Talk:Antihero/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

citations required

I've added citation needed templates to the section on types, this could be viewed by people as point of view or original research, and if these are well established types of anti-hero it should be easy to cite some sources. The examples also need citations for the same reason, and I would also suggest the phrase "well known" is perhaps in violation of WP:WEASEL, and suggest "oft-cited" as a better phrase. Hiding Talk 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• This all seems really stupid to me. A lot of it seems like a big "duh" and doesn't need to be cited. I mean do you really need to have someone else tell you that Robin Hood fits the noble criminal type? If you know anything about the character, or at least read a description, it's pretty obvious. In any case, I got rid of all of those incredible annoying citation needed templates you tossed all over the place and replaced it with one nice little one for the whole section like you should have done in the first place. --SeizureDog 03:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems and such

I think the citations needed additions highlight were I think this page needs the most work. I added a disclaimer after the 'types' heading, but I don't think that will cut it. I also took out 'the everyman' because I realized that these characters are protagonists rather than heroes. Hopefully more edits oncoming. CaveatLector^Talk 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can a character be both an anti-hero and a hero? Because if the terms are exclusive, hero would be the definite one for Batman. I'm sorry but, I still think greeks did intend morals. That's because when I say so I keep in mind two elements that most greek legends have, the heros human faults always lead to their tragic ends. To me that's a moral, vanity/pride leading to tragedy. They were a different culture, but compare Zeus, Achiles or Edipus to Hebrew God, Noah, Moises or Abraham. Ok, those actually existed, but they were inmortalised through literature, and nowdays, literature versions of jewish characters are being separated from historic ones for their study. I think the fact that the greek idolazed antiheros and gods almost based on capital sins doesn't make those characters less antiheroic or sinful. Achiles was all about glory, cutting heads and vanity, that's not heroic, that's anti-heroic, now and always. Zeus was all lust, ares vengaence and anger, baco gluttony, aphrodite vanity and so on. We couldn't say that greek gods were good gods just as we couldn't say greek heros were good ones. Greek hero and hero are not synonyms.--T-man, the wise 19:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No one claimed a character cannot be a hero and an anti-hero at the same time. In fact, my comments clearly say that a character needs to be a hero in order to be an anti-hero. Hence the 'hero' bit. You are simply wrong (sorry, but you are) in your assessment of Greek heroes having 'flaws taht lead to their downfall'. Tragedy is not about MORALIZING, its about a MISTAKE (hamartia) that a character makes that leads to their unfortunate downfall (unfortunate because the mistake is usually a very harmless one). The rest of your comment just reveals that you seriously need to read up on your mythology and you are making absoultely no sense whatsoever (sorry again, but most of that comment doesn't even seem like its in English...) The trope of the anti-hero is based within the context of the culture that created the hero. Achilles cannot be an anti-hero because he perfectly fits the Greek concept of the 'hero'. There is not forever-and-always concept of the 'HERO'. A hero is a cultural construction. The Greeks did not idolize 'anti-heroes', they revered particular people as heroes for their own reasons. (Your characterization of Achilles as 'all about glory, cutting heads, and vanity' is also rather...blasé...)

