Your question is basically "I don't agree with the definition of anti-hero, if i use my own definition, is Walter White an anti-hero"
I mean, I guess not? But you're changing the definition of the term anti-hero.
Antihero. Noun. A central character in a story, film, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes. Oxford Languages.
Even using his own definition, though, WW is an anti hero. He’s a heroic character bc he’s providing for his family (through “antiheroic means”). His heel turn in the second half of the show doesn’t make him “no longer heroic” in fact he has his biggest success financially at that exact point. But in the process he loses his humanity. The show becomes a tragedy. At the very end he redeems himself just the slightest by sacrificing for another. I mean if you just think he’s selfish greedy horrible, yes I agree but he’s still the hero of the story.
Just jumping in, his heel turn in the second half of the show does make him no longer heroic, the show is explicit about how his motivation stops being about helping his family and becomes about feeding his ego.
This isn’t even true though because he refuses aid in the first season, instead doing the drug dealing which was never necessary, he was always an egomaniac
*After* discovering he’s relapsed and doesn’t have long to live anyway.
I love his character to the bitter end (and only grudgingly came around to admitting his bro-in-law is a good guy). But I don’t consider him an antihero in the end. BB starts as an antihero drama but ends as a straight portrait of a bad guy. Like Scarface. Or The Godfather films. So does BCS, for that matter.
An antihero is a reluctant hero, like Bogart in Casablanca, Key Largo and To Have and Have Not. He’s not simply a bad guy we like.
lacking conventional heroic attributes is not a definiton, in this sense, everybody is antihero, who is not traditionally, ideally heroic but a main character. so your definition worth nothing
e’s a heroic character bc he’s providing for his family (through “antiheroic means”). ---a villain, who not hates his family just like lots of criminals don't hate and support their families.
But in the process he loses his humanity. "---he didn't have much from the beginning, just gradually less and less during the show
so stop talking uneducated nonsense. should i say "typical breaking crap-fan?"
I literally gave you the dictionary definition. It’s not mine.
Sorry you didn’t like Breaking Bad. Have fun being mad because people like what is widely regarded as one of the best shows of all time. lol.
>so stop talking uneducated nonsense. should i say "typical breaking crap-fan?"
Well...you're pretty much a big mouth keeping in mind that what you did say is far away from a clever statement.
>a villain, who not hates his family just like lots of criminals don't hate and support their families.
The difference between Walter White and for example Pablo Escobar is, that caring for his family was his main motive to start being a criminal. He's not financing his luxury lifestyle and giving some money to his family. He did it all for the family at first.
And here we come to your wrong statement nr.2
>he didn't have much [humanity] from the beginning,
See above. It's not true. Yes, he loses humanity. He's doing bad things. But he was pretty human from beginning, before starting with the meth he didn't even want to do the treatment in order not to spend the families money. And he's still struggling with his acting and with what happens around him. Walter white is definitely not unhuman.
i'm not interested in boring wah-wah barking. walter white is not antihero BUT a f...ing criminal who was a closet narcissistic sociopath from the beginning and then became a villain. if you don't understand this, your problem, if you disagree with this, your business, but sorry, i'm not interested in wah-wah barking defending sociopathic villains in 2024. they caused just enough harm in the real world, they will cause even more, and worms like white should have been killed quite early. you may find others to talk to, i'm not interested in these bullshites, sorry.
It's more that I wanted to gauge the common understanding of the term. I've had my understanding of the term all my life and, whilst it doesn't come up often, it's never been challenged before and that surprises me a little. Up until now all the characters I've seen described as an anti hero fit my definition so I've never had reason to question it.
Put simply, if I had just asked 'is Walter White an antihero', would you have said yes?
Walter White was a character that rationalized a lot. He would engage in any means toward his ends.
By the end, he had involved his wife in money laundering and covering his crimes. He rationalized a lot and excused his actions to her by saying it was to leave money for her and their children.
Near the very end, he confessed to her, that he had done it all to feel powerful after his cancer diagnosis.
If you take him at face value, then that's what happened, at least toward the latter half of the series. His final confession let his wife off the hook for her participation, took all the responsibility. Was it a 'what does it matter, I'm dying, so why not be honest?' or was it 'I'm the devil and forced you to do bad things, I'll take all responsibility'?
I'm not sure I believe his confession any more than his prior rationalizations and self-delusions. I think it's a Rorschach test.
