Heroes, Antiheroes, and Villains

Cafe Society
21

I haven’t seen that movie/read that book, but I distinctly remember Doyle/Watson writing that Holmes would sit in his sofa high on cocaine for days on end, and Watson had to wean him off of it because he thought it would ruin Holmes’s career.

ETA: From A Study in Scarlet, introducing the Holmes character:

Chapter I

“Let me see—what are my other shortcomings. I get in the dumps at times, and don’t open my mouth for days on end. You must not think I am sulky when I do that. Just let me alone, and I’ll soon be right. What have you to confess now? It’s just as well for two fellows to know the worst of one another before they begin to live together.”

Chapter II

Nothing could exceed his energy when the working fit was upon him; but now and again a reaction would seize him, and for days on end he would lie upon the sofa in the sitting-room, hardly uttering a word or moving a muscle from morning to night. On these occasions I have noticed such a dreamy, vacant expression in his eyes, that I might have suspected him of being addicted to the use of some narcotic, had not the temperance and cleanliness of his whole life forbidden such a notion.

ETA2: From The Sign of the Four:

Chapter I

Sherlock Holmes took his bottle from the corner of the mantel-piece and his hypodermic syringe from its neat morocco case. With his long, white, nervous fingers he adjusted the delicate needle, and rolled back his left shirt-cuff. For some little time his eyes rested thoughtfully upon the sinewy forearm and wrist all dotted and scarred with innumerable puncture-marks. Finally he thrust the sharp point home, pressed down the tiny piston, and sank back into the velvet-lined arm-chair with a long sigh of satisfaction.

Three times a day for many months I had witnessed this performance […]

Considering how close to the beginning of the books this cocaine habit is mentioned, and how long it goes on for, I had the impression that it was an addiction. Holmes’s major character flaw, even.

~Max

22

Bill Munny certainly isn’t lawful during Unforgiven- but he’s essentially bringing justice for the oppressed (a woman who was permanently disfigured by some cowboys), and the Sherriff’s only attempt at justice is to make the cowboys offer up a few ponies to the woman’s employer. He also avenges his friend who was flogged to death by the Sherriff to give up Bill’s location.

Bill admits to doing absolutely terrible things in the past, and yes, his motivation to help out originally is to collect the bounty on the cowboys, but the movie tends to reinforce by the end that it’s more about duty, obligation & honor for Bill than the bounty money. The movie portrays him as a hero.

23

Without getting too much into dissecting the text, I’d argue that there’s a difference between Holmes being an addict under the modern understanding of narcotic addiction, and Doyle intending Holmes to be an addict - under the way addiction was understood in his day, I don’t think that’s how Doyle intended him to be viewed. His cocaine use is more of a “blessed by suck” flaw than an actual flaw: he doesn’t use drugs because he’s an addict, he uses drugs because its the only way to calm down his super-charged brain.

Either way, “hero with a flaw” is not the same thing as “antihero.” Addict or not, Holmes isn’t really germane to this thread.

24

How is discussion of Holmes not germane to the thread? The title is “Heroes, Antiheroes and Villains”, and the OP specifically asks our opinion of Holmes’ standing in that regard.

25

Yeah, my bad - I lost track of the original topic, and was just focusing on the “antihero” thing.

26

Wait, does that make you a hero with a flaw?

27

I’m no hero, kid.

Stares manfully into the middle distance

28

I didn’t consider whether addiction was understood differently back then, that’s a valid point. But I do agree that Sherlock Holmes falls under the “hero” category, not “antihero”. He breaks the law a couple times, but only in extreme circumstances where his conscience demands it. Holmes doesn’t make a regular habit of breaking the law.

Unlike Robin Hood, who is a textbook vigilante, outlaw, thief, and antihero.

~Max

29

An antihero isn’t defined by whether or not they break the law, though. Luke Skywalker breaks all sorts of laws when he engages in rebellion against the Empire, but he’s not an antihero, because the Empire is portrayed as evil and illegitimate, and Luke’s actions as motivated by notions of justice and political freedom.

