's book, the art of war, which predates Christ, it argued that spies and assassins were to be reasted with respect for the work they do, and the fact that their work can stop many battles from ever taking place. In that respect spies and assassins may be considered an established type of hero. In Europian culture spies and assassins were considered villians, so it not established there as a type of hero.

I guess the matter rests in WHY and HOW they spy and assassinate. It their motives reasonably traditional, then I reacon they should be accepted as a type of hero.

It all depends on the motive and how they go about it. If they assassinate a tyrant and his main supporter because they are Evil, then the killer may be considered Good. If they did it because they disliked his beard, then they may be an antihero. If they did it after forcing them at gun point to dress up in ladies underwear and and dance while recording it on comera, just for the sake of doing so, then they are an Antihero!

Since they were considered a normal type of hero in one main type of culture, does that mean they can't be generally defined as antiheroes in general? I would like to know. Corrupt one 02:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouns

As per my talk page, please see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html for comments and references from a well-known and respected linguist on this issue. 'They' has been a form of gender neutral pronoun since Shakespeare. CaveatLector 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, though you really shouldn't have to provide citation for something like that. ;) -Harmil 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Shadow the Hedgehog?!

I'm a fan of Shadow the Hedgehog. So, I checked the "Shadow the Hedgehog" article on this website. One of the suggestions under "Related Topics" or whatever it is was "Anti-hero". I checked it out as well--but I didn't see Shadow anywhere on the freakin' page! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?! Shadow is an obvious example of an anti-hero! Why doesn't somebody get rid of Homer Simpson (How he got there, I don't know) and replace him with Shadow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.75.211.113 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 March 2006.

This page is about the concept of an anti-hero, not a list of all anti-heroes in fiction. -Harmil 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to start that page though! Because Wikipedia does not have enough random lists. :) List of anti-heroes in fiction jengod 19:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't. Such a list was already deleted for very good reasons. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_anti-heroes. CaveatLector 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Which will spawn List of animal anti-heroes in fiction, which will lead to List of cartoon animal anti-heroes in fiction, which will create List of cartoon animal anti-heroes with lots of spines in fiction, which will generate List of cartoon animal anti-heroes with lots of spines and names related to visual effects produced by light in fiction, where Shadow the Hedgehog will reign supreme. - DavidWBrooks 19:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Ignoring the fact he is an animated animal, the criteria to decide if he is or is NOT an antihero is to look at his characteristics from a non physical point of view. Also, a semi conventional type of superhero in this day and age is the Speedster, this may rule him out as an antihero. If he IF considered to be unconventional enough to be considered an antihero, he might be listed as an example of an antihero a fair number of people would be familiar with. Corrupt one 03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Batman

Some clarifications would be nice. I mean, it is clear that Batman fits the descripcion of his category, but in the context of comics heroes, the term anti-hero wouldn't fit. I realize this article is talking about a more broad context, but if editors are to use Batman as an example there should be some clarifications. Usually, in comics context only the likes of Spawn, Venom, Catwoman, or maybe the X-men or the Hulk are considered anti-heroes.

Batman has gone anti-hero on some ocations, like the Dark Knight Returns or the 90s movies, but never on the regular continuity of his stories. And what is said about his first storyes back in the 40's is in the above section, is also taken out of context. Back then killing the bad guy was the right thing to do, there was no Comics Code Authority, mobsters got along with way to much stuff and the States was in war. The police wasn't after him, and Gordon was always supporting him. Besides, Batman left behing the guns before his creator, Bob Kane, left and way before the 60s show.

In short, what I'm asking for is a clarification stating that batman is not seen as an anti-hero in comics. You can confirm this with the editors on Batman page. Thanks.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody be kind enough to answer me already?!! I'm serious about doing corrections. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 06:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, T-Man. I'm not an expert on the literary terminology, but based on this entry I think that the argument would be that any vigilante — that is, anyone who pursues justice by extralegal means — is a type of antihero, regardless of other aspects of their character. Batman is arguably the most famous vigilante of all, and so is a good example to illustrate the concept. Does that help? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I get that regardless he isn't outlaw, he is a vigilante, and vigilantes are anti-heroes. My only point is that in comics context, anti-hero is usually used for outlaws, the kind of vigilantes that not only take down the bad guy, but also punishes or kills them. You know the Punisher-Spawn-Azrael type. That's why nobody acepted the anti-hero categorization on the Batman page. I guess my objection is that both pages should be coherent with each other. Maybe, that comic notion of who is an anti-hero I'm talking about was wrong all along. But I don't like contradictions on the wikipedia. What are your thoughts on that matter?--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You oversimplify the discussion the Batman page concerning this subject. The question of Batman as an anti-hero is seen as up in the air on that end (for some odd reason). Considering that the definition of an anti-hero. Anti-heroes are STILL HEROES. They still do heroic things, they just use methods and have personalities which are not associate with your common everyday 'hero'. Achilles, for instance, CANNOT be considered an anti-hero, because he fits the cultural paradigms required of a 'hero' within his culture. Batman, however, is an anti-hero not only because he is a vigilante, but also for his personality and focus on constant revenge. I'm not quite sure where you are getting this idea of a 'comic notion of an anti-hero' from. Being a 'dick' DOES make you an anti-hero because our culture conceives of 'heroes' as 'nice guys.' This entire discussion might be moot later, because I still think that THIS page needs edits in order to make it more literary and academic, in which case the examples might be dropped, in which case Batman would not be included and that discussion could be moved to the Batman page. CaveatLectorTalk 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. Sorry to say this, but you wrote a lot of stuff I don't disagree with. I only care for the point about what is an anti-hero from comics perspective against the overall lyterature perspective. On the Batman page, the case was over, I've seen that happen with other issues. Sometimes a discussion doesn't end with the people involved saying 'agreed', but the issue is over because most people favor one point of view. And really, it beats me, but Batman is perfect as a vigilante anti-hero example but when you talk comics almost only the 'grim 80s' type of hero fits as an anti-hero. Like it or not batman is a fine example, the article isn't talking only about literature, movies and comics count as well, try erasing it if you want, I won't stop you, but I'm betting people are not going to let you or agree with you. Just my opinion, nothing more of course.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 01:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh, and acording to the article you are wrong, anti-hero is not necessarely a hero, the article states that ocationally a villain can be an anti-hero.
But you are right about one thing, it is quite incomplete, anti-heroes date probabbly from Renacentism. Medieval literature heroes were all about crusades and saving dames and the king being almost saints, but Don Quijote and Shakespare works start setting a lot of good examples of heroes that go against that. While Don Quijote de la Mancha tries to be as good as the medival standard, he performs his "dutties" as good as Goofy or Donald would, Cervantes is clearly mocking that standard and making the Hidalgo the opposite of it.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
1. You poorly describe the Medieval romance heroes. They are not 'all about crusades and saving dames and etc'. Sir Gawain for instance is far more complex. Cervantes' work is specifically a mock-epic (or a mock-romance) that attempts to parody the style in general. 2. when speaking of 'literature', I talk about anything that is a 'text'. In THAT sense, comics and films ARE 'literature'. Besides that point, comic books are really just graphic novels. Hence they should be treated to the same standards as any other literary work, and if you are going to define a hero-type, it has to apply across the board. 3. As for villains being anti-heroes, you seem to be missing the semantics. 'Hero' and 'Villain' are not diametrically opposed outside of simplistic fiction. Some of the greatest 'villains' in literature (Javert, for example) are actually very noble people, and some characters who used to be villainous (say, Venom) might become 'heroes' in the sense that they fight crime, do heroic actions, or are the protagonist of a story. The point stands. Just because Batman does 'noble things' does NOT preclude him from the label of 'anti-hero'. I would not press this point so much if I didn't feel as though he is actually quite a good example and, if examples are to be included, should certainly be there. CaveatLectorTalk 23:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Mmmph! I say "tomato", you say "tomahto, you poorly described it". At least that's how I felt it. What's your problem? nobody is fighting.

