Hero, Anti-Hero, Protagonist, Antagonist and Femme Fatale
Kat Richardson
I found someone saying that plot construction required "a protagonist and
an anti-hero" and I just about hit the roof. Have I lost it? Is not
"anti-hero" a description of a _type_ of character, not a plot element?
Did "antagonist" go on vacation and leave the job to Sam Spade?
And on the subject of anti-heroes, I noted in a different discussion that
female anti-heroes are not as common as male ones and was told that they
are femmes fatale. But I'd always had the impression that there is a
difference of more than gender between these two types. The anti-hero is
not motivated by the traditional reasons of the "noble" hero in undertaking
the action which resolves the plot, but is in opposition to those
traditional "good" motives. He is a character type which, traditionally,
would not have been heroic, but villianous or wicked or possibly in the
position of Campbell's "failed hero". He is, of necessity, conflicted and
often amoral, criminal or outcast. However, a femme fatale is not
necessarily any of these, she is simply the feminine tool of destruction by
reason of her sexuality and attraction. She's the doom you can't resist,
even if she doesn't do it intentionally. Gilda, of Charles Vidor's famous
film, is a classic femme fatale.
But, John Sandford's Clara Rinker is an anti-hero in Mortal Prey, not a
femme fatale (no matter how fatal). Cora Smith, in The Postman Always
Rings Twice is a femme fatale, but not an anti-hero, as she has no conflict
with the traditional role. Or am I off base?
And why, as someone asked me, are there not Hommes fatale?
Is it a cultural bias that only women can lead you to your doom and only men
can be conflicted about why they undertake heroic actions?
--
Kat Richardson
Character is who you are once the lights go out.
http://www.eskimo.com/~strange
Randy Money
looking for, Kat, but in a sense there is a "hommes fatale" in it. Sort
of. And a female anti-hero.
Then again, I just finished the book and I'm mulling over the reasons it
disappointed me -- mainly the use of an old narrative tactic that I find
illogical, I think, as opposed to a philosophical disagreement with the
book's implications.
Randy M.
BoxHill
>Is it a cultural bias that only women can lead you to your doom and only men
>can be conflicted about why they undertake heroic actions?
>
>--
>Kat Richardson
Absolutely. Straight out of Germaine Greer. Women are restricted to the
Mother, the Virgin, and the Whore. Women's virtue or lack thereof revolves
completely around sex. Since they are devoid of intellectual ability and
ethics (Women can only have simple, sexual morals--not ethics), women cannot be
conflicted in the way required to be an anti-hero. Besides, it might be
unattractive!
Janet
//Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a snare:
//Bedlam has many Mansions: have a care:
//Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:
//You think your self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.
Kat Richardson
I'd have thought we'd moved a bit beyond all that by now, but maybe we
haven't...
Kat Richardson
> I'm not sure if _In the Cut_ by Susanna Moore is quite what you're
> looking for, Kat, but in a sense there is a "hommes fatale" in it. Sort
> of. And a female anti-hero.
>
> Then again, I just finished the book and I'm mulling over the reasons it
> disappointed me -- mainly the use of an old narrative tactic that I find
> illogical, I think, as opposed to a philosophical disagreement with the
> book's implications.
>
> Randy M.
No, I haven't read that one, but it sounds interesting.
I had rather expected, given the expansion of female roles in the real world
and their expansion in literature--especially with the advent of our own
Tarts Noir, here--that there would be more of these non-traditional women
in fiction, but I'm not seeing that many of them. Possibly, I'm missing
them, though.
It seems, at first blush, that it would be easy to simply take a plot
featuring a male anti-hero and just swap gender, but it's not quite so
straightforward, and possibly this is what is causing them to be in hiding,
still. There are things about femininity and masculinity which are not
just about clothing and whether you piss sitting or standing, yet they
don't seem to restrict the motivations and dissaffection of a character to
the degree that they simply cannot operate in that Plot position. So where
are they? Maybe there aren't enough women writing hard-boiled noir (the
natural habitat of the anti-hero).
Kat Richardson
> Kat Richardson <null....@lycos.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Is it a cultural bias that only women can lead you to your doom and only
>> men can be conflicted about why they undertake heroic actions?
>
> That's a fascinating idea. (I'm not up on literary terminology, although I
> do have a vague idea that "protagonist" and "antihero" were not being used
> correctly.)
>
> I think it probably is a cultural bias. When you think how many women in
> real life are, well, if not led to their doom, certainly led to
> disaster by their attraction to sexy but unsuitable men, it seems like
> there should be a word for men of this type. There are probably a lot of
> words, actually, mostly unprintable, but none with quite the same sense as
> femme fatale. Maybe it's because the idea of a woman doing the pursuing
> and a man being the lure is still a bit uncomfortable.
