Some advice

[Nturtle]

No, antiheros are protagonists without typical hero qualities.

Batman is definitely an anti-hero, he is plainly not a nice guy, at all.

Spiderman, Theseus, Arthur and Robin Hood aren't really antiheros...

Odysseus croses the line a couple times on his journey, like all the affairs he has with all those women. But he too sticks a lot to his principals and word.

Okay, so I gereralized a lot!

[Lone Wolf]

Batman is definately a hero. While dark and brooding, he is definately a "nice guy". He values human life, he upholds strong unwavering values, and is consistent in behavior that is beneficial to himself (from his defendable point of view) and other people of "worth". He faces bravely and overcomes any obstacles that may come into his path. He is a pillar of integrity at every level.

Here are some dictionary definitions of hero:

1.A man of distinguished valor or enterprise in danger, or fortitude in suffering; a prominent or central personage in any remarkable action or event; hence, a great or illustrious person.

2.A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.

3.A person noted for special achievement in a particular field

The Punisher may be regarded as an anti-hero as he uses immoral means for an ostensibly moral purpose.

Sorry for being such a hard ass but I love Batman and if you read comics like Dark Knight Returns and Kingdom Come, you'll understand why I am so adamant about this .

[ForSquirtleMyNurtle]

[quote="Lone Wolf"] The Punisher may be regarded as an anti-hero as he uses immoral means for an ostensibly moral purpose.


how does that not also describe Batman? Vigilantism is, if not outright immoral, at least amoral. Heroes are truly virtuous and pure beings. What makes Batman a great character is that he is NOT virtuous, he is driven by guilt and anger and his motivations are mixed. Heroes, in the traditional sense, are very boring sorts, really.

As for my Christ-myth comparison to Batman, you're right that it's harder to pin down than Superman. Superman, afterall, comes from another world, but lives as a normal man until he is needed to save humanity. Batman is not as clear-cut a depiction, certainly not in comparison to the literal christ myth as portrayed in the Gospels. But the christ myth, as heretic pointed out, is broader that JC himself and essentially hinges on the idea of the figure of suffering. Batman suffers while serving humankind, he has no real chance of happiness despite his obscene wealth etc . . . his destiny is to suffer for the good of other people. THAT is the Christ myth.

I won't touch the antiheroic debate, even though I think Batman is clearly an antihero, and I also do not think that should be taken negatively.

[Kali]

Anti-hero: This is not a negative term. An anti-hero is more or less a punk/loner/bad boy/girl type who doesn't seem, at first glance, to be a hero, or even a good person. Like a biker who jumps in to save a lady getting attacked by a gang, then claims he was "only looking for a fight." Deep down, they're good people, and their morals push them to do good, but heaven forbid they show it!

I can't think of any good examples.

[Leo_Ninjitsu]

Wow.
*gets confused*
Well really anyone can be a hero.
Even if people have seen you as a baddy.

[raphael_is_cool]

I thought an anti-hero was a hero sort that did things maybe more violently or in an uncouth manner like Dirty Harry

[Leo_Ninjitsu]

Maybe....
Cause u never really see any super hero kill the enemy.
They usually kick his arse and leave him.

[Lone Wolf]

[quote="ForSquirtleMyNurtle"]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf

The Punisher may be regarded as an anti-hero as he uses immoral means for an ostensibly moral purpose.


how does that not also describe Batman? Vigilantism is, if not outright immoral, at least amoral. Heroes are truly virtuous and pure beings. What makes Batman a great character is that he is NOT virtuous, he is driven by guilt and anger and his motivations are mixed. Heroes, in the traditional sense, are very boring sorts, really.

Are the police evil? Does society determine the morality of coercion? Are 1984's officers considered "heroic"? Surely the line of moral force is not drawn within the confines of particular social systems. Batman never kills, he respects a moral judicial system, and thus implicitly the value and sanctity of human life. The Punisher kils wantonly, often murdering drug dealers or suspects that lack iron clad cases against them. Batman prevents the vicious use of force against innocents, and does to greatest degree of his judgement. The Punisher gets his jollies from the pain and destruction of malignant figures, not through the preservation of life.

It is stated clearly throughout the mythos of Batman that his crusade is undertaken to ensure " that what happened to me would never happen again". Read Paul Dini's War On Crime and tell me Batman is not a virtuous figure.

Originally Posted by ForSquirtleMyNurtle

As for my Christ-myth comparison to Batman, you're right that it's harder to pin down than Superman. Superman, afterall, comes from another world, but lives as a normal man until he is needed to save humanity. Batman is not as clear-cut a depiction, certainly not in comparison to the literal christ myth as portrayed in the Gospels. But the christ myth, as heretic pointed out, is broader that JC himself and essentially hinges on the idea of the figure of suffering. Batman suffers while serving humankind, he has no real chance of happiness despite his obscene wealth etc . . . his destiny is to suffer for the good of other people. THAT is the Christ myth..

