Quote:
Originally Posted by MelC
Your post made me think about what definition I was using for anti-hero - I had a vague idea that it meant a bad or seriously flawed character that we like despite ourselves and that the story may involve some sort of reluctant redemption moment for that character. On looking it up, the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms defines it as:
anti-hero or anti-heroine , a central character in a dramatic or narrative work who lacks the qualities of nobility and magnanimity expected of traditional heroes and heroines in romances and epics . Interestingly it doesn't seem to matter whether we like the character or not or whether the character ever does anything we would view as "heroic" in the course of the book. Hmmm. I think I can still maintain my opinion though that Zaphod definitely lacks the qualities of a traditional hero and is therefore an anti-hero 
Mel |
I’ve never looked the term up before, but rather always worked on the assumption that I knew perfectly well what it means. Every time I’ve encountered it in the past, it referred to a protagonist who had major characters flaws, yet always managed to fight and win the good fight despite those flaws. In short, I’ve always thought of anti-heroes as being defined more by negative attributes they possess rather by positive attributes they lack.
The Wikipedia definition would seem to back this up: “In fiction, an antihero (feminine: antiheroine) is a protagonist archetype whose character or goals are antithetical to traditional heroism.”
But the Encarta dictionary in MS Word defines antihero as “the central character in a story who is not a traditionally brave or good hero.” This seems more in line with the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms definition which you quoted.
In short, there is more to the term than I realized, and I stand corrected. You are right, Zaphod Beeblebrox most definitely lacks the qualities of a traditional hero.