>
> And the whole idea of a female hero, conflicted or not, is a tricky one.
> When I was growing up, there seemed to be a lot of children's biographies
> about heros, male and female, suitably inspirational and sanitized. I
> don't know if they exist now, but I used to love them. None of them were
> conflicted, of course, but now, it seems that the whole idea of "hero" is
> tied up with teenage pop stars or heros-by-association, like spouses of
> famous men. Those old books did tend to focus on the female hero as
> sacrificial caregiver (first female nurse/doctor in the UK/US/Canada), but
> there were always some who were explorers, settlers, or monarchs. I think
> the problem today is with a difficulty in seeing women as heroic, not in
> seeing heroic women as conflicted.
>
> Cheryl
Interesting thought. What a sad thing to imagine that women cannot be
heroic unless they are martyrs or selfless servants. Bleh...
I have to admit that I don't really like the use of the word "hero" to
denote protagonists in stories, as it seems to me to imply "The Hero" with
his white horse and shining armor and masculine duty and all that crap. I
find flawed protagonists much more interesting than Heroes.
Randy Money
> Randy Money scrawled:
>
>
>>I'm not sure if _In the Cut_ by Susanna Moore is quite what you're
>>looking for, Kat, but in a sense there is a "hommes fatale" in it. Sort
>>of. And a female anti-hero.
>>
>>Then again, I just finished the book and I'm mulling over the reasons it
>>disappointed me -- mainly the use of an old narrative tactic that I find
>>illogical, I think, as opposed to a philosophical disagreement with the
>>book's implications.
>>
>>Randy M.
>
>
> No, I haven't read that one, but it sounds interesting.
_ItC_ deals with an intelligent woman who is too distant from her own
emotions to behave intelligently. She is a pretty good analog for a lot
of the guys in noir fiction -- think of the guy in the movie "Detour"
and she's not too far off, just better read. (The guy in her life isn't
like the woman in "Detour," btw.)
There was a big stink over it when it was first published, the usual
bickering over whether it's a good novel or not, whether it's really
erotic or not, whether it's a thriller with thrills or falls flat,
whether it expresses a feminist view or falls into the same old male
patriarchal POV ... And there seemed to be some shock that such a
shocking subject could be written about by a woman so shockingly.
It's an okay novel, engaging in spots, even erotic in spots (I do like
how she handles sex: briefly, with just enough detail and not a word
more than necessary), the answer to the mystery maybe telegraphed a bit,
but my objection to a certain literary device -- can't mention which,
it's a spoiler -- really reduces any level of objectivity when I try
assessing its worth. I'd love to hear thoughts on it if anyone here read it.
> I had rather expected, given the expansion of female roles in the real world
> and their expansion in literature--especially with the advent of our own
> Tarts Noir, here--that there would be more of these non-traditional women
> in fiction, but I'm not seeing that many of them. Possibly, I'm missing
> them, though.
>
> It seems, at first blush, that it would be easy to simply take a plot
> featuring a male anti-hero and just swap gender, but it's not quite so
> straightforward, and possibly this is what is causing them to be in hiding,
> still. There are things about femininity and masculinity which are not
> just about clothing and whether you piss sitting or standing, yet they
> don't seem to restrict the motivations and dissaffection of a character to
> the degree that they simply cannot operate in that Plot position. So where
> are they? Maybe there aren't enough women writing hard-boiled noir (the
> natural habitat of the anti-hero).
This sounds like a job for --- A Writer! Here's where you can jump in
and remedy the situation, right? And why not take the tactic of
absconding with a classic plot line, switching the roles, changing the
story accordingly and seeing what happens?
Okay, you can't do that with Woolrich's _I Married a Dead Man_ since
that requires your male protagonist to be pregnant, but why not _The
Postman Always Rings Twice_? Or _The Killer Inside Me_? Or, what the
heck, _The Maltese Falcon_? ("Listen. .... maybe you love me and maybe I
love you, and maybe we can find out on conjugal visit days ...")
Randy M.
(okay, maybe too much coffee so far this morning ...)
Bill Davis
>
> Absolutely. Straight out of Germaine Greer.
Which may be why so many men had such a tough time extracting the truthful
elements of feminist doctrine for so long...
That view works only when you put on sexual politics blinders.
Women are restricted to the
> Mother, the Virgin, and the Whore. Women's virtue or lack thereof revolves
> completely around sex.
For Gods sake don't tell Margaret Mead, OR Anika Sorenstram (sp) for that
matter. In fact, the sports arena pretty well flies in the face of that.
Sure physically attractive women tend to pull better TV ratings (just like
men) but their VALUE vis a vis the sport is typically still in the
performance. Notable exceptions like the current Tennis insanity not
withstanding.