Batman does not suffer for mankind. His aid towards its preservation and enrichment is the most he can do to ease HIS suffering, not the other way around. He is most at peace when justice is enacted, and the good is upheld. Even Superman acknowledges Batman as the greatest, most respected ally he has ever known.

As a side note,Cyrano De Bergerac and Howard Roark are both figures who defy the Christ archetype and remain pillars of virtue and integrity, and are two of literatures most poignant figures of heroism.




.

I won't touch the antiheroic debate, even though I think Batman is clearly an antihero, and I also do not think that should be taken negatively.

I don't take it "negatively" necessarily. It is just clear to me that Batman is not. His character is too unyielding and his moral code far too righteous and consistent for him to be considered an antihero.

An antihero is a protaganist who does not posses heroic values or virtues.

Examples: Rodja Raskolnikov of Crime and Punishment
Protaganist of any Michael Chabon novel
Protaganist of any James Joyce novel
Marlow of Heart of Darkness

[ForSquirtleMyNurtle]

I am not sure that any protagonist without traditional heroic virtues is an antihero. Raskolnikov is an antihero, I'll agree with that. But Chabon's characters? How are Kavalier and Klay antiheroes? In fact, Kavalier is definitely a hero and Klay is mostly outside the framework. Wonderboys, I'll admit, is packed with antiheroes. Antiheroes must actively resist heroic values. The same goes for Marlow in Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim and the other Marlow books. Conrad was never much interested in heroics, and its what made him perhaps the only adventure genre novelist to be recognized as a certified genius (btw: i'm write my thesis on Conrad and Faulkner, though not on heroes but on their creations of moral systems, which is certainly similar territory). In fact, it's unclear whether or not Marlow is the protagonist of any of those novels at all (mostly Darkness, since Lord Jim is certainly at thecenter of Lord Jim). And even if he is, he is an amoral and ambiguous figure throughout the novel, so how can he be classified as an antihero? I won't go for Joyce, because interpretting Joyce isn't something I'm prepared to do at 5 AM on a TMNT board.

Batman remains an antihero not because he lacks virtue but because his virtue is skewed. He acts without any legitimate authority, under an assumed identity, for reasons of his own. His methods may be fairly decent, but the difference between Batman and a police officer is that the police serve publicly, openly and with the consent of those they serve. Vigilantes are always antiheroes, even if they don't kill indiscriminately.

And of course moral force absolutely IS drawn by the society in which the action takes place. We like to think of morals as being universal, but morality is constructed in specific ways to serve specific needs. So, in a society predicated on the rule of law, acting outside and above the law can never be called heroic, because it undermines the very foundation of the society, even if it "serves good ends." At best, we might call Batman an existential hero, in the sense that he creates a moral universe that works FOR HIM and rejects the parts of the "universal" (i.e. social) moral framework that he has no use for. More Camus's Stranger than Homer's Odysseus. But I think even that fails to convey properly the negative space Batman lives in. So, he's an anithero.

And he may do what he does to "relieve his suffering" but the fact that his suffering is at the center of the action retains his link to the Christ-figure. There are many ways to relieve one's suffering: when that way is the service of mankind, one is Christlike. And who says Christ-figures must be heroic? An antihero christ is perfectly plausible.

Thanks for the debate. It's invigorating.

[heretic888]

Batman remains an antihero not because he lacks virtue but because his virtue is skewed. He acts without any legitimate authority, under an assumed identity, for reasons of his own. His methods may be fairly decent, but the difference between Batman and a police officer is that the police serve publicly, openly and with the consent of those they serve. Vigilantes are always antiheroes, even if they don't kill indiscriminately.

I guess by your definition the feudal Ninja would be "antiheroes", too. As would the TMNT.

Neither kill indiscriminately, or even do much killing at all (if it can be avoided). But, what they are doing is definitely for their own reasons and they do not have any "legitimate" or "public" authority to do what it is they do. I would argue that both examples (the feudal age Iga-gumi and Koga-gumi, and the TMNT) are indeed possessed of moral "virtue" but are not "legitimized" by any means --- mostly out of necessity rather than preference.

And of course moral force absolutely IS drawn by the society in which the action takes place. We like to think of morals as being universal, but morality is constructed in specific ways to serve specific needs.

You seem to be skewing the dilineation between morality and legality. Some "morals" are indeed universal, while others are not. Even cross-cultural studies demonstrate this.

