# anti-hero Versus hero



## Nacian (Nov 7, 2011)

*anti-hero Versus hero Versu superhero*

how do you tell them apart/write them apart in a story?

then there is the *superhero?

*this fine example here which for me  suggests a_ wizardy type male fairish _who changes from a human to a gory looking superhero:
Bank clerk Stanley Ipkiss is transformed into a manic super-hero when he wears a mysterious mask??
​are we suggesting that superhero can be also vividly unpleasant yet heroish?
I would definetely cross this type of superhero with the fairy tell of Mirror Mirror/snow white?


----------



## felix (Nov 7, 2011)

A hero is the classical 'good guy' who dives into danger and saves the lady and so forth. James Bond and Jason Bourne are heroes. 

An antihero, in general, is usually the antithesis of the usual hero formula, with the character being flawed, morally grey, reluctant to do the right thing and to be altogether, in some aspects, more realistic (shying away from danger or running from a crime scene). A good example is the Bad Boy who's antagonistic to the Good Guy until danger strikes. The antihero usually ends up doing the right thing or saving the day or some such, but without the immediate panache of the hero archetype. 

 I think in terms of writing the two, it's all too easy to write the hero because we've all heard tales of heroes since we were children. Antiheroes, I think, are a very interesting thing to try to write and I'm glad that you've opened a thread about it, because I don't think that it's done properly very often. Antiheroes have to be in some sense unlikable or flawed in a manner that a hero isn't, but still the reader must hold some kind of affection for them. 

They need some kind of attractive trait, like a sob-story background or some such reason to explain their behaviour without coming out and saying that they're just evil. An antihero is bad, but not evil.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 7, 2011)

> An antihero, in general, is usually the antithesis of the usual hero formula, with the character being flawed, morally grey


the word antihero reminds of the word antidote, meaning injecting a drug to counteract another.
I remember watching this movie where this guy took the wrong drug and needed another drung to counteract it.


> The antihero usually ends up doing the right thing or saving the day or some such, but without the immediate panache of the hero archetype.


I seem to stumble across these anti-words, whoever makes them has an agenda in mind.
the essentail word HERO is there and therefore it brings me to think of the underlaying meaning of the word itself.
panache is mundane when the hero is actually killing for the sake of it.
a real do gooder does the job, tidies up if you like, without the violence or killing and I have yet to come across such a person in films. movies or stories. the ultimate goal of, hero or anti, is to  ultimately resort to killing and that I have a slight dislike to.
which brings me to think that hero signals the idea of the person doing it not because the care, but toget a kick out of it, get the recognintion and the title.



> An antihero is bad, but not evil


isn't there a fine line between the too? they are the same surely?
or are you basing your differences on looks ..lol:tickled_pink:


----------



## felix (Nov 7, 2011)

Bad is something that is not good, but is not necessarily intentional or malicious in nature, whereas evil is.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 7, 2011)

Mickey Rourke's character "Marv" in the movie "Sin City" comes to mind. He is essentially an Anti-Hero.

He sleeps with a prostitute, wakes up to find her dead, and finds himself framed for the murder. He then goes on a killing spree, attacking police and mercenaries alike, seeking revenge and vigilante justice. In the process, he questions his own sanity. When he captures one of the bad guys, instead of killing him, he tortures him gruesomely.

He operates with a set of morals that are noble to him (justice and vengeance, mostly), which makes him a Hero, but he also operates with a disregard for anything that gets in his way (the law, the lives of others). That makes him an Anti-Hero.

My (admittedly loose) definition of an Anti-Hero is a bad-guy that the reader cheers for. Often he has many negative aspects about him, but he follows a moral compass that the reader can sympathize with.

There's a dangling question of Redemption hanging over the Anti-Hero. Can he find it? Will he cross the bridge from Anti-Hero to Hero? Or will he stay on the "Dark Side of the Force"?

Speaking of Star Wars, when Darth Vader electrocuted himself, in order to save his son Luke from the Emperor, I believe he transformed, in that moment, from a Villain to an Anti-Hero.