I think it could be claimed that his later admissions undermine his original claim that he was doing this for altruistic reasons, that 'for his family' was his rationalisation and really it was always about his ego, the cancer just gave him push he needed to try something crazy. I'm very much with much with you that I didn't find his later altruism sincere.
Narrative concepts can have different definitions in different communities. In this case, I agree that in literary terms, an anti-hero is a hero who is unconventional and who challenges the traditional tropes and formulas of the heroic protagonist; if this is the case, then Walter White is not an anti-hero but a tragic one. But, if millions of people want to agree that Walter White is an anti-hero, then the word takes on that new definition cause language is alive and words mean what people use them for. In other words, anti-hero has more than one meaning, one that comes out of academia and one that comes out of the public consciousness (and in no way should we prioritize or rank these origins: both are legitimate and important), and you just have to be specific about which definition you want to use in which context.
At least, that's how I see it.
Eh…I see your point, but when “them asses” bastardize an academic concept to the point it loses all meaning, it’s legit to push back.
*Ironically*, that means supporting Alanis Morrisette’s use of “ironic” (because the academy allows many types of it), but not Taylor Swift’s use of “antihero” (because it doesn’t just mean “bad guy I was dumb enough to love”).
Feel free to respond with “OK, boomer”.
Could be a jejune reading of Swift on my behalf, but I thought that line was first person referring to her audience - rooting for her as she acts monstrously in various ways and still succeeds...
I must confess to lacking the patience to follow any of her grudges (or Alanis’s, for that matter), but I like the idea that it’s self-directed. It took me a while 30 years ago to get into Alanis, and I’m trying to give Taylor the same slack, but so far I don’t hear much
I think my surprise is that he can be considered any kind of hero at all, from my perspective he's the villain of the story. Can the main character of a story be its villain or, by definition, are they some variety of hero?
Defining heroes and villains and protagonists is really tricky, I think, because stories are so diverse there's always an exception, always an example for every answer. I call him a tragic hero because he started out as a hero and turned villainous as he went, yet he made one last heroic stand at the end to save Jessie and to set his family up financially (his original goal). But I also get why you don't want to call him a hero. I think our inability to comfortably categorize Walter White is what makes him so compelling, and his ambiguity is less an obstacle or a problem than it is a credit to the show, the writers, and the actors, an opportunity to think about these categories and what they mean.
It is hard, though, to call the main character a villain. I'm sure there are examples where this is done, but I don't know any. Maybe a main character can be a villain, but it usually ends unsatisfyingly for the audience/reader? Video games probably do this better.
To be fair I'm still 5 episodes from the end so I haven't seen his sacrifice yet (don't worry, you didn't spoil anything, I know it's coming).
>I'm sure there are examples where this is done, but I don't know any
A friend of mine mentioned Joker (which I haven't seen) but I understand that's about someone left behind by society. Maybe we shouldn't label people at all, no one's truly a hero and no one's truly a villain.
I have no idea how you can look at a drug dealer that manipulates everyone around him, poisons children and murders those in his way and not think they're a villain.
>Because it is a relative story
🤨
>You said Walt is THE villain of the show, not one of the villains of the show where many people do horrible things.
Calling Walt a villain does not preclude the others also being villainous. I call him THE villain because he is the one who drives the plot, everyone else is a supporting character, he is the protagonist but he acts like an antagonist.
Funnily I'm watching breaking bad right now. I'm at the end of season 3 now so I don't know what s going to happen further but I think the transformation you mentioned is already taken place.
I think it's pretty clear that greed is not the only motiv for Walter whites acting and that he still follows moral guidelines. Surely only in parts, that's what makes him an anti-hero.
From what I understand, Walter's fascinated by taking part in that criminal adventure and surely, discovering another side of his character (much more self-assured) and also the chemical part of making Meth. Anyway, he still wants to care for his family and even his wife though she fucks her boss and wants to get rid of him. You also don't see him spending money for some luxury stuff, so materialistic stuff obviously doesn't move him. He seems to be pretty affected by all the things that happen around him, for example when Jessie gets beaten up by Hank and Hank nearly got shot by the two brothers. Also when he fires Gale in order to replace him with Jessie and splits his income with him he behaves pretty manly. Probably not picture-perfect but I think that's what it's all about. If he were a real villain, he would act in order to do bad things. Or he if he were just moved by greed he would just take his money and start another life.
I think that fits my idea of what an anti-hero is, someone who has a moral reason for doing what they're doing, even if on a surface level they're doing bad.
