Help With Upcoming Master's Thesis

Criminology is basically a baby of Sociology and many of the Doctors in the faculty have their Doctorate in Sociology. Now on your second point, Castro isn't really an anti-hero, he is a dictator. He creates the problems in which he appears to appease for his people.

Rational Choice Theory, of which is the main structure of an anti-hero, is a theory in the field of Criminology. Reasons/(positive outcome outweighs the negative consequences) is not the same as the dog ate my homework. It would be more like... "Sorry officer I was speeding but my wife is having a baby," in simplest terms. In larger terms however, in the example of Robin Hood, he steals from the rich and evades capture for his crime of theft, in order to give the money to the poor. And no it isn't the fact I only include some of the most popular examples, but that I include examples that fit each category of reasons for their anti-hero actions.

 

I just took a course on this entire subject last semester. It isn't new or obscure to criminology... and quite honestly not a subject I would be excited to do for a year. If you want to read up on it however, the book is Good Cop/Bad Cop: Mass Media and the Cycle of Police Reform, by Jarret S. Lovell. It is very small and easy to read, but it talks about the start of the change in perception of the police and how it was sped up by technology. Though it mentions things as far back as the early 20th Century and J. Edgar Hoover, it has a large focus on the Rodney King video.

Now don't take my comments the wrong way... I'm not trying to be rude, just stating my position.

 

In one of Len Deighton's novels his MC says something like "My speciality was in reducing major objections to minor objections, and my boss' speciality was in disposing of minor objections."

What you've done in the first paragraph is to disqualify my suggestion by saying it doesn't fit your criteria for anti-hero.

In the second paragraph you're saying that an example to fit every category of reason (that you give) is sufficient. All you've got to do is limit the reasons you give to those that you can find an example for.

Like I said, some of the truth, part of the truth and (perhaps) nowhere near the truth. And any evidence I offer to the contrary is inadmissible.

I am, actually, on your side, @Lewdog ; if I'm giving you a hard time now, it's only so you don't have it when it really counts - when you've got to defend your thesis.

 

A Dictator is not an anti-hero. That's not by my definition. Please explain why you think Castro is an anti-hero. So you're saying that I am going to ignore and fight whatever you say if it doesn't match what I want it to be... But here is the problem with that. You're just throwing out stuff without anything to back it. You asked me to come up with an anti-hero in the media to match Castro. You never said WHY Castro was considered an anti-hero in your opinion, and thus I needed to find someone in the media to match those qualities. Just throwing out a name doesn't work.

As for your second point, yes, you can break down the purpose of an anti-hero's life into categories. There are very basic principles to it, including for power/control, for revenge, and for money. But then you attacked my premise without adding any input to prove my position wrong. Just saying that I'm not going to agree with you because I don't want to change my position isn't a defense in an argument. How about you stop for a second and think for yourself about different anti-heroes and what their motivations are, and then see if they don't fit into the categories I mentioned. Then if you do, then use that to show me where I can improve my position.