I'm coming straight from Cervantes words, I think there might be the slightes posibility that he kinda sort of knows a little more about the topic. Quijote without his goofyness would be a complete hero; and the models he was following was the one fron hundreds of medieval books the hidalgo read. He said what they would say, and their ideals and motifs were the exact same, the diference is that Quijote was in the wrong era and he wasn't skilled. Little weaknesses that make characters complex don't make them necesarely anti-heroes either. Noa got drunk, David had quite some mojo, Abraham fail to trust God once and Moises was kinda moody for my taste, but they wouldn't be pictured as anti-heros. Even Jesus seemed a little cranky in St. John's version. Imperfections are not enough to make a character an anti-hero, that's just character development. Ok, I'm just babbling, THE THING IS your #1 comment is just about ofending me, my point was to determine wether the anti-heros are a XX century thing or not, and you completely missed it. Instead you just write unnecesary criticism. We also clearly agree on including comics, why do you kept writing in such antagonic way? I also think Batman is fine listed there, but some explanation should be done. My proposal was explaining the concept from comics perspective. If you don't buy it try sticking the anti-hero category in batman's article. Batman editors would eat alive the person sticking it, they can be very anal about it sometimes. And please, let's agree to keep this respectful. Not because I say so, but because it's the right thing to do and nevermind if I'm not perfect we deserve to treat each other with respect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T-man, the Wise Scarecrow (talk • contribs).

My comments were neither disrespectful nor insulting to you personally. I was discussing your comments, and did not make any ad hominum attacks. To say that you poorly described something is not to insult you, but to evaluate what you said. I appologize if it seemed offensive to you, but it results from projection on your part. My comment was not about offending you, but about how I feel as though your reading on this topic is misguided. (Nor was I claiming that Don Quijote is not an anti-hero. He's one of the perfect examples.) Drawing a line at the creation of the anti-hero as a literary concept is perfectly sound (I myself have done so in previous comments concerning how reidiculous it was to include Achilles on the List of Anti-Hereos page whose deletion I spearheaded). In fact, I would love it if we could get some verifiable sources on it so that we might make the article more detailed. However, I do not quite see how you have shown that the definition of an anti-hero is different in comics, or should even be considered different from one form of literature to another. The concept of the anti-hero DOES change from era to era (because the concept of a 'hero' does), but I still don't see where your argument comes from (or, for that matter, what point you're trying to make). CaveatLectorTalk 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


If he is a vigilante, does that mean he is a traditional type of hero? What I mean is that ALL the definitions I have come across have stated that an antihero can't be a conventional type of hero, and a vigilante appears to be a type that has become more conventional. Corrupt one 00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User 68.171.24.168

Please discuss your disagreement with the current version HERE and do not just simply revert back to the Punisher example. CaveatLectorTalk 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vigilante examples I'm Still bitching about Batman

I think they are both wrong: within superhero context Batman is not conceived or viewed as an anti-hero, and Dirty Harry migth be an anti-hero, but not a vigilante. Harry broke the law before quitting, but on a trial he wouldn't be acused of being a vigilante. That last one is just wrong by definition, if you enforce law either you do it as an oficer or you are a vigilante. It sounds fear to say Callahan is an anti-hero, but he doesnt qualify as a vigilante. Batman is kinda the opossite, he choosed to fight crime as a vigilante, but he doesn't take the law in his own hands. He is very observant of the law; so much that Police actually uses his servises all the time.

Probbably all superheros but Captain America are anti-heros according to the concept this article manages. But lets take, comics as a genre. Within this genre, only the vigilantes that commit murder, amputation or abuse villains are called anti-heros. Speciphically: Punisher, Spawn, Wolverine (sometimes), Hulk (too destructive), the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turttles, Lobo, Azrael, Etrigan, the Suicide Squad/Task Force X, Hitman, Deadpool, Catwoman, Venom, Rorschaw, the Comedian, V, Elektra.

