![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Willy Loman is most certainly an anti-hero (the modern pop-interpretation of the anti-hero as a "dark hero" not withstanding). To make that point, here's a bit from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press:
I'm starting to think that the right way to deal with this page is to nuke the examples. I know, I know, but stay with me a second. The actual content of this page is a mess, and only recently did I add a small amount of the historical context for the term. Why would that be? Well, for the most part people come to this page and see examples. They then want to add their favorites rather than doing actual research. If, rather than breaking down categories of anti-hero (and honestly, our categories are on shakey ground as O.R. in the first place), we were to make the article more about the development of the term over the course of the history of western literary criticism; contrasts with non-western literary devices; and two or three VERY historical examples, then we might actually have a shot at making this the kind of article that people benefit from reading. Just my $0.02, but think it over. Meanwhile, yes, Willy Loman is an anti-hero. - Harmil 23:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would float this one before putting it on the page. The spy/assassin was once considered contemptuously, even by the people whose side he/she was on. For example, Mata Hari from World War I. It has only been since the introduction of James Bond by Ian Flemming in the mid 20th century that the assassin/spy has gained any respectability. Even so, the spy/assassin remains outside "respectable society." Good examples (forgoing Bond, who is a bit too mainstream) would be the Jackal from Day of the Jackal and The Bride from Kill Bill. Thoughts anyone? 155.84.57.253 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In Sun Tzu's book, the art of war, which predates Christ, it argued that spies and assassins were to be reasted with respect for the work they do, and the fact that their work can stop many battles from ever taking place. In that respect spies and assassins may be considered an established type of hero. In Europian culture spies and assassins were considered villians, so it not established there as a type of hero.
I guess the matter rests in WHY and HOW they spy and assassinate. It their motives reasonably traditional, then I reacon they should be accepted as a type of hero.
It all depends on the motive and how they go about it. If they assassinate a tyrant and his main supporter because they are Evil, then the killer may be considered Good. If they did it because they disliked his beard, then they may be an antihero. If they did it after forcing them at gun point to dress up in ladies underwear and and dance while recording it on comera, just for the sake of doing so, then they are an Antihero!
Since they were considered a normal type of hero in one main type of culture, does that mean they can't be generally defined as antiheroes in general? I would like to know. Corrupt one 02:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As per my talk page, please see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html for comments and references from a well-known and respected linguist on this issue. 'They' has been a form of gender neutral pronoun since Shakespeare. CaveatLector 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Shadow the Hedgehog. So, I checked the "Shadow the Hedgehog" article on this website. One of the suggestions under "Related Topics" or whatever it is was "Anti-hero". I checked it out as well--but I didn't see Shadow anywhere on the freakin' page! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?! Shadow is an obvious example of an anti-hero! Why doesn't somebody get rid of Homer Simpson (How he got there, I don't know) and replace him with Shadow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.75.211.113 ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 March 2006.
Ignoring the fact he is an animated animal, the criteria to decide if he is or is NOT an antihero is to look at his characteristics from a non physical point of view. Also, a semi conventional type of superhero in this day and age is the Speedster, this may rule him out as an antihero. If he IF considered to be unconventional enough to be considered an antihero, he might be listed as an example of an antihero a fair number of people would be familiar with.
Corrupt one
03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Some clarifications would be nice. I mean, it is clear that Batman fits the descripcion of his category, but in the context of comics heroes, the term anti-hero wouldn't fit. I realize this article is talking about a more broad context, but if editors are to use Batman as an example there should be some clarifications. Usually, in comics context only the likes of Spawn, Venom, Catwoman, or maybe the X-men or the Hulk are considered anti-heroes.
Batman has gone anti-hero on some ocations, like the Dark Knight Returns or the 90s movies, but never on the regular continuity of his stories. And what is said about his first storyes back in the 40's is in the above section, is also taken out of context. Back then killing the bad guy was the right thing to do, there was no Comics Code Authority, mobsters got along with way to much stuff and the States was in war. The police wasn't after him, and Gordon was always supporting him. Besides, Batman left behing the guns before his creator, Bob Kane, left and way before the 60s show.