[video=youtube;2yWR5jePoH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yWR5jePoH8[/video]


----------



## Nacian (Nov 7, 2011)

felix said:


> Bad is something that is not good, but is not necessarily intentional or malicious in nature, whereas evil is.



humm...Iam going all cryptic now with 





> BAD


 as _Blunt and develish _as oppose to 





> EVIL


 _extremley venemous inside limbers


_


KyleColorado said:


> Mickey Rourke's character "Marv" in the movie "Sin City" comes to mind. He is essentially an Anti-Hero.
> 
> He sleeps with a prostitute, wakes up to find her dead, and finds himself framed for the murder. He then goes on a killing spree, attacking police and mercenaries alike, seeking revenge and vigilante justice. In the process, he questions his own sanity. When he captures one of the bad guys, instead of killing him, he tortures him gruesomely.
> 
> ...



such a transformation is rather loose.
dark vader the dark force ..I thought he was a nice guy turned evil because he spell-casted by some dark force?
then turn anti-hero is tour de force indeed.
I am a star war fan for the only reason I cannot follow the atual reasoning behind it all.
I do not get the message behind it plus it start with different beginnings.



*Episode V*
"Empire" raised eyebrows when it was released in 1980. Instead of "Star Wars II," it was titled "Episode V."
*Episode VI*
With the order more or less in place, "Episode VI, Return of the Jedi" followed apace in 1983
*Episode I*
The episode numbers of the original "Star Wars" trilogy prompted rampant speculation about the three chapters preceding them. Lucas answered in 1999 with the release of "Episode I, The Phantom Menace."
*Episode II*
Lucas followed "The Phantom Menace" with Episode II, "Attack of the Clones," in 2002.
*Episode III*
"Revenge of the Sith," appeared in 2005. Lucas claimed that it was the completion of the saga, though rumors of Episodes VII through IX continue to circulate.


why *number it* if you are going to give it *a title anyway*?
I don't get it.


----------



## j.w.olson (Nov 7, 2011)

Duke in the TV series Haven is perfect.

Would Sweeney Todd count? I'm not sure if an anti-hero needs a hero to play foil to.

Also perhaps Snape from Harry Potter.


----------



## SixPence (Nov 7, 2011)

You're misunderstanding the definitions of the words here.  A hero goes way beyond just what he appears like on the surface.  A hero essentially have good motives, and a moral obligation to do the right thing.  An anti-hero is someone who winds up doing the right thing at the right time, but wouldn't necessarily always make the same choice.  More of a hero of the day if you will, someone who saves the day one day and wrecks it another time.  He doesn't have any motives or obligations other then to his own selfish needs.

A superhero is simply someone whos abilities surpass those of normal human beings.  Stanley Ipkiss that you refer to, finds a mask that belong to the God of Mischief, Loke.  So when he wear the mask he gets godlike powers, but at the same time he becomes very mischievous.

Your grammar and spelling makes it very hard to make out what you're trying to say though.  What do you mean by "_wizardy type male fairish" _?  And how do you apply the phrase "wizardy" towards Stanley Ipkiss?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 7, 2011)

There are two definitions of anti-hero.  The original (and less commonly used now) meaning was a protagonist who simply isn't heroic, yet remains the "hero" due to the nature of the plot and the magnitude of his effect in it (good or bad).  A decent example of this would be Shinji from the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, a boy who's been chosen to pilot a giant robot, yet expresses crippling fear and self-doubt throughout the entire series.  More people are affected by his lack of action than by anything he explicitly does, so he's a classical anti-hero.

The modern definition of anti-hero is someone that the audience clearly should get behind, someone who makes a huge difference and often holds the moral high ground, yet they aren't necessarily a good role model.  An example of this is the Punisher (in the comic book and movie of the same name).  Frank Castle is the protagonist, out to get revenge for the death of his family.  His methods aren't anywhere close to being ethical, yet we get behind him because the victims are the bad guys.  He's a modern anti-hero because he's "heroic" without being moral.

All that said, though, there's no reason to be concerned about writing them apart in your story.  Just create your characters the way you want to, and let the terms fall where they may.  If the character ends up a hero, great.  If he ends up an anti-hero, that's fine too.  It doesn't really matter, as long as the character himself is well-written and well-developed.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 7, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> It doesn't really matter, as long as the character himself is well-written and well-developed.


I agree. The best thing to do with a character is write them how you want them to be. The end result can then be given a title: hero, anti-hero, etc. If you write according to the title, your character can end up being a bit generic. I find that flair really blossoms when you forget about all the detail and intricate evaulations you can make about your writing, and just do what you want to do. Then you can fiddle around within however you want.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 7, 2011)

SixPence said:


> You're misunderstanding the definitions of the words here.  A hero goes way beyond just what he appears like on the surface.  A hero essentially have good motives, and a moral obligation to do the right thing.  An anti-hero is someone who winds up doing the right thing at the right time, but wouldn't necessarily always make the same choice.  More of a hero of the day if you will, someone who saves the day one day and wrecks it another time.  He doesn't have any motives or obligations other then to his own selfish needs.
> 
> A superhero is simply someone whos abilities surpass those of normal human beings.  Stanley Ipkiss that you refer to, finds a mask that belong to the God of Mischief, Loke.  So when he wear the mask he gets godlike powers, but at the same time he becomes very mischievous.
> 
> Your grammar and spelling makes it very hard to make out what you're trying to say though.  What do you mean by "_wizardy type male fairish" _?  And how do you apply the phrase "wizardy" towards Stanley Ipkiss?



the mask Ipkiss wears, is an object, like the mirror( not the newspaper)  in snow white.
both mask and mirror are objects but are portrayed to have superpower to turn anything or anyone to anything. 

 the only superpower I personally can identify with, is that of a human or a wizar/fairy.

the same applies to the *citrouille* in Cinderalla story. it turns into a carriage but it was the fairy who magis it into a pumpkin.

Ipkiss is the wizard type/fairy type if you like because I cannot possibly relate to a mask/object having suddenly superpower andis responible responsible for Stanley mischievious and goldy like behaviour.
according to fairy tales and traditions *only wizard/fairy/angel  c*an do that.
 so I see Ipkiss as  *the one *with the superpower NOT the mask.

I am the type of reader who likes consistancy in myths as well as reality.
I cannot be told one thing one day and then 10year down I am told something else.
I mean if fictions starts off talking about fairies and wizard as being magical  super beings then you can't turn around a year later or 10 years down the line and tellme it is now a mask/a car/a robot is being magical too.

you can only have one or the other,not too, or I am not going to be interested in fiction anymore.



Gamer_2k4 said:


> There are two definitions of anti-hero.  The original (and less commonly used now) meaning was a protagonist who simply isn't heroic, yet remains the "hero" due to the nature of the plot and the magnitude of his effect in it (good or bad).  A decent example of this would be Shinji from the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, a boy who's been chosen to pilot a giant robot, yet expresses crippling fear and self-doubt throughout the entire series.  More people are affected by his lack of action than by anything he explicitly does, so he's a classical anti-hero.
> 
> The modern definition of anti-hero is someone that the audience clearly should get behind, someone who makes a huge difference and often holds the moral high ground, yet they aren't necessarily a good role model.  An example of this is the Punisher (in the comic book and movie of the same name).  Frank Castle is the protagonist, out to get revenge for the death of his family.  His methods aren't anywhere close to being ethical, yet we get behind him because the victims are the bad guys.  He's a modern anti-hero because he's "heroic" without being moral.
> 
> All that said, though, there's no reason to be concerned about writing them apart in your story.  Just create your characters the way you want to, and let the terms fall where they may.  If the character ends up a hero, great.  If he ends up an anti-hero, that's fine too.  It doesn't really matter, as long as the character himself is well-written and well-developed.



thank you for that Gamer.
I think I will pass the hero all together.
I like to think that there is a hero in all of us and making hero as being epic is just making sound like the gladiator whose only reason to exist is to fight or die by the sword.


----------



## SixPence (Nov 7, 2011)

Nacian said:


> what I mean by Ipikiss is that the mask, is an object, like the mirror( not the newspaper)  in snow white.
> both mask and mirror are objects and are portrayed to have superpower to turn anything or anyone to anything.
> the only superpower I,personally, can identify with is that of a human or a wizar/fairy that are of human appearance.
> the same applies to the *citrouille* in Cinderalla story that turns into a carriage, again it was the fairy who magics it to become into something else.
> ...



It's very hard to make any sense out of what you're saying here, but it seems to me that you either have not seen the movie, or have completely misunderstood the story behind it.  Consider the mask an object similar to the master ring in LOTR.  The object gives the user abilities, but at the same time the object has a will of it own, infused in it by its creator.  In The Mask the creator of the mask is revealed to be the God of Mischief from old Norwegian religion, Loke.  So while wearing the mask it brings out the mischievous side of the person wearing it, while undermining their other character traits.  Stanley Ipkiss however is just an average Joe who ends up finding the mask, and start using it.  Whenever he wakes up in the morning he has no memory of having worn the mask or what he did while wearing it.  The abilities are all related to the mask itself, so Ipkiss is definatly not a fairy or a wizard, the same things that happen to him happen to anyone else who puts the mask on during the movie.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 7, 2011)

SixPence said:


> It's very hard to make any sense out of what you're saying here, but it seems to me that you either have not seen the movie, or have completely misunderstood the story behind it.  Consider the mask an object similar to the master ring in LOTR.  The object gives the user abilities, but at the same time the object has a will of it own, infused in it by its creator.  In The Mask the creator of the mask is revealed to be the God of Mischief from old Norwegian religion, Loke.  So while wearing the mask it brings out the mischievous side of the person wearing it, while undermining their other character traits.  Stanley Ipkiss however is just an average Joe who ends up finding the mask, and start using it.  Whenever he wakes up in the morning he has no memory of having worn the mask or what he did while wearing it.  The abilities are all related to the mask itself, so Ipkiss is definatly not a fairy or a wizard, the same things that happen to him happen to anyone else who puts the mask on during the movie.


