My good friend and fellow History Hoyden Isobel Carr had a great post recently about anti-heroes. (Isobel has a wonderful new book out, by the way, Ripe for Pleasure, featuring an anti-hero and a courtesan). The fascinating follow-up discussion on Isobel’s post took me back to a question I pondered a bit myself in a post on “Bad girl” heroines. What exactly makes an anti-hero or anti-heroine? Is it the behavior or the motives?
I’ve heard the term anti-hero used to encompass a range of characters. There’s the Talented Mr. Ripley, who commits murder for his own advancement. There’s Don Draper, who has principles of a sort and is remarkably loyal to some of the people in his life, but seems to have no concept of romantic fidelity–(or at least no ability to be faithful. (One of the things I love about Mad Men is how all the characters are flawed and yet all of them have sympathetic moments.) Francis Crawford of Lymond does all sorts of seemingly horrible things, and yet he inevitably proves to have done so for the noblest of motives. Is he an anti-hero? Or is an anti-hero someone who acts out of selfish motives and doesn’t have a core of principles? Both Han Solo and Rick Blaine claim to only be out for themselves fairly early in their respective stories. And yet neither of them does anything remotely approaching Lymond’s actions (burning his mother’s castle, being responsible for the death of his son).
Isobel described Lady Barbara Childe in Georgette Heyer’s An Infamous Army as “a benchmark anti-heroine.” Lady Barbara’s behavior is certainly destructive and causes pain to a number of people. On the other hand, I don’t think she does anything as morally questionable as Mélanie/Suzanne (entering a marriage on false pretenses, lying to her spouse for years, being responsible for deaths because of information she passed along). But Mélanie is acting out of loyalty to a cause and comrades, whereas Barbara’s behavior is driven by being discontented and unhappy. Does that make one more an anti-heroine than the other?
How do you define anti-heroes and anti-heroines? Is it their actions or their motivation or both? What are some of your favorite examples? What does it take for you for such a character to be redeemed?
If Tatiana Kirsanova were the protagonist of a novel, I think she might be an anti-heroine. This week’s Fraser Correspondence addition is a letter from Geoffrey Blackwell to Lady Frances about Tatiana’s death (dealing with some of the questions in response to last week’s letter about who knew what when about Tatiana’s birth).
Tracy Grant - Novelist 
May 9, 2011 at 1:21 am
What makes a character an anti-hero/ine?
The point of view of the main characters, perhaps. Melanie would be a heroine to some if she was on the “right” side. (Of course, other readers might see her lack of virginity as a problem.) 🙂
Honestly, I think “anti-hero/ines” are often those who will go farther than society/the law/their ‘circle’ accepts to get something they want or something they believe is right. Sadly, it’s more common in male characters.
May 9, 2011 at 1:32 am
Good points, JMM. One of the things we discussed in response to Isobel’s post is that readers are perhaps less sympathetic to anti-heroines than to anti-heroes and also that historically women faced worse repercussions for transgressing society’s rules. On the other hand, I think I tend to sometimes have a harder time forgiving heroes than heroines, perhaps because, in historical settings, the deck seems to be more stacked against the heroines so I find it easier to understand acting out. Barbara Childe is a woman with a lack of options who can’t find a scope for her talents. She’s one of my favorite Heyer heroines. On the other hand, with her grandfather Vidal (even though I do like him), I frequently find myself wanting to say, “Oh, grow up.” :-).
May 9, 2011 at 5:03 am
I think the making of an anti-hero or anti-heroine resides not necessarily in the character’s actions or in his/her motivation, but in the readers’ socialized notion of good vs. evil/right vs. wrong. And because the majority of fiction readers read for entertainment, they (we) are more likely to look for what confirms/affirms our preconceived notions than to look for ideas/situations that challenge the comforts of our worlds. Since the civilized societies are mostly male-dominated, any female character, either a heroine or an anti-heroine, is “born” at least one-strike-out: behaving in what’s approved for a woman, then to some readers she’s unfit to lead/too traditional/fill-in-the-blank; behaving in what’s approved for a man, then she’s harsh/mean/an unnatural woman/fill-in-the-blank to other readers.
May 9, 2011 at 7:25 am
Excellent points, Sharon. I think you’re right that what makes for an anti-hero or an anti-heroine so often lies in the eye of the beholder/reader (which is why the terms are used for quite disparate characters). Also a great point that I think as you say readers probably tend to have more specific ideas of what’s appropriate behavior for a female character than for a male one. Certainly in historical settings it’s much easier for a female character to become a social outcast.
