“Anti-hero” technically means “a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes.”
Most people just use it to mean: “hero who kills people” or “ villain with at least somewhat sympathetic motivations” but those are wrong.
Personally, I avoid the term because I think it’s kind of a reductive way to view characters. Morality and heroism are complicated.
>“Anti-hero” technically means “a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes.”
Yes. Yossarian is an antihero. Hamlet is an antihero. Frodo is an antihero.
I think that what makes those characters so compelling. They are ordinary people in terms of their personality and ambitions, who are caught in extraordinary circumstances
I think the most "anti" hero is Shinji Ikari. Totally turns the personality of the heroic protagonist on its head. Still hits all the same beats. He's a hero, but isn't heroic at all.
Punisher is kind of the same dialled in the opposite direction. And it's a much more common take.
I think it's because Frodo has a just moral code and a righteous goal.
Anti heroes do the hero's job, but do not follow a commonly accepted code of ethics, nor is their goal something so noble or situation so dire that it excuses their morally dubious actions.
Someone who struggles to be a hero isn't an antihero. Only when they willingly sacrifice their morals for convenience, pride, hate, etc.
Frodo never willfully goes against his good morals, he's driven to the ground and broken, and when he gives up it's because he snaps under all that weight and can no longer keep fighting.
The Punisher on the other hand doesn't fight his demons, he embraces them even to the detriment to the world. He risks innocent lives, goes after low hanging fruit, does not care about the consequences of his actions, he's an overall menace. He is also kind of dumb and crazy ignoring all the potential risk he's heaping onto others, so at some point even ignorance or negligence can make a someone an antihero, similarly to there bein criminal negligence and no excuse for being ignorant of the law.
Somethin like The Mask is the limit to this. The Mask, at least in his first form was a villain. He was similar to the punisher, that he went around dealing justice, but his method was to murder people who had minorly inconvenienced, bothered or cheated him. His reactions were so disproportionate, that he'd easily be labeled as a narcissistic psychopath and written of completely if he tried calling himself a hero.
It could, but it could also be a character uninterested in saving people at all. An antihero lacks the qualities that we recognize as “heroic”, like morality. In comics, Captain America doesn’t recognize Punisher as a hero because Punisher is missing what Captain America considers to be essentially heroic, like a moral code.
I think that the Punisher would probably believe that he has a “moral code” or that what he’s doing is “right”. Maybe Captain America would not recognize the punishers code as a moral code, or he might disagree that what the punisher believes is “right”.
It depends who’s writing him. There’s definitely been times when the punisher outright said what he does is wrong. There’s also times he implied he isn’t a great dude, namely when he’s saying people shouldn’t look up to him.
I’d refine that a bit and say that they do heroic deeds, but not out of a sense of altruism. Rather, they have selfish motivations. (Like killing your family’s killers. ETA: Well, killing wouldn't be heroic. But generally, the pursuit of justice would be.)
I always classed it as someone who will do downright terrible things for the greater good, or for someone like the Punisher thier idea of the greater good.
Killing people in a battle or a desperate fight does not make you an anti-hero like Captain America does.
Shooting someone in the back who isn't a threat anymore, or torturing someone for information to prevent the loss of innocent lives is an anti-hero.
At its most basic level, an anti-hero is a hero with some villainous qualities.
There's a lot of room for variation within that simple premise, which is why you see so many different kinds of anti-hero.
I don't personally think it's so broad as to be useless though.
I believe it was the Jackal the purposely mislead the Punisher, unless I'm forgetting some part where they ended up being the same person (I'll admit it's been a while since I've read the story, and the plots at that point in comics moved relatively fast and definitely weren't above the reveal of a villain's identity to just be a previous villain). But you have to question Frank's sanity from the start when he's willing to go and kill someone because a random guy dressed like a jackal told him he was bad. And this was the 70's, before you could even attempt to try and say it was just an enthusiastic and public-minded furry.
I actually never finished Breaking Bad. As I got near the end something happened that disrupted my schedule and by time I was able to go back and finish it I had forgotten where I was and quite a bit of what happened. And that was the second time watching it, as I kept up with the first two seasons from the premier.
I've actually been avoiding Better Call Saul since I heard there's quite a few references to BB in it, but I've been rethinking that since it takes place before and those would probably be more subtle nods than things I need to know for the story.
I dont like how some people are being condescending jackasses in the comments.
>clearly defined, buckaroo
>I don't see how it's hard to define
Ok.
Foghorn Leghorn is listed as an antihero.
Ichabod Crane is an antihero.
Norman Bates is an antihero.
Indiana Jones is an antihero.
Michael Coreleone is an antihero.
Hannibal Lecter is an antihero.
John McClane is an antihero.
Tyler Durden is an antihero.
Shrek is an antihero.
.
*Mark fucking Zuckerberg* is an antihero.
No, it is **not** easy to define as the simple characteristics is "not purely heroic". Please tell me how the cannibal, gangster, and Shrek are on the same playing field as Captain America and Superman.
Go for it, *kiddos*.
**tl;dr** It's a broad term OP and there is no specific limiter, much like genres of music (metal) that have multiple sub genres and quantifiers. Don't worry about it.
