Ruminations on the Anti-hero

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

It's a good point, Cahab-

There are a lot of authors who switch their protagonistic focus once they realize the appeal of the villain- or sometimes the "foil".

Literature it ain't- but Anne Rice comes to mind. "Interview with the Vampire" was centered on Louis, but readers identified with the antagonist- and her subsequent sequels were all about Lestat.

I'm sure there are lots of examples.

CW: maryanne and ginger. from gilligan's island. most women can identify as more one or the other. I don't know what the male equivalent would be- Starbuck and Apollo? Han and Luke- that's probably more like it.

 

[Never]

Many are the professors who say they give no judgment, few are the ones who actually do, and fewer still are the ones that ought to.

 

[destinie21]

Not the world's deepest philosophical treasure trove unearthed, but....I *have* been wondering..

Why is that so many writers make the villain- or the antagonist- so much more compelling and attractive than the hero?

Is it inadvertent? Or sadistic ?

Many a good novel has been ruined for me when the bad guy doesn't get the girl- and the "good" guy- dull, uninspired, odious, vaguely, unpleasantly reminiscent of "Cousin Larry" from Perfect Strangers always does.

Does anybody else feel the same?

Imo and from my pov.

When I write a story I generally make the villan's or Anti-hero(which is not to be confused with Villan) attractive phsyically and more in depth and intellectual than the hero simply because they have to have charisma for the story to be plausible. Also there has to be something that will draw the other characters and the reader to him and or her. By making a character that one would hate to love you're adding to the depth of the story. As far as the anti-hero I'm a stickler for those types. Always rooting for the underdog or the outcast.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

At the risk of sounding dense, Never, what do you mean?

 

[Wantonica]

Miss Blue Pen,

I have found the majority of men to prefer Mary Ann to Ginger when watching Gilligan's Island as youths. Wholesome, up-front, honest, pure, clean, what have you.

Anne Rice... I have Lasher and Taltos in hardback. Few of my friends understand them as I do. Sorry about their loss.

I am simple in my wordage, but intensive in my thought trail. Hope you all see it. If not, I don't care.

Happiness,
Wantonica

 

[Wantonica]

Many are the professors who say they give no judgment, few are the ones who actually do, and fewer still are the ones that ought to.

Ummm, I understood this.

Hugs,
Wantonica

 

[Guest]

Many are the professors who say they give no judgment, few are the ones who actually do, and fewer still are the ones that ought to.

I didn't get this either, Never. When I mentioned my nonjudgmental prof. friend I meant that in teaching theology and concepts like good, evil, grace, salvation, love, etc., she does not let the students know her opinions or beliefs and basically helps them figure out their own, or at least guides their thinking so that they can. She certainly doesn't state what she's doing, or that she is reserving judgement; it's a special gift I think, and especially among teachers (at any level).

Perdita

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Hey Trova.

I've been doing a lot of fishing this week!

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Hmmm. I don't recall mentioning Taltos or Lasher.

Having not read them I wouldn't feel qualified to venture an opinion.

As for Never's quote, I understood the sentiment, just not how she was applying it in context, and to which to which post.

Since she hasn't resurfaced yet, maybe you could explain it to me, Wantonica?

 

[Dirty Slut]

Never met a teacher who didn't try to influence their students...

Each in their own way, of course, but they do influence us nevertheless. Atheist, Priest, it really makes no difference they all do influence us in some manner, and the worst ones are those who insist that their way is the only correct way of looking at things.

DS

 

[Guest]

Re: Never met a teacher who didn't try to influence their students...

DS, your header is a not so pretty fatuous statement. Teachers do teach by profession, but if you read my response to Never you might get the real point.

impatiently, Perdita

 

[Guest]

Hey Trova. I've been doing a lot of fishing this week!

Yeah, babe, I know. I'm getting bored with it though (and a bit nauseous), miss being a landlubber, and the green.

Trove

 

[Never]

Sorry for not getting back to you.

