This video was brought to you by World Anvil but like the dark gritty version that don't play by your daddy's rules. Ah, the anti-hero: the spiciest option on the protagonists menu for the adventurous audience who isn't afraid to get a little burned. But when we go looking for an ingredients list, or maybe a calorie count, we find the chefs often give confusing our contradictory listings. Must an antihero be explicitly unheroic, laden with immoral or villainous flavorings, or is it enough for them to be simply lightly spiced with the paprika of a bad attitude or a drinking problem? This metaphor got away from me. The point is defining anti-heroes is really hard. An antihero is typically defined as being a hero lacking in heroic qualities or possessing explicitly unheroic qualities, and this definition sucks. Sorry Wikipedia, but it's true, it's completely circular. What defines a heroic quality and thus its antithesis of an unheroic quality? The concept of heroism is extremely flexible and varies over time and from culture to culture. Heroism is usually strongly correlated with the ideals of a society. Heroes represent what that society believes we should aspire to be. Nowadays, the loose cannon archetype who disobeys orders if they're evil or morally objectionable is so heroic that Captain America has done that in literally every movie he's been in. But in times of war, culture heroes are more typically written as being unrelentingly loyal to their leaders, with conscientious objectors being written as cowards and rogue loose cannons as traitors. In those environments the ideal is the perfect soldier, so the loose cannon archetype is unheroic. Again, Captain America's character has evolved to stay culturally heroic, starting off as an idealized super soldier in the cultural context of World War II before drifting into the loose cannon zone to stay heroic in the modern day. In a similar vein, modern heroes are frequently haunted by their pasts or motivated by trauma and tragedy, but historically, PTSD has been equated with the unheroic trait of cowardice. What is now a standard character trait would have once been more than enough to tip a character into the antihero zone. And on the flip side, something as simple as smoking has pivoted from its neutral narrative origins to being an antiheroic trait, originally showing up as a feature of cool badass heroes or just a neutral literally-everybody-is-doing-it character trait thanks to some cunning marketing by the tobacco industry. It's tipped out of favor on account of all the horrible side effects and stuff, and now a character smoking is most often a way to show that they're self-destructive, which is a popular antihero quality. And on the flip side, a character quitting smoking is seen as a heroic act. It's all about the context. Hell, in classical Greek literature, heroes were defined as being powerful and strong and accomplishing great things, but it didn't matter if they were actually morally decent people. It mattered more that they were powerful and capable of accomplishing tasks nobody else could pull off. By ancient Greek and Roman standards, Odysseus was an antihero, tricking his fellow heroes and winning victory through cunning strategy instead of strength. And Paris was actually similar since he was an archer, which was basically seen as the weenie baby choice for dorks afraid to get stabbed. And the villainous sniper archetype Paris personified actually persisted for a long time, only recently being phased out. Now, it's not uncommon for heroes to have had sniper training, but as recently as Sherlock Holmes snipers were almost exclusively villainous. What defines a hero is completely determined by the cultural landscape of the time, and thus what defines an antihero is similarly flexible. Is it heroic to be rich and successful or is it heroic to steal from the rich and redistribute to the poor? Is it heroic to follow orders or to break rank? Is it heroic to change the world or to preserve the status quo? All these things vary wildly from story to story in context to context and because the axis of heroism is unstable, its antithesis, antiheroism, is similarly in flux. There's actually one character who perfectly illustrates how difficult it is to pin down specific qualities as heroic or unheroic and that character is none other than Anakin Skywalker. Specifically, his portrayal in the Clone Wars cartoon, not- not that other thing he showed up in. See, in this show, Anakin is a full-on hero. He comes across as more heroic than basically any other Jedi because he's motivated by a ferocious protective instinct for his loved ones rather than a rigid and often inefficient honor code. He's more than happy to bend and break the rules if it means saving people or helping his friends. As a loose cannon archetype motivated by the power of friendship and love, Anakin seems entirely heroic, but as an audience we recognize that these exact characteristics are going to be what turns into the dark side. All his heroic motivation and propensity for self-sacrifice to protect the people he loves makes him easy to manipulate. Killing a bad guy to save Obi-Wan and a ship full of politicians? Totally heroic! Killing Mace Windu to save his beloved mentor Palpatine? Not really heroic, but he was being misled at the time. Killing a bunch of kids to save his pregnant wife? Very not heroic but all of these actions are in character for Anakin, who will always prioritize