On the Anti-Hero

     The anti-hero is one of the most ambiguous of the archetypes. There are at least three prominent definitions.

(1). It can refer to a hero who lacks divine power. Hence Achilles would be a hero, and Samwise Gamgee would be an anti-hero. 

(2). It can refer to hero who has character flaws. By this definition, Samwise is the hero and Achilles the anti-hero.

(3). Finally, it can refer to the evil character who you want to root for, like Captain Jack Sparrow.

     Each of these archetypes is clearly a distinct concept and each should be dealt with separately. 1 and 2 will therefore be regrouped under the heading of "Human Heroes." They are admittedly in different subsets, but they have a common feature. They are both of this earth, struggling to stand upright against greater forces which are trying to tear them down. For Achilles it is the fate that binds all mortals, for Sam it is the power of Sauron. 

The Messianic Hero is unbreakable, the anti-hero is broken, and the human hero totters between the two.

So for this discussion, the anti-hero will be confined to the inhabitants of group 3. 

    Within the category of evil characters we shouldn't like but do, there are two further sub-categories. There is the humorous anti-hero, and the diabolical one. Jack Sparrow and Falstaff are the first, Henry V is the second. 

     Is is hard to be really angry at the humorous anti-hero. He just doesn't seem that evil. Furthermore, because he is funny, those opposing him often seem overly puritanical and grim. They cannot take the joke. 

Yet this sort of hero often does great harm to the people around him, he just does it with such jollity that even those he has hurt have trouble being angry. Sir John leaves his friends in pretty tight financial straights because of his carousing, yet they are faithful to him to the end. It is hard to know what to do with a character both wicked and sympathetic. Shakespeare kills off Falstaff, but he is never such a sympathetic character as when he dies. Queen Elizabeth actually requested another play with Falstaff as the central character. In my humble opinion, Shakespeare did never did quite finish off the rouge. Falstaff got away from him. Redemption might be a promising solution, but since the anti-hero's crimes are funny, it is hard to bring about any real repentance. I do not think that most audiences really want it any way. It is certainly hard to pull off believably. Most authors just let the comic anti-hero go his way and leave him to the mercy of Heaven or Hell.

The only way that this kind of character ever becomes a hero is that circumstances conspire to place them at the center of things and heroism is in line with their selfish motives. More often he serves as a supporting character, in which case he is called the rogue.

The second type of anti-hero, the diabolical one, works in a very different vein. He is simply awesome enough that his cruelty and deceit elicit a sort of admiration. He plays on a certain nerve. The admiration of power, delight in subtly, and the love of cruelty all play into his attraction. Nietzsche's superman is a fair example of the diabolical hero. The Comedian from Watchmen may be another example. He is only able to be the hero if the author employs a very skewed worldview in which his wickedness can be applauded. 

The diabolical anti-hero differs from the comic one in that the comic anti-hero acts heroically in spite of his wickedness, and the diabolical anti-hero is admired precisely because he is wicked. A similar character is used by many authors as the simple villain. The only difference is in whether the quest at the center of the story involves toppling wicked giants or becoming a wicked giant. A surprising number of people admire the giants.

The diabolical anti-hero is a dangerous archetype to invoke. If he is successful, he will be appealing. A conscientious author has to be careful to disenchant his audience with the anti-hero before the book ends. He is too much of a loose cannon to leave careening about. Personally, I do not think he should be used much at all. Even if the author successfully subdues the anti-hero in the story, he may be used by other less scrupulous writers for worse ends. His best use is as the simple villain rather than as the anti-hero, but more on that topic later.