May 9, 2011 at 8:34 am
Anti-heroes/heroines are often strong characters that the reader doesn’t really like, but who makes the story, I think. The phrase ‘I wouldn’t want to be their friend’ usually pops up in reviews about anti-heroes/heroines. My favourites are Becky Sharp, Milady De Winter and, strangely, Jane Austen’s Emma – there was a group read of Emma on the Pemberley board recently, and the number of readers who were mortally offended by Emma’s upper class snobbery had me in stitches!
May 9, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Just a comment on Lady Barbara Childe, who we meet as a widow in “Infamous Army” — and a widow of an elderly and wealthy man. The implication Heyer leaves us with is that Babs married for reasons not connected with love. She certainly comes across as a bored, rather than grieving, widow. I doubt she entered her first marriage on false pretences, but if Heyer had written 100 pages on that relationship to start us off, I don’t think we’d accept her as a heroine quite so readily.
One real advantage of anti-heroines over straight heroines is that they are a LOT more interesting to a (***slightly more mature***) reader.
May 9, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Oh, yes. Heroines are often excoriated for even THINKING of money when in a relationship. “How DARE she be practical!? The EVIL slut!”
This especially bugs me in historicals. A heroine who doesn’t think she (a gentleman’s daughter/aristocrat) might not be happy with a stableboy? How DARE she even think about class or money?
I still remember a “romance” from the 80’s in which the hero deliberately pretended to be a bum and a gambler to test the heroine’s love. He told his friend (her long-lost uncle) to tell her that he (the uncle) wouldn’t give her the family money if she married the hero/useless bum.
Surprise, surprise, she chose security over a bum. Of course, she had responsibilities to a lot of people, to “excuse” her.
May 9, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Hi Sarah! I think Emma’s an interesting case, because she doesn’t obviously break society’s rules the way Barbara Childe or Becky Sharpe or Milday de Winter or Francis Crawford or Don Draper do. In some ways she’s so caught up in society’s rules that, as you say, that can strain reader sympathy. But she’s not a “warm and cuddly” sort of heroine. I’ve always liked her, because she’s interesting and she grows over the course of the book.
May 9, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Thanks for posting, Jeanine! I think the implication is that Barbara’s father pushed her into the marriage at a very young age and that it was quite distasteful and disagreeable. I actually think the details Heyer gives about the marriage are meant to make Barbara more sympathetic and understandable. There’s a scene where the Duchess of Richmond talks to Judith about Barbara’s childhood and marriage and how she always felt sorry for her.
So agree that anti-heroes and anti-heroines are often more interesting. They tend to be more complex and they’re able to *do* more.
May 9, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Good point, JMM. In Jane Austen’s novels, money is so often at the root of what causes problems for the characters. Particularly in Sense and Sensibility I think. I love the way the Emma Thompson/Ang Lee film brings this out, with several lines referring to financial impediments and that last, glorious image of Colonel Brandon tossing the gold coins in the air.
May 9, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Isn’t Barbara the child/grandchild of one of the heroes of an earlier Heyer book?
If so, that makes me wonder what kind of man would do that to his child if HE married for love and passion?
May 9, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I love Emma, because her faults are plain to see – plain to everyone but Emma, of course! In a way, Emma’s prejudices, which insult so many modern readers, are tied in with what JMM is talking about – position and reputation in society are paramount to Emma, and a person’s background counts for mroe than who they are. There was uproar on the Pemberley board over Emma’s treatment of the Martin family, but Emma belongs to one of the most important families in Highbury – she would only associate with the Martins if they required her charity, which they do not, so distances herself from them.
And really, Emma’s independence comes from her wealth and position – she does not need to marry for security, and fully intends never to do so, until the end of the novel. Just for that, I find her a refreshing change in Austen’s novels. She is breaking a rule in that sense; Lizzie Bennet also claims she will only marry for love, but she doesn’t have that luxury of choice.
May 9, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Yes, Barbara’s the granddaughter of Vidal and Mary from “Devil’s Cub” (and Vidal in turn is the son of Justin and Léoniie from “These Old Shades”). Though if one looks at the years (TOS in 1755, DC in 1779, AIA in 1815), there isn’t enough time for the extra generation and it makes more sense for Barbara and her siblings to be Vidal and Mary’s children. One theory–only a theory–is that originally Heyer meant Barbara to be Mary and Vidal’s daughter but in revisions she was trying to make her more sympathetic so she threw in the extra generation to give Barbara the bad marriage (which Vidal and Mary wouldn’t have forced her into). I still find it hard to imagine the very sensible and compassionate Mary and Vidal (who for all his faults has a sense of honor to his family) raising Barbara’s father. At the very least it’s quite sad to think that their son turned out that way.
May 9, 2011 at 6:44 pm
I love Emma for much the same reasons, Sarah. She’s different from other Jane Austen heroines in that she has the wealth and position to determine her own fate.