Batman belongs to the comic "genre" (actually is the 9th. art, but for the sake of keeping this focused, let's stick with "genre"), and that genre uses different standards for its characters.

If this page doesn't respect the vision of the authors, it might as well include all heroes in Disney movies, they always kill the villains. That's Disney idea of heroism. Kill the bad guy, save the day, get the hot princess and go to sleep, just like in medieval times. The 7 Dwarfs might quilify as an angry mob killing an elder woman and yet they are not antiheros. That's because, if you see the movie they are not portraid as such.

This article in a contradictory way frames the antihero as a concept that started being used the last century and exposes Robin Hood, don Quijote and others as good examples. Achiles was rejected as an anti-hero because greeks didn't intended him to look as one. Well neither did Bob Kane when he created Batman. Remember: it was the 40s then. Beating the crap out of bad guys or even kill them was the right thing to do.

But that's a Batman that is not even remembered nowdays. If you think about the cannonical present-days Batman, he still isn't intended as an anti-hero, just a very practical and functional superhero.

Greeks din't view Achiles as an anti-hero, just as people in the comic "genre" media don't see Batman as an antihero. And comic "genre" is the media where Batman matters the most and has his origin. Don't buy my argument? Fine, try to stick the anti-hero category in the Batman article and you will see my point. Experts will never agree with the way this article use Batman.--T-man, the wise 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry :P. I did't know there were other Dirty Harry movies besides the first. heheh--T-man, the wise 08:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did the creators of this article got the stereotypes from? I think we should specify where this terms come from. It seems a little mede up without any mantion of the source of these terms.--T-man, the wise 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, second verse same as the first. Firstly, your comment about comic book heroes basically illustrates that the comic book is a genre which, by its nature, welcomes the use of the anti-hero as a trope. Secondly, you have not (despite being asked several times) given references that refer to the term "anti-hero" being used differently within the context of the comic book genre).
Respecting the "vision" of the author not only falls under the Intentional Fallacy but also fails to realize that author is dead.
Merely killing a villain or enemy also has never been postulated as a criterion for anti-heroism.
This article does NOT say that the anti-hero was an idea created in the last century, considering that the history section includes a reference to the Victorian period and to William Shakespeare.
The Greeks did not "intend" anything with Achilles, he's part of an oral tradition. One could argue about what Homer intended with Achilles, but since his (Achilles') actions line up with the Greek conception of a Hero, that says little (i.e. it doesn't matter what Homer intended or not). (Have you checked the hero page?) The Greeks are a unique culture. If you wanted to make an argument that American culture does not view Batman's methods as anti-heroic, I feel your argument would be much stronger. However, you point to some sort of "comic book world" here, which I am generally confused about. Who draws the lines between these worlds (all things are Texts after all)? Who has shown how the classification of a cultural literary trope somehow means something different within THIS particular genre? Can we have some citation?
I could possibly see a study of the evolution of a character like Batman showing how conceptions of the hero (and therefore, the anti-hero) have changed in recent times. It would definitely be an interesting article, though it would span at least 3 different Wiki sections.
As for the stereotypes themselves, I'm not quite sure I agree with their inclusion, but people wanted to illustrate the meaning of the anti-hero while still listing examples. This is a lot better than the list that was on here before.
I am, btw, adding an anti-hero section to Batman in the near future. CaveatLectorTalk 23:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to clarify that I'm really enjoying this discussion, and all the new knoledge I'm getting from it. Thanks, man. I'm just questioning things in order to get them right, regardless which one of us is actually right (although my money is on myself, heheh).

You're right, the intention of the author is pointless. I now realize it thanks to you. Nevermind that, a hero in the 40s could kill and nobody questioned him. Just like the prince in Disney movies would kill the wicth as if it were moral behavior or the right thing to do.

Let's forget about Kane, Sprang or Burton. Talking about nowdays post-Crisis, post Batman Begins and B:TAS-Batman is the smart, practical, functional detective operating as a vigilante, aiding the police force and rescuing GC people as he sweared. He hates guns and the people who use them.

The Zorro is almost as famous, and fits better the vigilante type. That's because he is an OUTLAW vigilante. The zorro is a hero because he brakes the law and fights evil oficers while Batman is a hero because he aides the law where the police comes short. Actually, I'm starting to fail seeing Batman as an anti-hero even on the terms of this article. Robin Hood also qualifies as a better example.

Wolverine is also almost as famous and he is a massive killer. Recently, after he freed himself from the control Hydra had over him, he killed about 800 mobsters according to Nick Fury. And he still managed to become an Avenger! Ultimate Hulk, caused massive destriction whith losts of victims in New York in order to create a Showdown of the Ultimates. The TMT Turttles killed Shredder on the first issue. Do I even have to explain why popular HELL Spawn or kinda popular Punisher are better examples according to the concept of anti-hero in this page? After all those examples, you still think Batman is an anti-hero? He still hasn't kill, abuse, or mutilated a thing yet. The only thing he does not so right is the same Superman and about 90% do: not being an oficialy authorized crime-fighter. Uh, and also being cranky and kinda rude.

Greek miths, as well as all the acient tradition that eventually generated fairy tales, did intended their characters to be portraid certain ways to teach moral lessons. Achiles, Edipus and many others are heroes because the concept of hero was then measured according tho the amount of enemies and the size of the obstackes they overcame, but they had defects ant that was the point of their stories. They were arrogant, so karma or whatevah punished them. And yet geeks venerated them.

You're right this article does not frame the anti-hero concept according to context, it just describes its characteristics. I'm getting confused here. Why was Achiles out of list, again? He has all the features of an anti-hero, and he is out of the picture only because greeks idolazed him? Their concept of hero is actually our concept of a jerk or an anti-hero. (I guess nobody updated Bush about that, heheh). What they used to call hero is what we nowdays consider degeneated mass murderers... or politicians, sometimes. Our idea of heros is Firemen or even good parents. Greeks would have called them servants and wouldn't pay them any attention. So I think Achiles IS and an anti-hero even though greeks called that a hero.

