# Hero vs. Antihero



## Deleted member 4265 (Dec 18, 2015)

I'll be honest, I've never really understood the distinction between antiheroes and heroes. If I understand correctly, an antihero is a deeply flawed hero who tends to be more concerned about themselves than other people, but all good characters flawed because that's what makes them human? And in most stories, the hero has something personal at stake.

So my question is, where exactly is the line? How flawed can a character be and still be a traditional hero?


----------



## FifthView (Dec 18, 2015)

Several months back, in another thread asking about writing an anti-hero, I posted this description which I think works very well for distinguishing between a hero and an anti-hero:  Defining and Developing Your Anti-Hero.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Dec 18, 2015)

I would say redemption through a heroic act trumps most common flaws.

It might vary on the expectations of the reader.

Oops, looks like I did that ninja thing on FifthView.

I would say his link sums it up pretty good.


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 18, 2015)

There isn't really a set definition.

Usually when people try to compare the two they fall back on classical definitions (a hero is flawless and an anti-hero is flawed) or try to distinguish the two based on the moral position of the story's conflict (heroes are moral absolutists/idealists while anti-heroes are moral relativists/realists/cynics).
But keep in mind that most traditional heroes (Beowulf, Achilles, Sun Wukong) would be considered anti-heroes by today's standards.

So, the answer to your first question: there is no line.  If there is, it's very, very poorly defined.

To answer your second question: I think character A can be _more_ flawed than character B, but character A is a hero and B is an anti-hero.  It more depends on what their flaws are, not how many they have.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 18, 2015)

It's extremely simple. An Anti-hero is a protagonist or main character who does not demonstrate the traditional traits of the classic hero such as idealism, virtue, and selflessness. So, basically EVERY SINGLE protagonist written about these days.


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 18, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> It's extremely simple. An Anti-hero is a protagonist or main character who does not demonstrate the traditional traits of the classic hero such as idealism, virtue, and selflessness. *So, basically EVERY SINGLE protagonist written about these days*.



I want to draw emphasis to this.  We're to the point where "conventional" heroes are the exception.


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 18, 2015)

> It's extremely simple. An Anti-hero is a protagonist or main character who does not demonstrate the traditional traits of the classic hero such as idealism, virtue, and selflessness. So, basically EVERY SINGLE protagonist written about these days.



Weirdly, at least one of the MC's in the novel I'm working on now does meet these classical criteria for 'hero.'  Though he's not exactly a champion.


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 18, 2015)

ThinkerX said:


> Weirdly, at least one of the MC's in the novel I'm working on now does meet these classical criteria for 'hero.'  Though he's not exactly a champion.



Same here but I had to go out of my way to make sure she fit the mold.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 19, 2015)

I don't even know if anti-hero is even that relevant a term anymore. Someone who has their own personal interests being a factor that motivates their decision making is not something unique. Even in classical mythology there are characters that do "good" and then the next thing you know they are sabotaging or scheming. Just look at Loki as a prime example. 

Superman may have been the prototypical hero when the comic was first introduced but over time even he has changed to become more three-dimensional, as have a lot of superheros. 

One major factor that would make me inclined to say that a person is a cliche hero is that they are driven only by the idea of doing good or doing things that "benefit all mankind", which in reality makes them a potential zealot. So there is a dark side to them that may be concealed by the author, but it's still there if readers have enough wit to see it. Actions have equal and opposite reactions, so potentially good acts may have detrimental effects.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 19, 2015)

Honestly, I think the terms hero, anti-hero and villain should *ALL* be retired unless one is specifically discussing old, classical literature where those concepts mean something. 

Modern storytellers should totally abandon the terms hero and villain. It leads to all kinds of faulty impressions and ideologies. Like seriously, EVERYONE thinks that the antagonist in a story should be nuanced and have his own motivations and not just be the "bad guy". SO STOP CALLING YOUR ANTAG A VILLAIN. He's not a "villain" if he nuanced and has his own motivations and is not just "the bad guy". And all our protagonists are essentially anti-heroes now so both "hero" and "anti-hero" are just confusing concepts.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 19, 2015)

If no one here wants to write superhero stories, fantasy a la Harry Potter, and such, by all means forget there's a difference between hero, antihero, and villain.

_Edit: _ Sorry if the above comes across as snarky.  It _is_ snarky. My problem is that I see so plainly the differences between those types of characters, and I don't like the idea of dismissing those differences.  I _do_, however, think there's a big problem when people confuse those three terms and the terms protagonist and antagonist.