I once again have NO idea what you are trying to say. CaveatLector^Talk 02:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Then read me again. You were the one that brought up the "author is dead" concept to the discussion. Getting rid of the author intentions means getting rid of the greek context of Achilles. Take the character as if he was contemporary. I happen to see moral mistakes leading to trajic endings in most greek mithology. Even fairy tales had moralizing intentions (I read it somewhere, research, don't believe me cuz I say so). I guess what you said about my English is mostly true, but I still stand for what I said. I don't think they Idolized random characters with random characteristic. I think the flaws of their gods wee intended for some purpose. I mean who goes around making up gods and stories if they have no purpose?--T-man, the wise 10:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)--T-man, the wise 10:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then I guess we're in a basic disagreement, because I believe it is fairly obvious that a culture as a whole cannot create a character with a specific intention. I also believe that it is very evident that your knowledge of mythology isn't quite up to snuff (have you read the Iliad? The Odyssey? The Theogony? The Metamorphoses? The plays of Sophocles? Of Euripides? Your statement "Who goes around making up gods and stories if they have no purpose" I believe shows a bias towards purpose and meaning. Sometimes, my friend, things simply do not have a purpose. They can have a function or an origin, but a purpose is not necessary. Nobody "made up" the Greek myths. The culture brought them into existence. Besides all this, we are not separating purpose and intention. The Greeks do not intend for Achilles or Heracles as heroes, they view them as such. If you want a good example of a hero/anti-hero distinction among the Greeks, you should compare somebody like Achilles to Jason in Apollonius' Argonautica. That should probably make it a little more clear. EDIT: I would note, by the way, that I am still for the deletion of the examples completely, which would make this edit war moot. I think that they detract from the article, myself. CaveatLector^Talk 15:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right I'm no expert. But I've always seen the error and negative consecuence in those stories and put 2 and 2 together. There is always those two elementets, why? I agree the they view those people as heroes and that their concept of heroes was very diferent. But you were also right when you point Author is dead. A lot of greek heros fall in present day concept of anti-heros, nevermind their original view. The problem we have is that we agree on many points but apply them in a different way on the examples.--T-man, the wise 09:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read this segment, and I think I see your problem. You both seem to be using different definition that lay within the definition presented in the article. I have found a definition I think clarifies WHAT an antihero is that solves this, and other matter, placing at the top of the page. However, part of your disagreement here is not clarified, as there is one varible left open for research to be found on. Please read it and respond. I would appreciate any imput you can add. Corrupt one 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Batman?

It seems a better example would be Magneto from X-men.

1. Please sign your comments using four tildas.
2. Please read the rest of the talk page.
3. Magneto is a villain, not a hero.

CaveatLector^Talk 21:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry, my mistake. I'm new-ish
2. I did. Don't assume I didn't.
3. "vigilantes are individuals with the same goals as a traditional hero, but for whom "the ends justify the means". Rather than relying on the proper legal channels, the character "takes the law into their own hands" and pursues justice in their own manner. This character type probably owes some of its popularity to the comic book superhero"

Have you even watched the movies or read the comic books? The heroes of X-men want free rights for mutans, Magneto wants free rights. Very different. Maybe you should read the article and do your research.

Magneto views mutants as superior to ordinary humans, and strives for domination, not equality. Although he has acted as an anti-hero before, he is not primarily one, and to cite him as one is to confuse the definiton. (By the way, I had assumed you hadn't read the talk page because you asked 'is batman really an anti-hero' when that topic has been discussed uber-long on this page already. Your addition of that one sentence was rather frustrating considering the detail of the debate that's been going on. CaveatLector^Talk 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah. You are correct. My apologies. Eirra 03:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Magnito started out, as far as I can remember from an old spiderman episode from the late sixties, as a villian bent on power for himself and distruction in general with no higher goals then that. This was WELL before mutants were common in fiction. Over time he has changed from that to a person who would use mutants to controll humanity becuse it is their right as a superor being, which is still a villian.

He then changed into a person who wanted mutants to take controll of normal humans as that was the only way to stop the discrimination against mutants. After that, for a bit, he tried to have mutants live seperatly from normal humans. He has also become a recluse, doing things occasionally to help mutants in general, often as a last resort for them.

