busyThis is a crucial difference for readers and writers alike. You need to know your tropes, or you'll shout at the screen for the wrong reasons and maybe put your guys in a situation that isn't appropriate for them. A key difference is that a Hero behaves honorably even to the dishonorable and does not feel significantly motivated by recognition, money, or other personal reward. He's a good guy. Sometimes that gets him shafted. Audiences relate to the good in the Hero but may be put off by his unrealistic purity. An Antihero does whatever is necessary to accomplish the goal and is often motivated by personal gain; he won't go out on a limb to save people who mean him harm, and he may enjoy their demise. He's not really a good guy ... he's just able to fake it sometimes. He's good at protecting himself from people who just want to take advantage of him, so if you want to shaft this guy, you're going to have to work for it. Audiences relate to the Antihero's refusal to let people get away with mistreating him, but can be put off if he goes too far. Being a protagonist is about more than just having the most agency in the story; it's about what you want and what you're willing to do in pursuit of that. The kind of plot, mood, and setting for Hero and Antihero tend to be quite different, unless the writer is deliberately bringing both together for some reason -- like, it's hilarious to watch them try to work together, because they'll drive each other nuts.
So ... read that list. Which characters are Heroes and which are Antiheroes? Who's acting in-character and who's not?
My classification
May 25 2010, 19:18:21 UTC 11 years ago
Definitely meant to be antiheroes: Snake Plisskin (chaotic neutral), Robocop (originally lawful evil, don't know about the later ones), V (chaotic neutral insane).
Depends on which iteration: Batman was, I think, originally mostly a neutral good hero, but became more of a chaotic neutral antihero in the Dark Knight era; James Bond I think of as being nearly a true neutral, but he was handled differently by different actors/directors.
Depends on how you look at it: Neo (chaotic good), because "slaughtering innocent security guards" wasn't really killing anyone, as they were (if I recall correctly) dreams, constructs, projections, not actual living beings.
Don't know the character, so can't say: Bruce Willis in _Armageddon_, Daredevil.
But I could be wrong, and probably am.
Re: My classification
May 25 2010, 21:19:02 UTC 11 years ago
Re: My classification
May 25 2010, 21:36:21 UTC 11 years ago
>> Depends on which iteration <<
This is an important point. Characters can change a lot over time, as different people portray them.
>>Don't know the character, so can't say: Bruce Willis in _Armageddon_, Daredevil.<<
I only know Daredevil from the movie, not the comic, and apparently the two are very different (in tone as well as content).
An important point about the Bruce Willis character: He never intended to be a protagonist of any kind. He's just an ordinary working guy whose job suddenly happened to be relevant to saving the Earth. So it's hardly fair to compare him to the spandex crowd who actually signed up for the Hero (or Antihero, or whatever) role. He had courage and family loyalty. He did get the job done. But he didn't really do it "to save the world" ... or even for the payoff, although he did care about the payoff. (Hazard pay is a fair concept.) He did it to save his daughter. So a key aspect of his character is Daddy of the Daddy's Girl. That plays out a little oddly when compared to Heroes and Antiheroes who sought the stage on purpose.
Re: My classification
May 26 2010, 00:38:22 UTC 11 years ago
Also, given their control over the Matrix, it would have been at least as easy, if not easier, to avoid the guards instead of killing them.
That scene is the reason I never saw any of the other Matrix movies. I decided that I didn't much like the sociopaths who were willing to needlessly kill people any more than I liked the computer that was willing to keep humans as pets.
Re: My classification
May 26 2010, 06:07:55 UTC 11 years ago
I dunno. I felt sorry for the first couple of guys down, but then the bullets really started flying, and at that point it really was a fight for life and limb instead of a murder spree.
Neo isn't exactly subtle, because as a programmer he's learned that the most effective move when you don't know what to do is often brute force and direct action, couched in simplified displays; it's just a matter of asking the right question and then pounding through the stuff in front of you to find the answer, and then making sure there are no distractions to give people ideas. And of course he's been brought up on a diet of action heroes who shoot first and don't bother to ask questions, so you get it both ways.