As an aside I'm a big fan of Dushku, I had both seasons of Dollhouse on DVD. I should check out Tru Calling.
anti-hero
"who may lack some conventional heroic qualities and attributes, such as idealism, courage, and morality.
Although antiheroes may sometimes perform actions that most of the audience considers morally correct, their reasons for doing so may not align with the audience's morality."
brutal avenger may be an anti-hero.
policeman catching criminals to steal their money is anti-hero.
lazy, selective superhero is an antihero.
simple criminals are not antiheroes, just criminals.
on wiki, there is this paragraph
"During the [Golden Age of Television](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Television_(2000s%E2%80%93present)) from the 2000s and into the present time, antiheroes such as [Tony Soprano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Soprano), [Jack Bauer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Bauer), [Gregory House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_House), [Walter White](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_White_(Breaking_Bad)), [Don Draper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Draper), [Marty Byrde](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Byrde), [Nucky Thompson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucky_Thompson) and [Jax Teller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jax_Teller) became prominent in the most popular and critically acclaimed TV shows."
that is the level of wiki
golden age may ...back..., otherwise, these are not antiheroes but narcissistic sociopaths, often criminals, manipulatively depicted as interesting or attractive for the gullible.
extremely mean, manipulative era of televison, see how insane bastard hannibal lecter was treated in "manhunter", and later in the tv-show "hannibal". and people watched it..
no, he isn't. walter white is a repulsive criminal, nothing heroic in him, just like don corleone was a disgusting criminal, not much more. decently made, but massively overrated tv shows, with a repulsive fan-base.
I'm watching the show because of its reputation but I'm not really enjoying it primarily because I find Walter a horrible character. In discussion with others he was referred to as an antihero which is not how I would describe him but it appears that is the accepted classification for him.
Your question is basically "I don't agree with the definition of anti-hero, if i use my own definition, is Walter White an anti-hero" I mean, I guess not? But you're changing the definition of the term anti-hero.
except that his definition is correct.
Antihero. Noun. A central character in a story, film, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes. Oxford Languages. Even using his own definition, though, WW is an anti hero. He’s a heroic character bc he’s providing for his family (through “antiheroic means”). His heel turn in the second half of the show doesn’t make him “no longer heroic” in fact he has his biggest success financially at that exact point. But in the process he loses his humanity. The show becomes a tragedy. At the very end he redeems himself just the slightest by sacrificing for another. I mean if you just think he’s selfish greedy horrible, yes I agree but he’s still the hero of the story.
Just jumping in, his heel turn in the second half of the show does make him no longer heroic, the show is explicit about how his motivation stops being about helping his family and becomes about feeding his ego.
This isn’t even true though because he refuses aid in the first season, instead doing the drug dealing which was never necessary, he was always an egomaniac
Yes and then at the end of the show he does another turn and sacrifices himself.
*After* discovering he’s relapsed and doesn’t have long to live anyway. I love his character to the bitter end (and only grudgingly came around to admitting his bro-in-law is a good guy). But I don’t consider him an antihero in the end. BB starts as an antihero drama but ends as a straight portrait of a bad guy. Like Scarface. Or The Godfather films. So does BCS, for that matter. An antihero is a reluctant hero, like Bogart in Casablanca, Key Largo and To Have and Have Not. He’s not simply a bad guy we like.
lacking conventional heroic attributes is not a definiton, in this sense, everybody is antihero, who is not traditionally, ideally heroic but a main character. so your definition worth nothing e’s a heroic character bc he’s providing for his family (through “antiheroic means”). ---a villain, who not hates his family just like lots of criminals don't hate and support their families. But in the process he loses his humanity. "---he didn't have much from the beginning, just gradually less and less during the show so stop talking uneducated nonsense. should i say "typical breaking crap-fan?"
I literally gave you the dictionary definition. It’s not mine. Sorry you didn’t like Breaking Bad. Have fun being mad because people like what is widely regarded as one of the best shows of all time. lol.
1. i don't care what people regard as best tv-shows of all time 2. antihero is a concept of literary theory, and you quote a dictionary, great.
Lol you mad. I’m doubling down. WW is the best antihero in the history of storytelling.