Since they are devoid of intellectual ability and
> ethics (Women can only have simple, sexual morals--not ethics), women
cannot be
> conflicted in the way required to be an anti-hero. Besides, it might be
> unattractive!
> Janet
BTW, speaking of the Homme Fatale...
Did anyone see the disgusting story that broke on yesterday's TV newsfeeds
about the 70something woman who was arrested for "grooming" her
granddaughters in matters sexual in anticipation of the release from
prision of grandmas "pen pal" convict?
I had to run in and take a shower after the segment. Yuck!
--
Bill Davis
NewVideo
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
BoxHill
>>
>> Absolutely. Straight out of Germaine Greer.
>
>Which may be why so many men had such a tough time extracting the truthful
>elements of feminist doctrine for so long...
>That view works only when you put on sexual politics blinders.
I very much doubt that blinders on feminists had anything to do with male
resistance to acknowledging the truth of what many early modern feminists like
Germaine Greer had to say. I think it is pretty clear who was wearing the
blinders.
Please note that I am not suggesting that Greer or anyone else had a lock on
the truth, and I certainly have never held any brief for the "all heterosexual
sex is rape" crowd and other such extremists.
But you can't with any intellectual honesty use the Watts riots, for example,
as an excuse to deny the validity of the civil rights movement. (As some then
did.)
Did you ever read "The Female Eunuch"? She did a superb job of skewering the
stereotypical treatment of women in mostly popular literature. Of course, she
used extreme examples such as Norman Mailer and Barbara Cartland to make her
point, but it didn't make her point any less valid. Heck, Greer herself was
very much a larger than life character.
But I don't think that one would have to view everything in life through the
lens of sexual politics to agree that she was on to something. By now, the book
is probably quite dated, since even the worst writers feel that they have to
make at least a bow in the direction of making their female characters
something other than elbow ornaments. (Even if it's only a SPUNKY elbow
ornament.....) Of course, every writer isn't like that, and wasn't then either,
thankfully.
>For Gods sake don't tell Margaret Mead, OR Anika Sorenstram (sp) for that
>matter. In fact, the sports arena pretty well flies in the face of that.
I assume that you are not suggesting that the existence of one famous female
anthropologist negates the reality of sexual discrimination during her
time....or are you talking about her looks? Or the golfer's looks? I saw her
for the first time recently, and I though she was rather attractive, actually.
More to the point, the sports arena you are talking about didn't EXIST when
Greer wrote that book.
It now exists largely because of the efforts of those modern feminists who
worked to get Title IX passed.
>Sure physically attractive women tend to pull better TV ratings (just like
>men) but their VALUE vis a vis the sport is typically still in the
>performance. Notable exceptions like the current Tennis insanity not
>withstanding.
What tennis insanity do you mean? I don't follow tennis much anymore.
Bill Davis
(BoxHill) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Absolutely. Straight out of Germaine Greer.
> >
> >Which may be why so many men had such a tough time extracting the truthful
> >elements of feminist doctrine for so long...
> >That view works only when you put on sexual politics blinders.
>
> I very much doubt that blinders on feminists had anything to do with male
> resistance to acknowledging the truth of what many early modern feminists like
> Germaine Greer had to say. I think it is pretty clear who was wearing the
> blinders.
Then we respectfully disagree. I think the blinders have often been seen
on the faces of BOTH sides.
I hold the view that there was a LARGE and committed group of men (perhaps
even the majority) - well BEFORE the feminist movement who treated women
as exactly what they are. People. And that large numbers of men thoughout
history have delt with the opposite sex with care and decency. Sure there
was institutionalized discrimination. There's ALWAYS that in any
interaction between groups. But shoulder to shoulder with that were people
on BOTH sides of the gender fence who have always felt that discrimination
in any form is stupid.
In fact, I'd argue that promoting circumstances that restrain or constrict
the choices of someone you "love" is irrational. So are you saying that
throughout history, men (in overwhelming numbers) have not loved women? Or
vice versa? Our social history of relentless pair-bonding seems to suggest
otherwise.
I completely understand that "radicalization" of the women't movement in
the Germaine Greer era, but I still suspect that for many ignorant men, it
was easy to dismiss feminist dogma as "fringe" simply because a large
amount of the feminist canon of the times was a SEPARATIST point of view
in a world where the vast majority of men and women choose to ALLY
themselves with the opposite sex for fundamental mutual satisfaction.
Essentially, in my view, they wrapped much sensible thought about
important issues such as equality of opportunity, etc, etc, etc, in a
counterproductive "us against them" ribbon. For me, that type of thinking
does a disservice wherever it happens.
>
> Please note that I am not suggesting that Greer or anyone else had a lock on
> the truth, and I certainly have never held any brief for the "all heterosexual
> sex is rape" crowd and other such extremists.
