Limyaael

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
11:04 am: Rant on anti-heroes
A few people asked for a rant on anti-heroes. This is a collection of thoughts loosely organized around that topic.



1) Moral ambiguity or not? Supposedly, an anti-hero is someone who’s a major character in a story and yet takes morally ambiguous actions—or at least actions that don’t tend to fit under what a reader thinks of as “heroic.”

So what happens if an “anti-hero” only kills people who are shown to totally deserve it, or if her use of torture is preceded by seven arguments that show (at least to the author) why it’s justified in this case, or if he brags that he doesn’t care about anybody and yet he cares for a helpless innocent orphan child as soon as he gets the chance?

I don’t think those are anti-heroes. I think those are normal protagonists whom the author is trying to cushion, as authors usually do, against ever making a mistake.

If you have an anti-hero whom you want to make morally ambiguous, you have to give up most of the moral justifications. An anti-hero may well have set up his or her own moral codes, but they’re not going to match the usual definition of “good.” And his or her actions have to run the risk of being objectionable; otherwise, the author is just flirting with or teasing the audience with the specter of immorality.

I would consider Roland Deschain, from Stephen King’s Dark Tower series, an anti-hero, at least in the early part of the series, because he lets nothing get in the way of his quest for the Dark Tower. The narrative puts an obstacle in his path that most authors would use as an opportunity to demonstrate their protagonist’s innate compassion; Roland doesn’t take the bait. (I’m avoiding spoilers here, but if you’ve read The Gunslinger, you know what I mean). On the other hand, I don’t think Locke Lamora, from Scott Lynch’s series, is an anti-hero, because the justification of all his actions is carefully planted in the narrative. Though he’s a thief, he only steals from nobles who “deserve” it. When he becomes violent, it’s for the sake of friends. And so on.

So, consider. What exactly is the degree of moral ambiguity you’re going to permit your anti-hero? Is it real complexity, or just a way of escaping unpunished from actions that would earn severe disapproval in the real world? Is it truly a choice between two evils, or a choice between an evil and a right thinly disguised, with the character always choosing the right? If the character claims to pursue an ethic of self-interest or choosing the greatest good for the greatest number, does she actually do so, or does she flinch when it comes time to put it to the test? (Though I despise the philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest number, I think it would be interesting to see a fantasy character who actually took this to its logical extremes. Where it shows up, though, it always means rescuing the heroes of the book, while the sacrifice-oriented mentors or guardians kill off unimportant side characters).

2) What traits does your protagonist lack? For an anti-hero, I think this is at least as important as deciding what they’re actually like. Otherwise, you’ll turn out to have a hero the moment you stop keeping an eye on the little buggers.

For example, here’s a list of some traits that fantasy heroes often have:

Courage
Compassion for everyone around them
An open mind (this goes back to the fact that overtly racist/sexist hero/ines are very rare, even when it would make them fit better within their culture)
Drive to achieve some goal that is not simply personal (personal ambition is Bad)
A conviction that they are unworthy or unsuited to their chosen task or any honors that they earn (self-confidence and self-esteem are likewise Bad)
Skill in speaking, even when they think they’re fools
Very strong personal bonds, such as friendships and love affairs
Loyalty
Ability to perform the (seemingly) impossible
A dislike of change, hence the amount of heroes who end up restoring the “good” status quo at the end of the story
Exaggerated sensations of angst and guilt

So, let’s say you go through that list and decide that your anti-hero is going to be a coward, extremely self-interested, unequal to persuading other people to join her with her words alone, and prone to double-crossing people when it works. And she stays true to those characteristics. She isn’t loyal to someone who can’t benefit her, she runs away from fights, she abandons a group goal to concentrate on her own, and she isn’t an eloquent speaker; she just hands over money to hire help.

Already you can see that this is going to be a very different story from one about a completely heroic heroine, or even one about a heroine who starts out thinking she’s self-interested and then changes her mind halfway through the book, usually because she adopts a child.

