What makes an anti-hero relatable

I think nearly all main characters need to be driven to achieve something. They have goals and ambitions, and there are obstacles and hardships in between them and their goals. We follow them because we empathise with their struggle to achieve something.

The characteristic that defines an anti-hero - for me - is that the objective they are trying to achieve is not one that I share. They might be trying to destroy something, or to gain power, or to gain some pleasure that I don't understand. They may also be capable of doing things to achieve their aim that I would consider abhorrent.

One classic example would be Hannibal Lecter. Robert Harris starts out by using a serial killer and cannibal as the antagonist (Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs), but then takes us inside his head by using him as a protagonist (Hannibal, Hannibal Rising).

We follow Lecter because we empathise with his struggle to achieve something. He is an anti-hero because of what he is trying to achieve and how he does it.

I'm sure there's a better description of anti-hero out there. This is the one that works for me.

Being knocked around a lot by life. Most people feel that they've been knocked around to some degree, so when they see a character suffering the same indignities they immediately identify with them, even if their morals are questionable.

The dictionary definition appears to be 'A character who lacks the traditional heroic values/virtues', and since most of us lack at least some of the traditional heroic virtues too there's a lot of room there to be relatable. In my experience antiheroes often (but not always) happen in harsher worlds, where heroes wouldn't fit but the job still needs doing, or in the harsher corners of more ordinary worlds. They're a 'what if' - what if a hero's entire family was gunned down by the mafia in Central Park, what if a physically weak emperor who thought about morality was usurped by his physically stronger cousin who didn't, what if someone who was hated and reviled by society had an unwavering moral code and no memory of what happened beyond a few years ago, and so on.

My favourite sort of antihero is the sort above. Moral code, competent fighter, willing to do what they believe should be done. There are many other sorts of antihero out there - cowards, cannibals, and so on - but those are mine.

Most anti-heroes I can think of aren't really there to be related to. They're interesting, intriguing and extremely well written but their writer seems to intend to engage us in other ways.

What makes an anti-hero relatable is the same as what makes any character relatable -- we recognize something of ourself in that character. For example, we feel the way they would, or could see ourselves reacting the way they do (or wish we could react the way they do, but we're too polite.)

My example is Dexter, from the Darkly Dreaming Dexter books and the television show. He's a serial killer who only kills bad people, so he's a monster -- but as a character, he taps into the human desire for justice and/or vengeance.

Who hasn't watched some awful news story about an atrocity and wished the person/people responsible would just die? Who hasn't felt that kind of impotent rage? Dexter is that wish -- to do harm, but only to those who deserve it -- turned into a character.

That's why he's relatable, even though he's a terrible, terrible person. We recognize his motivation as an emotion we've felt also (if not acted upon.) Anti-heroes are just characters that mirror our darker impulses rather than our better ones.

The majority of anti-heroes were not born evil, but bad things(bad people) in the past forced them to become cruel and tough. So I think that makes an anti-hero relatable.

[h=2]"What makes an anti-hero relatable"[/h]
When he's played by a sexy actor?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0BxrdgFEwQ

^apols if I mustn't link youtube...

I don't know. I'll tell you when I read one I truly find relatable.

Personally, I prefer antiheroes as a good spice. They're fun for me as secondary characters or minor POV characters. But I've found very few books with an antihero MC that I've actually enjoyed. Of course, I might be using a narrow definition of antihero. I'm thinking of your Jorgs and Gloktas and Thomas Covenants.

I'm much better with anti-villains. They're fun characters to read and write.

Hmm, depends on what you mean by anti hero. If you mean the kind who is basically a decent person who just has a major flaw they have trouble controlling, or who is on the outside of society, or who chooses to take extreme measures for the greater good, then it's not hard to make them relatable, even likable. Especially if the character grows or has a redemption arc of some kind.

But if you mean the kind of antihero who is genuinely evil, or who has goals most of us would think are evil, or who does genuinely and unambiguously evil things in pursuit of a more laudable goal? Well, there are plenty of examples of these too.

From what I've seen of this type of antihero who have been popular lately in fantasy, a lot of it resides in their voice or attitude. Their snark, wit and charm draw readers in, much as the snark, wit, and charm of real-live antisocial personality types can be appealing (at least in measured doses). They make the reader feel like they're part of an inner circle that really "gets" how things and people are, at least in the context of the story. And I suspect we all have a somewhat snarky or misanthropic voice inside our own heads at times, often triggered when people seem to be getting what we deem as excessively self-righteous, cute, or precious about something. As basically good people, we rarely (if ever) let that voice or attitude out to play, but it can be liberating to be temporarily drawn into a character who does.

Just my thoughts on it.

Polite helps.

Look, I know that's a really weirdly specific one, but I think of the anti-heroes I actually like, like Hannibal Lector and Gerald Tarrant and Magneto and Loki, and they're polite. (Well, Magneto's politeness level depends on who's writing him, I guess. Still.) Not that they don't do horrific things, but they're generally very suave and courteous while doing it. Loki, sure, it's a snarky sort of polite, but he's still not frothing and wiping his nose on the tablecloth.