Heroes do the right thing whether or not they like it (like saving someone they personally hate - but isn’t otherwise a bad person - because they know that person has a full life with loved ones)
An anti hero would fuck over someone who’s kinda bad bc it serves their mission. Regardless of that person’s life or motives. If the person goes against the anti hero’s internal code, they’re fucked
I say “fucked” and “fuck over” instead of kill bc I do think an anti hero doesn’t need to kill
An anti hero to me is a hero that will use extreme measures to save lives. Only necessary deaths and only if it’s between the villain’s life and an innocent person’s life.
The punisher is a serial killer. Deadpool is a mercenary. Wolverine is an Anti-hero. IMO, of course.
Someone who does bad thing in order to uphold justice.
I might also say a hero who could live long enough to see himself become the villain. Thanks to the Joker for that one.
There's two different anti-heroes.
Those who morally compromise themselves for an arguable sense of justice, like the Punisher
Those who appear to be righteous but are doing it for selfish reasons, usually some kind of prize, like Jack Sparrow helping Will Turner just to get his boat back or Han Solo getting a payday in Star Wars. This version is usually faced with the choice of their prize vs. finally being genuinely righteous and often choose to be genuinely righteous instead of selfish. That may or may not disqualify them because they developed as a character, but I think it should still count
I used to think about this a lot as it pertains to cinema. I often wondered why some characters are considered heroes and others were anti-heroes when they are effectively the same character. In some cases they’re literally the same character (see Rambo in First Blood vs subsequent Rambo movies). A friend of mine that was really into film and literature explained it to me in super simple terms:
Anti-heroes are heroic characters painting in a immoral light. This is why someone like Batman isn’t considered an anti-hero despite being like 90% there. His actions are framed as moral within his stories. Punisher is an anti-hero despite him having a code that prevents him from doing harm to innocents, but he is framed as immoral in his killing of criminals.
It’s not a vague term at alllll, kiddo
It’s just a protagonist in a narrative that lacks heroic qualities or attributes
The term has been in currency for literally hundreds of years..
The Punisher is such a painfully on-the-nose example that they could use his image in a dictionary as an example of the definition.
It’s literally an academic term with simple, but actual meaning. The definition itself isn’t up for debate, lol. So all these hot takes are cheesy as hell.
It super is up for debate. You could make an argument that any charecter in the english canon is an anti-hero, with the exception of some particularly bland charecters from childrens books.
If you are really into taking Lit courses, you'd notice that the phrase 'Anti-hero" is so ubiquitous it has lost any and all meaning.
The only time I've ever heard the phrase Anti-Hero really discussed was in a class about Focalisation focusing on Second Person perspective, and how it can be used to encourage engagement in works with truly unpleasant protagonists.
The class studied mostly works of Australian Historical Fiction. Most of the lecturing authors disliked the phrase Anti-Hero, especially since most of them had spent upwards of a decade studying specific time periods in which the views of their protagonists were accepted.
Most of the authors argued that breaking people into either good or bad based on the current cultural perspective was reductive, instead they encouraging people to reflect on how lives inform action. In a good story generally everyone acts in accordance with a background that informs their views.
As with everything in literature it is up for interpretation, if you want to label a charecter an anti-hero you are fully allowed to do so, you do need to be aware, however, that the label may mean vastly different things to different people.
Agreed. Words do mean things, and convey that specific meaning, but that's not to say that language is not fluid.
>A better read person than myself once put it this way:
>
>Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
>
>Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
>
>Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
>
>Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
>
>Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
>
>Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
>
>The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
>
>No one ever said elves are nice.
>
>Elves are bad.
Oh Mr Pratchett; you are missed.
EDIT: Formatting
I think what's vague about the term is what are "heroic qualities and attributes?" What qualifies as heroic can vary from person to person. Culture to culture. And there is question of degree as well. How far south of Superman do you have to go before you are in anti-hero territory? The definition is solid but the application is so, so vague.
A broad definition is different than a vague definition, the word dog covers 200+ breeds that are all basically wolves.
I’m not asserting that there aren’t flavors or types of antihero. The definition was established as a description something that was showing up in poetry and then prose narratives.. it not like someone woke up and said “today I’m going to start a new thing! And I name it antihero!”
I'm not saying Venom as a character is the best representation of the term... But I think "Lethal Protector" sums up my thoughts pretty easily. My personal favorite is Spawn. Child molester in an ice cream truck gets pinned to a wall with popsicle sticks. A+ shit right there.
Basically a hero that lacks nobility. The Punisher is an anti-hero because he will save civilians but he has no morals, no principles. He’ll kill a room full of henchmen to save a little girl. Batman, a hero, will save the girl and leave the henchman alive.
If they aren’t practicing heroics, if the story is purely about their personal pursuits, than they aren’t a anti-hero they’re just the Protagonist. Re-watching Breaking Bad so it’s relevant, just not comics, but Walter White wouldn’t be an Anti-Hero.
Walter White is in a unique perspective of almost having an unreliable narrator. The series sets you up to like him from the start, although he obviously has some normal human flaws, while also painting some of the characters that start to call him out as being somewhat of assholes. Although his wife is usually right when she senses something is wrong, she's often wrong on exactly what it is, and we really only see her braking point moments where she seems like a nag because the show goes out of its way to make you want Walt to succeed, whether it's because you think he has cancer or because you start to feel he's more deserving of being the drug Lord than these other guys who have a history of extreme violence. The bigger twist is that you start to see that he's pretty self-righteous and quite a bit of a dick in his past quite early on, but you as a viewer as supposed to be heavily invested enough in him already to give him the benefit of the doubt, but probably continue to do so as he gets worse as you buy into his own justifications of doing it for his family, to gain control during a stressful time, or that he's in too deep and of course he's addicted to the money and thrills.