>
> But you can't with any intellectual honesty use the Watts riots, for example,
> as an excuse to deny the validity of the civil rights movement. (As some then
> did.)
>
> Did you ever read "The Female Eunuch"? She did a superb job of skewering the
> stereotypical treatment of women in mostly popular literature. Of course, she
> used extreme examples such as Norman Mailer and Barbara Cartland to make her
> point, but it didn't make her point any less valid. Heck, Greer herself was
> very much a larger than life character.
Look, I don't for one second argue that women haven't been victimized by
many social conventions. And I have no quarrel whatsoever with the basic
ideological underpinnings of the women's movement. Where I have problems
is in any dogma that serves to separate humans into groups with the idea
of advancing the superiority of one, or promulgaing the inferiority of the
other. And taking the fact that it's been unbalenced one way for a long
time as justification for unbalancing in the the OPPOSITE fashion is
illogical.
WHEN (and I say *when* advisedly knowing full well that many feminist
advocates did NOT do this) feminist doctrine descended into an "us against
them" mentality - I think it lost it's way - and was unnecessarily
alienating. And when it is concerned insuring the equities of co-existence
- arguing voiciferously that people - all people - men AND women, should
be treated equitibly - it shines.
Then again, I'm a guy. So maybe I don't get a vote. Too bad, tho. Cuz I'm
probably likely to vote in concert with the sisterhood the VAST majority
of the time.
>
> But I don't think that one would have to view everything in life through the
> lens of sexual politics to agree that she was on to something. By now,
the book
> is probably quite dated, since even the worst writers feel that they have to
> make at least a bow in the direction of making their female characters
> something other than elbow ornaments. (Even if it's only a SPUNKY elbow
> ornament.....) Of course, every writer isn't like that, and wasn't then
either,
> thankfully.
On this we COMPLETELY agree.
>
> >For Gods sake don't tell Margaret Mead, OR Anika Sorenstram (sp) for that
> >matter. In fact, the sports arena pretty well flies in the face of that.
>
> I assume that you are not suggesting that the existence of one famous female
> anthropologist negates the reality of sexual discrimination during her
> time....or are you talking about her looks? Or the golfer's looks? I saw her
> for the first time recently, and I though she was rather attractive, actually.
I was trying (clearly badly) to make the point that throughout history
women HAVE been acknowledged for their accomplishments - and that it has
not NECESSARILY been associated with their sexuality. (I don't know if Mme
Curie was a "hottie" or not - and who cares as long as my alarm clock
hands glow!) The original contention was that in the past women MUST fit
into severely limited categories (mother, virgin, whore.) And I was trying
to point out that plenty of women in areas such as science, engineering,
etc. etc. have NOT - and that that's been going on (IN THE FACE of plenty
of systematic discrimination) for a long, long time.
>
> More to the point, the sports arena you are talking about didn't EXIST when
> Greer wrote that book.
Two words - Wilma Rudolph.
>
> It now exists largely because of the efforts of those modern feminists who
> worked to get Title IX passed.
>
Perhaps. They certainly deserve a LOT of the credit. But their efforts
stand atop (but not diminished by) the changing economic roles of women
which started LONG before Title IX. It could be looked at as a "chicken or
the egg" deal. Did feminism drive women's societal roles - or did women's
societal roles drive feminism? Who's more a "mother" to the women's
movement? Ms. Greer? or "Rosie the Riveter" or the average Civil War wife
who looked up one day and found herself facing the reality that all the
local guys were dead?
The only thing I know for sure is that I'm glad my wife, my neice (AND my
son, for that matter) are growing up in THIS social climate, rather than
in the one that permeated the 1860s!
> >Sure physically attractive women tend to pull better TV ratings (just like
> >men) but their VALUE vis a vis the sport is typically still in the
> >performance. Notable exceptions like the current Tennis insanity not
> >withstanding.
>
> What tennis insanity do you mean? I don't follow tennis much anymore.
>
> Janet
I don't follow it much either. But isn't there a woman tennis pro who get
tons of press because she's attractive, even tho she hasn't won any major
tennis tournements? I think it's just the modern marketing-driven culture.
We're visual beasts, after all.
And attractive (however we define it THIS week) is a trait that NEVER goes
out of style.
Kat Richardson
>> Maybe there aren't enough women writing hard-boiled noir (the
>> natural habitat of the anti-hero).
>
> This sounds like a job for --- A Writer! Here's where you can jump in
> and remedy the situation, right? And why not take the tactic of
> absconding with a classic plot line, switching the roles, changing the
> story accordingly and seeing what happens?