The trick becomes keeping an audience’s interest, because one thing true anti-heroes do is turn some people off.

3) Make them like his other traits. A lot of anti-heroes have senses of gallows humor and cunning that allow them to get revenge on their enemies, because that makes them more amusing to read about. And certainly, if you’re writing about an anti-hero, especially one whose career puts him in danger quite often, you could do worse than this.

I think an ordinary, limited person also makes a fine anti-hero. She won’t have the killer magic or the incredible skill with weapons that often gets the normal heroine out of trouble. She may not be able to sweet-talk her way out of there, either. Instead, she has to figure out what thing within her power to offer her captors when she’s thrown in a jail cell and told she’ll be executed tomorrow morning. This exercise is good for the author’s brain, because it gets them out of the “normal” pathways of heroics, and it’s good for the audience, so that they can see what clever thing the author will come up with next.

Or you can have someone who’s an excellent psychologist, in the “reading people” sense of the term. She could get out of trouble, survive, and punish her enemies by manipulating people, playing them against each other, and destroying relationships from the inside by her knowledge of the partners’ fears and jealousies.

Anti-heroes may not be very nice people, but they can still be interesting.

4) Make this anti-hero a normal citizen of her culture. Say you’ve constructed a fantasy culture with many fine artistic and scientific achievements, but it’s still not a utopia, and it doesn’t hold to many of the cherished ideals of Western liberalism. (Notice that I said “ideals,” not “realities”). So you have slavery, or open persecution and discrimination against a racial or religious or linguistic minority, or constant class warfare. Fantasy heroes are usually fighting to change this—not by revolution as such, but by restoring some older status quo, like a legendary kingdom, where things were better for more people.

A fantasy anti-hero might exist as happily in this culture as a fish in water, and oppose any struggle to change it. After all, why change it? He’s not being hurt, and nor are his interests or the people close to him, and that’s all that matters, right?

The key to writing a story like this, I think, instead of a simplistic one where the rebels are the heroes and the defenders of the status quo are the villains, is to make the justifications of the defenders of the status quo familiar and reasonable-sounding. I’ve found a very good source of arguments like this in listening to American citizens argue about foreign aid, listening to whites argue about racism, and listening to men argue about sexism. Learn how those arguments go; then give them to your anti-hero. You’ve got a person who can do quite horrible things and yet rest easy with herself, because the structure of her beliefs sounds convincing.

5) Give another perspective. The problem with writing solely from an anti-hero’s perspective, especially if it’s first-person, is that it can come to sound as if the anti-hero really is a hero. (It doesn’t help that the author often has that impulse I mentioned above, to cushion the protagonist against making mistakes, and that the audience is often willing to identify the central character as being right no matter what he does).

So write from another perspective. Write from a heroic one, too—but make the hero a minor character instead of the protagonist. When the anti-hero inflicts magical leprosy on a person who once insulted him, that perspective is there to remind the reader how someone outside the anti-hero’s head might view that particular reprisal (that is, as being completely over the top).

6) Stunt certain emotional responses. In the case of the magical leprosy, the responses stunted are reflection and horror. Where a heroine might want to punish someone with a disease for insulting her, but then she’ll stop and reflect and be ashamed of herself, the anti-hero flings the spell and goes about her normal routine, perhaps feeling nothing but a quiet satisfaction.

Anti-heroes have to, I think, be less introspective than heroes, because otherwise the natural tendency is to show them coming around to other points-of-view and questioning themselves, and that almost inevitably leads into a story where they’re not anti-heroes anymore. They’ll probably also lack responses of deep horror, terror, exaltation, love, and other dramatic emotions that many fantasy heroes swing through. They can still feel fear and joy and love, of course. But those emotions won’t rule their lives to the point of driving them to do the impossible or the impossibly risky while ignoring their personal safety, the combination of traits that usually rules when the fantasy hero is performing some heroic act.

