Comics: The Ignorance of the Anti-Hero

[wrestlingfan]

So we all know that in comics there's those gritty , darker, edgier characters that are known as Anti-Heros, They're heros but they're usually, lonars, neutral, and aren't pure good, They're different from the typical character and heroes , and there's even Anti Anti-Heroes, known as Anti-Villains but while rewatching IGN's Top 100 Comic Book Superheroes, I started to figure out that a common ignorance among the Comic Book Universe, And that ignorance is that because a character is cool or even considered bad*ss, that that automatically makes them an anti-ehro, That's not true, A chracter can be cool or considered bad*ss, whether they're a hero, villian, anti-villain, anti-hero, neutral, etc. We all say Wolverine is an Anti-hero, but maybe he's not, maybe he's just bad*ss. Honestly I woudl take guys like Jason Todd, and Punisher to be more Anti-Heroes then Wolverine and Batman.

Your Thoughts? Do You Agree? What make sa true anti-hero?

 

[Davi323]

Well, the definition of Anti-hero is going to vary depending on who is reading the question, so it's a very subjective opinion. I see two possible definitions of an anti-hero, encompassing "good guys" who don't necessarily act like a typical super hero (ie, they are cooler) or it could also mean a genuine "bad guy" who is able to get me to either like him or root for him somehow.

Definition 1: the good guy who doesn't act like a good guy: I would consider Wolverine a legitimate anti-hero, in that while he is one of the good guys, he rarely acts like it. He enjoys violence, will definitely kill you if the situation warrants it, curses, drinks, enjoys most of the things the goody goody two shoes variety of hero would be revolted at. Using the X-Men universe as an example, if Cyclops is the representative goody two shoes variety hero, the squeaky clean type who parents would want their daughters to date, Wolverine would not fit in with that definition of hero, yet he is a hero. He is a good guy. Mostly. So, if you define anti-hero simply as a hero that doesn't fit at all into the standard hero mode, ie he doesn't act all noble and high and mighty all the time, then Wolverine definitely fits the definition.

Definition 2: The sympathetic bad guy. Again, staying in the X-Men world, There are times when I have a hard time rooting against Magneto. His methods are sometimes appalling, but, is his purpose? His actions clearly mark him as a villain, he would easily be considered a terrorist. Yet, what is he trying to do? Is he trying to conquer the world, just because conquering the world sounds like fun? NO. He does it to win mutant rights. He more or less has the exact same goals as Charles Xavier, but his methods are very different. There isn't anything particularly wrong with the idea of ensuring that mutants aren't treated as second class citizens, and given his past as a persecuted Jew in Nazi Germany, it is certainly understandable why he would be far more skeptical of humans and mutants living peacefully together than Professor X does.

Were he a true villain, Charles Xavier would not try so hard to "redeem" his friend. I think on some level at least, Charles recognizes that Magneto is not 100% wrong. So, he could be considered an anti-hero too, as a bad guy that evokes some amount of sympathy. If a few things different occurred in his life, that gave him the ability to put aside his skepticism, Magneto could have been the greatest X-Man ever. Without the psychological traumatization that his childhood gave him, Magneto could easily have ended up a hero. I think deep down even he understands that. It's why he sometimes puts aside his differences with the X-Men and aides them. He gets to temporarily explore how his life could have been different. Hell, he even lead the X-Men for a while. He could be an anti-hero too, rather than a true villain.

 

[wrestlingfan]

Well, the definition of Anti-hero is going to vary depending on who is reading the question, so it's a very subjective opinion. I see two possible definitions of an anti-hero, encompassing "good guys" who don't necessarily act like a typical super hero (ie, they are cooler) or it could also mean a genuine "bad guy" who is able to get me to either like him or root for him somehow.

Definition 1: the good guy who doesn't act like a good guy: I would consider Wolverine a legitimate anti-hero, in that while he is one of the good guys, he rarely acts like it. He enjoys violence, will definitely kill you if the situation warrants it, curses, drinks, enjoys most of the things the goody goody two shoes variety of hero would be revolted at. Using the X-Men universe as an example, if Cyclops is the representative goody two shoes variety hero, the squeaky clean type who parents would want their daughters to date, Wolverine would not fit in with that definition of hero, yet he is a hero. He is a good guy. Mostly. So, if you define anti-hero simply as a hero that doesn't fit at all into the standard hero mode, ie he doesn't act all noble and high and mighty all the time, then Wolverine definitely fits the definition.