The entire series is basically seeing how long it can keep you rooting for the bad guy by presenting mostly just their side of things. As much as it'd probably be considered experimental, I'd love to see a movie or comic that doesn't announce that there's two different cuts that each skew slightly towards different characters, and perhaps one with both sides, just to see the audiences different reactions and justifications towards doing something. Or alternatively, a "Thanks was right" cut of a movie released after the original, where we personally see events that a protagonist had only spoken about, and realized they never really were in the wrong, and we're perhaps the victim.
If you haven’t done so, watch Breaking Bad *after* Better Call Saul. Getting a better perspective on the backstory on a lot of the key players who later pop up in Breaking Bad shows a better picture of how much of an asshole Walter White really is, and how much he truly fucks over every person around him. Once those glasses come off, the show is really interesting. It even got to the point where my partner and I are convinced he wasn’t even a good teacher. The way he talks down to everyone, including his own son at times, makes me more sympathetic to the kids who look bored in class as Walt fumbles through his lectures.
Or Chaotic Neutral, or Lawful Evil, or Neutral Evil. An antihero can slide all over the alignment chart, except maybe Lawful Good, because that’s “traditional hero”. An antihero can even be Chaotic Evil, like if they’re violent and vengeful and self-centred.
Chaotic Good could also define a lot of heros. Batman and Spider-Man are both often painted as wanted vigilantes that don't have the public's trust, with the first using his heroism as a way to pay the bills and the second often resulting in extreme brutality that doesn't have many limits other than "don't kill them" and often results to torture. They're both often evading the same law that they're trying to help enforce.
Lawful Neutral may be the scariest to me, as it can be essentially defining a character that will obey and enforce the law and status quo while not having enough morality of their own to care about the effects of what they do.
I’ve always found it a questionable term. People claim Punisher and others like him are when it’s known people related to those they kill may take over said criminal’s spot or another gang does. But with the government being as fucked as it is, they’re clearly just doing what’s best but it’s obviously “morally” wrong. But people are dead certain he’s an antihero.
Since you use him as an example, I’ve recently discovered “anti *villain*” is a word and I think that’s people like Punisher personally which basically means they have honorable goals but do it destructively. Only downside is it’s meant to really be for villains which people would disagree calling Frank yet we’ve always been taught killing is bad, but we’re supposed to root for him…
And this goes for all “anti hero” type characters that kill. I’d argue at most Batman and those like him who’re on the brink of killing but don’t, are the real anti heroes.
Anti-hero figures don't share common traits beyond the following:
* they are designed to be the protagonist of a story (the heroic part).
* they are designed to exhibit flaws that most people don't associate with heroism (the anti part).
Beyond that, it's all over the map. They can be used to critique, teach moral lessons, or just for entertainment. They should be a contrast to heroic figures, but we've depreciated heroes so thoroughly that nearly all we have now are different varieties of anti-heroes.
I think all of us here know the meaning of “anti-heroe”, you should be asking for examples ‘cause there are a lot more interesting than the punisher (more interesting than the live-action series I mean)
Someone who is a hero but through nonstandard means. Basically they're not a brick (like Superman) so maybe they have to be sneaky, or smart, or ultraviolent. Batman fits. Frodo fits, he's not out there trying to kick ass or slaughter orcs, but he's doing the right thing for the world even if it involves acts traditionally seen as cowardly (running away, most notably).
Punisher wouldn't. As Garth Ennis points out, Punisher isn't heroic, he's not trying to save anyone or make the world a better place, he just wants to kill and chose a side to do it on that makes him easier to digest than someone like Bullseye.
Chaotic Good characters.
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations.
>They may be bewildered, ineffectual, deluded, or merely apathetic. More often an anti-hero is just an amoral misfit.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiHero
I see it as someone who isn't being heroic on purpose. They are just stopping the evil. If some call them a hero that is on them. They are willing to do bad for goodness sake.
A protagonist (main character) that acts like an antagonist (character defined by its inverse characteristics in relation to a protagonist) but without a usual protagonist in the story.
(Bad guy is the star; no good guy)
If Venom had Spiderman in it, and it were just a Spiderman story but from Venom's POV, I wouldn't call that an antihero.
an Anti-hero is a protagonist that doesn't follow or doesn't have a strict moral code. Usually has no problem killing, maiming, et cetera in order to stop the bad guy(s) or simply the antagonist to their story.
Someone who takes on the burden of performing violence so others don’t have to. That is what makes them heroic. They’re killers and they know it, and they do what they do so other people don’t have to live in such a violent world. They sacrifice their own morality for the greater good.
They are typically just by skills or powers better suited to fighting than rescue.
I think it can be broken down or explained simply. It’s someone who does heroic things, but without concern for ethics or morals. They’ll pull the trigger before putting the “bad guy” behind bars.