In short, what I'm asking for is a clarification stating that batman is not seen as an anti-hero in comics. You can confirm this with the editors on Batman page. Thanks.-- T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, actually I get that regardless he isn't outlaw, he is a vigilante, and vigilantes are anti-heroes. My only point is that in comics context, anti-hero is usually used for outlaws, the kind of vigilantes that not only take down the bad guy, but also punishes or kills them. You know the Punisher-Spawn-Azrael type. That's why nobody acepted the anti-hero categorization on the Batman page. I guess my objection is that both pages should be coherent with each other. Maybe, that comic notion of who is an anti-hero I'm talking about was wrong all along. But I don't like contradictions on the wikipedia. What are your thoughts on that matter?-- T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm coming straight from Cervantes words, I think there might be the slightes posibility that he kinda sort of knows a little more about the topic. Quijote without his goofyness would be a complete hero; and the models he was following was the one fron hundreds of medieval books the hidalgo read. He said what they would say, and their ideals and motifs were the exact same, the diference is that Quijote was in the wrong era and he wasn't skilled. Little weaknesses that make characters complex don't make them necesarely anti-heroes either. Noa got drunk, David had quite some mojo, Abraham fail to trust God once and Moises was kinda moody for my taste, but they wouldn't be pictured as anti-heros. Even Jesus seemed a little cranky in St. John's version. Imperfections are not enough to make a character an anti-hero, that's just character development. Ok, I'm just babbling, THE THING IS your #1 comment is just about ofending me, my point was to determine wether the anti-heros are a XX century thing or not, and you completely missed it. Instead you just write unnecesary criticism. We also clearly agree on including comics, why do you kept writing in such antagonic way? I also think Batman is fine listed there, but some explanation should be done. My proposal was explaining the concept from comics perspective. If you don't buy it try sticking the anti-hero category in batman's article. Batman editors would eat alive the person sticking it, they can be very anal about it sometimes. And please, let's agree to keep this respectful. Not because I say so, but because it's the right thing to do and nevermind if I'm not perfect we deserve to treat each other with respect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T-man, the Wise Scarecrow ( talk • contribs).
If he is a vigilante, does that mean he is a traditional type of hero? What I mean is that ALL the definitions I have come across have stated that an antihero can't be a conventional type of hero, and a vigilante appears to be a type that has become more conventional.
Corrupt one
00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss your disagreement with the current version HERE and do not just simply revert back to the Punisher example. CaveatLector Talk 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think they are both wrong: within superhero context Batman is not conceived or viewed as an anti-hero, and Dirty Harry migth be an anti-hero, but not a vigilante. Harry broke the law before quitting, but on a trial he wouldn't be acused of being a vigilante. That last one is just wrong by definition, if you enforce law either you do it as an oficer or you are a vigilante. It sounds fear to say Callahan is an anti-hero, but he doesnt qualify as a vigilante. Batman is kinda the opossite, he choosed to fight crime as a vigilante, but he doesn't take the law in his own hands. He is very observant of the law; so much that Police actually uses his servises all the time.
Probbably all superheros but Captain America are anti-heros according to the concept this article manages. But lets take, comics as a genre. Within this genre, only the vigilantes that commit murder, amputation or abuse villains are called anti-heros. Speciphically: Punisher, Spawn, Wolverine (sometimes), Hulk (too destructive), the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turttles, Lobo, Azrael, Etrigan, the Suicide Squad/Task Force X, Hitman, Deadpool, Catwoman, Venom, Rorschaw, the Comedian, V, Elektra.
Batman belongs to the comic "genre" (actually is the 9th. art, but for the sake of keeping this focused, let's stick with "genre"), and that genre uses different standards for its characters.
If this page doesn't respect the vision of the authors, it might as well include all heroes in Disney movies, they always kill the villains. That's Disney idea of heroism. Kill the bad guy, save the day, get the hot princess and go to sleep, just like in medieval times. The 7 Dwarfs might quilify as an angry mob killing an elder woman and yet they are not antiheros. That's because, if you see the movie they are not portraid as such.
This article in a contradictory way frames the antihero as a concept that started being used the last century and exposes Robin Hood, don Quijote and others as good examples. Achiles was rejected as an anti-hero because greeks didn't intended him to look as one. Well neither did Bob Kane when he created Batman. Remember: it was the 40s then. Beating the crap out of bad guys or even kill them was the right thing to do.
But that's a Batman that is not even remembered nowdays. If you think about the cannonical present-days Batman, he still isn't intended as an anti-hero, just a very practical and functional superhero.