Try writing a less introspective character. It’s an interesting challenge, especially if you’ve been accustomed to writing people who did more thinking and talking than doing. If you do want to write an introspective anti-hero, then I think you’ll need the reasonable-sounding arguments I referred to in point 4: he or she will have to have some reason for being able to live with what they’ve done when other people in the society around them disapprove.



Comments

From:[info]arterialspray
Date:December 14th, 2007 12:02 am (UTC)

Kellhus

(Link)
Anasurimbor Kellhus, from the Prince of Nothing series, is in many respects the ultimate anti-hero (and he's not the only one populating the pages of that trilogy -- Cnaiur is also a rather nasty anti-hero). Kellhus is a master manipulator, an adherent of an utterly ruthless rationality that is devoid of human sentiment, and that transcends all human customs, conventions, and morality.

While he is emotionally stunted (except in the sense that he purposefully fakes emotional responses as a means to manipulate those around him), I am not certain that "less introspective" is really a correct description of Kellhus. He does seem to _doubt himself_ less than Drusus Achamian (who is arguably the 'hero' of the story), except towards the very end when he rejects the Thousandfold Thought thingy. But doubting/questioning oneself and introspection are not quite the same thing.
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:December 15th, 2007 08:57 pm (UTC)

Re: Kellhus

(Link)
I've heard that one problem with those books is that there's not really enough distinction between anti-heroes and heroes, so you can't tell whether you're meant to approve of the characters or not. I've held off on reading them because of that.
From:[info]merditha
Date:December 15th, 2007 10:57 pm (UTC)

Re: Kellhus

(Link)
so you can't tell whether you're meant to approve of the characters or not

*tilts head* This is a compliment, surely? It means the author's opinions are being firmly hidden. (I bought the first one and got bored and distracted halfway through, which may or may not be a symptom of a similar issue, but I suspect is more a symptom of the fact that MOST writing doesn't grab me, nowadays)
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:December 16th, 2007 08:59 am (UTC)

Re: Kellhus

(Link)
Not if the character is meant to be an anti-hero or a hero- and that's what I'm talking about here, rather than characters that are meant to be just people. (They are the ones that I prefer, but it's less relevant in this discussion). If there's no context of morals that the character acts against, either inherent in the narrative or given through the invented cultures, then the character can't be an anti-hero. My impression of the books, through admittedly second-hand information, is that characters go around doing "shocking" things all the time, but the weight of the "shocking" things is simply lost because people in the book do not act sufficiently different.
From:[info]arterialspray
Date:December 16th, 2007 02:46 pm (UTC)

Re: Kellhus

(Link)
Well, many of the characters are total bastards, and the world as a whole is rather depressingly violent, ignorant and backwards (sort of like the 10th century Earth it was based on). However, some of the protagonists (like the sorcerer Drusas Achamian or the prostitute Esmenet) are actually fairly good people. As for whether you are 'meant' to approve of characters or not, the author is a philosopher, and he draws heavily on (and is perhaps subtly critiquing) the ideas of Nietzsche, so moralistic approval (or the lack thereof) of characters is probably something he is trying to consciously play with.
From:[info]illidanstr
Date:December 14th, 2007 12:47 am (UTC)
(Link)
Created an account here just for you =)

I like interesting introspection, but there's nothing to turn me off a book faster then listening to the "good guys" think. I kinda think I associate them with banality, illogic, and a total lack of anything resembling (to me) human emotion...

As people, most of us really, really do suck hard insane. What with all the benefits of presenting a stereotypically good personality, there might be a facade on top of that.

But introspection is incredibly awesome, either with an anti-hero or a villain! If an author can't plausibly do that, can't show their point of view in detail, do they really have a believable villain/anti-hero in the first place? I think, to understand ugly beliefs or actions on the part of others, you have to dissect your own. Sure, we might *think* ourselves forward-minded with our tolerances and all, but..

We're not, obviously. Example: Darfur. Huge humanitarian crisis. People there are living in utterly atrocious conditions. We as people are more interested in the economic benefits of a tight relationship with China. There are major problems like that which would *not* be easily fixed; problems which even the first step toward a solution might provoke an economic downturn, might make things worse in the long haul. It's easier to hold one-day hunger fasts, isn't it?