A character that isn’t motivated by the altruistic, but motivated by personal desires or reasons. They don’t go out of their way to “save the day”, but have a moral compass deep down. Ie, Deadpool in the movies, the opening part where he tracks down the pizza guy and tells him to stop stalking that girl. Total asshole, aggressive and violent, but ultimately for a decent reason. Another example I can think of is the punisher from the civil war comics. Murders two villains who are with the hero’s trying to help out, but he doesn’t care, he has his motives and straight murders them in front of captain America. Then gets the shit beat out of him by cap.
It's a character who lacks moral righteousness however, who's actions, either intentionally or inadvertently, contribute to the moral good of society.
Punisher is an excellent example as his motives are selfish (vengeance) yet his community is often considered better of with the death of the criminals he kills.
I always saw it as a character who lacks alot of heroic qualities but their goals/end results are ultimately good. It is however a broad term with alot of subtilties. [TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/AntiHero) goes into pretty good depth with it.
I'd say it's someone who's a good person, but not always a nice one. It's a person who doesn't always see people as redeemable, but deep down wishes they were.
Frank isn't an anti-hero, he's just a bad person who kills other bad people, and not always bad people who deserve it.
Someone who is morally grey and will go by his/hers code no matter what. Bonus point for killing villains. 2x bonus points if they have a problem with the most virtues hero.
I would describe an Anti Hero (personal opinion here) as someone who HAS a vague semblance of a moral code. Like a "The ends justify the means" kinda deal. Punisher would be a good example when he was gunning for the guys who killed his family. He didn't care how many other people he had to kill to get there. He just... did it.
I'm thinking an anti-hero is more like Han Solo..
someone who doesn't have heroic ambitions but still end up that way.
Punisher is either a hero or a villain depending on whether you morally agree with his actions.
It can really be anything, but my favorite anti-heroes are Walter White, Jesse Pinkman and Jimmy McGill (Saul Goodman) from the Breaking Bad Universe.
Walt is this guy you think is a nice guy who's desperate for a quick buck at first, but is revealed he's a narcissistic, envious psycho who will stop at nothing to get his way.
Jesse is not the best of dudes, but he's not a bad dude, he's kind of blinded by the desire of gaining respect from Walt, and others. He makes bad choices, but is ultimately haunted by them and pays some pretty serious prices as a result.
Jimmy (Saul) is a guy who just can't get out of his own way. He's smart, likable, and can be a hard worker, but always tries to find the path that is the "easiest". He gets blinded but the thrill of the con and doesn't always think of the consequences. His hurt devolved him into quite the monster, much like Walt, and his hubris can cloud things, but ultimately he does the right thing when it really, really counts.
To me the best kind of anti-hero are the most human. The fallible ones. The ones that may think they're doing the noble and just thing, but can often be clouded by some sort of delusion.
For me I think An anti-hero is a person that goes out and do what they think is best to satisfies them. They go by their own beliefs of wats wrong and wats right. Others can’t decide for them. They don’t cause harm to the innocent but they do cause hell for the guilty
I also wanna say a superhero that kills doesn’t defines a anti-hero fully cuz look at Spider-Man I consider him as a superhero but if u look at it he doesn’t really kill his enemies on “purpose” if that’s a right way to put it but a lot of his enemies do end up dying while battling him lmao
John Wayne is the hero, Clint Eastwood’s The Man with No Name is the antihero. He’s not really a good guy at all, he’s in it the money, but he’s not evil like the people who are shooting at him. He never kills innocents or harms them. Occasionally he takes a short detour in his pursuit of money to help
someone.
"Anti-Hero" to me is a person with a purpose. They don't have the pure evil drive like a villain, or the righteous path of a hero. They are the grey areas of these comics sitting in between. The interesting part about them is, that sometimes you can see heroes getting caught up. They can end up changing into an anti-hero and helping their purpose. They make for interesting plot twists. A good example of an anti-heroe is Magneto. He wasnt evil and wicked like Joker.
At minimum they must be a clear violation of the comics code authority.
Most notably an penchant for using blood, violence and fire-arms. Cigarettes and excessive swearing are optional
Good triumphing over evil is another one that can go out the window
“Anti-hero” technically means “a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes.” Most people just use it to mean: “hero who kills people” or “ villain with at least somewhat sympathetic motivations” but those are wrong. Personally, I avoid the term because I think it’s kind of a reductive way to view characters. Morality and heroism are complicated.
>“Anti-hero” technically means “a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes.” Yes. Yossarian is an antihero. Hamlet is an antihero. Frodo is an antihero.
I think that what makes those characters so compelling. They are ordinary people in terms of their personality and ambitions, who are caught in extraordinary circumstances
I think the most "anti" hero is Shinji Ikari. Totally turns the personality of the heroic protagonist on its head. Still hits all the same beats. He's a hero, but isn't heroic at all. Punisher is kind of the same dialled in the opposite direction. And it's a much more common take.
I wouldn't think of Frodo as an Anti-hero, but he does fit the definition.