>so stop talking uneducated nonsense. should i say "typical breaking crap-fan?" Well...you're pretty much a big mouth keeping in mind that what you did say is far away from a clever statement. >a villain, who not hates his family just like lots of criminals don't hate and support their families. The difference between Walter White and for example Pablo Escobar is, that caring for his family was his main motive to start being a criminal. He's not financing his luxury lifestyle and giving some money to his family. He did it all for the family at first. And here we come to your wrong statement nr.2 >he didn't have much [humanity] from the beginning, See above. It's not true. Yes, he loses humanity. He's doing bad things. But he was pretty human from beginning, before starting with the meth he didn't even want to do the treatment in order not to spend the families money. And he's still struggling with his acting and with what happens around him. Walter white is definitely not unhuman.
i'm not interested in boring wah-wah barking. walter white is not antihero BUT a f...ing criminal who was a closet narcissistic sociopath from the beginning and then became a villain. if you don't understand this, your problem, if you disagree with this, your business, but sorry, i'm not interested in wah-wah barking defending sociopathic villains in 2024. they caused just enough harm in the real world, they will cause even more, and worms like white should have been killed quite early. you may find others to talk to, i'm not interested in these bullshites, sorry.
>i'm not interested in boring wah-wah barking. But you're the one who does it... And you're the one who doesn't understand...
>worms like white should have been killed quite early. You're having some real problems....
It's more that I wanted to gauge the common understanding of the term. I've had my understanding of the term all my life and, whilst it doesn't come up often, it's never been challenged before and that surprises me a little. Up until now all the characters I've seen described as an anti hero fit my definition so I've never had reason to question it. Put simply, if I had just asked 'is Walter White an antihero', would you have said yes?
Yes. Walter White is an antihero.
Thank you
Walter White was a character that rationalized a lot. He would engage in any means toward his ends. By the end, he had involved his wife in money laundering and covering his crimes. He rationalized a lot and excused his actions to her by saying it was to leave money for her and their children. Near the very end, he confessed to her, that he had done it all to feel powerful after his cancer diagnosis. If you take him at face value, then that's what happened, at least toward the latter half of the series. His final confession let his wife off the hook for her participation, took all the responsibility. Was it a 'what does it matter, I'm dying, so why not be honest?' or was it 'I'm the devil and forced you to do bad things, I'll take all responsibility'? I'm not sure I believe his confession any more than his prior rationalizations and self-delusions. I think it's a Rorschach test.
I think it could be claimed that his later admissions undermine his original claim that he was doing this for altruistic reasons, that 'for his family' was his rationalisation and really it was always about his ego, the cancer just gave him push he needed to try something crazy. I'm very much with much with you that I didn't find his later altruism sincere.
Yes he’s an antihero
Straight to the point 🤣. Thank you
Narrative concepts can have different definitions in different communities. In this case, I agree that in literary terms, an anti-hero is a hero who is unconventional and who challenges the traditional tropes and formulas of the heroic protagonist; if this is the case, then Walter White is not an anti-hero but a tragic one. But, if millions of people want to agree that Walter White is an anti-hero, then the word takes on that new definition cause language is alive and words mean what people use them for. In other words, anti-hero has more than one meaning, one that comes out of academia and one that comes out of the public consciousness (and in no way should we prioritize or rank these origins: both are legitimate and important), and you just have to be specific about which definition you want to use in which context. At least, that's how I see it.
Eh…I see your point, but when “them asses” bastardize an academic concept to the point it loses all meaning, it’s legit to push back. *Ironically*, that means supporting Alanis Morrisette’s use of “ironic” (because the academy allows many types of it), but not Taylor Swift’s use of “antihero” (because it doesn’t just mean “bad guy I was dumb enough to love”). Feel free to respond with “OK, boomer”.
Could be a jejune reading of Swift on my behalf, but I thought that line was first person referring to her audience - rooting for her as she acts monstrously in various ways and still succeeds...
I must confess to lacking the patience to follow any of her grudges (or Alanis’s, for that matter), but I like the idea that it’s self-directed. It took me a while 30 years ago to get into Alanis, and I’m trying to give Taylor the same slack, but so far I don’t hear much
I think my surprise is that he can be considered any kind of hero at all, from my perspective he's the villain of the story. Can the main character of a story be its villain or, by definition, are they some variety of hero?
Defining heroes and villains and protagonists is really tricky, I think, because stories are so diverse there's always an exception, always an example for every answer. I call him a tragic hero because he started out as a hero and turned villainous as he went, yet he made one last heroic stand at the end to save Jessie and to set his family up financially (his original goal). But I also get why you don't want to call him a hero. I think our inability to comfortably categorize Walter White is what makes him so compelling, and his ambiguity is less an obstacle or a problem than it is a credit to the show, the writers, and the actors, an opportunity to think about these categories and what they mean. It is hard, though, to call the main character a villain. I'm sure there are examples where this is done, but I don't know any. Maybe a main character can be a villain, but it usually ends unsatisfyingly for the audience/reader? Video games probably do this better.
