Anti-heroes

[Just Crouton]

Source

 

A Few Thoughts on Anti-Heroes

 

Specifically, something strange I've noticed with how they're carried out frequently, and also those that aren't.

Before we begin, I'll go ahead to sort them a little bit, as I need this to illustrate something later. Now, anti-heroes basically come in two broad variants, being either those willing to compromise on means, like the Punisher or Dexter as extreme examples, or who are imperfect in character, say an anti-social or cowardly protagonist. Obviously, these types mix and match all the time, as arguably a hero being say, anti-social, will cause them to have to compromise on means, depending on the story. But, the two types are an acceptable way of sorting here.

Here, I'm mostly going to focus on means, a rather odd trend with it. Namely, we're willing to tolerate, even cheer on, the brutality of a character like the Punisher, but other means, like corruption, just aren't tolerated in Protagonists. It seems the Hero doesn't seem to be allowed Corruption, as the biggest example, to accomplish anything, even if such a means would be far cleaner and get less people hurt.

Obviously, there are exceptions to the last, with the Song of Ice and Fire having examples of characters willing to use corruption who aren't villains, however even there, those characters aren't exactly the Protagonists(I think, it can be admittedly difficult to tell because of how the books are structured). After all, of them, only one gets a POV, that being Tyrion, who doesn't even get the chance to use his power as much as the others(from where I've read anyway). To be fair, the supporting cast does count in any book, however I still find it interesting to note this.

By comparison, I can think of at least two examples where the Protagonist of a film goes on a massacre, who we get both the POV of and, I think, are supposed to at least sympathize with. I'm not saying this is wrong per say, only that again, it reflects that, American society at least, is apparently much more willing to tolerate massive violence than corruption in Protagonists, or at least doesn't write such Protagonists as often.

To further illustrate this, I've yet to see someone like Huey Long as a protagonist. While Huey Long's corruption wasn't as far as his opponents arguably, it was immense by the standards of the rest of the country(to my knowledge). By comparison, a Song of Ice and Fire's characters, even when they use corruption, never exceed the amount used by opponents, or arguably, even to the same extreme. (Again, this might change in later books, as I've read 4 of the books in the series.)

I can think of cases where protagonists use far more brutality than antagonists, Rorsach being an example of this, but not one where they use tools like Corruption consistently on even an equal level to their opponents, much less go further.

Why? I do remember reading in a fantasy rant that violence is frequently seen as more, "honest," of a means compared to even normal politics, much less corruption. Perhaps that applies to fiction in general, in regards to audiences expectations of it, or at least how their writers treat it?

Another answer is perhaps that writing such a character is very difficult to write. Its easier, if you will, to justify violence, even when it's as extreme as torture, compared to say, abusing one's position to help the poor(the grey part of Huey Long). If we take the first answer to be the case, this would probably be the case as well.

I bring all this up because if either of the above are true, what does that say about the average reader, viewer, what have you? After all, art does frequently reflect the views and attitudes of a society. Is American culture, as I don't know how fiction treats this elsewhere unfortunately, more willing to accept massive violence compared to means like corruption? I'm not saying this is wrong per say, but it's perplexing from most perspectives on morality.

The other reason why is I find means like Corruption more interesting from a morality perspective because of how rare they are. It has now become more shocking almost, because mega violence is something seen all the time in Protagonists. By comparison, someone willing to abuse their position to accomplish something? Or someone who defeats an Antagonist through blackmail or similar? That I'd argue is more rebellious at this point than things like violence in a Protagonist, or is at least far rarer.

Obviously, point out counter examples. Additionally, Ice and Fire you could probably argue for, against, or what have you better than I can. Over all, I do hope this blog was at least interesting to read.

 

Thoughts?

[Merci]

A perfect example of an anti-hero, in my opinion, would be Emiya Kiritsugu from the Fate/zero anime and light novel. There is a reason he's known as the "Magus Killer". He doesn't do fair fights, opposes the norm and is willing to use any means necessary if it means he accomplishes his goals, and there is no limit as to how low he can sink to do such things, having thrown away his attachments and his dignity, but he is ultimately still a hero fighting for justice.

 

Following this article, he also utilizes the concept of 'corruption'. It was through a combination of blackmail and trickery that he ended up defeating Lord El-Melloi and Lancer, utilizing assassination to get rid of Caster's Master, and so on and so forth.

 

He acts as a perfect counter to the 'true heroes', such as his partner Saber, who has a chivalrous code and believes in honor within fighting. Hence, Saber would be a better protagonist in the sense of being a 'hero', and she is not opposed to using violence to achieve her goals. As the article states, she believes that this is more "honest" than things like politics and corruption. So it's easy to understand her horror when her righteous duel with Lancer is cut by Kiritsugu's necessary actions.

 

Both Saber and Kiritsugu work for justice, but they're opposed to each others' ideals and use different methods. Why is this? Saber uses the method she has grown accustomed to during her time as King; violence and chivalry, the ideals of a knight, which in her eyes is right. But Kiritsugu uses methods that would have him be viewed as a coward by any knight; trickery, blackmail, assassination, manipulation, corruption.

 

Hence why Kiritsugu is a perfect anti-hero.

 

Just by comparing their interactions with each other, you can see how divided the line between hero and anti-hero is. While heroes may end up using extreme methods, they will never attempt to exceed the evil of their opponents. Once they have, they have become an anti-hero.

 

Like, let's say a villain slaughters the hero's village. In retaliation, the so-called hero leads a rebellion and slaughters the villain's kingdom. This makes him an anti-hero. But should he drop his ideals as a 'hero', that would make him a villain.

 

The line is different in each series, depending upon how they depict violence. In a series that supports non-violence and peaceful methods, a hero punching other people would be an anti-hero. But in a series (such as a shonen) that supports powerful techniques and becoming more powerful, a hero punching other people would still be a hero, and would only be an anti-hero should he start killing them.

 

To simplify, an anti-hero is a hero who acts for good, but is willing to use methods that would normally be considered villainous (Kiritsugu is a perfect example of this). But it's only when he drops the 'good' aspect of it that the hero finally comes a villain. If Kiritsugu decides one day to kill people not out of justice, but out of a sadistic pleasure, then he becomes a villain.

 

If the anti-hero is depicted as being an enemy of the main heroes, then that makes him or her an anti-villain. Mr. Freeze is the greatest example of this.

 

...

 

That's how I sort them, anyway. It's a lot easier to define.