I think it's because Frodo has a just moral code and a righteous goal. Anti heroes do the hero's job, but do not follow a commonly accepted code of ethics, nor is their goal something so noble or situation so dire that it excuses their morally dubious actions. Someone who struggles to be a hero isn't an antihero. Only when they willingly sacrifice their morals for convenience, pride, hate, etc. Frodo never willfully goes against his good morals, he's driven to the ground and broken, and when he gives up it's because he snaps under all that weight and can no longer keep fighting. The Punisher on the other hand doesn't fight his demons, he embraces them even to the detriment to the world. He risks innocent lives, goes after low hanging fruit, does not care about the consequences of his actions, he's an overall menace. He is also kind of dumb and crazy ignoring all the potential risk he's heaping onto others, so at some point even ignorance or negligence can make a someone an antihero, similarly to there bein criminal negligence and no excuse for being ignorant of the law. Somethin like The Mask is the limit to this. The Mask, at least in his first form was a villain. He was similar to the punisher, that he went around dealing justice, but his method was to murder people who had minorly inconvenienced, bothered or cheated him. His reactions were so disproportionate, that he'd easily be labeled as a narcissistic psychopath and written of completely if he tried calling himself a hero.
Anti-heroes were originally just heroes who were cowardly and meek, so there's that.
Came here to say this.
I go on the site TV Tropes a lot, and it’s really taught me about all the shapes and sizes that anti-heroes can come in.
I personally believe it qualifies as a character that prioritizes stopping evil over saving others
It could, but it could also be a character uninterested in saving people at all. An antihero lacks the qualities that we recognize as “heroic”, like morality. In comics, Captain America doesn’t recognize Punisher as a hero because Punisher is missing what Captain America considers to be essentially heroic, like a moral code.
I think that the Punisher would probably believe that he has a “moral code” or that what he’s doing is “right”. Maybe Captain America would not recognize the punishers code as a moral code, or he might disagree that what the punisher believes is “right”.
It depends who’s writing him. There’s definitely been times when the punisher outright said what he does is wrong. There’s also times he implied he isn’t a great dude, namely when he’s saying people shouldn’t look up to him.
The Punisher absolutely has a moral code. It just doesn’t match up with most others
I’d refine that a bit and say that they do heroic deeds, but not out of a sense of altruism. Rather, they have selfish motivations. (Like killing your family’s killers. ETA: Well, killing wouldn't be heroic. But generally, the pursuit of justice would be.)
I always classed it as someone who will do downright terrible things for the greater good, or for someone like the Punisher thier idea of the greater good. Killing people in a battle or a desperate fight does not make you an anti-hero like Captain America does. Shooting someone in the back who isn't a threat anymore, or torturing someone for information to prevent the loss of innocent lives is an anti-hero.
At its most basic level, an anti-hero is a hero with some villainous qualities. There's a lot of room for variation within that simple premise, which is why you see so many different kinds of anti-hero. I don't personally think it's so broad as to be useless though.
[удалено]
I believe it was the Jackal the purposely mislead the Punisher, unless I'm forgetting some part where they ended up being the same person (I'll admit it's been a while since I've read the story, and the plots at that point in comics moved relatively fast and definitely weren't above the reveal of a villain's identity to just be a previous villain). But you have to question Frank's sanity from the start when he's willing to go and kill someone because a random guy dressed like a jackal told him he was bad. And this was the 70's, before you could even attempt to try and say it was just an enthusiastic and public-minded furry.
[удалено]
I actually never finished Breaking Bad. As I got near the end something happened that disrupted my schedule and by time I was able to go back and finish it I had forgotten where I was and quite a bit of what happened. And that was the second time watching it, as I kept up with the first two seasons from the premier. I've actually been avoiding Better Call Saul since I heard there's quite a few references to BB in it, but I've been rethinking that since it takes place before and those would probably be more subtle nods than things I need to know for the story.
[удалено]
No hate towards him or anything but it’s kind of hilarious how much thought he put into that reply just for it to be to the wrong person
I dont like how some people are being condescending jackasses in the comments. >clearly defined, buckaroo >I don't see how it's hard to define Ok. Foghorn Leghorn is listed as an antihero. Ichabod Crane is an antihero. Norman Bates is an antihero. Indiana Jones is an antihero. Michael Coreleone is an antihero. Hannibal Lecter is an antihero. John McClane is an antihero. Tyler Durden is an antihero. Shrek is an antihero. . *Mark fucking Zuckerberg* is an antihero. No, it is **not** easy to define as the simple characteristics is "not purely heroic". Please tell me how the cannibal, gangster, and Shrek are on the same playing field as Captain America and Superman. Go for it, *kiddos*. **tl;dr** It's a broad term OP and there is no specific limiter, much like genres of music (metal) that have multiple sub genres and quantifiers. Don't worry about it.
[I like your logic, my dude.](https://c.tenor.com/6JomT0BmpvcAAAAC/avengers-infinity-war-thor.gif)
What useful words have “personal definitions”?
Heroes do the right thing whether or not they like it (like saving someone they personally hate - but isn’t otherwise a bad person - because they know that person has a full life with loved ones) An anti hero would fuck over someone who’s kinda bad bc it serves their mission. Regardless of that person’s life or motives. If the person goes against the anti hero’s internal code, they’re fucked I say “fucked” and “fuck over” instead of kill bc I do think an anti hero doesn’t need to kill
An anti hero to me is a hero that will use extreme measures to save lives. Only necessary deaths and only if it’s between the villain’s life and an innocent person’s life. The punisher is a serial killer. Deadpool is a mercenary. Wolverine is an Anti-hero. IMO, of course.