I'm afraid I'm going to owe you that source to back what I said about anti-heros from comic genre perspective. Try Googling it. I just know that from years of reading Comics, mainly DC and mainly Batman (actually, 14 years and an average of 15 comics book issues per mont + internet + all superhero movies and toons + wizzard, honest. And yet I do realize even you might turn out to be even more familiar with comics than me).

Btw, good luck with your anti-hero section on batman, you are gonna need it. Most editors wont agree with you, and there is this jerk that likes to believe he owns the Batman article that just won't aloud changes like that even for 30 seconds. so be my gest... Actually, let's make this interesting: wanna bet? --T-man, the wise 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also enjoying the discussion. Wouldn't be here otherwise :). In any case, the reason why Batman was first used in this article is because he's much more iconic than those other characters, even really popular ones like Wolverine. One does not have to kill to be an anti-hero. Traditional, a hero (especially the comic book hero) has been the 'knight in shining armor' (or, rather, the knight in colorful spandex) type, the guy like Superman who is an iconic, 'all american', 'mild-mannered' guy. Batman inverts this hero type. He is a vigilante whose inner psychology is rather twisted and who's methods are certainly questionable at times. It should be noted that another character killing more people does not make Batman NOT an anti-hero. It makes the other character a murderer. I'll say it again: Killing is not a requirement. Traditional heroes kill all the time.
Also, your characterization of Greek myth is, I'm sorry, wrong. Greek myths were not (just) moral fables. (In fact, there's very little moralizing in them). They also do not have any sort of conscious drive, so they cannot 'intend' anything. Once again, as the hero article says (my edits, btw) a Greek Hero originally was little more than a soldier in the Trojan war, and became a moniker for somebody set apart from the rest of humanity by some trait of geneology (having decended from a god) or by some pivotal act. It wasn't about killing a bunch of people or overcoming an obstacle. Also, the Greeks did not believe in 'kharma'. Heroes were generally not 'punished' for their pride, unless this pride managed to directly anger a god (Pentheus). What happens to Oedipus happens because it was fated to happen, not beause he's being punished. Achilles was a hero because he was strong, he was the song of Thetis, and he fought in the Trojan war. Remember: the term 'anti-hero' is not something that one culture can impose on another culture's icons. That is, WE cannot say 'Oh, Achilles is forever and always an anti-hero because he doesn't meet OUR standards of a hero.' If, say, a character that resembled Achilles were to pop up within a modern context, that would probably make him anti-heroic.
You're right that heroes today are becoming more grounded in reality. In fact, I believe that the very idea of the hero is dying (a result of post-modernism, probably). However, this article talks about characters that a historically anti-heroes...and Batman does fit that catagory quite iconically. CaveatLectorTalk 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not that anyone needs reminding, but you can't just say Batman is or isn't an anti-hero. This is an encyclopeida, and original research isn't allowed. You need to cite sources and use those as your arguments. There's plenty of sources which describe Batman as an antihero, and for me it would be nice to see this article lean on more references too, it only offers two and doesn't really cite them. Hiding Talk 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If we are using the definition, "a protagonist or notable figure who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities," Batman doesn't fit the definition. He's not Superman and not the nicest guy, but he is very much heroic. In the context of target audiences' culture, Batman possesses many of heroic attributes. He is in no shortage of courage and has essentially sacrificed his whole life for the welfare of other's. His psyche is screwed-up and he helps because of his need, but I imagine every hero has some sense of duty he/she feels a need to fulfill.

Some separate points: Batman is not an if the ends justifies the means type of character as he has very dear ideals. He won't kill his enemies nor does he use guns, so there are definitely lines he won't cross. Also, Batman is not exactly so un-American, Bruce Wayne is handsome, rich businessman who contributes greatly to charity. I imagine we all don't fit that mold but it is something many Americans would like to be. Also, I think heroic qualities have to be seen in the light of the audiences culture. A lot of things acceptable then aren't acceptable now and vice versa.--Thaler5 19:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citations required

I've added citation needed templates to the section on types, this could be viewed by people as point of view or original research, and if these are well established types of anti-hero it should be easy to cite some sources. The examples also need citations for the same reason, and I would also suggest the phrase "well known" is perhaps in violation of WP:WEASEL, and suggest "oft-cited" as a better phrase. Hiding Talk 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This all seems really stupid to me. A lot of it seems like a big "duh" and doesn't need to be cited. I mean do you really need to have someone else tell you that Robin Hood fits the noble criminal type? If you know anything about the character, or at least read a description, it's pretty obvious. In any case, I got rid of all of those incredible annoying citation needed templates you tossed all over the place and replaced it with one nice little one for the whole section like you should have done in the first place. --SeizureDog 03:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems and such