I'm not certain what needs explaining. My comment on professors was a complete tangent from the main subject of the thread. Perdita stated that her professor friend kept her judgments to herself to which I responded that many professors say they can do that but few actually can, and fewer still are the ones that should. It's just one student's opinion.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

No worries.

I was honestly just curious because I wasn't sure if you were responding to Perdita or to my previous post about my professor's interpretation of Milton.

 

[Pure]

Concise

Mlle said to Killer Muffin:



Ok. Ahem.

Everyone? KM is woefully offended at the willful crucifixion of English language I have so maliciously perpetrated, and I would like to take this opportunty to say:

Antiheros are *not* villains.

An antihero may possess many "unheroic" qualities, that sometimes overlap those of a villain, but they should, under no circumstances, be referred to in any kind of inferred conjunction or implied relativism with each other. In the interest of damage control, I've taken the liberty of making up a pie-chart.

If you find yourself still confused by my horrific conversational vaguaries, the Audobon Society also publishes a smashing Field Guide to Common Anti-heros and Villains of Europe and the North Americas. In it, you will find various methods of identifying and discriminating between antiheros and villains- including taxonomy, comparisons in "SNL" [snout to vent ratios] and descriptions of habitat.

Please, feel free to ask any questions now, and also, don't forget to partake of the "lil smokies" in the foyer.

You know what the truth is, KM?

I have ADD, and I draw a lot of rapid contextual conclusions because of it- and a good deal of the time, I forget that people might not be following my particular logic line if I omit step B between A and C.

My first thought: I don't like heros. Why?
My second thought: I like the depictions of villains generally far better.
My third thought: If I do like a hero, the "heroes" I like are really antiheros- with less sterling qualities: indeed, often similar to those of a villain.
My fourth thought: Why are the these qualities so much more compelling?

I might just as easily have said "Why are heros so gay?"

Allow me to clarify, I meant that in a strictly "13-year-old boy" way. Misinferred connotations are cause for pole-vaulting over firearms in these here parts.

What I *wasn't* saying- and I think my intellectual track record supports me here- is that because villains are the opposite of heros, they are "anti" heros. I'm not fucking retarded. All my chromosomes are duly accounted for and stored under my bed in a lovely plush box with a red ribbon.

The opposite of good is not "anti-good". Noted, ratified and held up for vote. All in favor?

Appy Polly Loggies, Muffin, if I offended your delicate sensibilities- you're a literary paragon, after all! I feel like I've pissed in Hemingway's Cheerios. Will the guilt ever abate?

In the meantime, all I can do is prostrate myself on the altar of appalling ambiguity and weep tears of blood at the magnitude of my egress.

My regular cocktail of amphetamine usually keeps these kinds of heinous episodes in *some* kind of rational check- but I can clearly see that here I have spun out of control, taking the entire board with me on my downward spiral into linguistic debauchery and amorphous logic!

Oh, pity my pathology, if you must- but CONDEMN...my wickedness!!!

Ahem. Next?



Killer Muffin, I think in these 500 words Mlle is saying,

"Yes I was a bit unclear about antiheroes and villains, in what I wrote, and I'm glad it's been straightened out. And I apologize. Sorta. But you've made a lotta fuss over something small, are awful thin skinned, and not exactly a literary paragon yerself, so there. And goddamn am I witty."

Your forbearance in the face of such wordy, self-laudatory and of course vaguely hostile 'responses' is worthy.

 

[rosco rathbone]

.....Nor what the potent Victor in his rage 95
Can else inflict, do I repent, or change,
Though changed in outward lustre, that fixed mind,
And high disdain from sense of injured merit,
That with the Mightiest raised me to contend,
And to the fierce contention brought along 100
Innumerable force of Spirits armed,
That durst dislike his reign, and, me preferring,
His utmost power with adverse power opposed
In dubious battle on the plains of Heaven,
And shook his throne. What though the field be lost? 105
All is not lost—the unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield:
And what is else not to be overcome.
That glory never shall his wrath or might 110
Extort from me. To bow and sue for grace
With suppliant knee, and deify his power
Who, from the terror of this arm, so late
Doubted his empire—that were low indeed;
That were an ignominy and shame beneath 115
This downfall; since, by fate, the strength of Gods,
And this empyreal substance, cannot fail;
Since, through experience of this great event,
In arms not worse, in foresight much advanced,
We may with more successful hope resolve 120
To wage by force or guile eternal war,
Irreconcilable to our grand Foe,
Who now triumphs’, and in the excess of joy
Sole reigning holds the tyranny of Heaven.” ....