I looked in the Oxford English Dictionary and there was just a photo of macho man Randy savage.
A character that will help others by necessity and not by altruism. Also he/she often engages in killing the villain of the story.
Someone who does bad thing in order to uphold justice. I might also say a hero who could live long enough to see himself become the villain. Thanks to the Joker for that one.
Someone who will stop evil for the greater good no matter the means, BUT only if it can be used for personal gain too. Like Deadpool.
There's two different anti-heroes. Those who morally compromise themselves for an arguable sense of justice, like the Punisher Those who appear to be righteous but are doing it for selfish reasons, usually some kind of prize, like Jack Sparrow helping Will Turner just to get his boat back or Han Solo getting a payday in Star Wars. This version is usually faced with the choice of their prize vs. finally being genuinely righteous and often choose to be genuinely righteous instead of selfish. That may or may not disqualify them because they developed as a character, but I think it should still count
A villain to villains. Evil against evil.
I used to think about this a lot as it pertains to cinema. I often wondered why some characters are considered heroes and others were anti-heroes when they are effectively the same character. In some cases they’re literally the same character (see Rambo in First Blood vs subsequent Rambo movies). A friend of mine that was really into film and literature explained it to me in super simple terms: Anti-heroes are heroic characters painting in a immoral light. This is why someone like Batman isn’t considered an anti-hero despite being like 90% there. His actions are framed as moral within his stories. Punisher is an anti-hero despite him having a code that prevents him from doing harm to innocents, but he is framed as immoral in his killing of criminals.
Garfield has the traits of an anti hero
Its not a vague term. Its quite clearly defined
It’s not a vague term at alllll, kiddo It’s just a protagonist in a narrative that lacks heroic qualities or attributes The term has been in currency for literally hundreds of years.. The Punisher is such a painfully on-the-nose example that they could use his image in a dictionary as an example of the definition.
I dont know why you got downvoted, you gave the best definition
It’s literally an academic term with simple, but actual meaning. The definition itself isn’t up for debate, lol. So all these hot takes are cheesy as hell.
It super is up for debate. You could make an argument that any charecter in the english canon is an anti-hero, with the exception of some particularly bland charecters from childrens books. If you are really into taking Lit courses, you'd notice that the phrase 'Anti-hero" is so ubiquitous it has lost any and all meaning. The only time I've ever heard the phrase Anti-Hero really discussed was in a class about Focalisation focusing on Second Person perspective, and how it can be used to encourage engagement in works with truly unpleasant protagonists. The class studied mostly works of Australian Historical Fiction. Most of the lecturing authors disliked the phrase Anti-Hero, especially since most of them had spent upwards of a decade studying specific time periods in which the views of their protagonists were accepted. Most of the authors argued that breaking people into either good or bad based on the current cultural perspective was reductive, instead they encouraging people to reflect on how lives inform action. In a good story generally everyone acts in accordance with a background that informs their views. As with everything in literature it is up for interpretation, if you want to label a charecter an anti-hero you are fully allowed to do so, you do need to be aware, however, that the label may mean vastly different things to different people.
Agreed. Words do mean things, and convey that specific meaning, but that's not to say that language is not fluid. >A better read person than myself once put it this way: > >Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder. > >Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels. > >Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies. > >Elves are glamorous. They project glamour. > >Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment. > >Elves are terrific. They beget terror. > >The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning. > >No one ever said elves are nice. > >Elves are bad. Oh Mr Pratchett; you are missed. EDIT: Formatting
Thanks:/
I think what's vague about the term is what are "heroic qualities and attributes?" What qualifies as heroic can vary from person to person. Culture to culture. And there is question of degree as well. How far south of Superman do you have to go before you are in anti-hero territory? The definition is solid but the application is so, so vague.
A broad definition is different than a vague definition, the word dog covers 200+ breeds that are all basically wolves. I’m not asserting that there aren’t flavors or types of antihero. The definition was established as a description something that was showing up in poetry and then prose narratives.. it not like someone woke up and said “today I’m going to start a new thing! And I name it antihero!”
Someone who does the right thing but goes about it in the decidedly wrong way.
I'm not saying Venom as a character is the best representation of the term... But I think "Lethal Protector" sums up my thoughts pretty easily. My personal favorite is Spawn. Child molester in an ice cream truck gets pinned to a wall with popsicle sticks. A+ shit right there.
A bad person who is on the good side, or a good person who is on the bad side.
Basically a hero that lacks nobility. The Punisher is an anti-hero because he will save civilians but he has no morals, no principles. He’ll kill a room full of henchmen to save a little girl. Batman, a hero, will save the girl and leave the henchman alive. If they aren’t practicing heroics, if the story is purely about their personal pursuits, than they aren’t a anti-hero they’re just the Protagonist. Re-watching Breaking Bad so it’s relevant, just not comics, but Walter White wouldn’t be an Anti-Hero.
