I've been writing my book for five years, as I continue to finish my first book of wedge between the hero vs anti-hero. I keep asking myself what do I hate about nowadays protagonist that makes the bad guy more appealing. The more I want to understand the antagonist, more my story evolves and feels more connected. I am aiming for the fallen hero approach, but became corrupt for the greater good. I realize myself as watching various of movies and tv shows seems I always root for the bad guy as well. Bad guys like Lord Voldemort, Darth Vader, Tony Soprano, Joker etc. Nowadays is a hero or protagonist are too boring or not badass enough? Is Deadpool and Wolverine are the new type of good guys we love? Do the bad guys who are not constraint to morals like heros are, giving no f***s attitude liked by audiences more? Do bad guys mirror are darker selves or people we want to be in sense but are not willing? For example Harry Potter, I'm going to be honest I felt like he was wuss the whole time. Only reason I read the books was what Lord Voldemort was going to do, of course I knew he wasn't going to defeat Harry Potter. Darth Vader is the most ironic bad guy, kills bunch of children in the Jedi Temple then promoted, put on shelves as a kids toy on every shelf that sells Star wars toys. Would like your input why are people obsessed with the bad guy?
I think there's a definite distinction to be made between an anti-hero and a full-on villain. I don't really follow Harry Potter, but do kids want to BE Voldemort, or do they just enjoy having him send chills up their spine? For Darth Vader, he's intriguing because he's powerful, but he's not any kind of hero, is he? (I admit, I skipped the prequels after the first one...) For me, anti-heroes are more interesting because they're--well, because they're more interesting. They aren't bland, white-bread goodie-goodies, they're people I can identify with and struggle with and hope with. Pure villains, like pure heroes, are black and white and childish. Giving characters on either side of the divide a bit of depth and complexity is just a good way to make them feel real, I'd say.
Because the anti hero and villain aren't burdened with being the every-(wo)man. The everyman is good, but not self righteous. Misunderstood but never bad. Mostly normal, a blank canvas for the audience to paint themselves on and live through. That's what comes across as boring compared to more specialized or defined characters. When this burden is taken off the hero, the hero can easily become the best character in the work.
"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -Spaceballs Villains and antiheroes are different critters. Villains are usually proactive, heroes reactive. Harry is just bumbling through his life under the stairs, and without first Draco Malfoy, and later Voldemort, he'd have nothing to do other than be a boy in an unusual school. The villains put him on the back foot, and he spends the rest of the series* trying to regain a quiet, ordinary** life. Anti-heroes, on the other hand, are the ones who do good despite not being good. Think Dirty Harry, or DCI Gene Hunt from Life on Mars, or even (supposedly) Han Solo in the original trilogy. These are all people who are basically criminals in their tactics and attitudes towards the rules, but have chosen to apply their "very particular set of skills" to a good cause. Without this 1% urge to do the right thing, they'd probably be knocking over banks, instead they knock over bad guys. So there's a certain percentage of the population bored to death by "good" characters like Harry Potter and Hermione Granger, and we've got enough money to keep Severus Snape in business. *I've only read one of the books, going from the films for this. **Quiet normal life as a wizard, as shown in the last scene of the last movie, where he's showing his kids off to Hogwarts
I get the whole 'More into the bad guy' thing, though its not always that the good guy is too boring or too good, I feel that was just Harry Potter. Don't get me wrong, I am an enthusiastic Potterhead myself, but Harry is not my favourite character, to be honest, he was always too perfect, knew exactly what to do, kind, generous and very boring, unlike Percy Jackson, who is funny, idiotic, with a Lot of insecurities and with an interesting background, while all Harry had was something to pity him on, see, Percy was the good guy but one you adored, Anyway, I believe the reason the bad guy is more appealing is that mostly they have this dark past which had led them to be this bad, unfair stuff that happened with them that made them this way, love affairs that didn't end happily, family problems, always being a disappointment, being bad at academics, that kinda stuff and that makes the reader feel that they can relate with the bad guy, and feel compassionate toward them and form a kind of understanding, in the 'I get where all this evil comes from' way. Well, thats my theory...
Too many "good guys" just turn into Mary Sues. Anti-heroes tend to have more depth in terms of backstory and motivations, more shades of grey,etc. Most of all, they tend to be more relatable and fulfill the whole power-fantasy thing. Lets face it, most people if given super-powers wouldn't use them for "the greater good", they'd use them to get rich and mess with people. Basically, shades of grey mixed with attitude and issues trumps holier-than-thou goody-two-shoes. Also there's the whole "people are tired of the same old predictable story" thing. Anti-heroes add a new twist to things.
I don't think there's anything boring about traditional heroes, like Beowulf or Odysseus, or if you're a movie-watcher, Conan, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Marty Mcfly. It's possible the modern appeal to villains and particularly antiheroes partially lies in modern obsession with the too cool to care. Celebrities aren't good boys like Harry Potter- they're jaded, cynical, and hard to please. To sort of counter what Phil has said, I think many antiheroes have become the new blank canvas.
Glad you picked that up. Your explanation of the difference is excellent. Personally, I hate using the words 'hero' and 'villain' used in a writing context. I prefer the words 'protagonist' and 'antagonist.' They describe the relationship between characters, but don't actually carry moral connotations. An antagonist can be something or somebody who isn't actually 'bad.' An antagonist is simply the force which opposes the protagonist—a term for the story's central character (who might or might not be a nice person)—and makes a story happen.
Personally I like anti-heroes because they just seem more believable and "real" to me. Like the Punisher...to me, it wouldn't be completely impossible that someone would seek justice by murdering criminals in cold blood, but someone running around in spandex locking criminals up in their spare time? I have a hard time believing that. Anti-heroes are interesting because they're in the grey zone...like almost everyone and everything in real life.