May 9, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Jane Austen would NEVER be accepted as a romance writer – not that her books are romances per se. Her heroines are too practical; female characters (Lydia and Marianne) who have the “all for passion” attitude often end up with BIG trouble they may or may not get out of.
May 9, 2011 at 7:21 pm
I don’t think of Jane Austen’s books as romances. The love story isn’t necessarily the central thematic focus (maybe in Pride & Prejudice, but I’m not even sure about that).
May 9, 2011 at 10:19 pm
If hero/ine is tied to heroic, I take that to mean someone willing to sacrifice personal happiness for the good of a cause or a loved one. Anti-hero/ines tend instead to be more self-centered and selfish. In that light, I think of Scarlett and Rhett.
May 9, 2011 at 10:31 pm
That tends to be how I think of it, Elaine. In which case Lymond would definitely not be an anti-hero. But I’ve definitely heard him called one. I think the term has a wide range of definitions.
May 10, 2011 at 4:29 am
Since readers in different times and spaces have different ideas of propriety, I think the concept of anti-heroes or anti-heroines must have evolved over time. I wonder whether readers in Austen’s time considered Emma the heroine or the anti-heroine. What if she was the heroine back then and has become an anti-heroine in our time?
And I suppose this “friend-scale” in reviews that Sarah mentioned must be a 21st Century concept. When I think of stories I heard/read as a child, I don’t remember ever wishing to befriend any of the characters although I might have liked them and/or wished to become like them, or dislike them with a passion. I think good writers create characters of which readers are in awe, be those heroes/heroines, anti-heroes/anti-heroines, or even villains/villainesses.
May 10, 2011 at 6:58 am
Great point, Sharon! I think Emma is written to be a flawed heroine (that seems to be Austen’s take on her, not that she’s perfect as she is). Perhaps the snobbery wouldn’t have bothered readers as much (or it might have depended on the readers) but I doubt contemporary readers thought Emma was perfect (which is just what makes her interesting).
I did often want to be befriend favorite characters as a child–in fact I’d often make up stories where I did just that. On the other hand, I’ve always been able to enjoy reading about characters who I wouldn’t necessarily care to meet :-).
May 10, 2011 at 8:40 am
When I think of stories I heard/read as a child, I don’t remember ever wishing to befriend any of the characters although I might have liked them and/or wished to become like them, or dislike them with a passion. I think good writers create characters of which readers are in awe, be those heroes/heroines, anti-heroes/anti-heroines, or even villains/villainesses.
Sharon, I totally agree with you! That is a perfect measure of a character. Emma is larger than life, whether the reader agrees with her or not, just as Marguerite Blakeney is too good to be true, and Beatrice Lacey of Philippa Gregory’s Wideacre is wicked beyond belief. I have never understood the ‘friend’ measure, either – I don’t want to go on a lunch date with these characters, I want to read about their fantastically fictional lives.
May 10, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I love Scarlett. And to be fair, she DID use her money to feed her sisters and aunts and in-laws. Of course, they took her money while pointing out how unladylike she was to earn it. Nice of them.
But I like it when a heroine wants money for herself; instead of to feed the orphans. I know the authors are just feeding the majority of readers, but I’m tired of the “saintly” heroine.
May 10, 2011 at 3:51 pm
While there are definitely characters who I both enjoy reading about and could imagine being friends with–though I think I was more likely to do that when I was a child and imagined jumping into the adventure–as I said above I definitely can enjoy characters I wouldn’t want to have lunch with, as you say, Sarah. I don’t think I’d want to be friends with any of characters on Mad Men (except for Peggy), but I find their stories fascinating.
May 10, 2011 at 3:55 pm
I like Scarlett too, JMM. And I too get tired of saintly characters. On the other hand, thinking about the anti-hero/ine question, I realized I tend to write characters with goals/loyalties beyond themselves.
May 10, 2011 at 11:04 pm
I did at times wish to join in the adventures, but I couldn’t say I wanted to be friends with the characters. Like Sarah, I prefer admiring or dispising those larger than life characters from afar.
Back to the discussion of heroines & anti-heroines, I think there is such a pair in real life: the Roosevelt cousins Eleanor & Alice. Our book club read the biography of Alice sometime ago and almost everyone hated the book, partly due to the writing and partly due to its namesake. The author seems to be speaking up for Alice, yet most of the members of the book club dislike her. The one comment I remember people saying was that, “She did nothing.” I think the unfinished sentence was that, “in comparison to Eleanor.” It’s both interesting and tragic that these two women had so much in common in their backgrounds yet acted differently in many aspects, but were constantly compared to each other in ways that ended up exulting one and scorning the other. From what I gathered from the book on ARL and the TV documentaries on ER, I had the idea that our “saintly” heroines in fictions these days seem modeled after ER, while ARL had all the trappings of the anti-heroines. Now, while I admire and respect ER for all the great work she’d done, between the two of them, if I had to choose, I would rather be friends with ARL the anti-heroine and steer away from ER the heroine. 🙂
May 10, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Sorry for the long comments. Didn’t realize it gets so long.