The last three versions of him may be considered Antiheroes. Corrupt one 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Catagory Deletion

Interesting...I became aware of the existence of this catagory through the Batman article. I've preposed its deletion for the same reasons why I preposed the successful deletion of the anti-hero list. I wanted to inform all the editors of anti-hero so that we could get a broad amount of opinions. CaveatLector^Talk 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Types types types

The reason why I sought to remove the examples from this page is that they are very finicky and cause a great amount of undue revision to the page. People add and substitute examples willy-nilly. I really don't see what they add to the page if we can cover some examples in the main page, like I attempted to do. I'd like to discuss this a bit more before I remove the types section again, just to see what you think. CaveatLector^Talk 01:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you on this. I also agree that Magneto is a beter example. He's actually perfect as an example. Wheter you agree or not that batman could be an anti-hero, he makes a very controversial choice for an example. I also think the Zorro is another popular character with clear anti-heroic characteristics. Same as Wolverine. I just read a recent story in which, after recovering control of his mind from HYDRA, he kills docens of men through his way to Japan. He is also outlaw as a mutant fighting injustice through the x-men a private organization with no legal recognition. A agree that Punisher, Venom, Spawn, Lobo or Daredevil, even with their movies, don't make good examples because they are not popular enough, the Ninja Turtles are barely known as the serious characters they were at first, but Magneto, Hulk, Wolvarine or even Catwoman might make good choices.--T-man, the wise 10:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal to remove the list of types seems too drastic. I can see how you would want to do something to stop people from constantly adding or substituting in new, "better" examples, since Wikipedia entries try to evolve into bigger and better articles over time. However, removing the list of types seems to contradict the nature of Wikipedia. Yes, it's true that having a separate list of types is unnecessary if you explain the list of types in the main page. However, most of the types are not explained in the main page, and until they are, I feel having an extra section for them is beneficial, and removing that section before then means entirely deleting useful, relevant information just because you don't like the way it's presented. I believe we can reach a compromise. By restoring the explanations of the types, but keeping the examples of each type off, I believe we can greatly reduce the number of new examples we get. Mind you, this only needs to be a temporary solution until each type is mentioned in detail on the main page, but how long that would take is difficult to say. Eldritch 18:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's ok to delete the list, but...

...why keep practically no examples in the article? One of the best ways to explain a subject is simply that; to give examples that the reader can relate to.

By the way, in my opinion, most of the anti-heroes mentioned on this talk page aren't anti-heroes at all. A prime examples of an anti-hero would be Raziel of the Soul Reaver series. --85.255.33.130 10:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the reader has no idea who your talking about, it doesn't help them at all, does it? Eirra 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Placing an esoteric example such as whoever Raziel is on the page wouldn't solve anything. I removed the examples because they are highly highly contested and highly POV in nature. better to include a few examples in the actual text of the article rather than a list which consistently undergoes edit wars. Not sure which anti-heroes that are not anti-heroes that you're talking about here... CaveatLector^Talk 16:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally! somebody on my side! I think we have to do some serious bookworm research about anti-heros. Let's use quotes or sourcing for every example instead of choosing the examples ourselves!!--T-man, the wise 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh!, I totally agree with the new changes. The Vigilante Sub-article makes perfect justice to Batman. Mentioning the Tim Buton movie (in whitch he even kills) and clarifying that SOMETIMES is view as a vigilante. Actually almost every superhero but Nick Fury, Green Lantern and Dragon Savage is technically a vigilante, but most of them aren't considered anti-heros, so the new format is perfect. --T-man, the wise 05:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

List of anti-heroes in fiction

User:Treybien has suggested recreating the category Category:Anti-hero. Since this was deleted as being vague and counter to categorisation policy, I've suggested a list, List of anti-heroes in fiction as the best place to implement the suggested idea. To my mind, if we are looking to list such qualities as makes a character an anti-hero and then list characters that exhibit such qualities, we are probably best off starting a list. However, I would like to note that comparing characters against a standard created by wikipedia editors amounts to original research and as such is proscribed against. We would need to provide citations as to where and why the character has been noted as an anti-hero, and allow citations offering opinion that the character is not an anti-hero. Thus, this area is better treated as a list in the article space rather than a category. I've copied this comment from a discussion with User:Treybien at our talk pages, and would appreciate the opinion of other people on the suggested list. Hiding Talk 10:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First you should probably check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-heroes, which shows why the old list was deleted: mainly due to lack of sourcing, and inherently POV or OR. Since the new list doesn't contain a single source either, it's probable that it will be deleted again. --TM 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Because deletion is so much more preferable to fixing. Hiding Talk 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. If you had bothered to visit the list before contributing such a helpful comment you'd see I actually added every single source there since noone else could bother. Pessimist (or realist) that I am, I still think it'll eventually be nominated for deletion though, and probably deleted. --TM 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I saw that. Had you assumed good faith and not thought my comment was directed at you I wouldn't have to apologise for my badly phrased and misplaced frustration with afd. Hiding Talk 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