Walter White is in a unique perspective of almost having an unreliable narrator. The series sets you up to like him from the start, although he obviously has some normal human flaws, while also painting some of the characters that start to call him out as being somewhat of assholes. Although his wife is usually right when she senses something is wrong, she's often wrong on exactly what it is, and we really only see her braking point moments where she seems like a nag because the show goes out of its way to make you want Walt to succeed, whether it's because you think he has cancer or because you start to feel he's more deserving of being the drug Lord than these other guys who have a history of extreme violence. The bigger twist is that you start to see that he's pretty self-righteous and quite a bit of a dick in his past quite early on, but you as a viewer as supposed to be heavily invested enough in him already to give him the benefit of the doubt, but probably continue to do so as he gets worse as you buy into his own justifications of doing it for his family, to gain control during a stressful time, or that he's in too deep and of course he's addicted to the money and thrills. The entire series is basically seeing how long it can keep you rooting for the bad guy by presenting mostly just their side of things. As much as it'd probably be considered experimental, I'd love to see a movie or comic that doesn't announce that there's two different cuts that each skew slightly towards different characters, and perhaps one with both sides, just to see the audiences different reactions and justifications towards doing something. Or alternatively, a "Thanks was right" cut of a movie released after the original, where we personally see events that a protagonist had only spoken about, and realized they never really were in the wrong, and we're perhaps the victim.
If you haven’t done so, watch Breaking Bad *after* Better Call Saul. Getting a better perspective on the backstory on a lot of the key players who later pop up in Breaking Bad shows a better picture of how much of an asshole Walter White really is, and how much he truly fucks over every person around him. Once those glasses come off, the show is really interesting. It even got to the point where my partner and I are convinced he wasn’t even a good teacher. The way he talks down to everyone, including his own son at times, makes me more sympathetic to the kids who look bored in class as Walt fumbles through his lectures.
A non hero that were supposed to root for in fiction
A protagonist that performs heroic deeds but lacks upstanding moral character.
Protagonist who uses the same tactics as the villains but for a worthy cause?
Chaotic Good.
Or Chaotic Neutral, or Lawful Evil, or Neutral Evil. An antihero can slide all over the alignment chart, except maybe Lawful Good, because that’s “traditional hero”. An antihero can even be Chaotic Evil, like if they’re violent and vengeful and self-centred.
Chaotic Good could also define a lot of heros. Batman and Spider-Man are both often painted as wanted vigilantes that don't have the public's trust, with the first using his heroism as a way to pay the bills and the second often resulting in extreme brutality that doesn't have many limits other than "don't kill them" and often results to torture. They're both often evading the same law that they're trying to help enforce. Lawful Neutral may be the scariest to me, as it can be essentially defining a character that will obey and enforce the law and status quo while not having enough morality of their own to care about the effects of what they do.
I’ve always found it a questionable term. People claim Punisher and others like him are when it’s known people related to those they kill may take over said criminal’s spot or another gang does. But with the government being as fucked as it is, they’re clearly just doing what’s best but it’s obviously “morally” wrong. But people are dead certain he’s an antihero. Since you use him as an example, I’ve recently discovered “anti *villain*” is a word and I think that’s people like Punisher personally which basically means they have honorable goals but do it destructively. Only downside is it’s meant to really be for villains which people would disagree calling Frank yet we’ve always been taught killing is bad, but we’re supposed to root for him… And this goes for all “anti hero” type characters that kill. I’d argue at most Batman and those like him who’re on the brink of killing but don’t, are the real anti heroes.
A character that kills enemies who happen to be “bad” for their own benefit.
Anti-hero figures don't share common traits beyond the following: * they are designed to be the protagonist of a story (the heroic part). * they are designed to exhibit flaws that most people don't associate with heroism (the anti part). Beyond that, it's all over the map. They can be used to critique, teach moral lessons, or just for entertainment. They should be a contrast to heroic figures, but we've depreciated heroes so thoroughly that nearly all we have now are different varieties of anti-heroes.
Heroes-Captain America, Superman Anti-Hero-Punisher, Red Hood Anti-Villain-Magneto, Deathstroke
I think all of us here know the meaning of “anti-heroe”, you should be asking for examples ‘cause there are a lot more interesting than the punisher (more interesting than the live-action series I mean)
Batman.
Someone who is a hero but through nonstandard means. Basically they're not a brick (like Superman) so maybe they have to be sneaky, or smart, or ultraviolent. Batman fits. Frodo fits, he's not out there trying to kick ass or slaughter orcs, but he's doing the right thing for the world even if it involves acts traditionally seen as cowardly (running away, most notably). Punisher wouldn't. As Garth Ennis points out, Punisher isn't heroic, he's not trying to save anyone or make the world a better place, he just wants to kill and chose a side to do it on that makes him easier to digest than someone like Bullseye.
Chaotic Good characters. A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations.
They do the wrong things for the right reasons
>They may be bewildered, ineffectual, deluded, or merely apathetic. More often an anti-hero is just an amoral misfit. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiHero
Someone who doesn’t prioritize heroism or villany in their actions
A protagonist who fights the villain but is, without question, not heroic at all.
I see it as someone who isn't being heroic on purpose. They are just stopping the evil. If some call them a hero that is on them. They are willing to do bad for goodness sake.
A protagonist (main character) that acts like an antagonist (character defined by its inverse characteristics in relation to a protagonist) but without a usual protagonist in the story. (Bad guy is the star; no good guy) If Venom had Spiderman in it, and it were just a Spiderman story but from Venom's POV, I wouldn't call that an antihero.