his friends and loved ones over anything else, including his own safety and moral integrity. Heroic traits can lead directly to unheroic actions in the right circumstances, and Anakin manages to hit every single point on the hero to villain spectrum over the course of his career without ever actually fundamentally changing as a person. Anakin's core traits never change, only the context he finds himself in and that changing context is enough to swing him all the way from hero to antihero to villain over the course of his life. Even has turned back to the side of good, killing Palpatine to save Luke, is structured exactly the same as his previous characterization: an act of defiance against authority to save someone he loves. That's consistency, baby. So we can't really come up with a rigid constant definition for antiheroism, which is honestly fine We don't really need one. If we let heroism stay a variable, we can still define antiheroism as a function of that variable. And before you ask, no, this is not how I expected to use my math degree but hey, if it works it works, so since we can't get a simple comprehensive definition on paper, we've got to get creative. I'd say there are two meaningful ways we can classify anti-heroes as a category of characters: methods versus motive and actions versus attitude. Some antiheroes use unsavory methods to accomplish broadly heroic goals and some antiheros do unilaterally good things but have a really bad attitude the whole time they're doing it. So let's set each axis ranging from a heroic to its inverse unheroic while still recognizing that what exactly constitutes heroism can't be rigidly defined. Antiheroes typically occupy these quadrants: unheroic methods and heroic motive, where you get the gritty vigilantes motivated by a desire for justice and the like but accomplishing their goals in unpleasant ways, and unheroic attitude and heroic actions, where you get the grouchy dad varieties, who are unconditionally heroic and are constantly saving the day, but are also really cranky the whole time and probably drink, smoke, and/or cuss as harshly as their medium allows. The more generally heroic versions of Deadpool also hang out in this quadrant because you're not supposed to have fun when you're killing bad guys. This category is also home to the insecure heroes: the ones lacking in courage or confidence who still strive to do the right thing. Oddly, Spider-Man frequently fits in this category although most people don't classify him as an antihero. The Netflix version of Daredevil also fits this category as he's fundamentally trying to do good things but he's so self-destructive and emo that he's constantly pushing away his friends and loved ones and doesn't even think to wear armor for an entire season. Jessica Jones is also in this zone, working to do good while fighting her own self-destructive coping mechanisms and horrifyingly traumatic backstory. Netflix really likes this one, I guess. Well, until recently anyway. This specific character archetype is sometimes called the classical antihero, a hero who faces their own inner problems sometimes more than they face external ones. Hamlet fits solidly in this zone, but this archetype isn't usually considered an antihero by modern standards. I'll talk a little more about this later. It's rarer to find anti-heroes in the unheroic motive, but heroic methods quadrant, but it does happen sometimes. Some antiheroes like Catwoman and most of the cast of Firefly are motivated purely by personal survival, which is considered selfish and unheroic, but they still frequently end up doing good things. You also sometimes get decent paragon heroes who are motivated by a vengeance blood rage in this quadrant, but they don't usually feel like antiheroes so it's a little dicier. It's more common to get antagonists with honor codes in this area since they might be working towards unheroic goals, but they don't want to compromise their morals in the process. These guys are usually designated as anti villains instead. Of course, the heroic motives and heroic methods quadrant is populated almost entirely by garden-variety heroes doing good things for good reasons, although this is also where you get the grumpy heroes whose only unheroic quality is a bad attitude. And the unheroic motives and unheroic methods quadrant is almost entirely full of villains accomplishing bad goals in bad ways, although this is also where you find characters like The Punisher, who are motivated by the unheroic goal of revenge and murder a lot of people because of it. This character's antihero status is surprisingly a little bit hard to justify. I know the Punisher basically defines the anti hero archetype these days, but he might be a bit closer to the villain protagonist, a character who does horrible things but is also the focus character. Light from Death Note fits this archetype. But since these Punisher types only usually kill really bad people, that can be considered more of a heroic trait than just general murder? Still, it's a little bit tricky. In the world of superheroes, murdering your enemies is generally seen as a bad thing to do, and when both the motive and the method are bad, it can be a little hard to justify labeling that character as any kind of hero. When you're doing bad things for bad reasons, where do you fit the good? The heroic attitude and heroic actions quadrant is where your classic heroes go. The ones who do good for good