Ruminations on the Anti-hero

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

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?

 

[Guest]

Does anybody else feel the same?

Yep, probably because I always go for the villainous ones myself.

I hate that Cathy rejected Heathcliff, that Jane Austin's main gals chose the nice boys with money, that Buffy didn't end up with Spike.

In literature I don't believe it's inadvertent, maybe sadistic depending on the individual author, or maybe just true to life.

And who wants to see a happy opera (besides Mozart fans)? Where would we be if Tosca had put out just once to Scarpia, if Lucia had kept Edgardo on the side, if Butterfly had given into polyamoury?

Then there are women who do choose the villains and die for it: Anna Karenina, M. Bovary, Gertrude and Ophelia (yeah, Hamlet's a wanking twat til it's too late).

Give me Captain Hook and let the little girls keep Peter Pan.

Perdita

 

[Sabledrake]

Villainy is an active role. Heroism is a reactive one.

The villain is the take-charge, ambitious, forceful kind of personality without whom there wouldn't be anything for the good guy to do. The villain is the better dresser, and gets all the best lines. There's something sexy and appealing about the style, ruthlessness, and black charm of a really top-notch baddie.

That's always been my impression. When I was a little kid, I was all "forget Sleeping Beauty ... I wanna be Maleficent when I grow up!"

Sabledrake

 

[The_old_man]

When asked whether they want the hero part or the villan, most actors will take the villan. It is almost always the meatier part, much stronger charitorisation, better lines,etc.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Mamzelle, you are tromping all over my perfectionistic bent and anal-retentive need for detail, here. That is so wrong.

An antihero is a protagonist or a major character in a role traditionally given to heroic characters. Antiheros are not the villain.

One of the best examples of an antihero is Yossarian from Catch-22. He's the hero of the story, but he possess few heroic qualities.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Not my intention to stomp on your deified bovines, KM.

I had always understood an "anti-hero" to be any non-traditional deviation from the standard "hero" boilerplate; i.e. someone cast as a hero despite being either cowardly or not inherently "good".

Thus when we prefer villains, we essentially remake them as anti-heros, or wish for more anti-heros when we are confronted by the incredible boredom of the better part of valor.

I wasn't equating anti-heros to villains. Merely wistfully wishing there were more of them.

mlle

 

[CWatson]

re Villians, around the time Star Wars came out, adults were distraught to discover that most kids wanted to be, not Luke "I kissed my sister!" Skywalker, but Darth "My name's not Anakin, it's Badass" Vader. Why? Because as Sabledrake pointed out, Vader's the one calling all the shots and pulling all the strings. ...Well, that, and he IS actually the main character of the Star Wars films. But we're keeping that a secret.

re Anti-heroes: well, Mlle, it's the same reason IRL "bad boys" don't eventually get the girl. That, and I think most authors would classify themselves as "nice guys," and so of COURSE they wanna see the nice guy get the girl in the end.

That having been said, nice guys DO get boring. People have tried to vary it by having the hero flirt with improper methodology or whatever--Maverick from Top Gun comes to mind; Dirty Harry would probably also fit the bill, but I've never seen the movie so I wouldn't know--but that just doesn't compete with a true anti-hero. But anti-heroes DO seem to be sort of an acquired taste.

...How exactly do they WORK, anyway? I lost patience with Catch-22. Is it that you have this vicious person ("vicious" being used in the classical sense of meaning "having vices") constantly forced by circumstance to do virtuous things? Because that would quite honestly get old after a while.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

I don't know. A certain amount of cool viciousness smacks of erotica to me. Not brutality- maybe vague "brutishness"- but definitely intellectual evil.

I love badness. Badness in myriad forms. Bad, bad men. I myself roped a very bad one, a complete adorable bastard really; the bad ones fuck like minks. [One more reason mean girls rule, huh Trova?]

Anyway- I already know why bad is good. I just wondered if I was alone in my principles.

Apparently not...

And yeah, who didn't want to be Darth Vader. I was partial to running about in my Catwoman Underoos.

That's an interesting point, CW, about the author's self-concept. Are you a Ginger or a Maryanne?

Of course that's going to bias your fiction by proxy. Intelligent, CW.

But are you vicious-? *laugh*

 

[Guest]

I love badness. Badness in myriad forms. Bad, bad men. I myself roped a very bad one, a complete adorable bastard really; the bad ones fuck like minks. [One more reason mean girls rule, huh Trova?].

Oh, yeah, Bloo. It's what film noir is all about, bad men and bad women, and who controls the fuck ( hard to tell sometimes but I put my filthy lucre on the dames).

Minks, eh?