Can it really be so hard for writers to understand that supporters of slavery and genocide could rationalize their own actions in the same way?
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 14th, 2007 09:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
Can it really be so hard for writers to understand that supporters of slavery and genocide could rationalize their own actions in the same way?

They ought to try reading some of the arguments for bonded labor in Pakistan, such as those featured in the interviews of slaveholders found in the analysis of modern slavery in Kevin Bales' book Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy. "It's for their own good" is one of the most difficult-to-disprove logics, as it's usually based on stereotypes and racial/religious/class profiling, and yet one of the most common.
From:[info]arterialspray
Date:December 14th, 2007 10:41 am (UTC)
(Link)
"It's for their own good" sounds sort of like Aristotle's supposed argument in support of slavery -- his argument was that for so-called 'natural slaves' (i.e people who have what he calls a slave-nature) they are actually better off being controlled and told what to do by people who know (better than they do) what's best for them. The interesting thing about Aristotle's argument is that we can't really tell whether he was in fact arguing for or against slavery (i.e. he could have been saying "it's only ever justified for people who have slave-natures, and there are no such people / or it is impossible to ever determine for sure that anyone has a slave-nature").
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:December 15th, 2007 08:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Can it really be so hard for writers to understand that supporters of slavery and genocide could rationalize their own actions in the same way?

The problem is that the writers usually come up with massively fake-sounding arguments when they don't base their arguments for the characters off real-world sources. It's on a par with villains who knowingly think about themselves being evil.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:February 2nd, 2011 11:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I tried this in one of my stories. Not knowing much about modern slavery, I just made the argument.

The society was formed out of artists/philosophers/scientists after the collapse of an empire. As such, they value logic, and see purity as the ultimate expression of logic. Therefore, the majority (which supports slavery) sees half-breeds and half-creatures as inferior, because they are impure... Since their society is dedicated to upholding logic, and these people are inherently illogical, they must be inferior.

I don't like the argument, but until I do more research I can't come up with anything better.
From:[info]topazlily
Date:December 20th, 2007 09:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I strongly disagree that "most people do suck hard insane". I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I assume you mean most people are bastards. Has this really been your experience of life? It certainly hasn't been mine.

I am not a bastard, my family and friends are not bastards and in fact most people I have known in my life are not bastards. Quite the reverse. In fact– dare I say it?– I actually do believe I and they are good, compassionate people. (And yes, if you say I'm not I will take it personally– how can I fail to do so?)

Sure, people aren't perfect, but let's not get so judgemental that we can only see the flaws in our fellow human beings. Morality isn't an either/or, black-and-white situation.

I think to write an anti–hero (or villain) it is necessary to have some perspective on the character. "Well, EVERYONE'S a creep, really, they just pretend to be good," is the sort of world-view an anti-hero might have– but if it's the author's view too, that anti-hero immediately turns into a de facto hero.



From:[info]illidanstr
Date:December 20th, 2007 10:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I love your last paragraph; somehow, the idea that someone's status as a hero or anti-hero is reliant on the views of the author themselves hadn't occurred to me as such.

People's behavior is mostly situational. The results of studies such as the Milgram and Prison experiments seem to show this, and certain situations can degrade otherwise positive behavior very quickly. To quickly Godwin this thread, Hitler was democratically elected. Compared to the average person's life in the history of the world, any modern first-world nation is paradise.

Regarding personal experience, I've found that you get out of life what you put into it. Very, very few people have a natural mean streak under normal conditions, and most respond positively to kindness. Funny enough, it seems that thinking negatively of others is bad for one's self - under this theory, concentrating on the believed stupidity of a blond might lead to the reaction of dumbing ourselves down.

