People use the word “antihero” so loosely it has really lost its meaning. Before, an “antihero” was just a “bad guy” who did good things, like Dexter Morgan. He’s a serial killer; he’s a high-functioning sociopath who does feel emotions and love and knows right from wrong, but he kills bad people, so he’s an “antihero”. Punisher is a mass murderer. Yes, he kills criminals, but unlike other heroes who kill in self-defence when there is no other option, he kills every criminal he sees, even street criminals. He does this because he likes being in war and likes killing people, so he decides to only target those who he thinks deserve it, and those who he deems “deserve” it are criminals, and sure, on occasion, he will help a hero or two. Deadpool is a mercenary; he does what he does for money. He kills bad people and goes on missions, but mainly for money does he do good things? Sure, but he does it for morally questionable reasons.
I’m going to focus the term “antihero” mainly for comic book and superhero characters. A lot of people think an “antihero”, when it comes to superheroes, is just an “edgy” or “R-rated” superhero or a superhero who curses a lot or just has negative flaws. Mainly a lot of people use the term “antihero” for characters who aren’t Superman- or Spider-Man-level goody-two-shoes boy scout characters. Like, people will call Spider-Man 2099 an “antihero” just because he isn’t a Boy Scout. No, Miguel is a hero. through and through; just because he’s a bit of a dick doesn’t mean he’s an “antihero”.
I see people calling the characters in Invincible “antiheroes” just because they are not “boy scouts”. People call Immortal, Duplikate, and Rex Splode “antiheroes” just because they are human with human flaws and realistic personalities; that doesn’t make them “antiheroes”.
Rex isn’t an “antihero” just because he cheated on Atom Eve. Yes, he did a bad thing. Yes, he was an arrogant arsehole, but guess what? He still put his life on the line for his team, did the right thing and was still a good person. Despite having some annoying personality traits, he was a hero through and through.
Immortal and Duplicate aren’t “antiheroes” either. Yes, they are hypocritical, a bit whiny and self-righteous, but they still save people’s lives for no other reason than that they want to help and help their team.
I like Invincible because every character is just a flawed human being who just so happens to have superpowers, and they go out saving people.
Are they antiheroes? No, they are just superheroes.
An antihero was not and is not a “bad guy who does good things”. It’s a person who lacks the usual hero characteristics taking up the role of a hero.
Shrek is the perfect example of an antihero.
An ugly big green ogre who is rough and uncouth, sent on a quest that isn’t his own, yet still fulfills the role of hero.
Shrek is a big mean ogre who wants to get rid of the fairy tale creatures dumped in his swamp and in order to get rid of them he accepts a deal that he first has to rescue a princess.
While I agree he definitely starts out as an antihero I’m not certain I agree that it’s the rough, uncouth or ugly characteristics that makes him one but rather what drives him (“I want my peaceful swamp back!” isn’t exactly an altruistic quest). But then, the definition of what a hero is isn’t exactly clear either which makes defining the antihero all the more difficult.
Scholars have not yet reached a consensus about how heroes should be defined, which hinders theory development, hypothesis- testing, and communication with various target audiences (e.g., Rozin, 2009).
In recent psychological literature, heroes have been described as persons who: are willing to risk and to make sacrifices for others (Becker & Eagly, 2004); resist external pressures of conformity (Zimbardo, 2007); protect and promote the well-being of future generations (McAdams, 2008); persist in the face of failure (Ko, 2007); demonstrate moral will, the desire to do good for others, and moral skill, the capacity to do the right thing in a particular situation (Schwartz, 2009).
These varied definitions evidence a lack of consistency in conceptualizing heroes within psychology. We argue that these definitions, at least at the individual level, lack sufficient rigor and coverage (Gregg, Hart, Sedikides, & Kumashiro, 2008).
[…]
To our knowledge, three studies adopted a free-response format to study conceptions of heroes.
In 1997, Gash and Conway asked 700 children in Ireland and the United States to identify the features of heroes. Participants named their hero and described their hero’s features. The 24 features were: active, beautiful, brilliant, brainy, brave, caring, confident, dresses well, famous, friendly, funny, good, gentle, good-looking, helpful, honest, important, kind, loving, loyal, rich, skillful, strong, and warrior.
Further, Sullivan and Venter (2010) asked American college students to identify one hero and to provide descriptive words to explain why. Participants were provided with an example: “Hero: George Washington, U.S. President; Reasons: Honest, intelligent, great leader, brave” (p. 475). The features that emerged were: intelligent, loving, religious, caring, leader, talented, hardworking, motivated, role-model, and creative. Demand features may be reflected in the results due to use of an example prior to the free-responses.
Allison and Goethals (2011) asked American college students to list the traits that they use to describe heroes. Then, another group of students sorted the traits and revealed eight trait clusters: smart, strong, selfless, caring, charismatic, resilient, reliable, and inspiring.- Zeroing in on Heroes: A Prototype Analysis of Hero Features - page 115
Authors: Elaine L. Kinsella, Timothy D. Ritchie, and Eric R. Igou
University of Limerick
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25603370/
(Available on Annas Archive for those curious to read more)
- Zeroing in on Heroes: A Prototype Analysis of Hero Features - page 115
I see people calling the characters in Invincible
Antihero has lost its meaning to the people you see doing that because they have no idea what the term Antihero is. That is in the same vein of people have no idea what the terms Plothole, Antagonist and Protagonist are.
I know you wanted to focus on comics, but if we step out of that genre for a second we’ll find that “a bad guy doing good things” is the original usage of the term, minted in 1714
For me personally I’ve always thought of the antihero as either someone who does good but for the wrong reasons or someone who strives for a goal that is good, but uses means that isn’t.
I’d say the Punisher fits the first definition well and Dexter Morgan more the second.By definition an antihero is a hero with a lack of heroic attributes. What we understand as heroic attributes keeps changing however. Sometimes it’s a lack of virtues, sometimes it’s generally a wrong motivation (like being the hero merely for profit). I’ve also seen antihero instances that described a tragic hero, who challenged the status quo and ultimately failed, where it could be understood that protecting the status quo and always winning is a heroic attribute.
All in all the term is as diluted as what we perceive as heroic. In the literal and dramaturgical sense.
Just don’t make the mistake and describe villains as antiheroes.
No but you dont understand homelander is good actually
Elric of Melniboné is the only true anti-hero. Fite meh!
That was a long shower.
But yeah, you’re right.
Antihero is a skateboard brand
It really hasn’t changed for me. Then again, I don’t watch any super hero garbage.
Just because you don’t like something that’s popular that doesn’t make it garbage. World doesn’t revolve around you kid
Just because you like garbage it doesn’t make it not garbage.