>
> Okay, you can't do that with Woolrich's _I Married a Dead Man_ since
> that requires your male protagonist to be pregnant, but why not _The
> Postman Always Rings Twice_? Or _The Killer Inside Me_? Or, what the
> heck, _The Maltese Falcon_? ("Listen. .... maybe you love me and maybe I
> love you, and maybe we can find out on conjugal visit days ...")
>
> Randy M.
> (okay, maybe too much coffee so far this morning ...)
LOL! Oh, I've tried it, but so far, it's not quite working. Probably it's
me, though, unable to get that male-dominated idea of the anti-hero out of
my mind.
Charlie
Whoa Whoa Whoa Kitty take a catnap!
I am gonna love reading through all the responses this post of your's
doubtless elicits!
--
C.W. Cale
(( http://home.earthlink.net/~calico66/
/\ /\)) http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/calico66/
>o~o< "Just give me some truth!"
(") (")
Joanne
>
> Constricting choices of people you love is only irrational if you believe
> that allowing them to make their own choices is rational and proper. Any
> loving parent restricts choices of their children, especially early in
> life. And there have been cultures, not so long ago or far away, in which
> people who loved women tried to get them to fit into very restrictive
> roles in life, because of a profound conviction that they'd be happier
> once they'd accepted their place.
>
> I don't really see this as an issue that divides groups of people along
> gender lines. It was a common societal attitude - and many women accepted
> it. Many mothers made, and still make enormous efforts to ensure that
> their daughters grow up with properly feminine attitudes and ambitions.
> And, of course, they do the reverse to their sons, try to ensure that they
> grow up to be suitably manly. Those roles have become much more open and
> varied since I hit adolescence and began thinking about the issue, but
> male conflicted heroes still seem to be more common than female ones, and
> if that's true, it is interesting, and reminds me of other patterns in
> society in the recent past.
>
> Cheryl
This is very clear in the fundamental Moslem countries,
where some women refuse to give up the burqua even after
"liberation." Many of the traditions that we find
repugnant - female circumcision, for instance - are
perpetrated by women. Traditionally, women raise the
children. So, who taught the male children that the
females were subordinate?
I have experienced a lot of the changes in this country
first hand and in my job history, count some "firsts" for
women. I am grateful. Some of us don't go quietly into
our societally assigned places. In another century, I
might have been burned or crushed by stones. *Yikes*
--
Joanne <mailto:stit...@singerlady.reno.nv.us>
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
JaneHadd
>our societally assigned places.
Some of us couldn't even figure out what they were.
Jane Haddam
Bill Davis
<cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
> I think I always knew what they were, but I have difficulty taking them
> seriously. Some people get more upset if you show that you think some of
> the traditional rules for sex roles are silly than they are if you just
> ignore them.
>
> Cheryl
I always hoped that the women's movement would help confer on the majority
of women a true sense of choice.
Which in my head always meant that if a woman felt most comfortable in
what society views as a "traditional" role - then that's what she should
be allowed to do.
And if she felt compelled to go out and find a position where she can run
everything in sight - including a major corporation or a battleship - well
good for her.
I know as a guy, there are times when I want to speak up and direct my
world. And other times when, frankly, I just don't want to be bothered.
My hope is that the young girls today can be inspired to achieve what they
value - and never waste a minute thinking about what they failed to
achieve - no matter what anyone else says.
For what it's worth.
Joanne
That is, of course, what we wanted. Just an equal chance.
We didn't want and didn't ask for preferential
treatment, just to be given the same opportunities that
men had. It wasn't just the opportunity to make a decent
wage, it was the opportunity to compete for and get a job
that was more challenging. Not that teaching, nursing,
secretarial work, waitressing and hairdressing aren't
challenging, but we wanted something more.
Today, women can do any job a man can do. And vice versa.
That's a really good thing.
Charlie
> These terms keep popping up in discussions around me lately. This evening,
> I found someone saying that plot construction required "a protagonist and
> an anti-hero" and I just about hit the roof. Have I lost it? Is not
> "anti-hero" a description of a _type_ of character, not a plot element?
> Did "antagonist" go on vacation and leave the job to Sam Spade?
Hey Kat, have you ever read "Miami Purity" by Vicki Hendricks. Probably
the best book she wrote and it hits like a hammer with a female
Anti-Hero, an Homme Fatale and the whole thing would've made a perfect
film noir with a sleazier Barbara Stanwyck or uninhibited Lauren Bacall
in the hero role. Find it and gt back to me! ;)
Kat Richardson
> Kat Richardson wrote:
>> These terms keep popping up in discussions around me lately. This
>> evening, I found someone saying that plot construction required "a
>> protagonist and
>> an anti-hero" and I just about hit the roof. Have I lost it? Is not
>> "anti-hero" a description of a _type_ of character, not a plot element?
>> Did "antagonist" go on vacation and leave the job to Sam Spade?