IMO, the "Bad Guy" whether he is an antihero, or a villain represents the boiled-down, no nonsense, get things done character. As Lain Aschendale pointed out, villains are proactive. They have a goal, and they set about getting down to business. The Antihero (take Wolverine for example) follows the same approach. He is constantly the one in the crowd who's attitude is, fight fire with fire, and damned the consequences. We as the audience prefer it, because as you pointed out, the good guys are way too strained by morality. Think about it. When you go to a movie, and you get to the part where the good guy has the bad guy in his sites, and you as the audience are screaming in your head, "Just KILL THE BASTARD!", but they don't because of their moral hangups, you're left feeling hollow and unsatisfied, even though, satisfaction will happen later. Antihero's don't mess around with the moral hangups, and aren't afraid to kick ass off the bat. It speaks to our inner audience by saying, "I agree, let's KILL THE BASTARDS NOW!!! We'll sort it out later." For me, that feels better than someone who will eventually get to the same conclusion albeit later on, especially if it's in the name of the greater good. Moth's right, people see the world in shades of grey rather than black and white.
I hope I am not to late to join this discussion. I really have to agree with Iain Aschendale. The problem with a lot of heroes is the reactive nature of their actions. Most of them have no own ambitions of what they want to achieve or where they want to be in life. They just react to their surroundings. The villains know exactly what they want and they take action in order to fulfill their desire(at least they try). Another important thing about the villain is that his actions have to believable and logical. No one just destroys a whole city or kills people for no reason. So you give the villain a fitting background story and go deeper into his personality so the viewer or reader can understand his or her actions. Heroes are mostly good und helpful just for the sake of being good otherwise there would be no one to stop the villain. Also the character development is a very important point. The hero never changes his opinion on things. To be a realistic character the hero should struggle between "good" and "evil". The things he experiences should change his personality or his view on things. The hero should have a good reason to fight the villain. I mean if he has no reason why can't anybody else do it and save the world. I know I used the phrases good and evil and hero and villain a lot. I am sorry for that. I agree that there is no such thing as good and evil in the real world. Just people who made different decisions.
Just because there's a reason for something doesn't mean it's not good or evil. You have to know that all actions aren't morally neutral. The anti heroes are only cool because they foil the bland good hero. Without the hero and a bunch of "cool" antiheroes it gets tiresome. People rag on the moral center but when it isn't there, they miss it as too dark and too depressing.
Anti-heros give us an element we don't see very often. Take Punisher for example; the constant mind games and moral conflictions as he does the wrong things for the right reasons are on a whole different level than a simple antagonist. The way I see it, an anti-hero can be the protagonist and it's own antagonist (hence why they're so interesting).
@Phil Mitchell Sorry I expressed myself in a wrong way. Of course not all actions are morally neutral. I mean I don't believe in good and evil in human personality. But that is just my opinion.
I don't think many antiheroes are any more realistic than traditional heroes. Most people are dictated by a combination of external expectations, routine, fear, and the path of least resistance. I hardly think those are the traits we find attractive in any protagonist.
The problem with always thinking hero/villain instead of protagonist/antagonist is that the hero/villain thing can become one-dimensional. The good guy versus the bad guy. Folks talk about coming up with a few 'flaws' to stick on the hero, and a few 'good traits' (sometimes) to stick on the villain, but these don't always make for believable characters. Instead of thinking up a complex story, where nothing is certain and none of the characters are wholly good or evil but are just playing out the life that's been dealt to them, people who go the hero/villain route usually think up a very simple story, and then embellish it with details. Hero is good guy. Villain is evil guy. Villain gives hero a hard time. Hero eventually defeats villain. The end. This kind of story can become very predictible. Again, though, an anti-hero is not a villain. An anti-hero is simply a hero who isn't very heroic. Maybe he's selfish, or slobby or difficult to get along with. A Han Solo type. He plays the part of a 'hero' in the story, though, and is definitely not the 'villain.'
There is a reason they say: 'Don't be a hero.' Because 99.9% of heros die, trying to be heroic. What about just having an axe to grind? Don't get too many of those types.
I don't see why people are comparing the hero and anti hero to begin with. Both serve different purposes. Many of the best anti heroes are at their best when they have a hero to play off of. Comparing Han Solo and Luke Skywalker is pointless as no character is an island. Luke Skywalker is part of Hans's character in critical ways. Who's altruism sets up Han's witty retorts and character development? Luke. In fact I bet most people here have a traditional fish out of water everyman hero in their work. Someone to explain the world to, who can learn from the ground up. That kind of character just isn't in competition with the anti hero.
Meh. You all know that there's an inherent appeal in being bad, within limits, while being loved and praised. That's the easy road to getting your loot. The less energy you expend, the better for you. But since that also often means being an asshole, wouldn't it be sweet if your assholeness could be excused for your crimes and even celebrated in a blockbuster movie?
Because sometimes we need a break from the "I will help you all out of the goodness of my noble, pure heart!" hero, constrained by his/her world's legal laws on what s/he is or is not allowed to do. An anti-hero? They follow their own code, the legal system be damned. They'll still do the morally correct thing, but they'll do it their way.
I really have to wonder about the terminology. Hero is an archetype. The Greeks had their own idea of what that was, and the idea has morphed over time, and varied within cultures. "Hero" more of idealism, while anti-hero entails some realism with wish fulfillment added. In terms of villains and anti-heros being more productive, I'm not convinced. Everyone is reacting to something. We just are not seeing the villains back story, which I'm sure the villain thinks they're the hero of. Writing good character is more than them being good, bad, or in-between. I think it's both though. look at all the super hero movies that have been made relatively recently. I'm sure there is some physiology going onto that.