After replying pretty quickly I thought I might have misunderstood the tone. My mistake to not have assumed good faith. Sorry for the curtness. (Sigh) --TM 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was sigh entirely my fault. I apologise for the unneeded crack about good faith. I was pretty sure you had misread me but I was tightly wound myself. Sorry. Hiding Talk 10:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard's Conan

The following text was suggested in connection with the passage on pulp fiction anti-heroes, but has now been deleted as an "unnecessary example":

An earlier pulp fiction example is Robert E. Howard's barbarian Conan, first featured in the horror and fantasy magazine Weird Tales in the 1930's.

In my view said character is an excellent example of one of the early and most influential anti-heroes of modern popular culture. Robert E. Howard's Conan is the model for countless pastisches and imitations; the archetypal "amoral swordsman". As such, the character is a valid and important example and I therefore think the text should stay in. Views anyone? CWL 20:56, 13 July 2006 (CET)

There is an ongoing effort to avoid having examples strewn about the body of this article. As the one who orginally reverted your addition, I still feel that mentioning Conan is unnecessary. --TM 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's great that that's your view, but we have to avoid original research, and we also have to maintain articles to avoid being an indiscriminate collection of information. The place to note Conan as an anti-hero is in the Conan article. Here, it is as indiscriminate as many other such examples. We can't attempt to list an example of every archetype. Hiding Talk 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming Howard's Conan as an anti-hero can hardly be considered original research. Notwithstanding I understand what you are saying and agree that the examples should be kept to a minimum (epecially as there is an article dealing with examples of anti-heroes), so fair enough. CWL 16:44, 15 July 2006 (CET)

I see conan as just another barbarian/ fighter type of hero. Not very original. Not an antihero. Corrupt one 05:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The original stories by Howard portrays a violent and amoral swordsman who is more concerned with his own enrichment than heroism. I refer to the following sources: [1] and [2] Whether Conan needs to be cited in this article or not as an example is debatable as the exemples should be kept to a minimum here. C-w-l 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. The character itself has changed from what may be an antihero into something that is a normal kind of hero. I recon that when a character changes like that, it should be specified when used as an example, to avoid confusion over which version of the character is the example. Also, I have been coming across amoral killers fighting for self gain opposing evil more and more often. Does this mean that type of character is beinging an established type of hero? Corrupt one 23:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ineffectual and hapless?

The intro includes the line:

The original meaning, therefore, is that of a protagonist who is ineffectual and hapless, rather than resolute and determined, whether his motives are good or bad. In some instances, anti-hero has come to refer to a protagonist of a work whose actions and motives are villainous or questionable.

No, I don't think the definition insisted upon ineffctuality or haplessness. Anti-heroes could be both effective and lucky, just not traditionally well motivated. But I also don't see why this conclusion follows from the text before it. Comments anyone? Sandpiper 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing as far as I can tell that says an AntiHero must be ineffectual and hapless. They might just need to be atypical heroes. If you find something that says they DO need to be that way, please refer to it here. I could use a good laugh. Corrupt one 02:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it compleatly! Corrupt one 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the term really necessary