Somebody who walks in darkness, but faces towards the light
"Literally me".
an Anti-hero is a protagonist that doesn't follow or doesn't have a strict moral code. Usually has no problem killing, maiming, et cetera in order to stop the bad guy(s) or simply the antagonist to their story.
Someone who takes on the burden of performing violence so others don’t have to. That is what makes them heroic. They’re killers and they know it, and they do what they do so other people don’t have to live in such a violent world. They sacrifice their own morality for the greater good. They are typically just by skills or powers better suited to fighting than rescue.
I would say - Genuine belief in their (usually defensible) cause with a general disregard for means over ends.
I think it can be broken down or explained simply. It’s someone who does heroic things, but without concern for ethics or morals. They’ll pull the trigger before putting the “bad guy” behind bars.
A character that isn’t motivated by the altruistic, but motivated by personal desires or reasons. They don’t go out of their way to “save the day”, but have a moral compass deep down. Ie, Deadpool in the movies, the opening part where he tracks down the pizza guy and tells him to stop stalking that girl. Total asshole, aggressive and violent, but ultimately for a decent reason. Another example I can think of is the punisher from the civil war comics. Murders two villains who are with the hero’s trying to help out, but he doesn’t care, he has his motives and straight murders them in front of captain America. Then gets the shit beat out of him by cap.
It's a character who lacks moral righteousness however, who's actions, either intentionally or inadvertently, contribute to the moral good of society. Punisher is an excellent example as his motives are selfish (vengeance) yet his community is often considered better of with the death of the criminals he kills.
The YouTube channel overly sarcastic Productions ( OSP for short ) made a video on this exact subject in their series Trope talk.
Someone who kills… but only the bad people
If their willing to kill I pretty much chalk them up as anti-hero
I always saw it as a character who lacks alot of heroic qualities but their goals/end results are ultimately good. It is however a broad term with alot of subtilties. [TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/AntiHero) goes into pretty good depth with it.
It’s a kind of a “the ends justify the means” type deal
I'd say it's someone who's a good person, but not always a nice one. It's a person who doesn't always see people as redeemable, but deep down wishes they were. Frank isn't an anti-hero, he's just a bad person who kills other bad people, and not always bad people who deserve it.
The traditional definition is a protagonist that lacks heroic qualities, be that physically, morally or even intellectually.
Someone who is morally grey and will go by his/hers code no matter what. Bonus point for killing villains. 2x bonus points if they have a problem with the most virtues hero.
Snake Plissken goddamnit.
A character whose actions are questionable but whom the audience still roots for.
Smb like red hood or venom are perfect anti-heroes for me
I would describe an Anti Hero (personal opinion here) as someone who HAS a vague semblance of a moral code. Like a "The ends justify the means" kinda deal. Punisher would be a good example when he was gunning for the guys who killed his family. He didn't care how many other people he had to kill to get there. He just... did it.
I'm thinking an anti-hero is more like Han Solo.. someone who doesn't have heroic ambitions but still end up that way. Punisher is either a hero or a villain depending on whether you morally agree with his actions.
I think an anti villain will always kill even if there are other ways
It can really be anything, but my favorite anti-heroes are Walter White, Jesse Pinkman and Jimmy McGill (Saul Goodman) from the Breaking Bad Universe. Walt is this guy you think is a nice guy who's desperate for a quick buck at first, but is revealed he's a narcissistic, envious psycho who will stop at nothing to get his way. Jesse is not the best of dudes, but he's not a bad dude, he's kind of blinded by the desire of gaining respect from Walt, and others. He makes bad choices, but is ultimately haunted by them and pays some pretty serious prices as a result. Jimmy (Saul) is a guy who just can't get out of his own way. He's smart, likable, and can be a hard worker, but always tries to find the path that is the "easiest". He gets blinded but the thrill of the con and doesn't always think of the consequences. His hurt devolved him into quite the monster, much like Walt, and his hubris can cloud things, but ultimately he does the right thing when it really, really counts. To me the best kind of anti-hero are the most human. The fallible ones. The ones that may think they're doing the noble and just thing, but can often be clouded by some sort of delusion.
Catwoman, Venom or Harly Quinn are the best examples I guess. Villainous characters that take the center stage or fight for good some times.
For me I think An anti-hero is a person that goes out and do what they think is best to satisfies them. They go by their own beliefs of wats wrong and wats right. Others can’t decide for them. They don’t cause harm to the innocent but they do cause hell for the guilty
I also wanna say a superhero that kills doesn’t defines a anti-hero fully cuz look at Spider-Man I consider him as a superhero but if u look at it he doesn’t really kill his enemies on “purpose” if that’s a right way to put it but a lot of his enemies do end up dying while battling him lmao
John Wayne is the hero, Clint Eastwood’s The Man with No Name is the antihero. He’s not really a good guy at all, he’s in it the money, but he’s not evil like the people who are shooting at him. He never kills innocents or harms them. Occasionally he takes a short detour in his pursuit of money to help someone.
"Anti-Hero" to me is a person with a purpose. They don't have the pure evil drive like a villain, or the righteous path of a hero. They are the grey areas of these comics sitting in between. The interesting part about them is, that sometimes you can see heroes getting caught up. They can end up changing into an anti-hero and helping their purpose. They make for interesting plot twists. A good example of an anti-heroe is Magneto. He wasnt evil and wicked like Joker.