Definition 2: The sympathetic bad guy. Again, staying in the X-Men world, There are times when I have a hard time rooting against Magneto. His methods are sometimes appalling, but, is his purpose? His actions clearly mark him as a villain, he would easily be considered a terrorist. Yet, what is he trying to do? Is he trying to conquer the world, just because conquering the world sounds like fun? NO. He does it to win mutant rights. He more or less has the exact same goals as Charles Xavier, but his methods are very different. There isn't anything particularly wrong with the idea of ensuring that mutants aren't treated as second class citizens, and given his past as a persecuted Jew in Nazi Germany, it is certainly understandable why he would be far more skeptical of humans and mutants living peacefully together than Professor X does.

Were he a true villain, Charles Xavier would not try so hard to "redeem" his friend. I think on some level at least, Charles recognizes that Magneto is not 100% wrong. So, he could be considered an anti-hero too, as a bad guy that evokes some amount of sympathy. If a few things different occurred in his life, that gave him the ability to put aside his skepticism, Magneto could have been the greatest X-Man ever. Without the psychological traumatization that his childhood gave him, Magneto could easily have ended up a hero. I think deep down even he understands that. It's why he sometimes puts aside his differences with the X-Men and aides them. He gets to temporarily explore how his life could have been different. Hell, he even lead the X-Men for a while. He could be an anti-hero too, rather than a true villain.

People like Magnto are considered Anti-Villians, Villains who aren't pure evil, Charles Xavier even though agreeing with Magneto is still a hero, he still is goody two shoes, How do you feel on people saying a character is an anti-hero just because he's bad*ss?

 

[H33LTurn]

To me an anti-hero is someone who does good whether they intend to or not, and has an edge to him/her. I'm not an avid comic book reader, but I love anti-heroes in movies, TV shows, etc. If you want a complete textbook definition here it is:

A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-hero#ixzz1V4QZHxkS

That would indicate that anyone who shows a lack of the common traits of a superhero could be considered an antihero, a loophole that allows villains to drift into the category. That being said, I believe villains dont deserve to be categorized as antiheroes because their lack of heroic qualities is done on purpose to obtain a specific goal. Its more of a lifestyle than a personality. Being an antihero has to do more with the personality of the protagonist than anything else.

 

[ZBroski28]

I wouldn't consider Batman or Wolverine as anti-heroes as you mentioned. Anti-heroes can perhaps be someone who doesn't do good for the people, but for himself.
For example, if ABC is attacking a city, and a drunk-loser defeats him by using his booze botttle because ABC spilled some of his drink; the loser cannot be considered a "hero" because he is not doing selfless deeds like Spider-man.
Okay, maybe my explanation was really bad, but I hope I made my point.

 

[wrestlingfan]

To me an anti-hero is someone who does good whether they intend to or not, and has an edge to him/her. I'm not an avid comic book reader, but I love anti-heroes in movies, TV shows, etc. If you want a complete textbook definition here it is:



That would indicate that anyone who shows a lack of the common traits of a superhero could be considered an antihero, a loophole that allows villains to drift into the category. That being said, I believe villains dont deserve to be categorized as antiheroes because their lack of heroic qualities is done on purpose to obtain a specific goal. Its more of a lifestyle than a personality. Being an antihero has to do more with the personality of the protagonist than anything else.

Indeed, they're called anti-villains, Villains who don't act like the traditional villain.

 

[H33LTurn]

Indeed, they're called anti-villains, Villains who don't act like the traditional villain.

That is the textbook definition, an antagonist who isnt purely heroic.

 

[Xemmy]

Anti-heroes often have a broad definition. But you're right when you say that a guy like Batman wouldn't fit in that definition. What I don't see, is people going around calling Batman an anti-hero. But I'm not in on a lot of "Comic" conversations.

The problem is Byronic heroes and Anti-heroes are often promoted in the same way, and have similar dark origins. Being "...mad, bad, and dangerous to know" is practically the calling card for both. The problem lies in the term "Byronic" not being well known among uninformed people. So people just use "Anti-hero" for both.