What Measure Is A Non-Hero?

Continuing to blog about literature in general rather than about particular works, I must mention that today in class Dr. Brewton brought up the subject of heroes and anti-heroes, and asked us to define what an anti-hero was. I said it was, "a protagonist who doesn't act very heroic," and he didn't seem to think that was it.

I have never understood why the protagonist is always assumed to be the hero. The protagonist is the main character, but they may not be the actual hero of the story. Usually, they are. The audience is supposed to sympathize with them. But then there are some works of fiction, like The Lord of the Rings, where Aragorn, the rightful king battling the evil forces of Mordor, who would normally be the hero in another work, instead takes second place to little Frodo taking the Ring to Mordor to destroy it.

Who's the hero now?

The term 'anti-hero' has been used so much that I think part of its meaning may have become lost or subverted over time. TVTropes seems to confirm this guess. It also identifies five variations of anti-heroes, ranging all the way from unwilling heroes, like Bilbo Baggins, to people who are heroes in name only.

I think anti-villains should also be mentioned. They are villains who are not very villainous. The audience generally wants them to join the good guys. Man, is Intelligent Systems bad about this. At least, in Fire Emblem (a strategy RPG I'm fond of and which very few people seem to know about) there is always one character on the enemy's side who is morally sound and knows he is on the wrong side but for whatever reason - honor, etc. - remains on that side and dies with stupidity and honor.

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID CAMUS. Things could have worked out so well and the next war might have been averted if only you had switched sides!!! Gah.

Sorry, minor tangent.

Since pictures are supposedly worth a thousand words and most people like pictures more than reading through a wall of text, I think illustrating the difference between heroes and anti-heroes via images from modern media would be a good idea.

Oh, and Dr. Brewton said there are no true heroes. Let's take a look and see.

Captain America

Now, I think most people would agree that Steve Rogers, more commonly known as Captain America, is a hero. He has all the qualities, and no actual superpowers (he's basically just a man whom 'science' elevated to the peak of physical condition). And he remains a good man.

When Dr. Brewton was talking about anti-heroes, what actually was running through my mind was a conversation from Marvel's The Avengers. (Yes, that is the full and proper name of that movie.) I can't remember exactly how it goes, but Steve says something along the lines of, "You're not the guy to make the sacrifice place, to lie down on a wire and let the other guy crawl over you." And guess who responds with, "I think I would just cut the wire."

Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man

Tony Stark is much more of an anti-hero than Steve Rogers. How much Tony is an anti-hero is up for debate, as I see some definite character development over the course of the movies he's been in so far. We see him as a partying playboy in Iron Man and Iron Man 2, but he comes to realize what is being done with his technology and try to stop it. He abandons his womanizing ways for Pepper. And at the end of The Avengers he's the one who takes the nuclear bomb to the Chitauri when, as far as he knows, the cost is his life.

Still not entirely heroic, but hopefully getting there.

A better example would probably be this guy:

Wolverine

This is a good time to state my confusion as to why everyone loves Wolverine so much. I mean, really. Sure, he can beat up stuff with ease and heal from everything. He's probaby the most popular comic book character from any X-Men series. And yes, his claws are cool.

However, with me personality counts for more than appearance and ability to beat up enemies, and I don't like Wolverine. This is probably an appropriate time for me to start an Internet war and admit that I like Cyclops better than Wolverine.

I'm serious.

Let us proceed to more heroes!

Bilbo Baggins

Yes, he just won the MTV Best Hero award, but the point is that Bilbo Baggins is a Type I anti-hero, at least to begin with, as TVTropes classifies them. He is a reluctant hero; he doesn't have any particularly heroic traits. He's just a hobbit who would have preferred to stay in Bag-End, but who was dragged into an epic quest by Gandalf and the dwarves. He isn't terribly useful to begin with, and has no clue what to do with a sword when he gets one.

Over time, however, he does find his courage. And he ends up saving the dwarves multiple times, and becomes a true hero. There and back again.

Samwise Gamgee and Frodo Baggins

Did you know that J. R. R. Tolkien actually considered Sam to be the hero of The Lord of the Rings? Well, he did. Sam represents the ordinary person who is capable of great and heroic things. Frodo has everything he has learned from Bilbo to go on. Still, they are both heroes. Frodo spends so much of himself, body and soul, sacrifing himself down to the last drop to get the Ring to Mordor. Sam battles a giant spider demigoddess (no joke - read The Silmarillion) and carries Frodo up Mount Doom. They are heroic in every sense.

To make it worse, Frodo had to lose the Shire for himself so that others might keep it. There was no going 'there and back again', not for him. I am beginning to wonder if it was not the same for Bilbo, underneath everything, too.

And then there's this to be said, from lotrconfessions.tumblr:

Yes, Dr. Brewton, there are heroes, even if they exist only in our imagination. And I think it is vital that heroes exist, even if it is only in our imagination. I believe that when humanity loses its heroic ideal it has lost its compass, and we become than the apes of the jungle. Not because we are cruel, for animals can be cruel as well, but because we are cruel when we could be otherwise.

When we have lost our heroic ideal, we are doomed. Notice what the picture above says. Aragorn is portrayed, not as 'men should be', for should indicates passive necessity, but as 'men must be', which indicates active necessity. It is not only a good thing that men should be like Aragorn, but an obligation. An absolute necessity.

Otherwise, we are lost.

In Pace Christi,

Elyse

P.S. Our inability to pronounce African names led us to call one character 'Ike'. Since I have already mentioned Fire Emblem, I'd just like to say that this is Ike:

Those who play Smash Brothers will recognize him. They will also probably know he fights for his friends. Did you know he never actually says that in the game?

Yes, I read gamescripts...