How to Play the Sarcastic Hero

[Hussar]

True, but, if you were to actually research the topic, you'd find the same answer.

Anti-heroes aren't simply heroes with a bit of dirt on their noses. Anti-heroes are out and out evil. Quentin Terantino does anti-heroes very, very well. Heck, From Dusk to Dawn shows you exactly what anti-heroes are. Or Pulp Fiction. Reservoir Dogs. All perfect examples of anti-heroes.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Actually, I decided to visit your wiki link, and it disagrees with you.

Influenced by the pulps, early comic books featured anti-heroic characters such as Batman (whose shadowy nature contrasted with their openly "heroic" peers like Superman)

Going on to say...

n the postmodern era, traditionally defined heroic qualities, akin to the classic "knight in shining armor" type, have given way to the "gritty truth" of life, and authority in general is being questioned. The brooding vigilante or "noble criminal" archetype seen in characters like Batman is slowly becoming part of the popular conception of heroic valor rather than being characteristics that are deemed un-heroic.

I think that last one is where the argument really lies. Yes, an anti-hero is someone who doesn't act heroically. But the thing is, the grim or sarcastic character with cold detatchment isn't one that acts heroically. Those ARE signs of an anti-hero, because they're un-heroic actions or character traits.

Anti-hero doesn't mean REVERSE of hero. It's not someone who goes around murdering and raping for no reason. Those are the villains. And yes, some stories have two villains going against each other - nobody said the protagonist has to be a good guy.

 

[greyscale1]

Well, I just thought I would chime in with the ULTIMATE guide to playing a sarcastic hero.

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=FPxY8lpYAUM[/ame]

 

[pawsplay]

No, it's not.

Wiki is your friend:



Antihero definition

I fail to see how this line

In fiction, an anti-hero is a protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities, and instead possesses character traits that are antithetical to heroism.

does anything but support my argument and weaken yours. There is nothing in that definition about being evil, only traits that are antithetical to heroism. Cowardice is an example of such a trait.

 

[hong]

Actually, I decided to visit your wiki link, and it disagrees with you.

I thought you said Wikipedia wasn't a viable source anywhere on planet Earth.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I thought you said Wikipedia wasn't a viable source anywhere on planet Earth.

It's not. I just found it humorous that his own link didn't agree with him.

 

[wedgeski]

Anti-heroes are protagonists that are no better than the villains they struggle against. They have few or no redeeming qualities. At best, you can say that they fight the good fight. But, if you removed the villains, THEY would be the villains in another story.

I think this is quite a solid definition of the anti-hero... but then you dropped Donaldson's name *twice*, and mentioned Judge Dredd, a combination which will endear any post to me, no matter the content.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Antihero definition

The article actually uses the same language Reveal did for his 'sarcastic hero' saying he's not a 'knight in shining armor' type. Very, very few heroes these days are pure and virtuous, in fact only Superman comes close, which is why I think the current definition of anti-hero pretty much refers to all protagonists in fiction.

As the article says, the meaning of anti-hero has changed a lot. The original lit crit definition was someone weak and incapable. The heroic traits being contrasted with here are the original ones of capability and competence, not virtue. Achilles is mighty. But he's an a-hole. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms defines an anti-hero as "A 'non-hero' or the antithesis of a hero of the old-fashioned kind who was capable of heroic deeds, who was dashing, strong, brave and resourceful... The anti-hero is the man who is given the vocation of failure."

The word 'heroic' can refer to capability or virtue. The old heroes, like Achilles, had the former but not the latter. Hence the old meaning of anti-hero said nothing about virtue. To be an anti-hero was to be weak, a failure. The classic example is Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman.

 

[Hussar]

Funny how people who claim my link doesn't support my point fail to read the whole article:

In the postmodern era, traditionally defined heroic qualities, akin to the classic "knight in shining armor" type, have given way to the "gritty truth" of life, and authority in general is being questioned. The brooding vigilante or "noble criminal" archetype seen in characters like Batman is slowly becoming part of the popular conception of heroic valor rather than being characteristics that are deemed un-heroic

Batman in the definition isn't an anti-hero and hasn't been for decades. He's an outright hero.

You want anti heroes? Read Kafka. Anti-heroes as I said, aren't simply a dirty nosed hero. Anti-heroes are vile. Richard III makes a pretty good anti-hero.

I do think I can come to some agreement with Doug McCrae though. Certianly Richard III fits the weak/failure model. I just disagree that a wiseass hero is somehow an anti-hero.

 

[Hussar]

Whoops double post