I apologize if it came off that way, being bothered was not my intent. I’ll blame it on the crappy day I’m having at work. 
Nonetheless, I appreciate your point of view and our discourse.
I have been thinking about this topic, and one of my favorite characters–Flashman, from the eponymous novel and sequels (the character in John Brown’s School Days was a straightforward villain). Flashman has no heroic or even redeeming characteristics. His is a coward, lecher, bully, and any number of other faults. He never tries to do the right thing, or even does the right thing by accident as I recall. In fact, in reflecting on things, he does not have a lot of impact on the events of the stories–he neither causes nor prevents the Charge of the Light Brigade, or the Sacking of the Forbidden City, or the Raid on Harper’s Ferry, or anything else that he reluctantly participates in.
He is definitely the main character in the novels. So, anti-hero?
BTW, the books are highly recommended. Check them out!
He beat the shit out of English Bob, just because he arrived in town with guns. So, yeah, he would.
I was planning to post about my favorite antihero–Raylen Givens, from Justified–but when I went to find an article to refresh my memory, I kept pulling up articles that are all, “After a wave of antiheroes, it’s refreshing to get prestige TV about a full-on hero.”
Which is nuts.
We’re talking about a character who is introduced by psyching out a mob boss into getting himself killed. While it’s “justified,” it’s unambiguously a premeditated murder. We’re talking about a guy whose ex calls him, in the first episode, “the angriest man she ever met,” who is constantly beating up suspects, who manipulates one mob boss into murdering another one, whose boss decks him because he knows what Givens did but can’t prove it, who very nearly gets thrown in prison for his crimes.
It’s an incredible six-season (the seventh season, like Highlander 2, doesn’t exist) exploration of a corrupt protagonist, and the complicated ways we root for law enforcement even when they’re trampling all over what’s right. The title of the show gives away the game. And people call him a hero?
Anyway, curious. Am I completely crazy, or is Givens an antihero?
Ooh, interesting!
I totally agree with everything you say about who Givens is. He has a lot of superficial attributes of the pure hero - he’s handsome, charismatic, brave, and has both sang-froid and savoir-faire in spades. But as you say he is in many ways contemptuous of the law - especially the really important and very good laws formulated tu of a justified fear of rogue cops and - as many characters remark -uses the authority of the badge and gun to do what he wants to do anyway.
But, but, but. His motivations are, for want of a better word, good. He is on a mission to fight evil wherever he finds it, at personal cost. He isn’t mercenary or selfish, he has a very clear sense of right and wrong and is generally on the side of (what he sees as) justice and of the downtrodden rather than the down-treader.
This distinguishes him from Flashman - a great example @Reno_Nevada_Jr - who is defined by his selfishness and disinterest in anything resembling justice, morality or right vs wrong.
One get out for discussing Givens would be to call him a man out of time - he’s teh Wild West lawman of fiction, relying on his innate moral sense, his quick wits and quicker gunhand to bring law and order to the lawless hollers (sp?) of Harlan County. But that’s a bit of a cop-out in what is meant to be a real world show - the point is that it’s a big problem to try to be that guy in the modern world, and he should simply learn not to even try.
I think Givens is right on the cusp between flawed hero and antihero, and I could go either way depending on which episode I’m watching. Probably what would save him is that he is at least aware that he has crossed a line with Art, and deeply regrets finding himself estranged from him. The final showdown with Boyd Crowder - who at times I think is an anti-hero in that we follow him and Ava in their struggles against bigger forces - probably represents a degree for redemption for earlier transgressions.
(I think I did see the 7th season, which I understood to feature Raylens twin brother who looked like him but didn’t at any point do, say or think anything remotely resembling the Raylen we knew.)
But he survived (and was white). To me that says he knew about administering beatings that don’t end up killing the victim. I am not saying it’s canon, but I think Eastwood wanted the viewer to think about it;(and it’s a better movie for not spelling it out explicitly with exposition)
I imagine him sitting down with Dexter, and being like, “Dude. DUDE. Get. A. Badge!”