Same with Robin Hood, in most versions of his myth. He only becomes an outlaw when Prince John attempts to usurp King Richard’s power, and begins enriching himself and his cronies at the expense of the common people. He’s breaking the law, but only because the law is being used unjustly by a cruel and illegitimate tyrant. His motives are mostly selfless, and his methods aren’t excessively cruel or violent - he kills mostly in self defense (or not at all, in some versions), and only against legitimate military and government targets.

30

That is literally the definition:

A antihero is a hero is flawed and lacking the noble moral “heroic” qualities in traditional heros. They still end up doing heroic stuff but are flawed

31

If anyone’s interested, here’s what I wrote in the thread linked above:

I disagree - what you’re talking about is a flawed hero. They’re a hero because they’re still trying to do good despite their own weaknesses and shortcomings. An antihero, to me, is someone who does good, not because they care, but for selfish reasons like money or revenge. Travis Bickle, for example, kills a bunch of crooks because he’s crazy and obsessed and filled with hate. That makes him an antihero.

In very general terms, it’s like this:

Does good for good reasons: hero.
Does good for bad reasons: antihero.
Does bad for good reasons: tragic hero (or anti-villain, which may not be a word).
Does bad for bad reasons: villain.

(IMHO, of course)

So to me, it’s a matter of motivation:

Robin hood - steals from the rich to give to the poor, for purely altruistic reasons - hero
Shrek - starts out as antihero (saves princess to protect his solitude) but evolves into a hero.
Holmes - hero, with a touch of antihero. Solves crimes and stops criminals in order to protect teh innocent, but also because of the intellectual challenge (this is the antihero part).
Snape - tragic-ish hero - wants to do the right thing, but ends up hurting a lot of people along the way.
William Munny - antihero, in the movie. Kills for money and revenge.
Joker - villain, with a touch of tragic hero, because he believes on some level that he’s making the world a better place.
Draco Malfoy - villain, with a touch of anti-villain, because he comes to his villainy due to his love of his parents.

32

Ah well, that part about Prince John and King Richard and corruption was left out of our childhood games. It was probably there but we didn’t pay attention to it / understand it.

~Max

33

From my first post in this thread:

Much like “all dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs,” a “conspicuous lack of heroic qualities” is certainly a flaw, but not all flaws are a conspicuous lack of heroic qualities. Almost all heroic characters start with some sort of flaw, which they overcome by the end of the story. “I don’t want to be a hero, I want to do my own thing,” is one of the more common flaws of this sort. That’s not an antihero, that’s just character growth.

34

Holmes as portrayed by Doyle is a hero, no question - with some flaws, but unquestionably devoted to justice, and eager to share his knowledge.

Now House - a Holmes-variant - is probably more of an antihero. He saves lives, but mostly because it gives him the chance to show off.

Likewise, Holmes as portrayed in “Sherlock” is an antihero - much more invested in showing off, than in helping people, dismissive and disrespectful to his friends (and going out of his way to embarrass them). He doesn’t share his knowledge much at all - because that doesn’t let him seem amazing.

35

Wait, what? Where is that in any characterization of the Joker?

36

That local barkeep should have armed himself if he was going to decorate his saloon with William Munny’s friend.

I remember reading a review of Unforgiven at the time it was released that pointed out the traditional good guys/heroes like the Sheriff in a Western weren’t so good and typical bad guys/villains like killers-for-hire weren’t all bad.

Eastwood’s Man with No Name seems to be a more typical anti-hero–he’s the protagonist but seems mostly motivated by money (collecting bounties on outlaws in all of the trilogy films in addition to the stash of gold in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, IIRC), although he does have a sense of justice and rights some wrongs along the way.

37

I think he’s talking about the 2019 Todd Phillips movie, featuring Joaquin Phoenix. Definitely a tragic character. ETA: duh, you mean the character believing he’s making the world a better place.