Greeks din't view Achiles as an anti-hero, just as people in the comic "genre" media don't see Batman as an antihero. And comic "genre" is the media where Batman matters the most and has his origin. Don't buy my argument? Fine, try to stick the anti-hero category in the Batman article and you will see my point. Experts will never agree with the way this article use Batman.-- T-man, the wise 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did the creators of this article got the stereotypes from? I think we should specify where this terms come from. It seems a little mede up without any mantion of the source of these terms.-- T-man, the wise 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I want to clarify that I'm really enjoying this discussion, and all the new knoledge I'm getting from it. Thanks, man. I'm just questioning things in order to get them right, regardless which one of us is actually right (although my money is on myself, heheh).
You're right, the intention of the author is pointless. I now realize it thanks to you. Nevermind that, a hero in the 40s could kill and nobody questioned him. Just like the prince in Disney movies would kill the wicth as if it were moral behavior or the right thing to do.
Let's forget about Kane, Sprang or Burton. Talking about nowdays post-Crisis, post Batman Begins and B:TAS-Batman is the smart, practical, functional detective operating as a vigilante, aiding the police force and rescuing GC people as he sweared. He hates guns and the people who use them.
The Zorro is almost as famous, and fits better the vigilante type. That's because he is an OUTLAW vigilante. The zorro is a hero because he brakes the law and fights evil oficers while Batman is a hero because he aides the law where the police comes short. Actually, I'm starting to fail seeing Batman as an anti-hero even on the terms of this article. Robin Hood also qualifies as a better example.
Wolverine is also almost as famous and he is a massive killer. Recently, after he freed himself from the control Hydra had over him, he killed about 800 mobsters according to Nick Fury. And he still managed to become an Avenger! Ultimate Hulk, caused massive destriction whith losts of victims in New York in order to create a Showdown of the Ultimates. The TMT Turttles killed Shredder on the first issue. Do I even have to explain why popular HELL Spawn or kinda popular Punisher are better examples according to the concept of anti-hero in this page? After all those examples, you still think Batman is an anti-hero? He still hasn't kill, abuse, or mutilated a thing yet. The only thing he does not so right is the same Superman and about 90% do: not being an oficialy authorized crime-fighter. Uh, and also being cranky and kinda rude.
Greek miths, as well as all the acient tradition that eventually generated fairy tales, did intended their characters to be portraid certain ways to teach moral lessons. Achiles, Edipus and many others are heroes because the concept of hero was then measured according tho the amount of enemies and the size of the obstackes they overcame, but they had defects ant that was the point of their stories. They were arrogant, so karma or whatevah punished them. And yet geeks venerated them.
You're right this article does not frame the anti-hero concept according to context, it just describes its characteristics. I'm getting confused here. Why was Achiles out of list, again? He has all the features of an anti-hero, and he is out of the picture only because greeks idolazed him? Their concept of hero is actually our concept of a jerk or an anti-hero. (I guess nobody updated Bush about that, heheh). What they used to call hero is what we nowdays consider degeneated mass murderers... or politicians, sometimes. Our idea of heros is Firemen or even good parents. Greeks would have called them servants and wouldn't pay them any attention. So I think Achiles IS and an anti-hero even though greeks called that a hero.
I'm afraid I'm going to owe you that source to back what I said about anti-heros from comic genre perspective. Try Googling it. I just know that from years of reading Comics, mainly DC and mainly Batman (actually, 14 years and an average of 15 comics book issues per mont + internet + all superhero movies and toons + wizzard, honest. And yet I do realize even you might turn out to be even more familiar with comics than me).