I think there are many, many good arguments for either view of people; more importantly, I think we as a species know so little (of practical or philosophical matters) about our own mindset it's hard for any of us to truly conclude one way or the other yet. Whichever is "right" by whatever standard, though, your view is clearly more beneficial.
From:[info]topazlily
Date:December 20th, 2007 10:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks... Your post crossed one of mine, which has a comment I just realized sounds as if it's directed at you:

If you think it's perfection or nothing... then maybe you should be writing straight heroes vs villains.

I actually meant "you" in a general sense. I was thinking of some draft stories I've read recently– the (teenage) writers say they're writing morally-ambiguous characters, but their ideas of morality are too simplistic to make it work.
From:[info]darkredd
Date:January 11th, 2008 02:00 am (UTC)
(Link)
You know, you struck upon a problem I have with a certain anime, called Elfen Lied. In short, there are no good people in that story. Well, there are three, but they are summarily killed. The implication present is that humanity is fully deserving of its impending extinction.

It could be true, but I can't help but think that 'we all deserve gory death' is not a constructive worldview.
From:[info]topazlily
Date:December 20th, 2007 10:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Adding to my last comment: It seems to me that to write an anti-hero successfully one needs to be able to perceive different shades of morality. If you think it's perfection or nothing... then maybe you should be writing straight heroes vs villains.
From:[info]illidanstr
Date:December 20th, 2007 10:27 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I've always had a soft spot for the metaphor of colors, rather then just shades; the idea being, of course, that black and white viewpoints represent all-or-nothing good or evil, shades show that characters have some-good and some-bad, while colors are required to question the whole legitimacy of "good" and "bad" in the first place. Not everyone uses the same scale, and all; there are many dimensions by which to judge any action.
From:[info]topazlily
Date:December 21st, 2007 02:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Indeed... but I would say that for a character to qualify as a real anti-hero, the author must present him or her as not measuring up in some way. I guess this does involve passing judgement.

Otherwise– in the worst case– the character can become a full-fledged Mary Sue, perhaps acting out the writer's fantasies of not being bound by laws/ethics/social conventions/whatever.
From:[info]shadowvalkyrie
Date:December 14th, 2007 01:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
I adore anti-heroes! It's what makes me love George R.R. Martin so much.
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:December 15th, 2007 08:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think his stories, though I love them, end up with many of his anti-heroes tending towards heroic. Tyrion is one of the few exceptions.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 18th, 2007 08:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well I think that Martin goes a very good job of making his characters come up with very good justifications for what they do. For example if you look at what Stannis and Jaime do they both do plenty of absolutely heartless and despicable things but they're able to explain them away in a way that makes sense for a lot of people (I still hate Stannis, but by book 4 I couldn't help liking Jaime).

Basically Martin does what you were talking about with having anti-heroes justify themselves (in the same way that sexists, racists, etc. do) very very well.
From:[info]poirotskull
Date:December 20th, 2007 04:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think Tyrion will probably become more heroic later in the series, though.

Cersei was definitely an anti-hero. Has Arya really done anything heroic? The only really heroic characters, now that I think about it, are Brienne, Jon and Dany.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 14th, 2007 03:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
The 'Sir Apropos of Nothing' books are a good example of an anti-hero STAYING and anti-hero. It's hard not to hate him sometimes.
[User Picture]
From:[info]the_willow
Date:December 14th, 2007 09:51 am (UTC)
(Link)
I had to stop reading the series I hated him so much. I own books 1 and 2. But I haven't been able to read book two. I know I'll enjoy it. But the hating is still hard atm.
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:December 15th, 2007 08:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I had real trouble with the first book because of the rape depicted.
From:[info]l-clausewitz.livejournal.com
Date:December 14th, 2007 12:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Every inch of this post is actually just plain common sense. It's only "thinking out of the box" if the writer allows him/herself to fall into the box of generic fantasy heroes in the first place.