~Max

38

I think part of the problem (and great discussion point to keep a thread going) is the OPs limiting it to the three categories, because, well, duh, it’s never quite that simple, even if we agree (and we don’t) on the same definitions. So first, to address the OP’s picks, and sticking to only the three choices:

Robin Hood: Hero, although I’m sure in one of the many recent reboots there’s one grimdark enough to be an anti-hero. :wink:

Shrek (1): Anti-Hero, his motives are entirely selfish, and while he grows enough to care about his friends, and take action on their behalf, that’s still acting on behalf of a very few, even if it benefits the many. To quote the Pirate King of Gilbert and Sullivan, “But, hang it all! you wouldn’t have us absolutely merciless?”. You can care about others without being a hero, see countless villains who have semi-unconditional love for family, close friends, pets, etc. But Shrek isn’t actively trying to bring harm to others, so of course, not a villain.

Khan - Villain, even in first appearance, although many quibbles about justifications (both on Earth and Enterprise) and nature vs nurture (both of which doom him). And far more so by his second appearance, with the actions he takes against his own people.

Sherlock Holmes - Hero. Doing the right thing (stopping criminals) for both the right and wrong reasons doesn’t diminish his actions IMHO.

Professor Snape: Villain, but in the redemption arc. Probably fits better in one of the “other” categories, but again, sticking with the OP…

William Munny (from the film ‘Unforgiven’): Villain, who failed his redemption arc. Honestly, I’m torn, and wanted to give another answer, but from his own admissions in film, he was a villain, and knew it. He actually succeeded apparently (off-screen) in his initial redemption, winning the love of a good woman and the “happiness” of a normal life. But Unforgiven is an incredible movie because of how it subverts the “happily ever after”. Unforgiven is what happens after the happily ever after of some other western. Munny is desperate, and when push comes to shove… he caves. Sure he justifies it, and there are LOTS of said justifications both noble and not, but … he caves.

The Joker: Villain, albeit one of the most perfect iterations of Villain by Insanity, it doesn’t change what he is, just why he is.

Draco Malfoy: Boring, oh wait, that wasn’t an answer. Villain. He has the disadvantages of being raised in a horrible situation, but no, he’s a villain, though one who accidently helped bring about a positive result. An opportunistic last-minute change of loyalties does not change what he is (and screw the postscript).

Seriously though, if I were able to answer with villain protagonists, failed heroes, heroes by necessity, and all the others flavors, I’d have more fun answering.

A related theme to the OP that I’d like to ask of the others, is what common characters do you consider the best examples of the three categories?

Hero - Superman. Granted, there are a metric ton of different versions over the years, including plenty of antihero versions, the essential Superman works for the common good, refuses to compromise their (high) morals, and while not always 100% selfless, they’re probably closer to that percentage than 99.9% of most humans.

Antihero - Elric of Melniboné. He’s the protagonist (so we don’t have to worry about @miller nixing him), and unlike some, isn’t so damage that he doesn’t understand morality. But the simple act of living his life as a vaguely functional individual is based around the destruction of others, means he’s far closer to a villain than he wants to admit. Despite it all though, he accomplishes a great deal of good, in terrible circumstances, and his actions, despite generally good motives, brings a great deal of death and despair to good and honest people as well.

Villain - to honor the OP, let’s pick the worst villain of the list, The Joker. Perhaps because he IS utterly insane, he’s a lot more willing than most modern villains (who often borrow heavily from anti-hero tropes and justifications) to be evil to everyone, regardless of age, gender, sex, and innocence. In fact, in his twisted actions, he seems to even have a slight preference in many iterations for hurting the best, brightest, and most innocent.

39

But what about Lady Eboshi or the titular Princess Mononoke from Princess Mononoke (1997)?

Also, not so sure about Professor Snape being a villain. It’s been ages since I read those books but I distinctly remember Snape turning out to have been a good guy all along.

~Max

40

He’s treated as an anti-hero by (among others) his creator. And absolutely he’s one doing the “wrong things for the right reasons”. For me at least, he was the hardest of the OP to place, and absolutely deserved to be in a broader category. But he’s also one of those people who would agree that “the ends justify the means” which IMHO makes him a villain if I can ONLY use the three. Though I wouldn’t argue against anyone who wants to put him in the anti-hero category either.