----------



## X Equestris (Dec 19, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> It's extremely simple. An Anti-hero is a protagonist or main character who does not demonstrate the traditional traits of the classic hero such as idealism, virtue, and selflessness. So, basically EVERY SINGLE protagonist written about these days.



True, but I'd say this is culturally relative.  By the Ancient Greek conception of a hero, our modern heroic standards are those of anti-heroes.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 19, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> True, but I'd say this is culturally relative.  By the Ancient Greek conception of a hero, our modern heroic standards are those of anti-heroes.



But the ancient Greek culture is extinct and thus irrelevant to discussions about stories being written right now. The concept of the anti-hero meant something a couple of centuries ago, but it's become the norm now, so the term has lost its meaning. That by definition makes it a cliche.


----------



## Philster401 (Dec 19, 2015)

I think the difference between a hero and an anti-hero is morals of the reader. The reason for this is everyone has different morals so what one might see as "heroic" another might see it as dishonorable. In my opinion a good example of an antihero is Light Yagami from Deathnote. From a few episodes in there is there is no doubt he has an extreme sense of morals and isn't displayed as a hero but those in the anime have a less one-sided view of his actions and a diminishing amount of people opposed his views and some viewed him as hero or a god near the end.


----------



## X Equestris (Dec 19, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> But the ancient Greek culture is extinct and thus irrelevant to discussions about stories being written right now. The concept of the anti-hero meant something a couple of centuries ago, but it's become the norm now, so the term has lost its meaning. That by definition makes it a cliche.



Hardly.  The term remains applicable.  The qualities that make one an anti-hero have simply changed.  Which was my entire point.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 19, 2015)

Philster401 said:


> I think the difference between a hero and an anti-hero is morals of the reader. The reason for this is everyone has different morals so what one might see as "heroic" another might see it as dishonorable. In my opinion a good example of an antihero is Light Yagami from Deathnote. From a few episodes in there is there is no doubt he has an extreme sense of morals and isn't displayed as a hero but those in the anime have a less one-sided view of his actions and a diminishing amount of people opposed his views and some viewed him as hero or a god near the end.



_Death Note_ is one of my all-time favorite animes.

I think the metaphor you gave is important and what it points at can't be ignored when considering what constitutes a hero or antihero.  

Take for instance the issue of killing.  Much of the time, a society's morality will involve a proscription against murder but will accept killing during times of war or even, with respect to fiction, killing a villain.  Incidentally, the issue of killing a villain probably influences the way different people view capital punishment in our real world.  In fiction, there are some heroes who won't even kill a villain (or who will absolutely _attempt not_ to kill a villain) —for instance, in _The Dark Knight_, much is made of that one line Batman won't cross.  But one person might view the killing of a villain as something immoral while another person will not find it morally questionable.

As far as Death Note goes, I think that I view Light Yagami as neither hero nor antihero.  For me, he's a villain.  He's a sympathetic villain in many respects.  But you are right about how those _within_ the anime view him.  (Why I refer to that as being a metaphor.)


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Dec 20, 2015)

For a character to be an anti-hero vs a hero they need to cross the acceptable boundaries of the society in which they live. If a character lives in a society in which capital punishment takes places and they kill someone it is not as outrageous as if they lived in a society where no one is ever killed by the police or government. You can also consider the level of retribution the character displays towards others and whether it's over and beyond expected behaviour. Like shooting someone for J-walking.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 20, 2015)

I think we are missing YA and middle grade books in this conversation. I find that the categories are still relevant in this age range. I find that in middle grade books particularly (Percy Jackson, narnia, Harry Potter, like fifth view noted) the morality is more black and white and the protagonist is much more of a traditional hero and the antagonist is much more of a traditional villain. I think this is developmentally appropriate (kids are more black and white thinkers) and because, for myself,  want my young child (grades 3-7) to have a hero with clearly defined morals who is more a role model, a hero in the truest sense that my child can model their own behaviour after.


----------



## glutton (Dec 21, 2015)

I still write simple cathartic fantasy with pretty traditional hero and villain roles.


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 21, 2015)

Like a few others, I would say that the term antihero isn't particularly helpful in this day and age, mainly because it's technical definition (that being of a protagonist who doesn't conform to the typical standards of heroism laid out in antiquity) can be applied to most protagonists nowadays. We're all encouraged to write heroes with flaws, rightly so in most cases. Does that make them an antihero?