> <snip>
>
> Hey Kat, have you ever read "Miami Purity" by Vicki Hendricks. Probably
> the best book she wrote and it hits like a hammer with a female
> Anti-Hero, an Homme Fatale and the whole thing would've made a perfect
> film noir with a sleazier Barbara Stanwyck or uninhibited Lauren Bacall
> in the hero role. Find it and gt back to me! ;)
>
>
Sounds right up my alley, Charlie! I shall attempt to find it.
Thanks!
Jennifer Jordan
"Hey Kat, have you ever read "Miami Purity" by Vicki Hendricks.
Probably the best book she wrote and it hits like a hammer with a
female Anti-Hero, an Homme Fatale and the whole thing would've made a
perfect film noir with a sleazier Barbara Stanwyck or uninhibited
Charlie
What a great book... sucks you right in and you're left with a slime
that doesn't wash off for weeks when you set it down.
Jen
Bill Davis
<lovin...@cognisurf.com> wrote:
Jen,
THIS is you're idea of a recommendation?
(tho you did inspire me to find Mikey and teach him the "great big gobs of
greasy grimy gopher guts..." ditty - and therefor properly prepare him for
the coming of fourth grade.)
; )
Jennifer Jordan
wrote:
"In article <c3f4dvcpg2efer3iu...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
Jordan
"<lovin...@cognisurf.com> wrote:
"
"Hey Kat, have you ever read "Miami Purity" by Vicki Hendricks.
"Probably the best book she wrote and it hits like a hammer with a
"female Anti-Hero, an Homme Fatale and the whole thing would've made a
"perfect film noir with a sleazier Barbara Stanwyck or uninhibited
"Lauren Bacall in the hero role. Find it and get back to me! ;)
" Charlie
"
>What a great book... sucks you right in and you're left with a slime
>that doesn't wash off for weeks when you set it down.
>Jen
"Jen,
"
"THIS is you're idea of a recommendation?
"
"(tho you did inspire me to find Mikey and teach him the "great big
gobs of "greasy grimy gopher guts..." ditty - and therefor properly
prepare him for the coming of fourth grade.)
"
"; )
Well, thanks, Bill! If I can inspire the passing on of gross
alliteration, I consider it a day well lived!
Seriously, Miami Purity is dark and slimy. Sarah said she had to take
a LONG shower when she was down. A powerful read...
Jen
Charlie
Like I said, BEST thing she's written! Great low down dirty characters!
Some ending up squeaky clean!
Jennifer Jordan
>Seriously, Miami Purity is dark and slimy.
>Sarah said she had to take a LONG shower when she was down. A powerful read...
> Jen
"Like I said, BEST thing she's written! Great low down dirty
characters!
" Some ending up squeaky clean!
Oh, Charlie! You are SO bad! And I mean that in the nicest way.
Jen
BoxHill
>
>> I always hoped that the women's movement would help confer on the majority
>> of women a true sense of choice.
Well, it certainly has made huge strides in that direction!
Many, if not most, women have found it very difficult to deal with doing the
corporate/domestic thing at the same time to their personal satisfaction. Which
is why it has become a serial career thing for many of us. That,of course, has
its problems also.
There will not be true choice for everyone--women OR men--until we conduct
business in a way that assumes that mostl adults have families and people they
are responsible for/to.
Kat Richardson
>> Seriously, Miami Purity is dark and slimy. Sarah said she had to take
>> a LONG shower when she was down. A powerful read...
>>
>> Jen
>
> Like I said, BEST thing she's written! Great low down dirty characters!
> Some ending up squeaky clean!
>
Kind of reminds me of the way I felt at the end of The Last Good Kiss.
Damned good book, though.
Charlie
> Charlie scrawled:
>
>>>Seriously, Miami Purity is dark and slimy. Sarah said she had to take
>>>a LONG shower when she was down. A powerful read...
>>>
>>>Jen
>>
>>Like I said, BEST thing she's written! Great low down dirty characters!
>> Some ending up squeaky clean!
>>
>
>
> Kind of reminds me of the way I felt at the end of The Last Good Kiss.
> Damned good book, though.
>
James Crumley?
I'll have to check that one out!
Zspider
> The anti-hero is
> not motivated by the traditional reasons of the "noble" hero in undertaking
> the action which resolves the plot, but is in opposition to those
> traditional "good" motives. He is a character type which, traditionally,
> would not have been heroic, but villianous or wicked or possibly in the
> position of Campbell's "failed hero". He is, of necessity, conflicted and
> often amoral, criminal or outcast.
*******
Well, I guess I've had it wrong all this time. I've never thought
of the anti-hero as a bad guy. I've always thought of the anti-
hero as more or less an unwilling good guy without the swashbuckling
gait of a musketeer. My classic example would be Dustin Hoffman in
The Graduate.