Hi SixPence
I have never heard of Loke. It misread it earlier as Love.
what does Loke means in norwegian?


----------



## SixPence (Nov 7, 2011)

Nacian said:


> Hi SixPence
> I have never heard of Loke. It misread it earlier as Love.
> what does Loke means in norwegian?



It's the name of a God from old Norse Mythology, and doesn't have a deeper meaning that I know of.  Abbreviations of the name has been used as a slang word in more modern times though, portraying a person as michievous and up to no good.  Loke was the same way, he was a prankster and a joker without thought for consequences, and thus became the God of Mischief.  Loke had a brother, by the name of Balder.  Balder was a God of beauty and all good, he was the best of the Gods, and because of that his mother went out into the forest and made all living things, flowers, trees, and animals alike swear they would never harm do Balder harm, all except for the misteltoe.  She didn't find the misteltoe, so she never got to ask it to swear to protect Balder.  As they grew older, the Gods had fun with Balder showing off that nothing on this planet could harm him.  He let them throw spears and boulders at him, and he didn't get a single scratch.  Loke was envious of his brother, then he learned that the misteltoe hadn't sworn the oath.  Loke got an idea for the ultimate prank to play on Balder, he went out and found a misteltoe, and sharpened it into an arrow.  Then he asked another one of his brothers, Hod who was blind, if he would shoot the arrow at Balder.  He thought that the blind Hod would miss his target, and the arrow would scratch Balders arm to hurt him.  It would be a funny joke, he thought.  But alas, Hod shot the arrow, and pierced Balders heart, and Balder died from the one thing in the world that could harm him.  And Loke was cast out from Asgard for having killed his brother.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Nov 7, 2011)

You might recognize him better as Loki.  I know that's the spelling I'm familiar with.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 7, 2011)

SixPence said:


> It's the name of a God from old Norse Mythology, and doesn't have a deeper meaning that I know of.  Abbreviations of the name has been used as a slang word in more modern times though, portraying a person as michievous and up to no good.  Loke was the same way, he was a prankster and a joker without thought for consequences, and thus became the God of Mischief.  Loke had a brother, by the name of Balder.  Balder was a God of beauty and all good, he was the best of the Gods, and because of that his mother went out into the forest and made all living things, flowers, trees, and animals alike swear they would never harm do Balder harm, all except for the misteltoe.  She didn't find the misteltoe, so she never got to ask it to swear to protect Balder.  As they grew older, the Gods had fun with Balder showing off that nothing on this planet could harm him.  He let them throw spears and boulders at him, and he didn't get a single scratch.  Loke was envious of his brother, then he learned that the misteltoe hadn't sworn the oath.  Loke got an idea for the ultimate prank to play on Balder, he went out and found a misteltoe, and sharpened it into an arrow.  Then he asked another one of his brothers, Hod who was blind, if he would shoot the arrow at Balder.  He thought that the blind Hod would miss his target, and the arrow would scratch Balders arm to hurt him.  It would be a funny joke, he thought.  But alas, Hod shot the arrow, and pierced Balders heart, and Balder died from the one thing in the world that could harm him.  And Loke was cast out from Asgard for having killed his brother.


wow tragedy again.
I find these god stories all over the place from the bible to greek myhtology to Shakespear to modern society. 
and it is always the same story but with some many contradictions that I can hardly want to justify myself to why I simply don't like nor get these godly stories.
family feuds, jaloeusy, killing you name it, gorish is the style.
on one hand you'd think that gods were immortal, then they are not, then they are handicapped/blind, then they are imperfect in the way they behave then all of the sudden a mistletoe which is a christmas plant is being used as an arrow.
then a blind leading the blind as they say, gets to throw the arrown and guess where it lands? 
right through the heart of his own brother.
then I am told somewhere else, Valentine and Cupid is an angel with an arrow and he is the one that lances the arrow of love.
this is all where it all get mushy for me.
and again
I think of darts the game where you have professional at play and toget bull eye is simply hardword.
andhere I am told a blind does it and with a mistletoe.
I can imagine the myth about the misltoe tree and the kiss all falling apart.
then there is the death of the brother  Balder with one single shot compare it with Jesus'death and christmas and the misltoe.
mindblogging to say the least.

do you ever wonder who write these myths or why they are written for us to read?
I would love to get into the psychic of these story tellers and above all why are they written is a good valid question that no one seems to know the answer to.
it is all well and good to tell me about this god and another and a story but I am not given a reason to whey these stories are written and in this way?
I mean to say why should I read about *LOKI?
*as opposed to reading a book called 
_the earth round or slightly tilted_?