Historically speaking, many of the heroes we think of as typical of the "knight in shining armour"-type are in the original telling highly flawed individuals. The only historical fictional heroes I can think of that fits the description of invincible and infallible are Malory's sir Galahad and possibly Shakespeare's Henry V. Even saints are usually portrayed as seriously flawed individuals prior to a salvation/revelation. All other classic fictional heroes have plenty of heroic qualities but are also highly flawed individuals: Heracles, Theseus, Perseus, Achilleus, Odysseus, king David, Jehu, El Cid, sir Gawain, sir Lancelot, Roland and Cu Chulainn. Of course, these are all heroes of the Western cultural sphere. I must admit I do not know what Chinese nythological heroes are like for instance. Still, if most heroes are seriously flawed individuals, a flawed hero is still a hero and not an anti-hero. -Sensemaker

No, a flawed hero is not an anti-hero, and that is not what the article says. Also, let's avoid questioning the complete veracity of aspects and theories of scholarly narratology (which have been studied, mind you, for quite a long time now). Of course the term is necessary. CaveatLector^Talk 23:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, let's not.

A great many pieces of narrotological terminology are so fuzzy in their definition that they are more confusing than enlightening. They often sound somewhat impressive and are useful for sounding erudite. A person wishing to truly communicate should thus avoid them, while a person wishing to sound impressive while not really saying anything substantial should embrace them. Anti-hero is a wonderful example. To some it just means "non-perfect person in a story" to others the meaning is much narrower such as a person truly devoid of heroic qualities. If people with such different opinions of what the word means begin discussing they are likely to just annoy and confuse each other unless they first agree on how to use the term. A term that can mean too many things is at best useless and often directly counterproductive to true communication (as opposed to just confused talk). -Sensemaker

It doesn't really matter if we on the talk page conclude that the term is not specific or descriptive enough. It's unquestionably notable, so it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Croctotheface 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As the term Antihero is already used to describe a type of character, I would say it is pretty pointless to be raising this matter not. It has also entered official dictonaries, and thus is considered an established term. Wether or not we deem it to be need or unnesesaery, the fact remains that the TERM, and the ideas behind the term are already firmly entrenched. We need this article to help us understand those terms better. I say, KEEP the term and article! Corrupt one 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest we remove the article. I agree that since the word exists and people do not understand, an article is necessary. What I wish to suggest is that we add a comment to article to the effect that since the term can mean at least two very different things, a person who wishes to communicate (as opposed to just sounding erudite) should either explain what he means with the term or use some other term. Now, someone might argue that English is full of homonyms. Take a look at all the different meanings of the word "charge" for instance. However, the different meanings of the word "charge" are usually so obvious that the context explains what is meant. When reading an article about cavalry tactics, you will not suspect that "charge" refers to electrical charge or a financial fee. Confusion is fairly unlikely. However, when reading about a story it is far from obvious if the person commenting the story means "flawed hero" or "person with few heroic qualities and plenty of the very opposite of heroic qualities". Therefore confusion is likely. It might be helpful to point this out. -Sensemaker

I tried that, with a section I placed at the top called WHAT IS AN ANTIHERO? It was removed as defining it was considered to be original research. If you can find different definitions of it, I would really appreciate it. You could list the definition, compare them without doing research, point out the differences and provide examples. (I THINK you might be able to, but you would have to check the policy on original researh to make sure.) Also, it would NOT be asking if the term is really necessary, but rather it would be asking if the term is clear enough.

Corrupt one 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The term anti-hero is a fairly broad term. One simple definition of an anti-hero is a protaganist who is not "heroic" in the usual sense of the word. If there are a limited number of ways that we expect a protaganist to act, there are a great many ways for the protaganist to behave differently. It can range from the protaganist as a villain (Clockwork Orange) or simply being heroic in a way different from expectations in a given era.--RLent 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have propsed a change of definition to one I have found in a dictionary which I think is more suitable. I placed it at the top of the page. I would appreciate a nice discusion about it. Corrupt one 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)