blue squares posted:

Plus I don't think there's any link between irony and anti-heroes.

J_RGB posted:

I would say antihero is an odd term to use about someone who I would think is on the most obvious level of reading a hero. Sure, there has been very interesting criticism that blurs the distinctions between the monsters and Beowulf, and questions why he doesn't have an heir at the end. Definitely it's an ambiguous, unsettling and difficult story. But I always thought an antihero was a 'postmodern' invention where you follow the exploits of someone whose actions you don't agree with but a layer of irony presents them as the hero.

He's not Batman though. Superheroes have a nasty habit of being a Travis Bickle fantasy, Beowulf was the epitome of an actual existing role, the Saxon thane/warrior/knight/thing. Though medieval literature featuring fighting and heroes is absolutely the real origin of superheroes.

Tree Goat posted:

for those of you keeping score at home, the batman comparison occurs in the 7th sentence, and the harry potter reference occurs in the 9th (of 13 total).

CestMoi posted:

What the gently caress are you even talking about

david crosby posted:

For a dude who was a hyper-nationalist, borderline fascist, bodybuilder, super gay samurai who killed himself in the most epic way possible, he did write some lovely stuff. Forbidden Colors was terrible, iirc.

failing forward posted:

Irony and antihero certainly aren't mutually exclusive, but I don't think irony is key to defining antihero. I am only going off my own studies, but antihero was always something I synthesized to mean, "a character presented to the reader as the clear hero of the story, who exhibits traits not traditionally associated with an epic hero character" followed by an assload of examples of what "hero traits" are, which can all be summed up by: a man who, while following the conventions of acceptance in the larger society, solves individual and larger-scope problems. Basically Jesus. Superman for most internet atheist. The hero in Western culture (comparative literature) and in lots of other cultures, usually solves his problems with straightforward cleverness (few tricks) and/or reasonable violence (no dismemberment, etc...). This definition excludes, say, Goldilocks... or Lysistrata because they are tricksy, or need rescuing, but includes every male character from Hercules to Captain America.

I get that Batman =/= Beowulf entirely, though. Batman is just convenient. I guess I could compare Batman better to someone like... any Greek God... but a lot of people would disagree with me because "anger" isn't an antihero trait to them. I disagree. I think anger is just the first step on the antihero staircase, and I think antiheroes are a direct response to heroes. I think I am a literary conspiracy theorist.

See, I always look at the antihero as a masculine character exhibiting traditionally feminine traits. That is what I imagine is the original deviation--male acting female. I can definitely concede that Beowulf isn't the quintessential antihero, though. Certainly, Beowulf is very masculine, and displays heroic traits (brave, strong, conventionally attractive). He is masculine even in a postmodern sense (tough, sarcastic, meat-eating man).

I admit, that, as does any reader, I am definitely looking at Beowulf from a modern perspective and seeing him as antihero. But I see him this way because he is so grotesquely violent. His violence is a kind of aberration to me. I wonder in what capacity the antihero existed before Beowulf's aberrant violence. Beowulf's destruction of Grendel is particularly but not in any way cartoonishly gruesome (like most postmodern "edgy" heroes, who aren't antiheroes to me, but I have a feeling I shouldn't bother with that argument).


Okay, honestly I'm more comfortable comparing Beowulf to Hamlet. People think it's weird and stupid and ignorant, but in my opinion, Hamlet is a more powerful antihero that Batman, because Batman is pretty 2-dimensional. In my opinion, he's an antihero mostly because he is emotional and feels conflict over his role as a hero. Couple this with the physicality of Bruce Wayne--he doesn't have any extra-human abilities, en wrote--and Batman is a pretty standard antihero: a hero with consequences. To boot, Batman isn't even Beowulf in terms of stoic bravery and overall emotional abstinence (excluding gettin' all riled up). Batman used to just get angry, but now he kills people so he doesn't really work any more, probably.

Hamlet, on the other hand, is an early canon antihero who repeatedly bucks not only hero conventions, but also traditional masculine ideals of not only the time in which he existed, but the time in which he is currently being studied. I mean, Batman is cool and basically everyone in the West, and some parts of the rest of the world, knows who he is and understands his realistic cultural significance and his "antihero-status" among Western heroes. However, Hamlet, better represents to me the Male Antihero (frankly, the most common antihero figure) so much better. I wouldn't object to talking about other early Western antiheroes. I really like Hamlet.