I think the citations needed additions highlight were I think this page needs the most work. I added a disclaimer after the 'types' heading, but I don't think that will cut it. I also took out 'the everyman' because I realized that these characters are protagonists rather than heroes. Hopefully more edits oncoming. CaveatLectorTalk 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can a character be both an anti-hero and a hero? Because if the terms are exclusive, hero would be the definite one for Batman. I'm sorry but, I still think greeks did intend morals. That's because when I say so I keep in mind two elements that most greek legends have, the heros human faults always lead to their tragic ends. To me that's a moral, vanity/pride leading to tragedy. They were a different culture, but compare Zeus, Achiles or Edipus to Hebrew God, Noah, Moises or Abraham. Ok, those actually existed, but they were inmortalised through literature, and nowdays, literature versions of jewish characters are being separated from historic ones for their study. I think the fact that the greek idolazed antiheros and gods almost based on capital sins doesn't make those characters less antiheroic or sinful. Achiles was all about glory, cutting heads and vanity, that's not heroic, that's anti-heroic, now and always. Zeus was all lust, ares vengaence and anger, baco gluttony, aphrodite vanity and so on. We couldn't say that greek gods were good gods just as we couldn't say greek heros were good ones. Greek hero and hero are not synonyms.--T-man, the wise 19:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No one claimed a character cannot be a hero and an anti-hero at the same time. In fact, my comments clearly say that a character needs to be a hero in order to be an anti-hero. Hence the 'hero' bit. You are simply wrong (sorry, but you are) in your assessment of Greek heroes having 'flaws taht lead to their downfall'. Tragedy is not about MORALIZING, its about a MISTAKE (hamartia) that a character makes that leads to their unfortunate downfall (unfortunate because the mistake is usually a very harmless one). The rest of your comment just reveals that you seriously need to read up on your mythology and you are making absoultely no sense whatsoever (sorry again, but most of that comment doesn't even seem like its in English...) The trope of the anti-hero is based within the context of the culture that created the hero. Achilles cannot be an anti-hero because he perfectly fits the Greek concept of the 'hero'. There is not forever-and-always concept of the 'HERO'. A hero is a cultural construction. The Greeks did not idolize 'anti-heroes', they revered particular people as heroes for their own reasons. (Your characterization of Achilles as 'all about glory, cutting heads, and vanity' is also rather...blasé...)
I once again have NO idea what you are trying to say. CaveatLectorTalk 02:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Then read me again. You were the one that brought up the "author is dead" concept to the discussion. Getting rid of the author intentions means getting rid of the greek context of Achilles. Take the character as if he was contemporary. I happen to see moral mistakes leading to trajic endings in most greek mithology. Even fairy tales had moralizing intentions (I read it somewhere, research, don't believe me cuz I say so). I guess what you said about my English is mostly true, but I still stand for what I said. I don't think they Idolized random characters with random characteristic. I think the flaws of their gods wee intended for some purpose. I mean who goes around making up gods and stories if they have no purpose?--T-man, the wise 10:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)--T-man, the wise 10:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I guess we're in a basic disagreement, because I believe it is fairly obvious that a culture as a whole cannot create a character with a specific intention. I also believe that it is very evident that your knowledge of mythology isn't quite up to snuff (have you read the Iliad? The Odyssey? The Theogony? The Metamorphoses? The plays of Sophocles? Of Euripides? Your statement "Who goes around making up gods and stories if they have no purpose" I believe shows a bias towards purpose and meaning. Sometimes, my friend, things simply do not have a purpose. They can have a function or an origin, but a purpose is not necessary. Nobody "made up" the Greek myths. The culture brought them into existence. Besides all this, we are not separating purpose and intention. The Greeks do not intend for Achilles or Heracles as heroes, they view them as such. If you want a good example of a hero/anti-hero distinction among the Greeks, you should compare somebody like Achilles to Jason in Apollonius' Argonautica. That should probably make it a little more clear. EDIT: I would note, by the way, that I am still for the deletion of the examples completely, which would make this edit war moot. I think that they detract from the article, myself. CaveatLectorTalk 15:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right I'm no expert. But I've always seen the error and negative consecuence in those stories and put 2 and 2 together. There is always those two elementets, why? I agree the they view those people as heroes and that their concept of heroes was very diferent. But you were also right when you point Author is dead. A lot of greek heros fall in present day concept of anti-heros, nevermind their original view. The problem we have is that we agree on many points but apply them in a different way on the examples.--T-man, the wise 09:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read this segment, and I think I see your problem. You both seem to be using different definition that lay within the definition presented in the article. I have found a definition I think clarifies WHAT an antihero is that solves this, and other matter, placing at the top of the page. However, part of your disagreement here is not clarified, as there is one varible left open for research to be found on. Please read it and respond. I would appreciate any imput you can add. Corrupt one 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batman?

It seems a better example would be Magneto from X-men.

  1. Please sign your comments using four tildas.
  2. Please read the rest of the talk page.
  3. Magneto is a villain, not a hero.
CaveatLectorTalk 21:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Sorry, my mistake. I'm new-ish
  2. I did. Don't assume I didn't.
  3. "vigilantes are individuals with the same goals as a traditional hero, but for whom "the ends justify the means". Rather than relying on the proper legal channels, the character "takes the law into their own hands" and pursues justice in their own manner. This character type probably owes some of its popularity to the comic book superhero"

Have you even watched the movies or read the comic books? The heroes of X-men want free rights for mutans, Magneto wants free rights. Very different. Maybe you should read the article and do your research.

Magneto views mutants as superior to ordinary humans, and strives for domination, not equality. Although he has acted as an anti-hero before, he is not primarily one, and to cite him as one is to confuse the definiton. (By the way, I had assumed you hadn't read the talk page because you asked 'is batman really an anti-hero' when that topic has been discussed uber-long on this page already. Your addition of that one sentence was rather frustrating considering the detail of the debate that's been going on. CaveatLectorTalk 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah. You are correct. My apologies. Eirra 03:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Magnito started out, as far as I can remember from an old spiderman episode from the late sixties, as a villian bent on power for himself and distruction in general with no higher goals then that. This was WELL before mutants were common in fiction. Over time he has changed from that to a person who would use mutants to controll humanity becuse it is their right as a superor being, which is still a villian.

He then changed into a person who wanted mutants to take controll of normal humans as that was the only way to stop the discrimination against mutants. After that, for a bit, he tried to have mutants live seperatly from normal humans. He has also become a recluse, doing things occasionally to help mutants in general, often as a last resort for them.