Learn something every day...
miker
Bill Deeck
news:2774a1e1.03052...@posting.google.com...
From the Microsoft Encarta World English Dictionary:
Antihero
"unheroic central character: somebody who is the central character in a
story but who is not brave, noble, or morally good as heroes traditionally
are"
I would suppose this precludes such characters as Leslie Charteris's The
Saint, Donald Westlake's Dortmunder, and Lawrence Block's Bernie Rhodenbarr,
but would include Westlake's Parker under his Stark pseudonym, George
Macdonald Fraser's Flashman, Kyril Bonfiglioli's Charlie Mortdecai, Frank
McAuliffe's Augustus Mandrell, and Lindsay Douglas's Barney Thomson.
Askew
Bill Davis wrote:
>
>
> Then we respectfully disagree. I think the blinders have often been seen on the
> faces of BOTH sides.
>
> I hold the view that there was a LARGE and committed group of men (perhaps even
> the majority) - well BEFORE the feminist movement who treated women as exactly
> what they are. People. And that large numbers of men thoughout history have delt
> with the opposite sex with care and decency. Sure there
> was institutionalized discrimination. There's ALWAYS that in any interaction
> between groups. >>
But, Bill, there isn't a bit of historical evidence to support your
belief that most men treated women with anything like decency. Men _ran_ all those
institutions which systematically organized the repression of women.
cheers,
Mary
BoxHill
>most men treated women without decency. Certainly they didn't if you
>accept that decent behaviour is partly defined by the standards of the
>society in which you find yourself.
>
>Cheryl
>
Yes, but the problem with that definition is that it also permits the existence
of "decency" in a master/slave relationship....
BoxHill
>even
>> the majority) - well BEFORE the feminist movement who treated women as
>exactly
>> what they are. People.
Yeah--people without the right to vote or the right to own property. And so on.
Bill, you're a very nice guy, but I'm afraid that it is not surprising that
most women would have a somewhat more jaundiced view of the status of women
before the feminist movement than you would.
BTW, I've never seen the post to which I'm replying--I found this bit quoted by
someone else--and I'd love to read it. I tried to find it outside my
newsreader, to no avail. Could you email it to me? Thanks.
Sarah Weinman
news:k1r4dvgo6d84555n7...@4ax.com
>
> Well, thanks, Bill! If I can inspire the passing on of gross
> alliteration, I consider it a day well lived!
>
> Seriously, Miami Purity is dark and slimy. Sarah said she had to take
> a LONG shower when she was down. A powerful read...
>
> Jen
Indeed I did. When I finished it I wasn't sure if I liked it, hated it,
but it's been a couple of years and I have not forgotten it. At all.
I wish more women had the guts or inclination to write noir in a similar
fashion to Vicki Hendricks.
Sarah
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Kat Richardson
> Kat Richardson wrote:
>> Charlie scrawled:
>>
>>>>Seriously, Miami Purity is dark and slimy. Sarah said she had to take
>>>>a LONG shower when she was down. A powerful read...
>>>>
>>>>Jen
>>>
>>>Like I said, BEST thing she's written! Great low down dirty characters!
>>> Some ending up squeaky clean!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Kind of reminds me of the way I felt at the end of The Last Good Kiss.
>> Damned good book, though.
>>
>
> James Crumley?
> I'll have to check that one out!
>
Yes, that would be the one.
Kat Richardson
Actually, I'd throw The Saint into the category of anti-hero, since he
operates under a personal ethical code which is in defiance of Society's.
I'm on the fence about whether a case can be made for good-hearted
criminals like Dortmunder or Rhodenbarr, though, technically, they are not
"morally good" since what they do for a living is outside traditional
morality.
But, Parker and the rest are definate shoe-ins for anti-hero, as I see it.
Kat Richardson
You're correct in that he certainly isn't the rollicking type. but if I'd
implied that he's always a "bad guy" that's not correct either. Please
forgive me if I appear to have implied that. He doesn't always have to be
the star, either. He might be a support to the Hero and I suspect that
expansion of his role out of that position is what eventually allowed the
character type to take center-stage. think of Han Solo's role in the
original Star Wars. He's not a "bad guy" but he's not really a good guy,
either.
Benjamin Braddock in the Graduate was The Reluctant Hero. Another archtype
identified in Campbell. The anti-hero seems to be one of the few character
types to really develop and come into his own much later than the Classical
sources, though he does exist there. Odysseus is on the cutting edge of
being an anti-hero, since he's such a sneaky, tricky bastard and that's
what gets him in trouble with the gods. Characters like that have a
supporting role frequently in literature, but I think the anti-hero
doesn't really get a starring role and full-development until early 20th
century.