Btw, good luck with your anti-hero section on batman, you are gonna need it. Most editors wont agree with you, and there is this jerk that likes to believe he owns the Batman article that just won't aloud changes like that even for 30 seconds. so be my gest... Actually, let's make this interesting: wanna bet? -- T-man, the wise 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Some separate points: Batman is not an if the ends justifies the means type of character as he has very dear ideals. He won't kill his enemies nor does he use guns, so there are definitely lines he won't cross. Also, Batman is not exactly so un-American, Bruce Wayne is handsome, rich businessman who contributes greatly to charity. I imagine we all don't fit that mold but it is something many Americans would like to be. Also, I think heroic qualities have to be seen in the light of the audiences culture. A lot of things acceptable then aren't acceptable now and vice versa.-- Thaler5 19:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Willy Loman is most certainly an anti-hero (the modern pop-interpretation of the anti-hero as a "dark hero" not withstanding). To make that point, here's a bit from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press:
I'm starting to think that the right way to deal with this page is to nuke the examples. I know, I know, but stay with me a second. The actual content of this page is a mess, and only recently did I add a small amount of the historical context for the term. Why would that be? Well, for the most part people come to this page and see examples. They then want to add their favorites rather than doing actual research. If, rather than breaking down categories of anti-hero (and honestly, our categories are on shakey ground as O.R. in the first place), we were to make the article more about the development of the term over the course of the history of western literary criticism; contrasts with non-western literary devices; and two or three VERY historical examples, then we might actually have a shot at making this the kind of article that people benefit from reading. Just my $0.02, but think it over. Meanwhile, yes, Willy Loman is an anti-hero. - Harmil 23:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would float this one before putting it on the page. The spy/assassin was once considered contemptuously, even by the people whose side he/she was on. For example, Mata Hari from World War I. It has only been since the introduction of James Bond by Ian Flemming in the mid 20th century that the assassin/spy has gained any respectability. Even so, the spy/assassin remains outside "respectable society." Good examples (forgoing Bond, who is a bit too mainstream) would be the Jackal from Day of the Jackal and The Bride from Kill Bill. Thoughts anyone? 155.84.57.253 16:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In Sun Tzu's book, the art of war, which predates Christ, it argued that spies and assassins were to be reasted with respect for the work they do, and the fact that their work can stop many battles from ever taking place. In that respect spies and assassins may be considered an established type of hero. In Europian culture spies and assassins were considered villians, so it not established there as a type of hero.
I guess the matter rests in WHY and HOW they spy and assassinate. It their motives reasonably traditional, then I reacon they should be accepted as a type of hero.
It all depends on the motive and how they go about it. If they assassinate a tyrant and his main supporter because they are Evil, then the killer may be considered Good. If they did it because they disliked his beard, then they may be an antihero. If they did it after forcing them at gun point to dress up in ladies underwear and and dance while recording it on comera, just for the sake of doing so, then they are an Antihero!
Since they were considered a normal type of hero in one main type of culture, does that mean they can't be generally defined as antiheroes in general? I would like to know. Corrupt one 02:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As per my talk page, please see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002748.html for comments and references from a well-known and respected linguist on this issue. 'They' has been a form of gender neutral pronoun since Shakespeare. CaveatLector 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Shadow the Hedgehog. So, I checked the "Shadow the Hedgehog" article on this website. One of the suggestions under "Related Topics" or whatever it is was "Anti-hero". I checked it out as well--but I didn't see Shadow anywhere on the freakin' page! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?! Shadow is an obvious example of an anti-hero! Why doesn't somebody get rid of Homer Simpson (How he got there, I don't know) and replace him with Shadow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.75.211.113 ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 March 2006.
Ignoring the fact he is an animated animal, the criteria to decide if he is or is NOT an antihero is to look at his characteristics from a non physical point of view. Also, a semi conventional type of superhero in this day and age is the Speedster, this may rule him out as an antihero. If he IF considered to be unconventional enough to be considered an antihero, he might be listed as an example of an antihero a fair number of people would be familiar with.
Corrupt one
03:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Some clarifications would be nice. I mean, it is clear that Batman fits the descripcion of his category, but in the context of comics heroes, the term anti-hero wouldn't fit. I realize this article is talking about a more broad context, but if editors are to use Batman as an example there should be some clarifications. Usually, in comics context only the likes of Spawn, Venom, Catwoman, or maybe the X-men or the Hulk are considered anti-heroes.
Batman has gone anti-hero on some ocations, like the Dark Knight Returns or the 90s movies, but never on the regular continuity of his stories. And what is said about his first storyes back in the 40's is in the above section, is also taken out of context. Back then killing the bad guy was the right thing to do, there was no Comics Code Authority, mobsters got along with way to much stuff and the States was in war. The police wasn't after him, and Gordon was always supporting him. Besides, Batman left behing the guns before his creator, Bob Kane, left and way before the 60s show.