The last three versions of him may be considered Antiheroes. Corrupt one 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catagory Deletion

Interesting...I became aware of the existence of this catagory through the Batman article. I've preposed its deletion for the same reasons why I preposed the successful deletion of the anti-hero list. I wanted to inform all the editors of anti-hero so that we could get a broad amount of opinions. CaveatLectorTalk 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Types types types

The reason why I sought to remove the examples from this page is that they are very finicky and cause a great amount of undue revision to the page. People add and substitute examples willy-nilly. I really don't see what they add to the page if we can cover some examples in the main page, like I attempted to do. I'd like to discuss this a bit more before I remove the types section again, just to see what you think. CaveatLectorTalk 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you on this. I also agree that Magneto is a beter example. He's actually perfect as an example. Wheter you agree or not that batman could be an anti-hero, he makes a very controversial choice for an example. I also think the Zorro is another popular character with clear anti-heroic characteristics. Same as Wolverine. I just read a recent story in which, after recovering control of his mind from HYDRA, he kills docens of men through his way to Japan. He is also outlaw as a mutant fighting injustice through the x-men a private organization with no legal recognition. A agree that Punisher, Venom, Spawn, Lobo or Daredevil, even with their movies, don't make good examples because they are not popular enough, the Ninja Turtles are barely known as the serious characters they were at first, but Magneto, Hulk, Wolvarine or even Catwoman might make good choices.--T-man, the wise 10:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal to remove the list of types seems too drastic. I can see how you would want to do something to stop people from constantly adding or substituting in new, "better" examples, since Wikipedia entries try to evolve into bigger and better articles over time. However, removing the list of types seems to contradict the nature of Wikipedia. Yes, it's true that having a separate list of types is unnecessary if you explain the list of types in the main page. However, most of the types are not explained in the main page, and until they are, I feel having an extra section for them is beneficial, and removing that section before then means entirely deleting useful, relevant information just because you don't like the way it's presented. I believe we can reach a compromise. By restoring the explanations of the types, but keeping the examples of each type off, I believe we can greatly reduce the number of new examples we get. Mind you, this only needs to be a temporary solution until each type is mentioned in detail on the main page, but how long that would take is difficult to say. Eldritch 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's ok to delete the list, but...

...why keep practically no examples in the article? One of the best ways to explain a subject is simply that; to give examples that the reader can relate to.

By the way, in my opinion, most of the anti-heroes mentioned on this talk page aren't anti-heroes at all. A prime examples of an anti-hero would be Raziel of the Soul Reaver series. --85.255.33.130 10:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the reader has no idea who your talking about, it doesn't help them at all, does it? Eirra 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Placing an esoteric example such as whoever Raziel is on the page wouldn't solve anything. I removed the examples because they are highly highly contested and highly POV in nature. better to include a few examples in the actual text of the article rather than a list which consistently undergoes edit wars. Not sure which anti-heroes that are not anti-heroes that you're talking about here... CaveatLectorTalk 16:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally! somebody on my side! I think we have to do some serious bookworm research about anti-heros. Let's use quotes or sourcing for every example instead of choosing the examples ourselves!!--T-man, the wise 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh!, I totally agree with the new changes. The Vigilante Sub-article makes perfect justice to Batman. Mentioning the Tim Buton movie (in whitch he even kills) and clarifying that SOMETIMES is view as a vigilante. Actually almost every superhero but Nick Fury, Green Lantern and Dragon Savage is technically a vigilante, but most of them aren't considered anti-heros, so the new format is perfect. --T-man, the wise 05:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of anti-heroes in fiction

User:Treybien has suggested recreating the category Category:Anti-hero. Since this was deleted as being vague and counter to categorisation policy, I've suggested a list, List of anti-heroes in fiction as the best place to implement the suggested idea. To my mind, if we are looking to list such qualities as makes a character an anti-hero and then list characters that exhibit such qualities, we are probably best off starting a list. However, I would like to note that comparing characters against a standard created by wikipedia editors amounts to original research and as such is proscribed against. We would need to provide citations as to where and why the character has been noted as an anti-hero, and allow citations offering opinion that the character is not an anti-hero. Thus, this area is better treated as a list in the article space rather than a category. I've copied this comment from a discussion with User:Treybien at our talk pages, and would appreciate the opinion of other people on the suggested list. Hiding Talk 10:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First you should probably check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-heroes, which shows why the old list was deleted: mainly due to lack of sourcing, and inherently POV or OR. Since the new list doesn't contain a single source either, it's probable that it will be deleted again. --TM 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Because deletion is so much more preferable to fixing. Hiding Talk 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. If you had bothered to visit the list before contributing such a helpful comment you'd see I actually added every single source there since noone else could bother. Pessimist (or realist) that I am, I still think it'll eventually be nominated for deletion though, and probably deleted. --TM 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I saw that. Had you assumed good faith and not thought my comment was directed at you I wouldn't have to apologise for my badly phrased and misplaced frustration with afd. Hiding Talk 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
After replying pretty quickly I thought I might have misunderstood the tone. My mistake to not have assumed good faith. Sorry for the curtness. (Sigh) --TM 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it was sigh entirely my fault. I apologise for the unneeded crack about good faith. I was pretty sure you had misread me but I was tightly wound myself. Sorry. Hiding Talk 10:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert E. Howard's Conan

The following text was suggested in connection with the passage on pulp fiction anti-heroes, but has now been deleted as an "unnecessary example":

An earlier pulp fiction example is Robert E. Howard's barbarian Conan, first featured in the horror and fantasy magazine Weird Tales in the 1930's.

In my view said character is an excellent example of one of the early and most influential anti-heroes of modern popular culture. Robert E. Howard's Conan is the model for countless pastisches and imitations; the archetypal "amoral swordsman". As such, the character is a valid and important example and I therefore think the text should stay in. Views anyone? CWL 20:56, 13 July 2006 (CET)

There is an ongoing effort to avoid having examples strewn about the body of this article. As the one who orginally reverted your addition, I still feel that mentioning Conan is unnecessary. --TM 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's great that that's your view, but we have to avoid original research, and we also have to maintain articles to avoid being an indiscriminate collection of information. The place to note Conan as an anti-hero is in the Conan article. Here, it is as indiscriminate as many other such examples. We can't attempt to list an example of every archetype. Hiding Talk 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Naming Howard's Conan as an anti-hero can hardly be considered original research. Notwithstanding I understand what you are saying and agree that the examples should be kept to a minimum (epecially as there is an article dealing with examples of anti-heroes), so fair enough. CWL 16:44, 15 July 2006 (CET)

I see conan as just another barbarian/ fighter type of hero. Not very original. Not an antihero. Corrupt one 05:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The original stories by Howard portrays a violent and amoral swordsman who is more concerned with his own enrichment than heroism. I refer to the following sources: [3] and [4] Whether Conan needs to be cited in this article or not as an example is debatable as the exemples should be kept to a minimum here. C-w-l 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. The character itself has changed from what may be an antihero into something that is a normal kind of hero. I recon that when a character changes like that, it should be specified when used as an example, to avoid confusion over which version of the character is the example. Also, I have been coming across amoral killers fighting for self gain opposing evil more and more often. Does this mean that type of character is beinging an established type of hero? Corrupt one 23:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ineffectual and hapless?