But then, to be strictly fair, staying out of that box may be easier said than done....
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:December 15th, 2007 09:00 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You could say so. But I've read an awful lot of anti-heroes, like Locke Lamora, where the audience is invited to admire the anti-hero for being so daring and morally ambiguous, yet is carefully guarded from thinking he could actually be immoral. For a true anti-hero, you have to run the risk that your audience won't like him.
From:[info]frostflowers
Date:December 14th, 2007 02:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thank you for this - it got me thinking about some of my own characters. A lot of them are of the thinking-and-talking-rather-than-doing variety, which is really what killed my NaNo this year - I'm going to go over them with a fine-toothed comb before I start rewriting, and this will be a useful resource. :)

[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:December 15th, 2007 09:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think that more fantasy books in general could use a greater congruence between thought and action. If there's too much thinking, the book can get bogged down in interior monologue; on the other hand, a lot of action just for the sake of action means that the reader is less likely to understand why the characters are doing these things.
From:[info]frostflowers
Date:December 16th, 2007 07:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Mhm. I wanted to have some sort of balance - I needed a more equal ratio of talking and doing - but I got bogged down in the beginning with exposition and presenting characters. In my rewrite (whenever I do it - I realised some flaws in my worldbuilding, and some holes in my character-lineup), I'm most probably going to cut the first 25k words wholesale, and then keep only a few of those scenes that will be extensively rewritten.

See, it's about a civil war - there's lots of politics to consider, but also a whole lot of action, and I don't want to do the clichéd "War is horrible, blah, blah, blah" presentation most generic fantasy novels drag out; I want to show what each character goes through in the war, and how it changes them.

So, again, thank you for the rant - I think I'll go back and read some of your old ones, too. :)
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 14th, 2007 03:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thank you heaps for a great rant! I'm currently attempting a pair of anti-heroes as my main characters and this has been a great help!

As for common justifications for objectionable actions, I'd have to add the good ol' "They're not people" or "They are not like us" argument that generally leads to the conclusion that morals can be suspended in the case of others. For example, if a culture considers murder wrong, they may chose to see their enemies as "not people" for whatever reason, thus making it ok to kill them. This is used often in fantasy (usually along the lines of "evil henchmen aren't people, so they're fine to kill) but strangely enough it is never seen as questionable.

From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 15th, 2007 02:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
I want to use religion as a justification too. My morally questionable character worships one of the dark gods and lives in a world where it's pretty well known that you get reborn after you die. In his religion it's not considered a bad thing to kill someone weak, better for them to die and be reborn as someone stronger.
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:December 15th, 2007 09:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, that one is irritatingly prevalent. I used to think that most fantasy books assigned nonhumans to the "not like us" category, but lately I've seen more that made other human religions or cultures Evil.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 15th, 2007 03:22 am (UTC)
(Link)
I personally love characters like Roland, so obsessed with their goal that conflict just comes naturally. Especially if they are theoretically "good" goals. In the Death Note manga/anime/movie, Raito just wants to create a law-abiding society - by summarily executing as many criminals as he can around the world.

- Last Servant
[User Picture]
From:[info]limyaael
Date:December 15th, 2007 09:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And the temptation to love is there. But I think there has to be an equally strong temptation to hate. Roland works for me as a true anti-hero because he's not always admirable, and because a lot of the reviews I've read of the series genuinely hate him.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 17th, 2007 09:45 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I really like this post. First of all, I have always had this strong attraction to Anti-Heroes. In most of the worlds presented where they are used, heroism would typically either result in a boot to the arse or a sword to the throat. Anti-Heroes don't seem to me so much a class of people different from heroes, but heroes who do what they have to to survive. Heroes are characterized as people who a) do the right thing, but b) go about it using only moral tactics. It is very rarely (in good fantasy, at least) that you find a hero that believes in "the ends justify the means." Now, granted, in awful fantasy there's always the melodramatic, histrionic hero who weeps after killing and buries every one of his enemies, but crap fantasy can't really be held to the same rules that good fantasy can be, right?