reasons and typically have an emotional range that spans from the peaceful contentment of a job well done to righteous fury at the injustices of the world. Although not all the heroes in this category are nice, they're usually pretty confident and self-assured. A heroic attitude is a tricky thing to define, but these characters are usually pretty courageous and determined and rarely struggle with uncertainty or overly self-destructive behavior. All of this can be a bit of a gray area because sometimes heroism itself can be self-destructive. Sometimes Batman gets written like this, where his raw determination and willingness to go to dangerous extremes are painted not as an exercise in heroic willpower, but instead is a dangerously self-destructive downward spiral. But most of the time this is just where the seriously heroic hero types hang out. The heroic attitude but unheroic actions quadrant is actually a bit of an odd one. You get some noble antagonists in this area who are doing bad things for reasons they think are good, you get some honorable villains with personal codes of ethics, and you also get some courageous, confident paragons who, for one reason or another, do really horrible stuff. Think that paladin character in your D&D party who uses their lawful alignment to justify being a total dickhead to everybody. There's some overlap here with the heroic motives but unheroic methods quadrant, as these characters can be motivated by things like loyalty or love, but if the thing they're loyal to is bad, they end up antagonistic by proxy. They can also be fighting for heroic principles like justice and stuff, but if they're targeting people who aren't actually responsible for the problems they're fighting, they end up in this category. Like Jet and Hama from Avatar, whose opposition to the Fire Nation is mirrored by the heroes, but their habit of targeting innocent Fire Nation bystanders is distinctly not good. The unheroic attitude and unheroic actions quadrant is normally filled with unpleasant side characters who are mean or cowardly and don't really contribute to the plot, or general villainous antagonists, but it's also where we find another category of character frequently mistaken for an antihero, sometimes called the 90s antihero, named for the time period the trend got really popular, but I prefer to refer to them as Jerk Sues. These characters are Mary Sues in the truest sense of the word, a fixed point in their fictional universe around which the entire narrative spins. They are complete and total assholes to everyone around them and they're tolerated solely because they are the designated hero for the narrative. These power fantasies have no redeeming qualities other than the fact that they win all the time because the writer will accept no other outcome. Characters like these are responsible for the idea that antiheroes are better than regular heroes because they don't have any of their qualms or morals and the idea that you can get a lot more done if you just don't care about dumb things like principles or other people. People who like these characters are also usually the people who think Batman's job would be a lot easier if he just used guns, or that it doesn't make any sense for Superman to not just use his godlike strength to murder all of his enemies. I find these people frustrating and these characters dumb and I will not be accepting criticism at this time. Now, I like these charts. They're simple, they're clean, but I guarantee that there's at least one character I've listed whose position you disagree with, probably several. Defining a character as an antihero is incredibly subjective as long as we try and frame them as unheroic heroes, and we're still struggling to pin down exactly what separates an antihero from other archetypes. So instead, let's- let's try something else. Let's look at heroes and anti-heroes from the perspective of idealism. For the purposes of this thought exercise, let's define a hero as an inspiring figure who your audience is meant to admire and emulate. A person who represents some of the ideals of the society they come from. Obviously what those ideals are can vary a lot, but we've already accounted for variable definitions of heroism. We already know they change over time. So, working off this definition, the hero archetype is intended to embody the ideals of their time and place. Some big heroes work very well with this definition. Captain America is a paragon ideal who started off as the perfect soldier ideal and in various adaption still represents an ideal of leadership, loyalty, and courage. Superman, despite his obvious Big Blue Boy Scout thing, is actually a surprisingly complicated paragon ideal when you factor in that both of his creators were Jewish men whose parents had immigrated to America. With this context, suddenly Superman's Moses-like origins and lifelong status as a partially assimilated stranger in a strange land become-- nuanced. You could even argue that him being an incredibly strong protector of the helpless has shades of the Golem of Prague, appearing when his powers are needed to protect those who can't protect themselves. And nowadays, in our current political climate, a lot of Superman narratives put the focus more on his immigrant status and what that can represent. Superman is a surprisingly transgressive figure in some ways, but no matter what his place in the political scene is, his character almost always represents