There are no antiheroes in Harry Potter, in my opinion. Snape doesn't count. He's a spy--a James Bond, a person who solves their problems by pretending to be someone else. None of the main cast count, because they are geniunely, and without irony, fighting for the side of clearly defined Good. Draco doesn't count because he remains a bad decision maker, and weak, angry person until the end.

I get that I mentioned Harry Potter which is like a "popular thing," but The Chronicles of Narnia is canon, and it's genre fiction., In my opinion it's a little short-sided to assume a series isn't worth discussing, simply because it's popular, and people are weirdly sexual about it on the internet. There are plenty of canon Western novels that were popular at the time of their publishing, and they were genre-fiction. The internet wasn't around then, but I bet people were still loving freaks. There exists, published and lauded, Pride and Prejudice fan fiction. Popular and stupid doesn't mean not culturally meaningful.

For the record, I am neither comparing nor contrasting anything to anything.

failing forward posted:

I get that I mentioned Harry Potter which is like a "popular thing," but The Chronicles of Narnia is canon, and it's genre fiction., In my opinion it's a little short-sided to assume a series isn't worth discussing, simply because it's popular, and people are weirdly sexual about it on the internet. There are plenty of canon Western novels that were popular at the time of their publishing, and they were genre-fiction. The internet wasn't around then, but I bet people were still loving freaks. There exists, published and lauded, Pride and Prejudice fan fiction. Popular and stupid doesn't mean not culturally meaningful.

For the record, I am neither comparing nor contrasting anything to anything.

J_RBG posted:

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Also fyi we do not discuss Harry Potter because its popular but because Harry Potter blows

Smoking Crow posted:

the first two movies are ok

blue squares posted:

Harry Potter books are tight

blue squares posted:

Harry Potter books are tight

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Marty Stu and the Deus Ex Machina

Tree Goat posted:

how he kissed me under the moorish wall and i thought well as well him as another and then i asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me does the adventures of harry potter and his friends provide an interesting platform for really some quite mature hermeneutical spadework my mountain flower and first i put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel whether or not i was disappointed with the latest run of a marvel comic book yes and his heart was going like mad and yes i said yes i will Yes.

Bandiet posted:

Who cares if there are instances of cheap storytelling. Children deserve something that tackles moral issues while actually being fun.

mallamp posted:

Harry Potter is one of the things that saved fantasy genre from complete destruction, enabling writers like Gaiman and Mieville who at least try. Besides, are we really going to diss childrens books, come on (adults reading ya is another matter)

Hantama posted:

I have a question: How would I go about reading Beowulf?
Is the original accessible enough or do I want a modern translation? For background: I am not a native English speaker but I am reading a lot, almost exclusively, in English.
I am a native German speaker though, which should help with old English? I guess?
Please enlighten me, I always wanted to read that thing but I´m afraid that half of it would fly over my head. Hope this is the right thread but you were talking about Beowulf...and Batman.

Hantama posted:

I have a question: How would I go about reading Beowulf?
Is the original accessible enough or do I want a modern translation? For background: I am not a native English speaker but I am reading a lot, almost exclusively, in English.
I am a native German speaker though, which should help with old English? I guess?
Please enlighten me, I always wanted to read that thing but I´m afraid that half of it would fly over my head. Hope this is the right thread but you were talking about Beowulf...and Batman.

A human heart posted:

It would have cool if the fantasy genre had been destroyed, imo

J_RBG posted:

One of the best essayists around today, Jenny Diski, just died. She had stuff published in the LRB which was really good.

Bandiet posted:

Who cares if there are instances of cheap storytelling. Children deserve something that tackles moral issues while actually being fun.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Its also saying something how cool you guys seem to be with sending children into an isolated cultural environment where they do not learn anything other than a narrow range of skills that have no value other than within their current environment, thus condemning them to a perpetual cycle of exclusion from the rest of the world and self-sustaining their own archaic social system.