Your post interested me because I'm writing a story - not fantasy, sadly - about a post-Apocalyptic world where a killer virus has ravaged the earth. The protagonist - an anti-hero - lives with about 1,000 others in a secluded compound which she helps lead. There is one situation where a man comes in from the outside and does not appear to have the virus. However, instead of being hospitable, she takes him into interrogation, tortures him, and then, when he doesn't have any useful information, throws him back out into the Outside. It isn't meant to be melodramatic, or create sympathy for the character in question - none of the, "Oh, but she is a tortured soul and was confused about what to do!" She just did it because it made the most sense - "It seemed like a good idea at the time," as a character from your story would say. I think that defines an anti-hero: someone who does not let moral inhibitions stop them from what they think is *smart*.

Well, /rant. Thanks for putting up with it!

Andromedaphile
From:[info]slimshadowen
Date:December 18th, 2007 12:13 am (UTC)

Okie. So, here we go...

(Link)
Currently writing an anti-hero. Points are addressed as follows. (Warning: more in keeping with the '90s comics industry version of an anti-hero than an actual anti-hero.)

1) The character is a soldier. A soldier on the guerrilla side of a war. Civilians and other noncombatants? Well, if they can get under their desk fast enough, well and good, but if they can't see that the people they work for are bastards, well, if he takes an extra quarter second to be sure his bullets will go where he wants them to he might get shot...

2) Courage (Courage requires the capacity for fear)
Compassion for everyone around them
An open mind (this goes back to the fact that overtly racist/sexist hero/ines are very rare, even when it would make them fit better within their culture)
Drive to achieve some goal that is not simply personal (personal ambition is Bad) (sorta)
A conviction that they are unworthy or unsuited to their chosen task or any honors that they earn (self-confidence and self-esteem are likewise Bad)
Skill in speaking, even when they think they’re fools (Doesn't talk much, so when he does speak he at least gets people's attention)
Very strong personal bonds, such as friendships and love affairs (He is a soldier; he has to trust at least some of those fighting alongside him)
Loyalty (But not beyond reason)
Ability to perform the (seemingly) impossible
A dislike of change, hence the amount of heroes who end up restoring the “good” status quo at the end of the story
Exaggerated sensations of angst and guilt

3) He is damn near superhuman in skill...but there are others like him out there. They're all on the other side. So he has to avoid them or be overwhelmed. Sadly, with the way the world is set up, that is his only limitation.

4) This anti-hero would not exist without the contemporary society. He's not rebelling against the society because he hates it, but because it betrayed him. It's entirely personal and not all that practical. He's out for vengeance, and joins the rebels soely because he figures he'll do better with support than without.

5) Viewpoints a-plenty.

6) Emotionally bereft due to years of training him to not respond to most such stimuli. Emotions seem to consist of boredom, flareups of anger, cold disdain, and, when he's in over his head in a social situation, mild puzzlement.
From:[info]slimshadowen
Date:December 18th, 2007 12:14 am (UTC)

And now that I'm through being a self-centered cock...

(Link)
This rant is awesome and helpful.
From:[info]dreamstalk
Date:December 19th, 2007 10:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Great rant! I've read all of them and very grateful to you.
Can I give you a theme for another very useful flaying of stupid stamps of fantasy - invalids. A huge war and no cripples after?
Thanks in advance!
From:(Anonymous)
Date:January 2nd, 2008 12:09 am (UTC)
(Link)
Interesting. The last point is the only one where I really disagree with you.

First, I don't think an anti-hero character needs to be less introspective. An antihero might well question himself, realize that what he's doing is wrong and... not care. It's wrong, but it helps him or feels good, so he does it anyway. On the other hand, a heroic character might do what he firmly believes is right but never stop to question his beliefs, and thus end up doing more harm than good.

I also disagree that an anti-hero wouldn't feel deep horror or love "to the point of driving them to do the impossible or the impossibly risky while ignoring their personal safety". This sort of feelings can drive fantasy characters to heroic deeds but then again, they could also drive them to less heroic deeds; for instance, an anti-hero might betray his friends to the enemy in exchange of the enemy freeing his love interest.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:January 19th, 2008 06:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
De-lurks...