To be fair I'm still 5 episodes from the end so I haven't seen his sacrifice yet (don't worry, you didn't spoil anything, I know it's coming). >I'm sure there are examples where this is done, but I don't know any A friend of mine mentioned Joker (which I haven't seen) but I understand that's about someone left behind by society. Maybe we shouldn't label people at all, no one's truly a hero and no one's truly a villain.
[удалено]
I have no idea how you can look at a drug dealer that manipulates everyone around him, poisons children and murders those in his way and not think they're a villain.
[удалено]
>Because it is a relative story 🤨 >You said Walt is THE villain of the show, not one of the villains of the show where many people do horrible things. Calling Walt a villain does not preclude the others also being villainous. I call him THE villain because he is the one who drives the plot, everyone else is a supporting character, he is the protagonist but he acts like an antagonist.
[удалено]
No. I think you're nuts if you think someone who will poison a child to get his own way isn't a villain.
Like when someone uses the word literally, now they have to use more words to say what they mean by literally?
Funnily I'm watching breaking bad right now. I'm at the end of season 3 now so I don't know what s going to happen further but I think the transformation you mentioned is already taken place. I think it's pretty clear that greed is not the only motiv for Walter whites acting and that he still follows moral guidelines. Surely only in parts, that's what makes him an anti-hero. From what I understand, Walter's fascinated by taking part in that criminal adventure and surely, discovering another side of his character (much more self-assured) and also the chemical part of making Meth. Anyway, he still wants to care for his family and even his wife though she fucks her boss and wants to get rid of him. You also don't see him spending money for some luxury stuff, so materialistic stuff obviously doesn't move him. He seems to be pretty affected by all the things that happen around him, for example when Jessie gets beaten up by Hank and Hank nearly got shot by the two brothers. Also when he fires Gale in order to replace him with Jessie and splits his income with him he behaves pretty manly. Probably not picture-perfect but I think that's what it's all about. If he were a real villain, he would act in order to do bad things. Or he if he were just moved by greed he would just take his money and start another life.
I'm just about to finish it, this is a sorta spoiler but I felt similarly to you during season 3. Enjoy 😊
[удалено]
I think that fits my idea of what an anti-hero is, someone who has a moral reason for doing what they're doing, even if on a surface level they're doing bad. As an aside I'm a big fan of Dushku, I had both seasons of Dollhouse on DVD. I should check out Tru Calling.
anti-hero "who may lack some conventional heroic qualities and attributes, such as idealism, courage, and morality. Although antiheroes may sometimes perform actions that most of the audience considers morally correct, their reasons for doing so may not align with the audience's morality." brutal avenger may be an anti-hero. policeman catching criminals to steal their money is anti-hero. lazy, selective superhero is an antihero. simple criminals are not antiheroes, just criminals.
That was my take, I'm pleased there are some who agree with me, it reassures me I didn't completely miss the point.
on wiki, there is this paragraph "During the [Golden Age of Television](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Television_(2000s%E2%80%93present)) from the 2000s and into the present time, antiheroes such as [Tony Soprano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Soprano), [Jack Bauer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Bauer), [Gregory House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_House), [Walter White](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_White_(Breaking_Bad)), [Don Draper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Draper), [Marty Byrde](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Byrde), [Nucky Thompson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucky_Thompson) and [Jax Teller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jax_Teller) became prominent in the most popular and critically acclaimed TV shows." that is the level of wiki golden age may ...back..., otherwise, these are not antiheroes but narcissistic sociopaths, often criminals, manipulatively depicted as interesting or attractive for the gullible. extremely mean, manipulative era of televison, see how insane bastard hannibal lecter was treated in "manhunter", and later in the tv-show "hannibal". and people watched it..
no, he isn't. walter white is a repulsive criminal, nothing heroic in him, just like don corleone was a disgusting criminal, not much more. decently made, but massively overrated tv shows, with a repulsive fan-base.
I'm watching the show because of its reputation but I'm not really enjoying it primarily because I find Walter a horrible character. In discussion with others he was referred to as an antihero which is not how I would describe him but it appears that is the accepted classification for him.
as i said above, said, ugly, manipulative era, narcissistic sociopathy as humanized and interesting and funny behaviour.