Hero vs. Antihero

[glutton]

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]

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]

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]

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.