The intro includes the line:

The original meaning, therefore, is that of a protagonist who is ineffectual and hapless, rather than resolute and determined, whether his motives are good or bad. In some instances, anti-hero has come to refer to a protagonist of a work whose actions and motives are villainous or questionable.

No, I don't think the definition insisted upon ineffctuality or haplessness. Anti-heroes could be both effective and lucky, just not traditionally well motivated. But I also don't see why this conclusion follows from the text before it. Comments anyone? Sandpiper 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing as far as I can tell that says an AntiHero must be ineffectual and hapless. They might just need to be atypical heroes. If you find something that says they DO need to be that way, please refer to it here. I could use a good laugh. Corrupt one 02:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it compleatly! Corrupt one 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the term really necessary

Historically speaking, many of the heroes we think of as typical of the "knight in shining armour"-type are in the original telling highly flawed individuals. The only historical fictional heroes I can think of that fits the description of invincible and infallible are Malory's sir Galahad and possibly Shakespeare's Henry V. Even saints are usually portrayed as seriously flawed individuals prior to a salvation/revelation. All other classic fictional heroes have plenty of heroic qualities but are also highly flawed individuals: Heracles, Theseus, Perseus, Achilleus, Odysseus, king David, Jehu, El Cid, sir Gawain, sir Lancelot, Roland and Cu Chulainn. Of course, these are all heroes of the Western cultural sphere. I must admit I do not know what Chinese nythological heroes are like for instance. Still, if most heroes are seriously flawed individuals, a flawed hero is still a hero and not an anti-hero. -Sensemaker

No, a flawed hero is not an anti-hero, and that is not what the article says. Also, let's avoid questioning the complete veracity of aspects and theories of scholarly narratology (which have been studied, mind you, for quite a long time now). Of course the term is necessary. CaveatLectorTalk 23:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No, let's not.
A great many pieces of narrotological terminology are so fuzzy in their definition that they are more confusing than enlightening. They often sound somewhat impressive and are useful for sounding erudite. A person wishing to truly communicate should thus avoid them, while a person wishing to sound impressive while not really saying anything substantial should embrace them. Anti-hero is a wonderful example. To some it just means "non-perfect person in a story" to others the meaning is much narrower such as a person truly devoid of heroic qualities. If people with such different opinions of what the word means begin discussing they are likely to just annoy and confuse each other unless they first agree on how to use the term. A term that can mean too many things is at best useless and often directly counterproductive to true communication (as opposed to just confused talk). -Sensemaker
It doesn't really matter if we on the talk page conclude that the term is not specific or descriptive enough. It's unquestionably notable, so it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Croctotheface 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As the term Antihero is already used to describe a type of character, I would say it is pretty pointless to be raising this matter not. It has also entered official dictonaries, and thus is considered an established term. Wether or not we deem it to be need or unnesesaery, the fact remains that the TERM, and the ideas behind the term are already firmly entrenched. We need this article to help us understand those terms better. I say, KEEP the term and article! Corrupt one 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest we remove the article. I agree that since the word exists and people do not understand, an article is necessary. What I wish to suggest is that we add a comment to article to the effect that since the term can mean at least two very different things, a person who wishes to communicate (as opposed to just sounding erudite) should either explain what he means with the term or use some other term. Now, someone might argue that English is full of homonyms. Take a look at all the different meanings of the word "charge" for instance. However, the different meanings of the word "charge" are usually so obvious that the context explains what is meant. When reading an article about cavalry tactics, you will not suspect that "charge" refers to electrical charge or a financial fee. Confusion is fairly unlikely. However, when reading about a story it is far from obvious if the person commenting the story means "flawed hero" or "person with few heroic qualities and plenty of the very opposite of heroic qualities". Therefore confusion is likely. It might be helpful to point this out. -Sensemaker
I tried that, with a section I placed at the top called WHAT IS AN ANTIHERO? It was removed as defining it was considered to be original research. If you can find different definitions of it, I would really appreciate it. You could list the definition, compare them without doing research, point out the differences and provide examples. (I THINK you might be able to, but you would have to check the policy on original researh to make sure.) Also, it would NOT be asking if the term is really necessary, but rather it would be asking if the term is clear enough.

Corrupt one 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The term anti-hero is a fairly broad term. One simple definition of an anti-hero is a protaganist who is not "heroic" in the usual sense of the word. If there are a limited number of ways that we expect a protaganist to act, there are a great many ways for the protaganist to behave differently. It can range from the protaganist as a villain (Clockwork Orange) or simply being heroic in a way different from expectations in a given era.--RLent 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have propsed a change of definition to one I have found in a dictionary which I think is more suitable. I placed it at the top of the page. I would appreciate a nice discusion about it. Corrupt one 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've gone through the article, mostly focusing on the first part in regards to definition. Cleaned that up so it's more presentable in the aspect of showing how the defintion has changed throughtout the years (which was previously mentioned in the beginning of the article).
Decided to remove the "examples" part at the bottom since it listed another 'specific' specific examples and the place to do that was in the body of the article. Am quite familiar with the example of Shinji Ikari and can validify such an example usage. However, Ikari's characteristics are better incorporated as a 'definition' rather than a specific example. Subject can be included in examples but with more detailed perspective.
This is just a cleanup and I have not yet removed the "clean up" notification implicated by Wiki, I leave this up to someone who can validify the actions done here. (Dave 17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Hannibal Lecter