I would suggest that culturally relative "morals" are simple legalities and do not refer to "justice" in the universal sense.

So, in a society predicated on the rule of law, acting outside and above the law can never be called heroic, because it undermines the very foundation of the society, even if it "serves good ends." At best, we might call Batman an existential hero, in the sense that he creates a moral universe that works FOR HIM and rejects the parts of the "universal" (i.e. social) moral framework that he has no use for. More Camus's Stranger than Homer's Odysseus. But I think even that fails to convey properly the negative space Batman lives in. So, he's an anithero.

By this logic, the members of the Underground Railroad during 19th century United States are also "antiheroes".

And he may do what he does to "relieve his suffering" but the fact that his suffering is at the center of the action retains his link to the Christ-figure. There are many ways to relieve one's suffering: when that way is the service of mankind, one is Christlike. And who says Christ-figures must be heroic? An antihero christ is perfectly plausible.

*nods* Indeed.

[Lone Wolf]

I will give you Marlow, but he is on a thin line simply because his character is not well developed in HOD.


Heretic brought in some good points. Without getting philosophical (which Heretic implicity did, using concrete examples) the authors representation (the "world" he creates) will play a predominant role in the "heroism" of a characters actions. Merely working within or without the confines of "the law" hardly matters in terms of the characters classification ESTHETICALLY speaking. All that matters is the characters behavior by the standards of the universe THE AUTHOR has created. In a corrupt social system, Robin Hood is most certainly a hero, a champion of the oppressed.

Certainly Christ figures can be anti-heroes... Ayn Rand for one pushed that concept to its limits.

Originally Posted by Forsquirtle

And he may do what he does to "relieve his suffering" but the fact that his suffering is at the center of the action retains his link to the Christ-figure. There are many ways to relieve one's suffering: when that way is the service of mankind, one is Christlike.

Batman would bring a criminal to justice even if there was noone around that he could harm, because to his mind justice is the criterion of actions, not "mankind". Batman's outlook on what he does is nearly diametrically opposed to Supermans. Observe:


" Batman: WAR on CRIME "
" Superman: PEACE on EARTH. "

Suffering may be the base of the Christ arcehtype, but so is selfless heroism. Batman is far from selfless; he is the most selfish and aristocratic of any hero in the DC Universe. In addition, suffering is no longer the sole central motivation of his character.

I wish I had the time to go further in depth, but alas the days are constrained so here are a few quick hits:

In an episode of Justice League (echoing the sentiments of many printed issues) Batman says to an alternate Universe Batman about the 1984 like Utopia he has helped set up: "Mom and Dad would love it here don't you think?". There is no more crime, humanity could be argued (and is throughout the duration of the program, with much waffling within the ranks of the protaganists) to be better off, but the alternate Batman is swayed and betrays his allies, because inherent in the nature of Batman is HIS LOYALTY TO JUSTICE, not service to "mankind" persay. His parents exist within his mind as the concretization of values that they instilled in him, the same values he fights keeps alive through the choices he has made.

Last one, though I could go for days: In an issue of Tales of the Dark Knight, Superman asks Batman to look up some files on a Woman that has been resigned to Death Row. (There is a lot of great, character revealing dialogue in there, but I'll stick to what is relevant). Superman keeps attempting to make justifications for the crime the woman has commited. Batman shoots back " So what? People have been killing each other since Kane slew Abel. There is always a reason." He goes on to condemn the murder regardless of the circumstances (possible adultery). Superman responds: "If there is a hope to save this woman, a straw I can grab at, I will. That is the choice I must make." (Paraphrasing). I believe this illustrates the dichotomy between Batmans code of values and those inherent in the Christ archetype.

[ForSquirtleMyNurtle]

There are a few interesting points and some of my earlier statements need clarification. Heretic mentioned that the ninja and the TMNT would be considered antiheroes under my definition, and Lone Wolf uses Robin Hood as another example. I will admit that I'm walking a thin line, and I've probably crossed and re-crossed it many times, but that's the joy of working with characters who are interesting and not flat. But Robin Hood and the ninja do not fit my definition of antiheroes because when I speak of working within the confines of the law I am speaking very specifically about liberal republican societies. Our society is based on a codified set of laws and a complex system to ensure the fairness of those laws. Vigilantes tear that system apart by refusing to think of "fairness" at all and in refusing to submit to the will of the people or to higher authority. Robin Hood and the feudal ninja lived in feudal systems, which are marked by arbitrary rule by nonrepresentative governments. In such a sytem there is no "law" to speak of, there is only order. Undermining that order can be quite heroic, in a popular sense. But the same is not true in our world. If an artist were to write a story in which the police were corrupt and someone fought against them, this would be heroic, because the police themselves are violating the social system they have vowed to protect. But Batman believes in justice and believes in the police, he just feels the police are inefficient in apprehending the guilty. Therefore, he remains dedicated to the system while subverting it. Nothing could be MORE antiheroic.

