The Antihero

Hey @Jess!! Welcome back. Hope you had a blast. 🙂

@jess Hey!!!!! Your back!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
(I am currently devoid of Antihero thoughts and opinions. Give me a bit.)

@Adry-Grace, as your paper pointed out, antiheroes often go by situational ethics, which I’m convinced are wrong

@jess So my idea of an antihero is someone who does the “right” thing for the wrong reasons OR does the right thing for the right reasons but in the wrong way.

Ideas about why the antihero is so compelling: Nowadays there is a trend where people crave the “realistic.” They desire lifelike situations and lifelike characters (this can work even in fantasy and sci-fi). In order to imitate life, morality within stories have been getting grayer. That’s what makes the antihero so compelling. We empathize with someone who wants to do right, but is in between a rock and a hard place when doing it. We understand the basest desires (it’s called sin), and it delights us when something good can come from such a bad thing (because we crave the good instead of the bad). To put it simply, the antihero imitates life more than the hero (because a perfect person doesn’t really exist, save Jesus Christ).

Ideas about the antihero: So is the antihero good? Methinks maybe. The attraction of the hero is admiration for doing the right thing. The attraction of the antihero is empathizing with who the character is. I believe that the antihero is importa

I find antiheroes intriguing because of how much they can change your average story into something different and thought provoking, but it also seems like a difficult balance to find. =P For example, the main guy in the series Poldark is an antihero, I think, and I find it incredibly difficult to root for him or even want him to succeed. In fact, I often wish he’d lose and feel more of the consequences of his actions so he’ll finally learn. (that sounds terrible, but I can’t help it. =P)

There’s a balance between the character receiving the realistic justice/consequences of their actions and actually succeeding at their goal. The guy on Poldark never seems to gain any ground because he’s always self-destructing and it’s frustrating to watch. =P
Balance seems key to me.

@winter-rose I would agree with Tony Stark being an antihero for sure. Though he’s come a long way from the first movie, I find that self-interest always seems to be hiding somewhere in his motivations.

Cassian Andor I had never thought about, in spite of him being the only character I liked in the whole movie. I’ve spent the last 15 minutes debating whether he was an antihero. I’ve concluded that he was an antihero with one beauty of a character (I might even go so far as to say redemption) arc. He grew up devoted to this cause, an arguably good cause, til his devotion to it where anything that could be said to be in favor of this cause could be said to be right. If that sentence made sense. And then about halfway through the movie, during the epic scene (if you’ve seen the movie you know what I’m talking about): he hesitates. Now I credit about 95% of his character developement to Jyn, including that precious moment right there. Sooooooooooooo….

All that rambling to be summarized in one sentence: I think that a part of any antihero should be some sort of redemption arc. Especially if it’s an antihero. I mean if a hero goes through an entire story with no arc we call him “shallow” “unrealistic” and “mary sue” so what does that say about an antihero? Who (arguably) has the MOST room for developement?