Surely Hannibal Lecter is the ultimate anti-hero? He is a 'hero' becasue he helps with a police investigation in a way only he can using his considerable powers of analysis etc that the police don't have. He also makes considerable self sacrifice in self-amputating one of his hands so he can be with Clarice. He is 'anti' because he eats people etc. I think this should be put in, by am unsure of how this should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.146.157.138 (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

This article isn't for listing anti-heroes, that purpose is served by List of fictional anti-heroes where Hannibal Lecter is already included. --TM 17:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree he is NOT a conventional hero. However, he was NUTS, and although that argues in his favor to BE an antihero, you must remember that his helping people was mainly to manipulate them to do what he wants, thus the hero part of being an antihero is HIGHLY debatable. Being a hero considers a persons deeds and intents. An antihero also looks at them. If he had no heroic intent or deed, then how can he be any type of hero? Corrupt one 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Eastwood For A Few.jpg

Image:Eastwood For A Few.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Caveat Lector

From the discussion, you seem to be acting as de facto senior editor for this article. You have centered the literature section around Batman (with a glaring error that he dates from late 20th century, early 21st). Judging from the date of your BA, I can fairly assume you discovered the Miller or post-Miller version of the character. If editor after editor is trying to include other examples or engaging you about the validity of Batman, there is a reason. I discovered Batman way before Miller came around. I also read the Bob Kane first stories. And there was never any question that this was a hero, not a anti-hero. It's true that I was not around in 1939 and cannot say how readers thought of Batman then, if they thought that was an anti-hero or not. However, considering he was on the tradition of earlier pulp characters like The Shadow and The Spider, I very much doubt they did. The most characteristic feature of Bob Kane's art that comes to my mind is the broad smile that he put on both Bruce Wayne and Batman face so the "brooding" description is rather limited. And it's not a question of author's intent. To the readers Batman was and has always been a hero. The preclusion of further examples has the disastrous result that Batman appears as a typical example yet few readers can agree with it and want to come up with Magneto, Anakin or Wolverine. I proposed Sub-Mariner because he's supposed to be the first one. He's also unsympathetic which, although it is not stated, may be a key characteristic that differentiates heroes from anti-heroes in people's minds. So considering this article has two tags for improvement and you only revert others people's edits per the recent history and you're very vocal on the discussion page about defending your reasons, I'd like you to cut short on the discussion, be bold and do what you think is necessary to improve it. --Leocomix 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the section mention of Batman. It was kept there by a consensus that I did not agree with, but let stand because it was the consensus. I do not think that these examples should be in this article, and I do not think that adding examples improves the article at all. When I found this article, it was a complete mess, and it's terrible twin sibling was up for deletion. The article basically consisted of a long list of characters who random editors just 'thought' that they were anti-heroes (and thus, added them, including Achilles of all people, whose addition was justified on the basis that he doesn't meet the modern conception of a hero...you can see the problem with that, I imagine). I cleaned up the article, tried to come to a good language, and even tried to source as much as I could. I added the improvement templates to draw more attention to the article and to get editors who were interested in building a sourced, well written discussion of the anti-hero trope which was not merely a list of their favorite characters or of those who they thought were anti-heroes. I felt you edit fell into both of these categories, so I reverted it.
And I did so not because I do not think that Namor is or is not an anti-hero. I don't know enough about him to know that. This is actually precisely the reason why I took his name out: his inclusion was unsourced. You seem to know a lot about him, and you even claim to know a lot about the history of the anti-hero in comic books, where the trope is observiably present. However, we cannot add these observations because they are original research. Your opinion that Namor is an anti-hero does not matter. I felt that Batman was an anti-hero, but I argued against his inclusion because I knew that this did not matter. WE need sources. So, since you know a lot about comic books, can you find a reliable source that deals with the tradition of the anti-hero in comics? If you can, please do use that source and improve the article. Until then, I have tagged the section that discusses comics with an 'unreferenced' tag. If it remains unreferenced for a long period of time, we'll have no choice but to take it out of the article, unfortunately. CaveatLectorTalk 21:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. Adding a tag asking for a source is the correct thing to do. I have seen no consensus on Batman from the talk page. If we have to keep Batman which to me is a bad example of an anti-hero in the comic book tradition (there is a person in the talk page that expressed the same opinion), then I feel it is necessary to include more examples. I am not a fan of Sub-Mariner if that's your concern. It's just that as anti-heroes go in comic books, he's a famous and early example. As for the list, I agree, it should be deleted again. --Leocomix 22:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)

McMurphy is a couragous, idealist and has fortitude throughout his adventure of the story. He is proof that you can still be an anti-hero and have those traits. He lives by his own rules and does everything for his own benefits. He uses the patients in order to obtain better fortune for himself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.77.193 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Antiheroes as a evolution of heroes

Here is something from the part on contemporary littrature

"In modern times, heroes have enjoyed an increased moral complexity. From this, one could say that the popularity of the anti-hero has seemingly boomed but this is part of the continual evolution and redefinition of the hero"

My only prroblem with this is there is no referance, and without that, it may be deemed OR. Will someone please find some referance to support this? Corrupt one (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How come this site lists the Doctor (Doctor Who) as an anti-hero

How come Wikipedia has listed the Doctor as an anti-hero? What traits make him that and does it really apply to all Doctors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.128.9 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

He lacks traditional heroic characteristics or values. he messes with time for fun, goes all over the place and time with little regard for other, and many other such things. Corrupt one (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Spider-Man

I found a few referances to Spider-Man as an archtypical antihero, and I figured I wllet you look at the bits I selected. I put them on the Spiderman talk page. They list WHY he is an antihero, and an archtype of that kind of antihero! Corrupt one (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)