But you’re right: his motivations are more good than Dexter’s are, although they have something of a similar approach (i.e., both really want to commit homicide, so both find ways to kill people that need Killin). And he’s definitely not an antihero in the same way that Flashman–or Tony Soprano–are antiheroes, where they’re unmistakeably on the side of the devils.
That’s a fair way to describe it, and you’re also right that his final season arc is a massive redemption arc. In a lot of ways, what makes his character so compelling for me is how he’s an antihero struggling to be a hero, and finally at the end his heroism triumphs over his antiheroism.
Without that tension, it woulda been just another cop show.
What about Saruman?
Yeah, this is a great explanation which I will use in my so far fruitless attempt to get others to regard it as part of the golden age of TV. And Boyd of course goes in the opposite direction (albeit starts out as pure villain in the pilot).
Dexter is a good comparison, especially in relation to the influence of father figures. Dexter’s moral code was very much imposed by his adoptive father; Raylen’s is very obviously a reaction to the abusive and horrible father whom he despises but who also shaped him and his attitudes to violence as a problem solving tool. To a certain extent this undercuts his claim to be on the side of the angels, as its very much arrived at for the selfish end of distancing himself from Arlo.
Ooh that’s good one. Saruman is what’s now a classic villain archetype: the supposed senior “good guy” and boss of the hero, who is actually a duplicitous villain. I don’t know if any earlier examples of this trope, did Tolkien invent it?
I would add that just as much as Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, Tolkien was deliberately subverting hero/villain tropes in LOTR and the Hobbit (ok not quite as much as Unforgiven but he definitely did it some 
)
He was referred to as “Saruman the Traitor” if that gives us any insight on how Tolkien intended his audience to regard the character. But notice the pains taken, via Gandalf mostly, to express the immense regard he had for his fellow Maia and head of the order.
I’m pretty sure Jafar the duplicitous sorcerer is 300+ years old, since it’s part of the 1001 Arabian Nights collection. The entire premise of Hamlet is the titular character coming to grips with the fact that his uncle, the King, is an evil murderer. Arguably there’s the serpent, from Genesis.
~Max
Now there’s a good anti-hero. Lots of modern takes on Genesis treat the serpent as a Pythagoras figure, freeing the naive humans from being in thrall to their abusive God. He’s got the humans best interests at heart, but he still uses lies to manipulate them.
Prometheus?
Which reminds me of that other famous antihero, Heracles, who killed his wife and children in a murderous rampage.
~Max
No, he started the first love triangle, do try to keep up.
Though actually his portrayal as a duplicitous villain is a modern invention, he’s not the villain in the original. And even if he was the trope of the “kings evil advisor” is very different, and it’s as old as monarchy (“who, me!?! Rebelling against my god given monarch? No I’m just trying to rescue the king who has fallen under the spell of his evil advisors”)
Even if you accept that definition of antihero, you can’t really describe the ancient Greek heros as antiheros IMO. I mean they are the original heros, where the term ‘hero’ came from, and yeah then they do feats of strength and cunning. But other than that they are utterly lacking in any heroic values as defined by modern literature. The idea they should be “moral” and generally do good things (and avoid stuff like murder, rape and pillage) is completely alien to heroes of that era.
That said killing your family was considered a bit off, and Hercules doing so was blamed on Hera cursing him with madness in the story, and not considered a heroic act.
Well, the myths differ, and it was caused by Hera who made him do it in rage.
Anyone up for placing Havelock Vetinari on the spectrum?
Hard to say. He hasn’t done anything outright evil unless it was in the best interests of Ankh-Morpork. He uses the pretense of his shady reputation to motivate people with veiled threats. Being a spymaster, he’s put aside any morals when it comes to obtaining vital information, but he at least keeps those dealings covert. Crime wasn’t eliminated under his watch, but effectively re-organized to where the average citizen would be mugged less often, and be given a receipt. He’s more of a benevolent dictator than a despot.
Besides, I identify with him when he complains how certain crossword clues are constructed, so he can’t be all that bad.