I am a reader that wants to know why I have to read a book.
I need a good reason to be motivated.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 7, 2011)

Lol Nacian. Your mind races a mile a minute.



> do you ever wonder who write these myths or why they are written for us to read?
> it is all well and good to tell me about this god and another and a story but I am not given a reason to whey(SIC) these stories are written and in this way?
> I am a reader that wants to know why I have to read a book.
> I need a good reason to be motivated.



Why does anyone do anything at all?

Don't question the motivation of the writer. Question the motivation of the reader. This is where the greater insight lies.


----------



## seyelint (Nov 7, 2011)

*newbies answer alert*

I think myths are occurrences someone witnessed and made note of. Stories change, often ear to ear, modified because they forgot a detail or have better use of words. Sometimes what they see is unknown, has no word assigned, whatever that may be. 

It is hard to define a hero, and its variations. That would depend on my perspective of good and evil. But in the end, one or the other is fighting for their cause. 

*newbie answer alert*


----------



## SixPence (Nov 7, 2011)

Nacian said:


> wow tragedy again.
> I find these god stories all over the place from the bible to greek myhtology to Shakespear to modern society.
> and it is always the same story but with some many contradictions that I can hardly want to justify myself to why I simply don't like nor get these godly stories.
> family feuds, jaloeusy, killing you name it, gorish is the style.
> ...



What's the purpose of reading/writing anything at all?  You asked about Stanley Ipkiss' role in the film "The Mask", I answered the question, then you asked me to tell you more about "Loke", I answered your question.  And yet you are not satisfied, tell me, why do you ask these questions when the answer never satisfies you?  Why should you read about anything at all?  If learning the story a book tells isn't motivation enough in itself, why would you read at all?  You're telling me that you need a pre-conceived notion of what you are about to learn, but if I tell you what you are about to learn you will either not understand it, or you will already know it.  Either way there will be no purpose in learning it, if your motivations always are to be on top of things, and in control.  Then are you really ever in control?

My goal when reading is to reach for the top through a journey, and as I begin the climb I never know whether the top is just over the next hill, or if there is even higher ground to reach.  Your goals seem to be able to see the ground, which means you keep your back turned agains't the top and therefor you will never truly see where you are, only where you've been.  You're naturally assuming there is nothing more to the story then what you percieved when reading my short description of it, therefor you disregard it as a story you already know all about.  I think this is the pitfall you get trapped in in most of your posts I have seen in here so far.  You instantly assume you know everything, and therefor you are blind to everything you don't know.  This way you will never learn anything new, you need to open your mind.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 7, 2011)

Sixpence said:
			
		

> I answered your question(s). And yet you are not satisfied, tell me, why do you ask these questions when the answer never satisfies you?



She asks not because she's seeking answers, but because she enjoys the conversation.

That's the way it seems to me, at least. Nacian is endlessly curious. : )


----------



## matsuiny2004 (Nov 8, 2011)

Nacian said:


> how do you tell them apart/write them apart in a story?
> 
> then there is the *superhero?
> 
> ...



Well a super hero is still basically a hero so I would say they are both the same, but an anti hero gravitates more towards the cynical side so killing can be more justified as well as other questionable acts, but overall their motives can be seen as good. Super heros can also be anti heros.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> Lol Nacian. Your mind races a mile a minute.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



we read because someone writes in that order.
I DO question the motivation of the writer in the same way  that I do question the bible/shakespear and Leonardo DaVinci you name it I am in there.
of course I would expect you to do the same to me so I better come clean because someone somewhere will always find out about your ultimate motives in making something/writing a story and so on.
we all write for specific reasons, and one the reasons amongst thousands of reasons, is that there is SOME whose motivation in writing is not as clear and forward as you think.
think of mystery/secrecy/codes/freemason/whatever...some like to think they can have more about them that meets the EYE.