I think it's more useful to identify antiheroes by their goals rather than their qualities. While being a dickhead is a necessity, I think an antihero must also have a goal that is not typically heroic. Usually this takes the form of a protagonist being self-serving and not particularly concerned with the ramifications of their actions.


----------



## glutton (Dec 21, 2015)

In my view having flaws alone doesn't make a character an antihero, I would agree with the definition Gryphos uses regarding goals.

A girl who wants to save her country from an invasion of dragons in order to protect her loved ones who happens to be reckless, ill tempered and unforgiving to defeated enemies is still a hero IMO, while the girl who wants to kill the dragon emperor to become ruler of the dragon race and take revenge on the country that banished her is an antihero.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 21, 2015)

Well flaws are almost like morals, at least in the way a trait might or might not be a flaw.  Is being ill-tempered a flaw?  Is being reckless a flaw?  Or are these merely character traits? And then, there are serious flaws and minor flaws.  How those flaws intersect with the plot also plays something of a role.  (Is the Drunken Master's drinking a flaw?  Or, that is, are flaws used by an author for comedic effect _really_ character flaws?)

I think that, often, how a character views his own flaws and what he does about them can make a difference in determining who is hero, anti-hero, and villain.

A hero may often be troubled by his flaws once he's made aware of them.  In _The Order of the Phoenix_, Harry Potter is troubled about the anger he feels all the time:

*Harry Potter*: This connection between me and Voldemort... what if the reason for it is that I am becoming more like him? I just feel so angry, all the time. What if after everything that I've been through, something's gone wrong inside me? What if I'm becoming bad?

*Sirius Black*: I want you to listen to me very carefully, Harry. You're not a bad person. You're a very good person, who bad things have happened to. Besides, the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters. We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are.​
A heroic figure may worry about having serious flaws he doesn't have and try to fix those he does or at least mitigate any harmful effects until he can. 

But it's impossible to imagine Voldemort having the same worries.  Villains typically are not aware of their flaws, will deny their flaws when those flaws are pointed out to them, will dismiss serious flaws as being insignificant, or may even see their flaws as strengths.  (“There is no good and evil. There is only power and those too weak to seek it.”)

The case of the anti-hero is often different.  An anti-hero may or may not be aware of his flaws, but his reaction to any flaws he knows himself to have is typically acquiescence, or he may even celebrate them (ironically.)  Either way, he takes a fatalist view; he is who he is, and there's no point in fighting it.  But this doesn't mean an anti-hero will _never_ attempt to improve himself.  He's just not as easily motivated to do so as a hero would be.

Now, the above is just a broad swipe, and probably in five minutes five or more exceptions will be posted.

I do agree with Gryphos and glutton re: goals.


----------



## Helen (Dec 22, 2015)

Devouring Wolf said:


> I'll be honest, I've never really understood the distinction between antiheroes and heroes. If I understand correctly, an antihero is a deeply flawed hero who tends to be more concerned about themselves than other people, but all good characters flawed because that's what makes them human? And in most stories, the hero has something personal at stake.
> 
> So my question is, where exactly is the line? How flawed can a character be and still be a traditional hero?



The difference lies in moral ambiguity. In terms of process, there really is no difference.


----------



## Creed (Dec 22, 2015)

I'm a little late, but I read an article called "The Antihero in Popular Culture: Life History Theory and the Dark Triad Personality Traits" that described the antihero in terms of...


> "narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Despite the common belief that these traits are undesirable, the media is awash with characters that embody the Dark Triad. Characters like Gregory House, M.D., Batman (a.k.a. the Dark Knight), and James Bond all embody these traits and are some of the most popular media franchises today. As entertaining as these characters are, they provide us with a window into the dark side of human nature. Instead of treating the dark side of human nature as inherently maladaptive, we provide an alternative view that, despite their costs, traits like these can confer reproductive and survival benefits for the individual. In so doing, we review the research on the Dark Triad traits and provide a theoretical account for how these traits can confer some positive benefits. To facilitate comprehension, we provide examples taken from the media to show how evolutionary psychology and popular culture intersect."



That's from the abstract. It's a slightly more clinical view of the antihero, but it's also a lot more concrete than what's been discussed here. In the end it's really about interpretation. Looking back, I've read quite a few antiheroes who I didn't distinguish at all from the rest. As such I have no particular love or hate for them. But of course, I enjoy characters with flaws, and I think it's a pretty common opinion on here that all characters should have flaws.


----------