On the other hand, a heroic character might do what he firmly believes is right but never stop to question his beliefs, and thus end up doing more harm than good.

As in, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Which is another thing widely ignored in fantasy and could make a hero morally ambiguous simply by the way he acts, instead, it is never even mentioned.

- Lex
From:[info]trillian_astra
Date:May 28th, 2008 07:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Another good rant. I agree completely on the subject of Roland Deschain. I mean... I love the character... but he's practically the definition of anti-hero.

From:[info]aloranteriel
Date:June 30th, 2008 09:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Just had to say that this rant reminds me of Elaine Cunningham's Elaith "The Serpent" Craulnober who I so totally love. He's ruthless and mercenary but totally Forgotten Realms elven in his values, as Harper Danilo Thann points out to another elf who was rather shocked at Elaith's ways. He's the example that shows tradition and conformity does not equate being good even if the traditions themselves are based on moral principles. He even tries to get redemption by any means possible which sort of defeats the purpose. ^^;

[User Picture]
From:[info]shirozora
Date:October 3rd, 2008 05:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this reminds me of the books I've read on the American Civil War. The North and the South have their justifications for going to war against each other, and their reasons are so convincing that although I agree with the North more I know that the South is not entirely wrong and the North is not entirely right. Plus the people involved aren't all morally "good". The good generals are the ones who make terrible blunders (like the slaughter at Cold Harbor) and keep going on because they say the other army's lost men they can't replace and it kept their army occupied. People called General Grant a butcher and railed against General Sherman's "total war" and these men didn't flinch, kept moving on, kept doing what they had to do. In fact, General Sherman once professed that he hated war and that he brought total war to the people in order to end the war faster.

And the Rebel generals were quite honorable and the Rebel soldiers very honest, even if they were fighting for a cause that would've destroyed the United States of America. Talk about moral ambiguity.

So basically I'm just saying that I see the anti-hero as a morally ambiguous character. In more basically I'm just saying, "Look at Dr. House."
From:[info]opterna
Date:August 5th, 2010 11:11 am (UTC)

Anti-Heroes Rant Response

(Link)
I actually think it's a mistake to go into a book having already categorized one's characters as "heroes" or "anti-heroes" or even "villains." I think it works better to design a group of people and let them take whatever route feels natural given the setting and events. This might result in people originally perceived as protagonists doing unforgivable things, as well as the converse, but I think it feels more believable. Otherwise, the focus becomes keeping someone a hero or an anti-hero or something of that nature. I think that's how you end up with shoehorned rape scenes and salvation for kittens stuck in trees. Eventually, the plot is forced to bolster characterizations instead of characterization falling naturally from the plot.

My current story has a central character (I wouldn't say "main" character, since to me that means something slightly different) who I think most people would call an "anti-hero." I'd object to that terminology, however, since I believe his level of heroism or villainy depends on whether or not you value the attributes he expresses, as well as whether you are evaluating him as a leader or as a personal friend. He's avaricious, narcissistic, condescending, savage, imperious, and ambitious. However, he's also evenhanded, humorous, clever, protective of his people, and respectful of the law. In keeping with his role, he has enemies, rivals, allies, conditional allies, friends, servants, and confidants who all view him differently, not only in terms of "good" and "evil" but also in terms of whether he's reliable, pitiable, or any number of other adjectives. (If nothing else, no one really trusts him.)

In retrospect, this seems in keeping with other things you've said, and this was a requested rant on the topic.... I'm probably just muttering to myself at this point!
From:[info]jimmyray6
Date:November 4th, 2011 12:02 pm (UTC)

Re: Anti-Heroes Rant Response

(Link)
Telecommunications nowadays are reaching for perfection on a fast pace. Development of cutting edge technology helps this process quite a lot. Every passing day leaves its mark in the telecoms research, making our life easier at a cheaper price. Companies are striving to provide the perfect cheap, quality and intuitive service out there.
___
Cheap calls | call Nepal | call Hong Kong
Powered by InsaneJournal