Category: Musings

A few weeks ago I posted about the Hero archetype. This week I thought I’d discuss another archetype, one related to the Hero, and that is the Anti-Hero. An Anti-Hero is a protagonist who has the opposite of most of the traditional attributes of a hero but isn’t a villain. This is a person who isn’t normally called upon to act, who would rather not be put into a heroic position (this is different from the reluctant hero), or who doesn’t act in what we would consider a traditionally heroic fashion. They are unconventional, a rebel, possibly amoral, usually a loner type, and who don’t consider themselves heroic.

Literature is littered with Anti-Heroes particularly over the last decades. Is this an effort but authors to strive for more realism? Is it because readers identify with these characters more? Take a look at characters such as Dexter Morgan , Holden Caufield in The Catcher in the Rye , Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind , and Severus Snape from the Harry Potter series. Dexter Morgan is an interesting character because it could be argued he is a villain since he himself is a serial killer yet he kills other murders thus saving society from one less villain in addition to satisfying an uncontrollable urge. In the case of Holden Caufield, the Anti-Hero becomes a symbol, like teenage rebellion, due to their nonconformity. Scarlett O’Hara starts off rich but becomes very poor leading her to make a serious of desperate choices in an effort to rise above it all. Throughout most of the Harry Potter series, Snape is portrayed as evil since he hates Harry old boy wizard hero. It’s not until the last book that Snape is redeemed and the reader finds out he has been protecting Harry all this time because of his friendship with Harry’s mother. All of these characters are outsiders, morally grey yet commit heroic acts.

In movies and TV we see the Anti-Hero archetype in John McClane in the Die Hard series, Shrek from the Shrek movies, Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer , and Veronica Mars . Once again we see a group of people who live on the fringes of society. None of them play by the rules, are their own person, have a small group of friends, if any, yet all commit heroic deeds. Sometimes their motivations are selfish, but in the end their actions do save people and they become heroes.

Just as with the Hero archetype, or any other archetype, there are several subsets within the Anti-Hero:

Cynical Anti-Hero – Think of Captain Mal Reynolds from Firefly. He or she is jaded having struggled to get through life and doesn’t believe good can triumph over evil.

Tragic Anti-Hero – Think of Esther Greenwood from The Bell Jar . He or she faces an enormous amount of struggle throughout life and their story usually ends in tragedy.

The Unscrupulous Anti-Hero – A good example of this is Captain Jack Sparrow from The Pirates of the Caribbean movies. He or she sees life in shades of grey and his or her actions reflect that. They are very amoral but aren’t truly bad or evil but they get damn close to it.

The Hero in Name Only Anti-Hero – An excellent example of this is Sherlock Holmes . Never in a million years would this character see himself or herself as a hero. They are selfish even though they direct their abilities toward capturing the bad guys. One gets the sense that at any time, some even could trigger them to switch to the dark side.

The appeal of the Anti-Hero to many readers and writers is that they are more real, more approachable then a Hero. With a typical Hero, we know he or she will prevail. Yes, he or she may pay a huge cost but he will always win. With an Anti-Hero, he or she may or may not win and may not even survive. Their journey is more intriguing with a story arc possessing more drama and uncertainty. This archetype, I think, presents a better opportunity to question social issues, gender roles, and economics amongst other themes. I think it also allows for a more complex character. That’s not to say a Hero can’t be complex, many are, it’s just there’s more transparency and are inherently good.

It took me a few months to find a writers group in my new home and so far, I’m enjoying them. But it’s been a long time since I’ve submitted a story to a physical group of writers. I feel right at home with them and have been impressed with the level of writing and feedback the group provides. This is good and bad. Good because it means I’m surrounded by people who take writing seriously. There’s also an amazing attention to detail and they provide excellent constructive criticism. What makes it bad are all of these reasons. I feel more pressure to submit an exceptional draft and because I wonder if I’ve been able to practice what I preach when I critique.

The plunge, though, must be taken. Having recently completed a rough draft of a story I am submitting for possible publication, I decided it was time to throw my name into the hat for critique. Our group actually chooses names out of hat for who goes at the next meeting. On my first attempt, my name was drawn. Hooray?

While I’m used to having people comment on my work, there is still that nugget of dread hanging over me until next Saturday’s meeting. I’m nervous enough as it is about the piece because I’m playing in someone else’s world (it’s for a shared world anthology) and because it’s in the sci-fi genre. While my writers group is very diverse, a good portion of the group really knows their sci-fi. This draft is also a bit rawer then I would normally submit to a group for a first time. For example, the first piece I submitted to my previous writers group was a story I had written for a creative writing class so it was fairly polished when submitted.

But for all the fears and anxieties I have, I know I share those with every writer and author out there. Even the greats still express fears and doubts. I struggle to recall the author’s name but he noted in an interview spending a couple of years reading about John Steinbeck’s life. Much of that research involved reading Steinbeck’s letters to his editor and even after his success he expressed fears about if he was still good enough.

The best way for me to deal with the feedback is to just let it sit for at least a week after the meeting. Then, when I’m feeling brave and am in a good mood, I’ll look over notes taken during the meeting as well as electronic copies of feedback. From previous practice, I’ve learned to comb through and choose what speaks most to me whether good or bad. It is ultimately my story yet to go in with any kind of ego about ‘I know best’ is detrimental. After all, it is important to never stop learning and growing. Even the greats and bestsellers still worry.

Recently I’ve discovered a new author as I was flipping through the stacks at my local library. I was drawn to Ngaio Marsh mainly because of the unusual first name. She writes murder mysteries, was a contemporary of Agatha Christie, and many of her books feature Detective Inspector Roderick Alleyn which span the 1930s to the 1980s. There were several of her books on the shelf so I picked one up and read the back cover. That book was Death in Ecstasy and revolves around the murder during some weird cult ceremony in 1930s London. Could be good.

Immediately I was pulled into it despite a ton of phrases I couldn’t figure out to save my life. Unique situation, unique and slimy characters, drug use (a bit of heroin anyone?), cleverly disguised murder weapon, and a detective who is obviously the smartest person in the room. He’s observant, sarcastic, funny, and charming yet don’t confuse him with a Sherlock Holmes knock off because he’s not arrogant. Also he doesn’t have a Watson type with him and actually relies upon other officers for help with evidence.

First off, I am not the biggest murder mystery fan not because of the murder part rather I am really, really terrible with figuring out whodunits. The fact I figured out the murderer at a friend’s murder mystery party floored me. I’ve realized when I do read murder mysteries it’s not so much about solving the crime, but rather the cast of characters, including the detective, the setting, the exposing of terrible secrets, and the murder method. Even when the murderer is revealed, I’m still can’t go back and connect the dots. And I consider myself a fairly competent, attentive reader.

Since then I’ve devoured another Marsh book and just started a third one. All of this reminded me of the fun it is to pick up a new author or genre. My reasons vary for why I pick up something new: could be a recommendation from friends, my own curiosity, in the mood for something different, being older and having an appreciation for the subject matter, or retrying something I’d discarded in the past. To me it is important as a reader to branch out.

It’s exciting reading a different style, a new voice, new characters, a new genre, a different take on the same story. Not only is this beneficial as a reader but good for me as a writer, too. It gives me a chance to study all of the elements that go into a story and analyze what works and doesn’t work. It can inspire me to learn more if I’m reading a story set in a different time period then what I’m familiar with. It can inspire me to read more in that genre like when I discovered Steampunk. Or it gives me a chance to let my brain zone out. No matter what the reason is, taking the plunge and trying something new, at least literary-wise, is a risk worth taking.