In short, what I'm asking for is a clarification stating that batman is not seen as an anti-hero in comics. You can confirm this with the editors on Batman page. Thanks.-- T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, actually I get that regardless he isn't outlaw, he is a vigilante, and vigilantes are anti-heroes. My only point is that in comics context, anti-hero is usually used for outlaws, the kind of vigilantes that not only take down the bad guy, but also punishes or kills them. You know the Punisher-Spawn-Azrael type. That's why nobody acepted the anti-hero categorization on the Batman page. I guess my objection is that both pages should be coherent with each other. Maybe, that comic notion of who is an anti-hero I'm talking about was wrong all along. But I don't like contradictions on the wikipedia. What are your thoughts on that matter?-- T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 19:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm coming straight from Cervantes words, I think there might be the slightes posibility that he kinda sort of knows a little more about the topic. Quijote without his goofyness would be a complete hero; and the models he was following was the one fron hundreds of medieval books the hidalgo read. He said what they would say, and their ideals and motifs were the exact same, the diference is that Quijote was in the wrong era and he wasn't skilled. Little weaknesses that make characters complex don't make them necesarely anti-heroes either. Noa got drunk, David had quite some mojo, Abraham fail to trust God once and Moises was kinda moody for my taste, but they wouldn't be pictured as anti-heros. Even Jesus seemed a little cranky in St. John's version. Imperfections are not enough to make a character an anti-hero, that's just character development. Ok, I'm just babbling, THE THING IS your #1 comment is just about ofending me, my point was to determine wether the anti-heros are a XX century thing or not, and you completely missed it. Instead you just write unnecesary criticism. We also clearly agree on including comics, why do you kept writing in such antagonic way? I also think Batman is fine listed there, but some explanation should be done. My proposal was explaining the concept from comics perspective. If you don't buy it try sticking the anti-hero category in batman's article. Batman editors would eat alive the person sticking it, they can be very anal about it sometimes. And please, let's agree to keep this respectful. Not because I say so, but because it's the right thing to do and nevermind if I'm not perfect we deserve to treat each other with respect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T-man, the Wise Scarecrow ( talk • contribs).
If he is a vigilante, does that mean he is a traditional type of hero? What I mean is that ALL the definitions I have come across have stated that an antihero can't be a conventional type of hero, and a vigilante appears to be a type that has become more conventional.
Corrupt one
00:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss your disagreement with the current version HERE and do not just simply revert back to the Punisher example. CaveatLector Talk 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think they are both wrong: within superhero context Batman is not conceived or viewed as an anti-hero, and Dirty Harry migth be an anti-hero, but not a vigilante. Harry broke the law before quitting, but on a trial he wouldn't be acused of being a vigilante. That last one is just wrong by definition, if you enforce law either you do it as an oficer or you are a vigilante. It sounds fear to say Callahan is an anti-hero, but he doesnt qualify as a vigilante. Batman is kinda the opossite, he choosed to fight crime as a vigilante, but he doesn't take the law in his own hands. He is very observant of the law; so much that Police actually uses his servises all the time.
Probbably all superheros but Captain America are anti-heros according to the concept this article manages. But lets take, comics as a genre. Within this genre, only the vigilantes that commit murder, amputation or abuse villains are called anti-heros. Speciphically: Punisher, Spawn, Wolverine (sometimes), Hulk (too destructive), the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turttles, Lobo, Azrael, Etrigan, the Suicide Squad/Task Force X, Hitman, Deadpool, Catwoman, Venom, Rorschaw, the Comedian, V, Elektra.
Batman belongs to the comic "genre" (actually is the 9th. art, but for the sake of keeping this focused, let's stick with "genre"), and that genre uses different standards for its characters.
If this page doesn't respect the vision of the authors, it might as well include all heroes in Disney movies, they always kill the villains. That's Disney idea of heroism. Kill the bad guy, save the day, get the hot princess and go to sleep, just like in medieval times. The 7 Dwarfs might quilify as an angry mob killing an elder woman and yet they are not antiheros. That's because, if you see the movie they are not portraid as such.
This article in a contradictory way frames the antihero as a concept that started being used the last century and exposes Robin Hood, don Quijote and others as good examples. Achiles was rejected as an anti-hero because greeks didn't intended him to look as one. Well neither did Bob Kane when he created Batman. Remember: it was the 40s then. Beating the crap out of bad guys or even kill them was the right thing to do.
But that's a Batman that is not even remembered nowdays. If you think about the cannonical present-days Batman, he still isn't intended as an anti-hero, just a very practical and functional superhero.