this minority I call SOME are also refered to by me as the odd one out because their unltimate motive in writing is not genuine or for the love of expressions language or god or people.
This minority would write because they hope that that message/ idea in their stories/myth.. would eventually take shape and beocme part of very reader's life, in other word their stories would be acted upon later on in time.
a bit like propaganda/newspapers. themajority write to ''inform us'' and SOME  actual hidden message is to either make feel angry/upset/concerned/pityfull and thus hopefully you the reader would start to act according to how you felt about what you have read.
so it is not all ''blackand white'' as they say. 
reading between the lines and bEHINd then FORWARD the lines to get a reaction then an action.
so let's take mythology for example, you could imagine for example that those writers  who engaged  in setting/plotting/writing these mythical stories  maybe  had a belief that someone/someones come along who might have some mythical powers one day willcome along and start acating on these stories.

a bit like the story of the three kings who followed the star and knew of the coming of Jesus.
you would propably ask yourself how did they know ? who told them?
these are stories written in this way to install the idea of predictions and superstition.
Think of the saying of Shakespear:

the world is a stage and we are all actors. 
what he most propably meant that for every story/book/novella/play that gets written there will real human beings who would come along in this world and be the actors of these stories in real life.
a bit like a book then a movie. we watch it then we will eventually act on it in real time.
does that make sense?
well this is my little theory onwhy some write/wrote.
how else would you explain a whole bible/stories/mythologies...I mean what is the ultimate purpose of greek mythology?



seyelint said:


> *newbies answer alert*
> 
> I think myths are occurrences someone witnessed and made note of. Stories change, often ear to ear, modified because they forgot a detail or have better use of words. Sometimes what they see is unknown, has no word assigned, whatever that may be.
> 
> ...



what is the primarily cause of a hero or anit-hero?


----------



## j.w.olson (Nov 8, 2011)

Quick note from my opinion:

The Aesir had human traits because they were created in the image of man. Their lives were full of beauty, jealousy, celebrations, and tragedy because life was full of beauty, jealousy, celebrations, and tragedy. Why would we read the story of the trickster god killing the god of everything good and beautiful? Because it shows the start of one of the more powerful transformations of character out there -- and by studying it in stories, we are more prepared to understand it and deal with it when we experience a close and trusted friend turning on us. Ignorance, of course, is only bliss while it holds. At some point you need to accept the tragedies in life.

Studying such less than idealistic stories is also a way of delving into the human condition. We know that bad people do bad things, and that even good people sometimes do bad things. By exploring this concept we are able to more fully understand what we humans are.

If we all agreed on everything and no one ever struggled, then there would be no beauty in life, only an everlasting and dull tedium.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

the next idea:

can you have a *hero* then *antihero* and *superhero* all in one story?

could classify a *baddy* alongside a hero in abook as the *antihero?*


----------



## seyelint (Nov 8, 2011)

> what is the primarily cause of a hero or anit-hero?



Some one's pov changes.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

j.w.olson said:


> Quick note from my opinion:
> 
> The Aesir had human traits because they were created in the image of man. Their lives were full of beauty, jealousy, celebrations, and tragedy because life was full of beauty, jealousy, celebrations, and tragedy. Why would we read the story of the trickster god killing the god of everything good and beautiful? Because it shows the start of one of the more powerful transformations of character out there -- and by studying it in stories, we are more prepared to understand it and deal with it when we experience a close and trusted friend turning on us. Ignorance, of course, is only bliss while it holds. At some point you need to accept the tragedies in life.
> 
> ...



I agree that everyone has different views on how they see their world of books and stories.
I am thiking I can'thelp but notice the inconsistancies in the way myths and stories are written.
for example we are told that gods are immortals, then on the other we are told that they are not.
now this is where I get figgety. I don't get it.
a bit like the immaculate conception one minute she is avirgin and the next she is pregnant.
I cannot possibly understand nor believe that . that also annoys me.
there are no consistancy in ideas everywhere I look read or see.
then I am told the FATHER/god and HAIL Maries.
and straight away somewhere the NAZIS refered to their HITLER AS that. 
I am now  completely wondering do I really want to refer to any godly being as the FATHER let alone a father figure.



seyelint said:


> Some one's pov changes.


what doyou mean by some ones' POV changes?


----------



## seyelint (Nov 8, 2011)

3rd cup of coffee example:

I see you walk down the street, my pov is that you are a stranger. You see a child falling from a tree and dive to save injury. My perception of you has changed. From my point of view you rescued a child and so are a hero. 

But his brother, who had pushed him, and had witnessed you saving him from injury, would consider you an anti-hero. Not helping, not doing good in his point of view. 