I don't actually care about the horrible backstory hard-knock life thing. I have to like the character to begin with before I'm willing to give them a pass because their life was awful. Otherwise I just sit there going "Yeah, well, lots of people had crappy lives, and they didn't become supervillains, so enough already with the woe-is-me self-justifications." (Actually, I kind of respect "Nope, my life was great. I'm just evil. That's how it goes.")

I think Roxxsmom nails it with the snark and the wit and charm. Those help a lot. It's usually easy to want to spend time with good people, but if somebody's evil, you have to provide the reader with a reason to want to spend time with them. Hannibal Lector was cultured and smart and interesting. Everybody else in those books was flat by comparison, and I kept yelling "Get back to Lector! I want to hear more about how you cook a brain!"

...possibly I've said too much.

rwm4768 said:

But I've found very few books with an antihero MC that I've actually enjoyed. Of course, I might be using a narrow definition of antihero. I'm thinking of your Jorgs and Gloktas and Thomas Covenants.

Click to expand...

It's a delicate line for an author to tip-toe around. I love Jorg of Ancrath, who starts the series as a complete f'ing monster, but I loathed Thomas Covenant, even though his worst crime is exactly the same one Jorg is guilty of. There's got to be something the reader can relate to, and with Thomas Covenant, I thought he was detestable from start to finish. Jorg had a powerful goal and lack of giving-a-shit that I could respect.

To elaborate further on the wit and snark thing. I've known a couple of people who are a bit like this in real life. Okay, maybe not crossing the line into true anti social personalities, but with a bit of a mean streak. Their sense of humor has an edge to it, and they're not above giving people a hard time for their idiosyncrasies, foibles and social awkwardness. But the humor can really bite to the point of being embarrassing, even hurtful. Yet these guys (the ones I know are all guys, but there's a kind of mean girl analog, maybe) are popular. I think it's because these guys run in packs (and they only employ their barbed wit when they're with a group of people). So if one is with them and four other people, said wit is hilarious 4/5 of the time and only painful or humiliating 1/5 of the time.

Eric Cartman comes to mind, though the guys I know who are like this are better looking and more attractive themselves, and their barbed humor is a bit more sophisticated.

Some of the polite, charming anti heroes are like this. Astute observers of others for whom they have disdain that is amusing to witness. Thinking of Hannibal Lechter, for instance. There was this scene in one of the books where he's on a crowded plane, flying coach, and he's surrounded by the kind of people who check their babies' diapers by poking a finger down in and don't even wash their hands after. His exasperation and disgust with these people is extremely relatable, because you feel the same way about people of this sort. Of course, if he were sitting next to you on a plane, there'd be something he'd hate just as much about your behavior or demeanor.

Heroes cater to our more noble fantasies. They do the right thing, fight the good fight, keep their virtue as clean as they can manage and generally save the day.

Anti-heroes cater to our nastier desires. They can indulge in the kind of brutal verbal riposte we all sometimes long for. They can be as selfish or petty as they please. They can inflict awful cruelties on the wicked, and fight dirty and cheat, and their virtue hasn't been worth a damn for years. But they still save the day, in the end--or at least they don't definitively worsen it. So we can still root for them, even if we feel a smidgen of sinful guilt in doing so.

The anti-heroes I like to write (and read) are those who have an internal sense of justice, even though his/her "value of all life" index is skewed. People who beat kids, for example, might make the list of people to make disappear, or s/he might have no issues with killing a rapist. Humor and intelligence are also key. I also like those who make smart, clever observations about the real world, even if the ability to fix the problems are limited. My first anti-hero is a hired assassin, but he's very likeable. It's just business to him, and I've had a lot of men fans who have told me they'd love to go out for a drink with him.

I'm drawn to antiheroes because they aren't gung-ho "I'm off to save the world!" types. They're forced to do the hero act by circumstances, because they know it's the right thing to do even though they'd prefer to just live their life and forget others have problems or troubles. They're just more believeable. The "bad guy" hero - not relatable, for me. I may applaud an action, but my interest would depend on the action, not the character.

shadowwalker said:

I'm drawn to antiheroes because they aren't gung-ho "I'm off to save the world!" types. They're forced to do the hero act by circumstances, because they know it's the right thing to do even though they'd prefer to just live their life and forget others have problems or troubles. They're just more believeable. The "bad guy" hero - not relatable, for me. I may applaud an action, but my interest would depend on the action, not the character.

Click to expand...

What you're talking about is more a reluctant hero than an antihero.

RosyWriter said:

Would you consider bilbo baggins an anti-hero?

Click to expand...

I'd call him a reluctant hero. Some antiheroes are also reluctant heroes, but they're not the same thing.

Even when they're not out and out villains, antiheroes often have a serious character flaw (often more than just one), or perhaps they just have a moral compass that's very at odds with most of ours. They lack the usual character traits we associate with heroes, such as idealism, courage, morality, desire for justice, etc.