Greeks din't view Achiles as an anti-hero, just as people in the comic "genre" media don't see Batman as an antihero. And comic "genre" is the media where Batman matters the most and has his origin. Don't buy my argument? Fine, try to stick the anti-hero category in the Batman article and you will see my point. Experts will never agree with the way this article use Batman.-- T-man, the wise 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did the creators of this article got the stereotypes from? I think we should specify where this terms come from. It seems a little mede up without any mantion of the source of these terms.-- T-man, the wise 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I want to clarify that I'm really enjoying this discussion, and all the new knoledge I'm getting from it. Thanks, man. I'm just questioning things in order to get them right, regardless which one of us is actually right (although my money is on myself, heheh).
You're right, the intention of the author is pointless. I now realize it thanks to you. Nevermind that, a hero in the 40s could kill and nobody questioned him. Just like the prince in Disney movies would kill the wicth as if it were moral behavior or the right thing to do.
Let's forget about Kane, Sprang or Burton. Talking about nowdays post-Crisis, post Batman Begins and B:TAS-Batman is the smart, practical, functional detective operating as a vigilante, aiding the police force and rescuing GC people as he sweared. He hates guns and the people who use them.
The Zorro is almost as famous, and fits better the vigilante type. That's because he is an OUTLAW vigilante. The zorro is a hero because he brakes the law and fights evil oficers while Batman is a hero because he aides the law where the police comes short. Actually, I'm starting to fail seeing Batman as an anti-hero even on the terms of this article. Robin Hood also qualifies as a better example.
Wolverine is also almost as famous and he is a massive killer. Recently, after he freed himself from the control Hydra had over him, he killed about 800 mobsters according to Nick Fury. And he still managed to become an Avenger! Ultimate Hulk, caused massive destriction whith losts of victims in New York in order to create a Showdown of the Ultimates. The TMT Turttles killed Shredder on the first issue. Do I even have to explain why popular HELL Spawn or kinda popular Punisher are better examples according to the concept of anti-hero in this page? After all those examples, you still think Batman is an anti-hero? He still hasn't kill, abuse, or mutilated a thing yet. The only thing he does not so right is the same Superman and about 90% do: not being an oficialy authorized crime-fighter. Uh, and also being cranky and kinda rude.
Greek miths, as well as all the acient tradition that eventually generated fairy tales, did intended their characters to be portraid certain ways to teach moral lessons. Achiles, Edipus and many others are heroes because the concept of hero was then measured according tho the amount of enemies and the size of the obstackes they overcame, but they had defects ant that was the point of their stories. They were arrogant, so karma or whatevah punished them. And yet geeks venerated them.
You're right this article does not frame the anti-hero concept according to context, it just describes its characteristics. I'm getting confused here. Why was Achiles out of list, again? He has all the features of an anti-hero, and he is out of the picture only because greeks idolazed him? Their concept of hero is actually our concept of a jerk or an anti-hero. (I guess nobody updated Bush about that, heheh). What they used to call hero is what we nowdays consider degeneated mass murderers... or politicians, sometimes. Our idea of heros is Firemen or even good parents. Greeks would have called them servants and wouldn't pay them any attention. So I think Achiles IS and an anti-hero even though greeks called that a hero.
I'm afraid I'm going to owe you that source to back what I said about anti-heros from comic genre perspective. Try Googling it. I just know that from years of reading Comics, mainly DC and mainly Batman (actually, 14 years and an average of 15 comics book issues per mont + internet + all superhero movies and toons + wizzard, honest. And yet I do realize even you might turn out to be even more familiar with comics than me).
Btw, good luck with your anti-hero section on batman, you are gonna need it. Most editors wont agree with you, and there is this jerk that likes to believe he owns the Batman article that just won't aloud changes like that even for 30 seconds. so be my gest... Actually, let's make this interesting: wanna bet? -- T-man, the wise 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Some separate points: Batman is not an if the ends justifies the means type of character as he has very dear ideals. He won't kill his enemies nor does he use guns, so there are definitely lines he won't cross. Also, Batman is not exactly so un-American, Bruce Wayne is handsome, rich businessman who contributes greatly to charity. I imagine we all don't fit that mold but it is something many Americans would like to be. Also, I think heroic qualities have to be seen in the light of the audiences culture. A lot of things acceptable then aren't acceptable now and vice versa.-- Thaler5 19:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)