Your pov is that you were neither, but had just reacted. Why? Would depend on your life, when one cares for life they would endure to protect/preserve. So you would do what would seem natural. Animals do this too, humans aren't the only heroes/anti heroes. Though we often think we are. 

*

If I read back at what I just wrote, I know I'd delete it, so I'm just gonna have another sip of coffee, refill and accept I wrote nonsense.


----------



## j.w.olson (Nov 8, 2011)

Nacian said:


> I agree that everyone has different views on how they see their world of books and stories.
> I am thiking I can'thelp but notice the inconsistancies in the way myths and stories are written.
> for example we are told that gods are immortals, then on the other we are told that they are not.
> now this is where I get figgety. I don't get it.
> ...



There is also no consistency in your talking -- I cannot discuss things with you if you cannot stay on the topic for more than three minutes... especially if you are making wild claims not based on the etymologies of words but based on how they sound to you. I am bowing out and will attempt not to partake in any of your many postings again.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

seyelint said:


> 3rd cup of coffee example:
> 
> I see you walk down the street, my pov is that you are a stranger. You see a child falling from a tree and dive to save injury. My perception of you has changed. From my point of view you rescued a child and so are a hero.
> 
> ...



oh I see what you mean.
so POV is just an impression? a possibility?
I saved his brother because that is a human instinctnature.
the brother who pushed him is acting against human nature hence  an antihuman if I may say so.
so whilst he sees me as an antihero I see him as antihuman so could you say that we are both quit on these terms in the sense that it is both ways and mutual is  not shared?:-s!!


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

j.w.olson said:


> Quick note from my opinion:
> 
> The Aesir had human traits because they were created in the image of man. Their lives were full of beauty, jealousy, celebrations, and tragedy because life was full of beauty, jealousy, celebrations, and tragedy. Why would we read the story of the trickster god killing the god of everything good and beautiful? Because it shows the start of one of the more powerful transformations of character out there -- and by studying it in stories, we are more prepared to understand it and deal with it when we experience a close and trusted friend turning on us. Ignorance, of course, is only bliss while it holds. At some point you need to accept the tragedies in life.
> 
> ...



dear j.w.olson apologies If I swayed from the topic..I think I was just trying to get my ideas out..sometimes that happens to me when I write.
I am not sure I understand why I should as a reader feel that I need to struggle in reading/stories?
isn't there enough struggle in everyday life?
I can relate to saddness and tragedies up to apoint but that is already happening in my immediate environment we all live happiness/saddness/pains etc..in our lives and so when I want to read something I want it to be perfect, free from all the daily recurrances of everyday life experiences.
I mean, I do not learn sympathies or sorrows from a book I learn it from living.
I prefer to read something different, fun, to give myslef a break and feel good.


----------



## seyelint (Nov 8, 2011)

anti human? Do you associate humans with heroes then?


----------



## Cran (Nov 8, 2011)

Nacian said:


> *anti-hero Versus hero Versus superhero*
> how do you tell them apart/write them apart in a story?


A *hero* (or feminine _heroine_) is someone who achieves great things and is deemed to be of noble character or who upholds the accepted moral standards of the time. Usually (but not always), the _great things_ amount to saving lives. 

An *anti-hero* (or anti hero) is someone who achieves great things but who does not uphold the accepted moral standards of the time (in other words, is often considered an outlaw if caught).  

The fictional characters James Bond and Jason Bourne are trained assassins, and therefore _anti-heroes_ rather than _heroes_. The best-known characters played by Clint Eastwood (_Dirty Harry_ and _The Man With No Name_) are _anti-heroes_, as are those portrayed by Vin Diesel. Actually, most crime and action movie protagonists are anti-heroes; this is especially true of those who are "known" outlaws (Robin Hood, XXX, Danny Ocean, Jesse James, etc).

A* superhero* is someone who achieves great things, and almost always has one or more abilities or traits which are beyond those of normal humans. There are rare exceptions to the superhuman criterion - like _Batman_ and _The Phantom_ - but they will instead have built or inherited a mythos or legend which lends a superhuman aura to them. Many (if not most) modern _superheroes_ are also _anti-heroes_.



Nacian said:


> are we suggesting that superhero can be also vividly unpleasant yet heroish?


Yes; that is also represented in the genre. Apart from _The Mask_, there is also _The Hulk_, and _The Thing_ (from the _Fantastic 4_), _Hellboy_, _Spawn_, and any number of chimerae or extra-terrestrial or mutated characters.



Nacian said:


> the next idea:
> can you have a *hero* then *antihero* and *superhero* all in one story?