May 11, 2011 at 2:53 am
Don’t apologize for long comments, Sharon! I love it when people comment in detail and have a lot and have a lot to say. I’m so glad this post is generating discussion.
I confess I don’t know a great deal about Alice Roosevelt, and I haven’t heard her compared to Eleanor. I’ve also admired Eleanor Roosevelt, but I’ve also always seen her as more down to earth than saintly, and though I hadn’t thought of it in those terms, I can imagine being friends with her. Why did your book group dislike Alice so much? I don’t remember anything particularly negative in what little I do know about her.
May 12, 2011 at 12:06 am
I knew nothing of ARL until I read the biography, and even the oldest member at the book club did not remember her much except for her wearing big hats. I think the comparison was mostly in the family (I remember reading that her father would frequently lament why she couldn’t be more like ER) and at the book club when we didn’t know much about her and ER is still remembered for what she’d done.
What I tried to say was that if we were to label the rebellious & controversial ARL as the anti-heroine and the proper & conscientious ER as the heroine, and apply the friend measure that Sarah mentioned, then I’d prefer the anti-heroine to the heroine for ARL was quite interesting according to the book while ER could be a difficult friend from what I’ve learned from the documentaries.
As to the reasons that people at the book club didn’t like ARL, the main reason was that “she did nothing,” meaning that for all her wits and spirits, she didn’t contribute to the society as much as ER did. It seems to me that for an anti-heroine to be accepted, she’d better have some altruistic accomplishments (and major ones) to speak of.
May 12, 2011 at 1:56 am
That’s fascinating, Sharon. I had no idea Alice Roosevelt was rebellious or controversial. She does sound very interesting. Makes me want to look for the biography.
I think you’re right that anti=heroines (and anti-heroes) often need to do something altruistic to earn the reader’s sympathy (it also is a way of showing character growth). Scarlet delivers Melanie’s baby and as JMM pointed out takes care of her family (perhaps not entirely for altruistic reasons, and yet she could have turned her back on them and doesn’t and she certainly could have fled Atlanta without Melanie). Barbara Childe nurses the wounded after Waterloo (there’s fascinating conversation between Worth and Judith about whether or not the change in Barbara will last after the battle). Rick saves Viktor, gives up Ilsa, and goes off to fight the Nazis. Han Solo comes back to attack the Death Star with Luke.
On a side note, I just heard from my editor about IMPERIAL SCANDAL (the Waterloo book). She loves it (to my intense relief, it’s always so nerve-wracking turning a book in). But one of her revision notes involves modifying something Suzanne/Mélanie does because she’s worried it goes too far and will destroy reader sympathy. To be honest, I half expected that and I knew I was pushing the envelope.
May 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Alice sounds like a pistol! I read about her, not the full bio.
Scarlett receives very little “sympathy” from readers, despite her good deeds. I think that it’s because she doesn’t do them with the usual smile and pure thoughts of a Good Woman. Scarlett’s more “honest”.
I mean, haven’t we ALL had thoughts we don’t want others to see? Haven’t we all thought, “I don’t want to hear about your problems!” when someone we love is yakking our ear off once again? Haven’t we all wanted to RUN away from responsibilities at times?
May 12, 2011 at 10:14 pm
I found “Ripe For Pleasure”! I’m quite enjoying it!
May 12, 2011 at 10:32 pm
I was thinking the same thing about Scarlet, JMM. She actually does quite a few things to help other people and yet she gets little sympathy from other characters or readers. I think as you say because she’s more honest about her thoughts and feelings. Although given the popularity of the book and the movie and the audience for a sequel, obviously she doesn’t completely turn readers off.
So glad you’re enjoying “Ripe for Pleasure”! Do let Isobel know if you get a chance.
May 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I can’t get on the comments section of HH yet, it seems to be broken.
One thing I really enjoyed about this is that there was no Deux Ex Machina coming out of nowhere to rescue the hero from having to take care of the villain. 🙂
May 14, 2011 at 12:18 am
History Hoydens was down earlier today, but I think it’s fixed now, and I see you commented–thanks!
March 22, 2017 at 12:13 am
skin care routine for dry Skin Korean
Of anti-heroes and anti-heroines | Tracy Grant – Novelist