Harry Flashman (who originally appeared as an antagonist in Tom Brown's School Days) as depicted by George MacDonald Frasier is an example of a common kind of antihero--a scoundrel, liar, cheat etc. who nevertheless manages to (through guile, subterfuge and blind luck) be regarded as a hero by the end of each story. But there are other kinds, including some who are nicer people or who are on true redemption arcs. Some consider Huckleberry Finn to be an antihero also.

Reluctant heroes may not be conventionally brave, but they're not cowards either. They may lack faith in themselves, or they'd really just rather live a normal life, or they know that no good deed goes unpunished, but they have a moral compass that compels them to (reluctantly) step in when they're the only person for the job. And they often are on an arc where they find their courage or confidence or cause and become a true hero.

Some of the wandering hero archetypes in film and literature are reluctant heroes too. I'd consider Mad Max to be a reluctant hero more than an antihero, maybe, as he isn't so deeply flawed morally (aside from his lone wolf tendencies), and his deepest values are what compel him to get involved against his own self interest, but he doesn't want to be a part of the causes he's roped into, and in fact, he remains an outsider.

I just realized some antiheroes I have liked. Most of them are thieves of some kind. Locke Lamora. Eli Monpress in Rachel Aaron's Eli Monpress series. Drothe in Douglas Hulick's Among Thieves. Darian Frey (and the rest of his crew) in Chris Wooding's Tales of the Ketty Jay (they're closer to pirates, I suppose). What do all these people have in common? They'll lie, cheat, and steal, but there are lines they don't cross. Some of them have codes of honor as well.

I've also found Brent Weeks does antiheroes well, now that I think about it. They're all over his Night Angel trilogy. Again, the characters do some bad things, but there are limits to this, and you still get enough hints of their inner goodness that you stick with them. I also think the character of Gavin Guile in Weeks's Lightbringer series is one of the best antiheroes I've read.

There's also Caine/Hari in Matthew Woodring Stover's Heroes Die (and its sequels). He does some pretty violent and brutal things, but his goal is usually something we can identify with (though his methods are not). Also, the people he's going up against are much worse.

That's another thing that helps readers identify with an antihero. If we hate the bad guys, we'll want to see them lose even if it requires some less than moral deeds in the process.

I think anti-heroes can be even more relatable than the traditional hero, especially in the fantasy genre. Heroes are boring and predictable. They always do the "right" (moral, according to them) thing, even if it has huge consequences. They somehow save the day without ever killing a bad guy. They have no vices or bad habits. I think that's why the anti-hero is becoming a more mainstream and acceptable MC for a lot of novels, such as Locke Lamora, Gavin Guile, Kvothe in Name of the Wind, pretty much anyone in a Joe Abercrombie novel, etc, especially with emerging authors.

Once! said:

The characteristic that defines an anti-hero - for me - is that the objective they are trying to achieve is not one that I share.

Click to expand...

Or it could be that they're trying to achieve an objective that most people approve of, but they're going about it the wrong way.

That's the premise of my favorite movie, a 1974 made-for-TV called "The California Kid."

It's worth watching. And you'll get to see the car that ZZ Top's "Eliminator" is a copy of. (Really; Billy Gibbons had the builder make a copy for him, except for the paint)

rwm4768 said:

What you're talking about is more a reluctant hero than an antihero.

Click to expand...

I'm going more by the apparently earlier definition. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClassicalAntiHero

By today's definition, I still would not be interested in the "anti-hero" unless the rest of the story was very good.

It's interesting how the definition of anti-hero seems to have become more extreme over the years. The older definition shadowwalker mentions above is an anti-hero who bucks classical notions of heroism by having flaws, doubts and inner conflicts. As we've now come to expect at least a few flaws from nuanced heroes across the board, the definition of anti-hero has been forced to buck the notions of what we regard as heroism in more and more extreme ways .

One wonders if, in fifty years, we'll be so accepting of flawed heroes that anti-heroes will be blowing orphanages up just to show they have some edge.

Competence helps. Honestly, I think competence has an inverse relationship to likability. If you make a character too competent and likeable, they just feel unbelievable and ridiculous. But if someone is competent but un-likable, or liable but largely in-competant... well you've got something to stick around for, don't you. You either want to see the likeable character get better at what they do, or the competent character deal with what's happening (there's a certain amount of curiosity in humans. If you put someone with at least some redeeming features in a sticky situation, they generally will stick around to see how they get out, especially if it's inventive). Or you stick around to see the competent character find/display some redeeming features in their character.

Then again, it's perfectly possible to have a anti-hero be likable. This whole discussion depends on how we define anti-hero.

Understandablitiy helps. Give me a reason for why this character is an arse, and I might stick around because I feel like how he is now is a fair reaction.
Making someone charming helps too. Giving them a character that illistrates their better side. There are plenty of ways to illustrate that someone who is not a "hero" is still someone worth liking/cheering for.