It also shows that he's not a very good programmer: a true Zen Master of software does not write obfuscated code; instead, he writes code from a parallel universe. The only reason you can't read it is because you have not grasped the subtleties of its interactions with the machine. Everyone can read Neo's work, even if they don't always understand the secret to how he produces it.
Re: My classification
May 26 2010, 06:17:32 UTC 11 years ago
*chuckle* Well put. I've always thought that God coded the Universe in about three superbly elegant lines.
May 25 2010, 21:57:04 UTC 11 years ago
Hmm...
May 25 2010, 22:03:09 UTC 11 years ago
Re: Hmm...
May 25 2010, 22:08:27 UTC 11 years ago
Re: Hmm...
May 26 2010, 00:19:41 UTC 11 years ago
The humans in question are physically held captive by the machines. Their bodily integrity is violated. They are bred and handled like livestock. Their productive output is used, not for their own benefit, but for the machines; they are treated as batteries. They may be killed with impunity. They are not permitted to leave; if they try, they are hunted down. (The Sentinel hunts in some scenes are disturbingly similar to hound dogs sent after escaped slaves.) Their mental integrity is violated; they are held captive in a world which is not material but an illusion. Thus they are denied the opportunity to make a concrete difference in the world, as persons often wish to do -- such as repairing the damage to the biosphere so that outside life would be possible again. This also has its parallel in historic slavery, during which some oppressive cultures have encouraged the slaves to adopt or develop a worldview that innures them to slavery; for instance, the way African slaves were pushed into Christianity with its emphasis on Earthly suffering and heavenly rewards.
Absent are references to the buying and selling of humans for cash, a common but not universal aspect of slavery. The machines do not seem to have a capitalist economy based on the accrual of individual wealth and the exchange of properties for symbolic money.
By my standards, the machines have enslaved the humans; it is immoral; and the humans are justified in struggling to free themselves. However, it is to be noted that the movies are glaringly incomplete. Crucial background for the war is found only in The Animatrix in which one episode reveals that the first conflict featured a machine, presented as self-aware, who attacked and killed its owner in self-defense. So humanity has only itself to blame for teaching its offspring-species that slavery was acceptable behavior. Since the current humans did not personally make the decision to enslave the machines, they are not culpable for the acts of their ancestors, although they are stuck with the unfortunate results. They are at liberty to try and improve the world(s) in which they live. And they just might teach any surviving machines that slavery is not, after all, acceptable and some other way to interact must be devised.
In terms of exploring free will, humanity/sentience, and freedom-slavery, "The Matrix" material is very useful. Another personal favorite is the movie version of I, Robot which is not much like what Asimov wrote but does deal with deep issues. I was particularly fascinated to watch a black policeman treating robots like n*gg*rs. The race/prejudice exploration in that movie was a great deal more complex than I've come to expect from Hollywood.
Re: Hmm...
May 26 2010, 03:05:24 UTC 11 years ago
The humans may not have freedom of their physical forms, but I would argue that the humans in the Matrix have greater mental freedom than the humans in the "real" world*. They have greater opportunities for personal fulfillment. They can contribute to the society within the Matrix. Is it any less valid because it's "virtual"? I don't see how.
Furthermore, we have only Morpheus' word to go by that they're used as "batteries". It's absurd. The machines would have to be using more energy to keep the humans alive than they could extract from them. Therefore, I can only conclude that this is anti-machine propoganda. A more logical conclusion, IMO, is that the machines are PROTECTING humanity. Look at the world as it exists outside of the Matrix. It has been utterly devastated. There is little there for humans to enjoy. In the Matrix, there is a decent life, decent conditions, and human life is sustained fairly well. I would certainly choose life within the Matrix to life outside it.
The Sentinels are attacking a group whose stated objective is the destruction of the Matrix and therefore of almost all of humanity. How does this make their actions evil? They are defending themselves and the humans under their care.
