Why we love anti-heroes, Part II
There's this quote in In FX's series Legion:
"For what is normal is that upon which nine wise men can agree, leaving the tenth man to swing from the hangman's rope."
It really makes you think about how dangerous it is to blindly follow the crowd, and how easy it is for societies to shut out anyone who's different. It makes you wonder, what's *really* going on under the surface of people who seem totally "normal?"
Psychologists like Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were fascinated by the darker side of the human mind. Freud thought our minds were like a constant struggle between basic urges (the id), our rational side (the ego), and our sense of right and wrong (the superego). Jung called the parts we try to hide our "shadow selves" – those thoughts and desires we don't want to admit to.
It's against this whole backdrop of social pressure and hidden darkness that antiheroes become so interesting. Unlike typical good guys who always do the right thing, they wrestle with that darkness. They're messy and complicated, and show us that the lines aren't always as clear as we like to think.
The Legion quote implies that there's no one right way to BE "normal." What most people agree on becomes the standard, even if that standard is, well, wrong.
But, that doesn't mean it's the only way. Anyone who steps outside of the box, who questions how things "should" be, risks being pushed out of society. I think it highlights the potential dangers of strict conformity and how 'normalcy' can be a tool of… you know, exclusion.
Antiheroes exist in that space of exclusion, their very nature becoming some sort of challenge to the established order.
Frank Herbert's Dune complicates this clear-cut dichotomy by depicting Paul Atreides' descent from hero to a more morally ambiguous figure.
I think sometimes, people miss the point of Dune. Frank Herbert wanted to dissect themes of power, leadership, and the dangers of hero figures. His most compelling argument for why we need these kinds of themes unfolds in how he writes Paul Atreides.
At first, Herbert sets Paul up as your classic hero – the kid with a grand destiny, good values, and a thirst for justice. But there's a twist! Herbert shows us how easily power can go wrong, and how even the best of us can be corrupted. We see Paul move from being a straight-up hero to...well, a more tragic figure. It's a reminder that power is tempting, and no one, not even a hero, is immune to its dangers.
Early on, Paul totally fits the hero mould. He's brave in battle, cares about the Fremen, and is ridiculously smart. He wants justice for his father and for Arrakis, and we're right there cheering him on. We believe in Paul's potential for good, which makes his story even tougher to watch.
But, His visions of a Fremen jihad are terrifying and he feels helpless to stop them. That's when we start to see the shift from hero to a much more complex character.
Paul's transformation really isn't unique. The question of how easily 'normal' can be twisted, and how that reflects on our own choices, is a central theme in how writers have written antiheroes for decades. And maybe that's why antiheroes are so fascinating – they offer an interesting study into human behaviour.
Freud knew that we're not all sunshine and roses deep down. We have this wild, untamed side, a potential for some seriously messed-up stuff, just waiting to be unleashed. It's part of being… human.
Antiheroes often live in worlds that push those dark urges to the surface. Maybe society's gone bad, maybe they've been through hell... whatever the reason, you see them show just how fragile our morality might be.
The real battle for an antihero isn't always against some big bad villain, it's the fight against that darkness within themselves.
Which is why I think In the last few years, everything in the media wants to make it impossible to tell the good guys from the bad guys. I get that it's supposed to make things more interesting, but it's a mistake.
See, to really understand what being good is, you also need to understand how messed up evil can be. For ages, stories have shown us heroes fighting evil villains, and it wasn't just for entertainment.
if you see the terrible things a villain does, you start to define what you don't want to be. Even anti-heroes, the ones who do some shady stuff, at least show us the line between good and bad, and how easy it is to cross that line. They force you to think about why choosing the right thing can sometimes be so hard.
But this struggle between our good and bad sides is what makes antiheroes in movies seem much better written than the typical heroes. They walk that thin line between what's right and what's definitely not. Their actions make us squirm but also make us think "huh, maybe they have a point..."
Dexter Morgan: a total serial killer, but only goes after other serial killers to satisfy his own urge to kill. It's messed up, but he has a code and, he follows it.
There's Tony Soprano, a mob boss who routinely orders hits on many people over the course of the show because he sees it as necessary for his own and his family's survival.
But that's it, isn't it? His actions are almost entirely tied to protecting his family. Arya Stark brutally murders the Freys who slaughtered her family. Yes, it's revenge, but even her actions were morally questionable at best.
We can't call these people "good" in the traditional sense, yet we kinda love them… maybe even see them role models.
But sometimes characters face choices that don't have a "right" answer. Sometimes, when their back's against the wall, they have to do whatever it takes to win. Antiheroes live in that space. They don't care about being saints or sinners; they're too busy surviving.
Their moral compass isn't set in stone. It depends on what works at the moment. There's no preaching about grand ideals , they just want to get things done, whether those methods are squeaky-clean or... not so much.
Jack Sparrow or Clint Eastwood's "Man with No Name." yes they're out for themselves, more than happy to play dirty, but then they go and stumble into an act of genuine heroism.
Traditional heroes see the world in black and white – they want to make things perfect. Antiheroes know the world's a whole lot of grey. They might not set out to change everything, but they'll step up and do the right thing when they have to... or when it benefits them.
They understand that it's hard to stay perfectly good when the world itself is messed up. Sometimes, they figure the only way to stay alive means doing stuff you know isn't quite right. Like, in a desperate situation, maybe stealing food is the only way to keep your family from starving. It's wrong, but it feels like survival.