behavioral ideals: seeking truth and justice; exercising kindness, compassion, and selflessness; protecting the world that raised him even if he could never truly belong there. Superman's power and strength aren't his greatest qualities; it was always in how he used them and more specifically how he refused to use them. There's a reason the world of cardboard speech is one of his finest moments, where he explains how he has to be so careful all the time, especially when fighting, because with his power, everything and everyone on earth is as flimsy as tissue paper, even the bad guys he has to stop. It may be Spider-Man's arc phrase, but Superman is really the embodiment of "With great power comes great responsibility." And in any story where he stops exercising that responsibility, he stops being Superman. Whether it's because he snapped and took over the world or because he gave up his powers. But of course, when heroes are ideals, they usually sit comfortably in the middle of social acceptability, which is of course, another kind of social ideal. So they'll generally be attractive, physically fit and abled, mentally healthy, and whatever ethnicity, gender, and orientation their society currently thinks normal is. For instance, Achilles is a ridiculously badass Greek dude with a wife he likes alright and a boyfriend he likes way more, as was the ideal of masculinity in ancient Greece. But what this means is that when heroes are ideals that sit in the center of their society's comfort zone, antiheroes are the heroes around the edges, the ones at the margins of society who aren't seen as ideals to look up to, a zone that includes genuinely iffy things like self-destructive or addictive behavior, and completely harmless things like marginalized orientations and identities. Now, this morally loaded area is also a zone that storytellers frequently pull their villains from so their hero versus villain narrative can also represent a "right way of existing versus wrong one" conflict. Villians are very frequently representative of a social "other", whether or not the story is deliberately making statements about any sort of "us versus them" conflict. This means that antiheroes are sometimes the only way that people on the far ends of the social bell curve get to see themselves in a non-villianous light. Disability, orientation, neurodivergence, it's all there in the antihero zone. And when writing traditional ideal heroes, there's a lot of pressure to keep them in the middle, away from those edges. Giving a full idealistic hero a trait seen as non-ideal can ruffle some feathers. "What, you want to send kids the message that it's okay to... exist in a way that a lot of real people exist? Pssh, nah, save that for the edgier characters. We can't let the margins into the mainstream, then how will we stay in the mainstream?" Fortunately, there has been a recent uptick in heroic protagonists with a much broader scope of basic character qualities, but it's still usually seen as safer to leave the edgier, less idealized qualities to the grumpy or less heroic protagonists. Of course, this whole antihero-is-showing-us-anyone-can-be-a-hero thing only works in theory. The vast majority of antiheroes are still gritty heterosexual white dudes representing an ideal of power fantasy for people who definitely need more power fantasies. And it's hilarious, I seriously went out of my way looking. There's tons of lists of best antiheroes in fiction and they're all like 70 white dudes, three anime dudes, Blade, Black Widow, and Elektra. But the point is, the potential exists. Anti-heroes could be a space to explore what it means to be an ideal and what it means to be a hero outside of that. The mainstream is full of traditional heroes. Antiheroes are meant to defy that, to be a hero outside of the tradition. Antiheroes frequently reject morality, legality, social norms, systems in general. They're alienated for one reason or another: trauma, injury, unorthodox ability, even just general misanthropy. All kinds of things can cause someone to reject a system of ideals that don't work for them and instead move outside the system to to do what needs to be done. I just feel like there's a lot of potential here if we stop copy-pasting the Punisher and start actually exploring what it means to defy the paradigms of heroism. Now, as you may have noticed and as I've stated, antiheroism is a pretty fuzzy definition. Whether a character is a hero, an antihero, an antivillain, or just kind of a jerk can be highly subjective. This also means that intentionally writing an antihero can be really hard. In fact, I think it's impossible. Now hear me out, antiheroes aren't really a character archetype. They don't have enough characteristics to qualify as an archetype. They're a label and a nearly meaningless one at that. Antiheroes are usually somewhere in these categories, but there are plenty of characters in this zone that don't get counted as antiheroes and plenty of antiheroes outside of those zones. And whether any given character counts as an antihero can be very dubious. I ran some Twitter polls a few weeks back to get a feel for some major characters that could be argued be antiheroes, and unsurprisingly, results were wildly inconsistent. Wolverine the archetypical grumpy dad of the X-Men was generally seen as an antihero, but a lot of comments suggested that he shouldn't really qualify because for all of his grumping, he basically always