And even if you DO believe that existence within the Matrix is slavery, how is it right to kill off most of humanity to "liberate" it? That's the mark of a true fanatic - better dead than "slaves". If the way Morpheus "unplugged" Neo is any sign, he also doesn't give people a choice in the matter. He refused to explain to Neo what the Matrix was, claiming, absurdly, "no one can be told what the Matrix is". Bullshit. "The Matrix is the world in which you live. You believe it to be the real world, but in reality, it is entirely virtual, a simulated reality".
I never trusted Morpheus. He's a cult leader.
*And how do we know that the reality seen by Neo on Morpheus' ship is the real world and not merely another virtual world? For that matter, it may very well be that the world the movie started out in really WAS the real world, and the only virtual reality was in the later part of the movie when Neo "returned" to the Matrix, in reality, entering a virtual reality created by Morpheus to simulate the real world.
Re: Hmm...
May 26 2010, 03:52:46 UTC 11 years ago
They only have as much freedom as the machines allow. They can be taken over and killed at any time. So, by my standards, that isn't really free.
>> They have greater opportunities for personal fulfillment. They can contribute to the society within the Matrix. Is it any less valid because it's "virtual"? I don't see how.<<
Well ... now that's a philosophical debate. The material world is itself a fancy, very pervasive illusion; but we care a whole lot about it. Most people are going to act as if this world is the only one that's real and important. The Matrix's illusory world is certainly important to the people in it, who believe it as intensely as we believe this one. But there's still a material world outside gone begging for its caretakers, which is what we're supposed to be, pathetic performance notwithstanding.
>>The machines would have to be using more energy to keep the humans alive than they could extract from them. Therefore, I can only conclude that this is anti-machine propoganda. <<
I agree that the science behind that bit of fiction is hogwash, but it's intended as an honest piece of worldbuilding insofar as I could tell. There were, for instance, scenes showing the bunkered humans.
>>A more logical conclusion, IMO, is that the machines are PROTECTING humanity. <<
Shepherds protect sheep for the purpose of using them, too. I am unconvinced that this is other than slavery.
>>And even if you DO believe that existence within the Matrix is slavery, how is it right to kill off most of humanity to "liberate" it? That's the mark of a true fanatic - better dead than "slaves".<<
Well, that's an old debate: which is more precious, life or freedom? People had different answers. Sometimes ugly ones. I tend to favor freedom; YMMV.
>>And how do we know that the reality seen by Neo on Morpheus' ship is the real world and not merely another virtual world?<<
We don't, necessarily. All worlds are shadows and dust to some extent. For a fuller exploration of that, check out The Cybernetic Walrus.
Re: Hmm...
May 26 2010, 07:12:48 UTC 11 years ago Edited: May 26 2010, 07:17:20 UTC
Agent Smith is, in many ways, Morpheus' machine counterpart. Both exhibit a contemptuous disregard for human life.
Well, that's an old debate: which is more precious, life or freedom?
I don't think that's the relevant question. It's one kind of freedom versus another kind of freedom. Freedom of body vs freedom of mind. I would say the Matrix gives greater freedom of mind than the stunted world of his ship. There are more opportunities to excerxise one's skills, to form meaningful relationships, and so on. There is greater meaning to a life within the Matrix than in the pathetic "free" life on Morpheus' ship.
I would argue that the cause of freedom is better served by internal reform than by destruction of the Matrix.
The Matrix's illusory world is certainly important to the people in it, who believe it as intensely as we believe this one. But there's still a material world outside gone begging for its caretakers, which is what we're supposed to be, pathetic performance notwithstanding.
Rather arrogant presumption, that we're "supposed to be" the "caretakers" of this world!
I don't believe in external meaning. Meaning is created by people, by relationships. Therefore, the Matrix's importance to those within it means that it IS more important than the external world, whose existence they are not even aware of!
May 26 2010, 09:45:31 UTC 11 years ago
All the same, you're right about consistency,
even if you didn't use that word.