I'm not certain, though, since i'm a little sketchy on my literary history
between the Classics and the English Regency.... I'm afraid I kind of
snorkled through that course segment.
Keith Snyder
> "I am not trying to be racist, but he said it's a
> female-dominated field."
It's nice to see someone succeed in not being a racist.
Keith
Askew
Cheryl Perkins wrote:
> vj <websp...@booksnbytes.com> wrote:
>
> > well, as long as you qualify it, yes. decent behavior as defined by
> > those in control of the standards - which were men.
>
> Women were traditionally responsible for bringing up children to follow
> those standards, at least during early childhood. And at some periods,
> women got to be the personifications of the Virtue of the Day. Angel of
> the Home, or The Hand that Rocked the Cradle, or the Reformer of Weak Men.
>
> Cheryl
It is one thing to be responsible for bringing up children in an
informal way, ie, within a household, and responsible in a way which carries
legal rights and obligations. For most of history in most societies women
have NOT been responsible for rearing children in any way which carried
power. Men kept that power for themselves and all the nattering about the
sacredness of domesticity by 19th century mysogynists doesn't change the fact
that in most societies for most of time, women had no power-either in custom
or law- over their own lives, let alone their children's.
And, it sure doesn't change the fact that the major purveyors of
the angel in the house nonsense were utterly opposed to women having legal
rights because having such rights would make women into men.: you know, MEN.
That class of human beings who were actually seen as being human beings in the
19th century-- unlike women or slaves who could not own property, control the
income produced by their labor, serve on juries, vote or be recognized as the
legal guardians of their own children.
Where is the decent treatment of women or slaves in any of that? I
can tell you where some small decency towards slaves came from in that period:
it can from women, those less- -than -human -beings, who put aside the
campaign for women's rights to push for the abolition of slavery- that's where
the decent treatment came from. It sure didn't come from slave owners.
It is beyond my understanding to think that maintaining my property-
which is what slaveowners were doing when they fed, housed, clothed and
provided medical care- has anything to do with treating _human_ _beings_
decently.
What is _normal_ in a society isn't necessarily decent
whether it took place 160 or 600 years ago. But, one thing which seems to
cross time is the ability of men to delude themselves that they are behaving
decently when they treat human property as well as they treat their barns. .
The difference between slaves(and women) and barns was that the barns weren't
expected to be grateful to the master for the odd coat of paint. Slaves and
women were. And, I suspect, the very demand that women and slaves be grateful
for whatever men and masters provided down through history is clear evidence
that men suspected their own behavior towards women and slaves was something
less than decent.
cheers,
Mary
cheers,
Mary
cheers,
Mary
mrfea...@aol.ccom
>
>vj <websp...@booksnbytes.com> wrote:
>
>> well, as long as you qualify it, yes. decent behavior as defined by
>> those in control of the standards - which were men.
>
>Women were traditionally responsible for bringing up children to follow
>those standards, at least during early childhood. And at some periods,
>women got to be the personifications of the Virtue of the Day. Angel of
>the Home, or The Hand that Rocked the Cradle, or the Reformer of Weak Men.
>
>Cheryl
But teaching women that this is their role -- that they should WANT to be, and
only be, the Angel of the Home and so forth -- that's how they kept 'em barefoot
and in the kitchen. And pregnant. It still works with some fundies.
Mary
mrfea...@aol.ccom
:::::Applause:::::::
Thank you, Mary, you said it much better than I did.
Mary
mrfea...@aol.ccom
>
>mrfea...@aol.ccom wrote:
>
>
>> But teaching women that this is their role -- that they should WANT to be, and
>> only be, the Angel of the Home and so forth -- that's how they kept 'em barefoot
>> and in the kitchen. And pregnant. It still works with some fundies.
>
>the teaching to the women. I see the attitudes, and their teaching as far
>more pervasive, among most of both the men and the women of the society.
>
>Maybe I just don't like the idea of the passive woman being brainwashed
>into accepting unnatural ideas by the dominant men!
I see what you mean, and on an individual basis, you can't make assumptions
about people based on gender-based generalizations. But in some societies,
particularly in the past, the assumptions about what behaviors were acceptable
were much more pervasive. I'd reject the idea that (outside of Tip-type
enclaves) you can, today, predict a person's behavior based solely on their sex.
But in 1860? Seems much more likely. Or even 1950.
Mary
CnMrshll
on the majority of women a true sense of choice.
>
and Cheryl replied:">I think it has. Not for everyone, not always, but the
changes I've seen in my own lifetime are incredible."
I think it is important to recognize that you are talking about middle- and
upper-class women in this discussion. Working class and poor women have always
been outside the realm of choice, because choice requires some disposible
income. Choice is really a luxury. ConnieM