Trova

 

[cahab]

re Villians, around the time Star Wars came out, adults were distraught to discover that most kids wanted to be, not Luke "I kissed my sister!" Skywalker, but Darth "My name's not Anakin, it's Badass" Vader. Why? Because as Sabledrake pointed out, Vader's the one calling all the shots and pulling all the strings. ...Well, that, and he IS actually the main character of the Star Wars films. But we're keeping that a secret.

Actually I seem to recall that all the boys wanted to be Han Solo. He was about as anti-hero as they come, without being a villain.

My favourite anti-hero has to be Hannibal, from the books by Thomas Harris. If you have only seen the films you won't be familiar with the spectacular character mending work Harris does for Hannibal in the final book, excusing Hannibal by explaining that he only ever actually killed really horrible people. The last film was an abolute travesty, totally changed because the movie people couldn't cope with the transformation of a villain into an anti-hero. The end of the book is VERY different to the film.

 

[Dirty Slut]

Anti-heroes marry the prom queen...

Villians gang bang her until the next queen is crowned.

DS

 

[pop_54]

Re: Anti-heroes marry the prom queen...

Villians gang bang her until the next queen is crowned.

DS

Hmmm!! Guess I'll chose villain then DS.

I like Villains and anti-hero's in real life and stories, pirate pops and the red devil will tell you that, they know me quite well.

I don't tend to have real villains in many of my stories, job to work them in sometimes, specially when everyone's voluteering for what's going on anyway.

pops...............

 

[patrick1]

I had just been thinking that the aftermath of the Iraq war was largely scripted by some ethereal Joseph Heller...

Perhaps we are just living Catch-22 or some sequel of it now.

Didn't the anti-hero make the prom queen cum by telling her dreams of what the villain would do?

In my regular writing (I've done some soap opera in my time) the types wander off into strange modes. Villains segue into the beloved of audiences. The virtuous are always dull, and have to discover their inner flaws before becoming interesting.

p

 

[Pure]

I remember reading somewhere that there were complaints that in _Paradise Lost_ , Milton made Satan by far the most interesting and attractive character--and that's compared with God, (other) angels, etc.

 

[Quasimodem]

It's easier to write a villian.

Either we are, or are well aquainted with, a villian.

Damn few of us have even met a hero!

 

[CWatson]

Originally posted by cahab
My favourite anti-hero has to be Hannibal, from the books by Thomas Harris. If you have only seen the films you won't be familiar with the spectacular character mending work Harris does for Hannibal in the final book, excusing Hannibal by explaining that he only ever actually killed really horrible people. The last film was an abolute travesty, totally changed because the movie people couldn't cope with the transformation of a villain into an anti-hero. The end of the book is VERY different to the film.

Raspail was a horrible person? I was always under the impression that Lecter killed him because Raspail was simply getting boring. "His therapy was going nowhere. Best thing for him, really."

That aside, I think you're completely right about Dr. Lecter. Certainly he's one of the fictional characters I admire most. Though I'm not sure I'd want him to be MY therapist. Is he a heroic or even a good person? I don't know. But is he admirable? Absolutely. There is simply no choice in that matter.

Originally posted by MlledeLaPlumeBleu
That's an interesting point, CW, about the author's self-concept. Are you a Ginger or a Maryanne?

Am I a whoandthewhatandthehuh?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Re: Re: Ruminations on the Anti-hero

Give me Captain Hook and let the little girls keep Peter Pan.

Perdita

Hmmm, the man gives good glove... just like sweet ol' Freddy Kreuger!

 

[Never]

Stabledrake:
"Villainy is an active role. Heroism is a reactive one."

I tend to disagree, for example, Sleeping Beauty vs. Maleficent. Maleficent had every intention of blessing Briar Rose until her parents insulted her by giving her 12 sisters gold plates to dine off of but giving her only silver (I think in the Disney version they just don't invite her).

Briar Rose and the Prince, however, both take an active role (as opposed to reactive – Sleeping Beauty is one of the most passive of fairy tale heroines). Briar wasn't sitting around while Maleficent snuck up behind her and poked her with a spinning wheel; her curiosity had led her to explore the castle. The Prince wasn't protecting his kingdom from invasion or stopping a villainous plot; he was roaming around and looking to test his heroism.

Curiosity and a desire to 'prove' oneself are both active motivations while revenge is, by necessity, reactive.

" When asked whether they want the hero part or the villain, most actors will take the villain. It is almost always the meatier part, much stronger characterization, better lines, etc."

And lesser billing.

Well, villains do what we'd like to do. Heroes do what we know we should do. I could even go into how the clash between them is like that of the Id and Superego inside the reader. I actually wrote a couple of paragraphs in response to this question last night but my connection broke in the middle of the lightening storm.