Yes. This scenario occurs commonly in stories which include mythological or horror/fantasy characters. Recent movie examples include _Troy_, the _X-Men_ series, the _Fantastic 4_, _Underworld_ series, _Resident Evil_ series.



Nacian said:


> could classify a *baddy* alongside a hero in abook as the *antihero?*


Yes. This scenario occurs commonly in crime, western, war, and action stories (including some mentioned above).


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

seyelint said:


> anti human? Do you associate humans with heroes then?


yes I do here is the reason why:

the word hero means heroic achievement wherebuy ones achieve recongnition because it is a title the same with bully for example but that is the extreme opposite.
take the word maverick and then also suggest a type of a character.
so if you asked  a group of people to give a list of five heros then they would automatically give names of heroic famous figures ,in other word hero achieves fame.
but if you asked the same  group to name let's say five intelligent people they would think inwardly and refer to either themselves or friends and so on.
in other words one is a title which achieves fame regardless of ethics of what is wrong or right.
a description of someone intelligent is through act and behaviour which does not break any ethics or morals.

so YES hero is therefore associated with humans only.
animals do not have a say in that .they are just intelligent animals who do not care about fame because they do not understand nor need it, their only aim in life is survival.


----------



## matsuiny2004 (Nov 8, 2011)

Nacian said:


> the next idea:
> 
> can you have a *hero* then *antihero* and *superhero* all in one story?
> 
> could classify a *baddy* alongside a hero in abook as the *antihero?*




Well you could have a super hero and an anti hero and an non powered hero however it would be interesting to see who is the protaganist. I dont think the baddy could be alongside the hero since antiheros usually are not villains just seen as villains at times and have contrasting personalities.


----------



## matsuiny2004 (Nov 8, 2011)

Nacian said:


> yes I do here is the reason why:
> 
> the word hero means heroic achievement wherebuy ones achieve recongnition because it is a title the same with bully for example but that is the extreme opposite.
> take the word maverick and then also suggest a type of a character.
> ...



animals can be superheros such as underdog and banjo and kazooie. They both have the capacity to understand fame.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

matsuiny2004 said:


> animals can be superheros such as underdog and banjo and kazooie



haha...banjo kazooie...I see that is only in games/fiction.
no in real life as opposed to real life heros.


----------



## matsuiny2004 (Nov 8, 2011)

Nacian said:


> haha...banjo kazooie...I see that is only in games/fiction.
> no in real life as opposed to real life heros.



Did you specify that this had to be in real life? Obviously in real life there are no animals besides humans that are intelligent enough to be heros from our perspective, but what about from their perspective. Maybe a squirrel that get the nuts he needs to survive for winter while dodging evil human cars that kill his brethren is a hero to other squirrels?


----------



## seyelint (Nov 8, 2011)

I will have to disagree about hero.. only being human. As for intelligence in regards to hero, I can't see the comparison.

But tags are never something I liked, boxes to put everyone in. 

Thanks for the thoughts.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

matsuiny2004 said:


> Did you specify that this had to be in real life? Obviously in real life there are no animals besides humans that are intelligent enough to be heros from our perspective, but what about from their perspective. Maybe a squirrel that get the nuts he needs to survive for winter while dodging evil human cars that kill his brethren is a hero to other squirrels?



wether animals think of themselves as that I have no idea. I could not tell. they might or they might not,in any case it does not affect us. yes you are right to highlight human destructive nature and carelessness about others and animals would be a point and a fair one to be made braving those traffics to get to its food is indeed bravery at the highest level.
but that could propably a cute little story for kids to read I would imagine , I could just see the title:
the squirell that braved humans and got its well deserved crunch.:adoration:



seyelint said:


> I will have to disagree about hero.. only being human. As for intelligence in regards to hero, I can't see the comparison.
> 
> But tags are never something I liked, boxes to put everyone in.
> 
> Thanks for the thoughts.


there is no comparison.
I could propably get away with saying that a hero is not necessarily intelligent, it is just something you do because you think you have to or you are in that situation  and you have to. Hiuman instinct is  intelligence but when it becomes killing for the sake of being a hero then intellligence is out of the question.


----------



## Cran (Nov 8, 2011)

dogs and horses have been cited for heroism, and for the same reason; they've saved lives.


----------



## Nacian (Nov 8, 2011)

Cran said:


> dogs and horses have been cited for heroism, and for the same reason; they've saved lives.


I am not discounting that at all..of course they are they have been made to because of the incessant errors of mankind in wars and killings. Animals had not had a say nor a choice over man's behaviour and so yes, in this very occasion and only in this instance that I, and thank you for bringing this up, fervently say that they are the true heros.


----------