As for the underground railroad, the undergrounders are undeniably heroes to us, and were seen as heroes to portions (very small portions) of the white voting public at the time, but the fact that their methods violated the law means that it would be difficult to consider them heroes in the time and context of their actual lives. Their importance as heroes only becomes apparent when their side has won the Civil War and abolitionists seize the US government and the mainstream culture. Lincoln, himself a great tragic hero, would never for a moment have conisdered the underground railroad as a heroic enterprise and even many abolitionists who believed in working within the democratic system of the united states would have been opposed. That's why morality cannot be seen as universal. Slavery was considered a high moral duty by southern plantation owners and by the ancient greeks and many people in between. It is clear to us that it is morally repugnant and monstrous, but claiming that that means it is a "universal" value is to assume that our morals are the only perfect morals in the universe and all others are faulty. A little hubristic, in my view.


In your statements about the christ-myth, Lone Wolf, you actually help to prove my antihero argument. If Batman is a selfish aristocrat how can be conceivably be a "hero?" unless you are making the argument that Batman's creators were exalting aristocratic values (Austen's aristocrats are heroes, but Austen believed in aristocracy) over democractic ones, which I seriously doubt is the case. Heroes, in a classical sense (and the only sense in which I think it has meaning) must be selfless as well as courageous and dedicated ot higher virtues. See Achilles falling to his death while swinging his sword, unafraid to die for his country. So, if Batman cannot be called a hero, and yet he is a "superhero" in a comic book universe that explicitly uses heroic devices, than he must be an antihero. There is no in-between space for him to occupy.

As for the christ-myth, I will bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. I still maintain that Batman can be seen as a christ-figure, inasmuch as he suffers and serves mankind, even if that is not his overriding objective or thought. He may be a subconscious, Freudian christ, but he is a christ nonetheless. And I will never try to make a solid argument that he is a "perfect christ", or even as christlike as many other superheroes, but in particular Superman, the christiest of a christy lot.

[Lone Wolf]

Okay, I think we are running this topic ragged so I will just say this in response:

You continue to define hero in ideological terms. We are discussing literature, and therefore must examine and dissect the DRAMATIC definition of a hero. That a hero must be "selfless" is a philosophical assertion. Many characters defy that, and yes Batman is a hero in Batman comics. In Superman crossovers he may be viewed as an anti-hero at times due to the skewing of its authors. In the classical Batman mythos, however, Batman is a hero. To see the hero archetype you've upheld blown to smithereens, read The Dark knight Returns, where the "selfless, altruistic" Superman is the anti-hero. That is all I am getting at.

Whether or not morality is universal is again a philosophical question. In Literature, however, Morality is ALWAYS contextual, with the context being the circumstances the author creates as the impetus/consequences of the protaganists actions.

[ForSquirtleMyNurtle]

You're right. This discussion has reached the end-limit where disagreements can't be bridged, and probably shouldn't. However, I will make my concluding statement this: your distinction between literature, ideology and philosophy doesn't quite work. No work of literature is truly independent of philosophy, ideology or the "real world." Authors who think they are writing this way (like Vladmir Nabokov) are deluded and few do actually think that. All literature is written in reaction to the world the author lives in and therefore the moral universe he creates is a reflection of that in which he lives (it may be critical of that in which he lives, to be sure, but it is still a reflection.) My views on literature have always been fairly ideological, and I've always been most impressed with ideological novelists (Faulkner, Conrad and Lawrence for instance), so I understand where our differing views on the purposes of literature can be in conflict and skew the ways in which we argue and make it impossible for us to find agreement. But I don't think that in the current postmodern climate that it can be in any way denied that art is a part of, as well as a reflection of, the society that produces it and therefore those social standards CAN be used to interpret the work over and against "authorial intent" (a concept which most of us accept as being limited anyway: authors often write things they never intended to write . . .)

So, Batman remains an antihero in my view and will remain a hero in yours. Thanks for the debate, as far off topic as it veered.

Back on topic: I've nearly finished my TMNT prospectus but I'm not sure it's working out that well . . . I'm not sure the turtles have the kind of long-standing social impact of the older charactes that I'm sure most writers will be dealing with, and as this discussion of Superman/Batman points out, there is a tremendous amount of canonical literature on other characters and a fairly limited amount on the turtles . . .still I'm hopeful.