Instead, as Blue Pen mentioned Catwoman and she's one of my favorite characters, I'll quote from a Salon.com article about her.

I don't think it was Catwoman I was smitten with as much as her larcenous behavior. I knew she was supposed to be a "bad guy" but just being able to take what you wanted looked fun. Later, I can't remember whether it was in a different episode, Catwoman dangles over the edge of a yawning cavern, one hand clutching a stash of stolen goods, the other holding onto Batman who is begging her to drop the loot and pull herself to safety. Refusing to take the wimpy way out, she lets go of Batman and plunges to the end of one of her nine lives.
<snip>

The great femme fatales are, in their absolute dedication to duplicitousness, some of the purest creations ever to make their regal way through pop culture. Sharon Stone in "Basic Instinct" is always given as the great contemporary example. And as much as I love that performance, the deadpan camp of Stone's portrayal can seem forced next to Jane Greer in the great '40s noir "Out of the Past" (the director, Jacques Tourneur, must have recognized her purity: Throughout the movie, Greer is dressed almost exclusively in white) or Rebecca Romijn-Stamos in Brian De Palma's "Femme Fatale."

Those performances, Romijn-Stamos' especially, take on the inherent misogyny out of which springs the whole notion of the femme fatale -- the idea of woman as seductress/destroyer -- and they turn on that misogyny with a vengeance. They play on the secret fantasies we bring to movies and comic books, the chance to indulge our larcenous and vengeful impulses by identifying with the villains. And they play on the eagerness of movies and pop culture as a whole to indulge our love of style. Greer and Romijn-Stamos make their unwavering dedication to their own desires -- sexual as well as material -- and their ineffable cool sophistication seem like the highest form of amoral integrity, a code of behavior beyond all those deadening drags like responsibility, duty, morality.

 

[Guest]

Pure:

I remember reading somewhere that there were complaints that in _Paradise Lost_ , Milton made Satan by far the most interesting and attractive character--and that's compared with God, (other) angels, etc.

The RC Church complained, but Milton's Satan has come to be one of English lit.'s greatest and most interesting characters outside Shakespeare's.

Recall the head replicant in "Bladerunner", as played by Rutger Hauer? My brother thought him the physical and image-like embodiment of Milton's Satan. Try watching it with that in mind, it'll be fun.

Perdita

 

[KillerMuffin]

I wasn't equating anti-heros to villains. Merely wistfully wishing there were more of them.

mlle

For those who aren't quite so into the joyous misappropriation inherent in syllogisms found amongst linguist ambiguity:

Antihero

Why are villains so grand?

Syllogism: Antiheros are villains.

 

[Never]

an·ti·he·ro:
A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage.

vil·lain:
1. A wicked or evil person; a scoundrel.
2. A dramatic or fictional character who is typically at odds with the hero.

Some antiheroes are villains, most aren't. Most villains are antagonists but that doesn't mean they can't be the protagonists.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

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?

 

[cahab]

Raspail was a horrible person? I was always under the impression that Lecter killed him because Raspail was simply getting boring. "His therapy was going nowhere. Best thing for him, really."

But that's my point exactly. That's Hannibal's character in the first book, when Harris was writing him as the villain. After that he spots that Hannibal is the most interesting character in the novel and begins a little remedial work in the second, ending with him being full on hero by the end of the third. And it is written so well you believe it without going, 'ere, 'ang on just one minute, isn't this the man who was killing sorority girls in the first book...

Superb.

 

[Guest]

Cahab & CWatson:

A theologian friend uses Harris' books to investigate evil, grace, etc. She warns her students to read the whole books as there is much left out or changed in the movies; tells me the discussions are always lively and lead well into what she is trying to teach, or help them think about.

I only read the books after learning about this part of her syllabus; very glad I did.

Perdita

Edit: I meant to add that no judgment is made by my friend (esp. re. Dr. L.; she merely guides her students along.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

I remember a professor of mine talking about Paradise Lost in a "Fallacies of Linear Translation in Biblical Transmission" class, which was also very illuminating, but I won't open that can of worms..

She said that Milton deliberately empathized with "Satan" as the Church depicted him, because while he was a hedonist sinner to them, Milton saw him as a champion of individual freedom: Hence, from the "Laws of Hell"- "No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings".

He couched his verbiage in double entendre and implication- "Heaven" and "virtue" were essentially shown to be "evil", upon closer inspection- standing as the Church did for moralistic suppression of the individual, and "Hell" and "Sin" were basically shown as rational thought, healthy sexuality, reason, creativity and emotion.

-and from that delightful compilation of school-children's essay mistakes, so widely loved and cherished, we know that:

"John Milton wrote "Paradise Lost". Then his wife died, and he wrote "Paradise Regained".