does the right things for the right reasons and that he might be an antihero in his solo runs where he's a little bit edgier, but whenever he's with the X-Men, he's just a cranky good guy. Batman was judged as a full hero who happens to be goth, with his strict moral code keeping him out of the antihero zone, although most comments agree that his movie representation is an antihero and further that this representation is wrong. Deadpool got a yes antihero judgment, but the comments all defaulted to "Well, yes and no depending on the writer." The Punisher unsurprisingly got voted an antihero, although 25% of the votes deemed him too murdery to be any kind of hero, and Spider-Man got a resounding no, despite the fact that many comments specified that he does count as a classical antihero due to his major themes of self-doubt and his lack of confidence in his abilities. Whether or not a character is an antihero is usually treated as a subjective judgement. It has very little to do with their actions or attitude. It's more about the vibe they give off. Wolverine is judged an antihero because he's gruff and rude and tries really hard to cuss even in kids' cartoons. Batman is deemed not an antihero because despite his scary persona and his unheroic methods, he follows a strict moral code and it's always weird when he actually gets mean. Deadpool is kind of an antihero, kind of a antivillain, all different kinds of things depending on the author, even though his core characterization of sass-talking immortal mercenary basically never changes. The Punisher is almost the arc typical [sic] 90s antihero, but if you judge him by his actions he technically comes across a little more like a sympathetic villain who happens to be the protagonist sometimes. In fact, in his first appearance in The Amazing Spider-Man 129, he was a villian. And Spider-Man was overwhelmingly judged a full hero despite the fact that a lot of the threats he handles are internal insecurities that aren't usually seen as very heroic. Sometimes it seems like the deciding factor is how cynical the character is; idealists are less likely to be seen as antiheroes than cynics are. But sometimes it's more about how principled the character is. A character with any sort of moral code might be deemed an antihero, even if their actions are straight-up villainous. There's no single deciding factor that determines what characters are seen as antiheroes and due to this general inconsistency, the lack of a concrete definition, and the overall meaninglessness of the judgment itself, I think we can safely say it kind of doesn't matter. Characters are individuals and just like real life, a single label can't encapsulate the totality of their existence. If you're writing a character, write the character. Maybe they'll be seen as an antihero, maybe they won't. Maybe anti-heroes don't mean anything. Language is made up anyway. So I guess the message of this trope talk is that this trope isn't really a thing? Or it kind of is, but it's not really a thing that means anything. It's- it's a thing with potential but it's not as much of a thing as everyone thinks it is. How did I talk about this for 15 minutes? So... yeah? Thanks again to World Anvil for sponsoring this video. World Anvil is a browser-based world building software meant to make your world building easier by organizing it all in one place. It's got tools for interactive world maps, plots and story time lines, custom wiki databases to cover major people, places, and events in your world, and thanks to a recent update, it also offers a full customizable calendar so you can finally sort out how months and seasons work in your world. I know, it's a huge pain in the butt to get all those fantasy month names and orbital periods sorted out. Linear time is such an inconvenience. But hey, World Anvil makes it easier. You can also share your world for public viewing or keep it private if you prefer. They've also streamlined the word processor to make it more intuitive and Grand Master members and above also now have access to custom article templates. If these features sound useful, the good news is they're almost all free and you can get them by following the link in the description, and if you also want to get all the fancy bonus features, too you can get a paid Master or Grand Master membership for up to 20% off with a promo code overlysarcastic.
Finally someone who agrees that the Punisher is just a sympathetic Villain!
Gotta love Red using her math degree.
i think antihero is more about a character's tone relative to the expectation than any concrete characteristics.
i have now spent several minutes trying to nail down what i mean by this and have gotten no closer than when i started. i think this whole thing is tricky after all
This might be one of my favorite TT's yet. The way "hero" changes from culture to culture and time to time is wildly fascinating, and I personally think its consideration is a critical element to writing well.
Would have liked to see where Doctor Doom fit on the graphs
It’s good
I like Red's trope talks .... buuuuut I thought this one was a little unfocused. However her graphs were really interesting and helped me understand the broad range of the antihero she was attempting to cover. Anyway for anyone who wants another perspective on the antihero trope then check out the following video.
An anti-hero of one's own ~ Tim Adams ~ TED-Ed ~ Youtube
hell yeah!!!! red says trans rights