Paradise Lost, Book One, John Milton

The original anti-hero

 

[gauchecritic]

I've never thought anti-hero was a term you could apply to literary figures.

Anyone not the hero or the villain is a villein.

Anti-heroes for me are people who do heroic physical things, whilst the true hero is the one that battles mainly with him/herself.

Maybe it's just me.

I wanted to be Obi Wan. Kick fuck out of everybody without so much as a raised finger.

"This is not the Philosophy you want. On your way."

Gauche

 

[Guest]

I've never thought anti-hero was a term you could apply to literary figures.
...
Anti-heroes for me are people who do heroic physical things, whilst the true hero is the one that battles mainly with him/herself.

Interesting turn of phrase/definition, Gauche. Wagner's "heroes" (very definite term for him) seem to be both anti- and hero in one. They perform heroic feats and battle with themselves.

Just an example I mentioned earlier: I think of Heathcliff as an anti-hero vs. a villain. He's imperfect compared to others, harms people, yet we (esp. women) love him, understand the draw of him. Right now he's the only example I can think of though.

There are anti-hero 'types' in Sh're, but bottom line usually turns them out heroes or villains. Very interesting to think about, give me time.

Prince Hal would be someone to muse upon in this vein, going from the 'bad boy' to becoming Henry V the way he does. What about Richard II?

anon, Purr

 

[Pure]

I don't think of 'anti heroes' at all like some of the examples--Heathcliffe, Lestat, Hannibal Lecter.

I think of Willy Loman or Merseault. Little guys with a kind of grandeur, who've generally accomplished not much either good or bad, stuck to their (little) guns in some manner; but lacking the force and resolve--and evil project-- of the serious bad guy leads, from Milton's Satan to Tony Soprano.

J.

 

[Wantonica]

Hmmm. I don't recall mentioning Taltos or Lasher.

Having not read them I wouldn't feel qualified to venture an opinion.

As for Never's quote, I understood the sentiment, just not how she was applying it in context, and to which to which post.

Since she hasn't resurfaced yet, maybe you could explain it to me, Wantonica?

I've been out of commission with a computer problem, so am behind in my responses. I mentioned Taltos and Lasher since you mentioned Anne Rice. Those are some of her most intriguing books; hope you check them out. Actually, there is another one before those two... The Witching Hour. I have yet to read that one, but the others are extremely interesting.

I understand Never. When I said, 'Ummm, I understood that.', I was not being one bit sarcastic. I meant it. My realm in life is to have understanding of people in many situations. As I explained to Perdita, the 'gift of discernment'.

Many are the professors who say they give no judgment, few are the ones who actually do, and fewer still are the ones that ought to.

You asked me to explain my understanding of this... as a highly gifted woman who dropped out of school and aced a GED 12 years later; who now has a highly successful business and many professor friends, I will say what I think she means: they all say they are open-minded; most are not; the majority should be. Okay, something like that.

Take care, smiles,
Wantonica

 

[Guest]

Hmmm Weighing In

Ok:

Here is my personal favorite:

How cum - when you get bitten by the Vampire - the Evil Undead Monster frrom Beyond the Grave.

your haircut gets better,

Your wardrobe improves(suddenly)

Hmm your skin clears up

you get all yummy to the fems - hmmm folks I have been a plumber amongst other things - dirt smells- and from lack of a better way to say it -It's dirty.

You are suddenly cool.

Oh, blood smells too.

Why doesn't the wherewolf have fleas?

I suppose the best on this was Heinlein - it's in ummm either Cat Who Walks Through Walls or Sail Beyond The Sunset.
Dr. Jubal Harshaw explains why he will never do another villian. And the super space hero has gone pale from lack of an opponent.

Or in a less fun way-
The villain gets to break the rules- He gets to be cool - no matter what the cost - The hero has to suscribe to societal norms.

EKVITKAR

 

[Guest]

Duhhh Forgot

With the above-

The antihero gets to don some of the actions and physicality of the villain - which open up a broader range of expression/action to him/her. Broader than are relegated to the traditional hero.


Hmm Wagner's characters (OY) the self tortured hero is something of a teutonic staple. Win but destroy everything around you in the process( or just yourself)
Love the music - never watch em - too much doomed love - makes me want to flog someone.

EKVITKAR

 

[karmadog]

I don't think that any writer worth his/her salt thinks in these terms. They are strictly for college lit classes and should never be used in a sophisticated analysis.

Do you ever think of people in real life that way?

Let's say that your brother embezzles a bunch of money from a company that he works for. Surely you think he behaved poorly, but is he a villain? A 'bad guy'? Even an anti-hero? Of course not. He's a mess, he's been led astray, he's misunderstood. If your brother is OJ, he's friggin' innocent. You think that way because you know him.

I recently heard a murderer's mother talking about her son. While general society might vilify him, she saw the boy who looked out for his sister, the boy that was fascinated by animals (no, he didn't hurt them), and always got good grades.

My point is that, from a writer's point of view, no characters should be pigeonholed until Cliff's Notes gets hold of them.

 

[cahab]

Re: Hmmm Weighing In

Ok:

Here is my personal favorite:

How cum - when you get bitten by the Vampire - the Evil Undead Monster frrom Beyond the Grave.

your haircut gets better,

Your wardrobe improves(suddenly)

Hmm your skin clears up

you get all yummy to the fems - hmmm folks I have been a plumber amongst other things - dirt smells- and from lack of a better way to say it -It's dirty.

You are suddenly cool.

Oh, blood smells too.

The vampire is a case in point, a folk myth about men noticing the allure of the villain to us women. It's a cliche, but we do often go for the extrovert bastard while totally missing the introvert nice guy in the corner. Okay, he may smell a bit , but at least he's not gonna drink your blood. I forget for a moment why that would be bad...

I can't remember who said it, BTW, but I disagree about Anne Rice not being Literature. The books do deteriorate, but I think Vampire Lestat holds up very well as literature. Unfortunately artists are often not really recognised in their own lifetime.

Why doesn't the wherewolf have fleas?

Who said he didn't? Of course he would have had them as a huiman as well.

The villain gets to break the rules- He gets to be cool - no matter what the cost - The hero has to suscribe to societal norms.

EKVITKAR

Surely not subscribing to societal norms is often what makes a hero? Doing good things in an evil way (shooting, killing etc.). The hero of many a movie of late has been the thief. That's not exactly subscribing to the norm, is it?

The true anti-hero does evil things in a good way, maybe with a smile and a joke thrown in, or maybe does a good thing without really wanting to. That's different from the villain that you love to hate. You don't hate the anti-hero at all.

 

[cahab]

I don't think that any writer worth his/her salt thinks in these terms. They are strictly for college lit classes and should never be used in a sophisticated analysis.

It's something you need to be aware of when writing. Often the distinction between a villain and an anti-hero is so blurred that the difference is just in the way the narrative is presented. It is just propaganda, spin. One has to decide whether a certain character is to be liked or not, dependant on whether they are a hero, an anti-hero, or a villain. You may not put those labels on it, but the thought will be there.

I recently heard a murderer's mother talking about her son. While general society might vilify him, she saw the boy who looked out for his sister, the boy that was fascinated by animals (no, he didn't hurt them), and always got good grades.

A case in point. If I were writing a book about it, I would have to decide whose point of view to take. You don't think about it in life because we are, or should be, constantly re-assessing our thoughts and opinions. An author has their thoughts and opinions already set before they start. They have all the facts, because they made them up.