What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Analysis/AntiHero

 

mgs1234V
topic
03:38:49 PM Feb 20th 2014
What's the difference between a Unscrupulous hero and a pragmatic hero?
Lennik
topic
01:30:00 PM Feb 16th 2014
edited by 72.88.52.84
In regard to the difference between an Unscrupulous Hero and a Nominal Hero, the distinction has not been made entirely clear by the analysis page or the individual trope pages. The analysis page says that an Unscrupulous Hero comes in two possible categories, the latter of which can be motivated by less-than-heroic (read: selfish) objectives, but is essentially like a much more honorable Nominal Hero. The actual trope page for Nominal Hero, on the other hand, seems to imply that it's the only kind of selfishly-motivated antihero, and there seems to be no distinction drawn between "selfish Anti-Hero who nonetheless has a moral compass, loved ones, and a sense of honor" (one interpretation of the Unscrupulous Hero, as explained in the Analysis page) and "complete and utter self-serving bastard."(Nominal Hero) What gives?
mgs1234V
03:36:05 PM Feb 20th 2014
edited by 108.27.46.57
Yeah it is confusing. Unscrupulous I believe the difference is that one has a good motivation and one (Nominal) doesn't.
Lennik
09:03:21 AM Feb 22nd 2014
edited by 72.88.54.95
Yeah, that's one variety, but like the analysis page says, there's a separate, alternate flavor of Unscrupulous Hero that has a neutral motivation. The description basically compares this variety to a Nominal Hero with more honor and redeeming qualities. I mean, if any Anti-Hero motivated mostly by self-interest is a Nominal Hero, then that puts people like Jack Sparrow, pre-Character Development Han Solo, and Catwoman in the same category as Vegeta and The Comedian from Watchmen, which doesn't seem right.
MagBas
09:48:14 AM Feb 22nd 2014
Nominal Hero is a anti-hero motivated by a non-altruistic motivation. Basically, if all the types of anti-hero are caused by the lack of one of the traits that define a hero, Nominal Hero represents the "lack of positive motivation". Correct if i am incorrect, but Unscrupulous Hero is basically a "lack of morality" hero.
Lennik
03:23:34 PM Feb 22nd 2014
If that's the whole difference, then that would mean the second type of Unscrupulous Hero described on the analysis page does not actually apply. Because it describes an Unscrupulous Hero with a neutral, technically non-altruistic motivation, but with more honor and humanity than the typical Nominal Hero. That's the variety of Unscrupulous Hero that I'm referring to.
SuperBeatle83
topic
08:32:59 AM Nov 7th 2013
Examples: should we use examples on this page? I think it could work if we limited it to about three. These may not be the best examples, I was just wondering what you guys thought.

Type 1: Spider-Man, Luke Skywalker, Michelangelo Type 2: Han Solo, Raphael, Raven Type 3: Batman, John Mc Clane, Iron Man Type 4: James Bond, Wolverine, Captain Kirk Type 5: Magneto, anything where a villain becomes a hero.

I know some of you might find these examples lame and circumstantial, I just wanted to get this out there.
SuperBeatle83
08:33:44 AM Nov 7th 2013
Or perhaps we could list all the examples we want on a YMMV page.
Zurpl
topic
11:06:57 AM Mar 15th 2013
Listing the 'Types' by number, as they were in the previous page, would be helpful here.
lu127
moderator
01:50:22 PM Mar 16th 2013
We are trying to get rid of the types completely, as they have only caused probles. You are encouraged to remove references to "Type X" where you see them.
Telcontar
moderator
02:01:40 PM Mar 16th 2013
If the types aren't listed anywhere then it's harder to fix (though most are Zero Context Examples that can just be cut, I guess). Preserving the list on the main page discussion might be good.
silvabat
11:45:16 PM Sep 3rd 2013
but the types make it easier to explain

Telcontar
moderator
01:21:16 AM Sep 4th 2013
The types encourage people to not add any context other than the type label, which is then much harder for anyone else and much less interesting than reading a description of the trope in each work individually.
Kanten
07:51:17 PM Oct 6th 2013
edited by 122.149.147.30
How does replacing a simple number for reference with a long-winded description paragraph make it any better? Anyone could immediately check what a Type IV would be referring to on this page. "Unscrupulous Hero" says nothing and is only more confusing. Its current form isn't so much of a scale anymore as it is a disjointed list of subjective interpretations.
SuperBeatle83
08:23:42 AM Nov 7th 2013
I agree. The numbers should stay.
phoenixyfriend
11:30:28 AM Jan 16th 2014
edited by 74.90.196.104
Same here. The numbers help because it shows how specific the "range" can be. Rather than names that refer to individual tropes and further confuse the matter, the numbered types allowed for a simpler, more easily understandable form of classification. And considering this is TV Tropes, ease of classification is kind of the point
SeptimusHeap
moderator
12:01:13 PM Jan 16th 2014
On the contrary, the number-based classification in practice merely results in people getting confused about what the numbers mean.
Kanten
05:38:55 PM Feb 2nd 2014
edited by 50.141.250.165
And that's what this page is for. A numbered list is easier to navigate and comprehend than a random adjective that may or may not actually correspond to the example itself.

What is a "Pragmatic Anti-Hero"? Does that imply that the rest of the levels are *not* pragmatic?

Take for instance, Jack Bauer, one of the best examples of a Type IV you can get, who is probably one of the most pragmatic anti-heroes in fiction, but this "improved" scale has in a completely separate level. Hell, pragmatism is almost the central defining element of an anti-hero.

And the fourth level is "Unscrupulous"? Unscrupulous means lack of morality, which seems more like a Type V than a IV, or even a straight up villain rather than an Anti-Hero.

The former scale made sense, this one doesn't. It seems like an entirely unnecessary change that just made the issue worse. Characters could be defined in the old scale, this one is completely vague.
Kanten
05:42:13 PM Feb 2nd 2014
edited by 50.141.250.165
doublepost, ignore
SeptimusHeap
moderator
12:26:18 AM Feb 3rd 2014
Most people I've met elsewhere don't share that opinion, though. Also, requiring people to read other pages to understand something is frowned upon - see Weblinks Are Not Examples.
Kanten
11:46:13 AM Feb 8th 2014
edited by 50.141.250.165
And yet, the current system does exactly that same thing. In fact, one would have to come to this page and then *another* one to get the explanation, where the previous page was rather succinct and kept the examples organized together.

Previously there was a scale that was easy to group characters into; now it's a series of adjectives, any number of which could apply to a single character.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
12:54:34 PM Feb 8th 2014
Nope.

Adjectives are more meaningful than numbers. And the previous system was not even remotely "easy to group character into" - there was lots of arguing and edit warring about what characters fit where and what every point means.
Kanten
03:11:32 PM Feb 22nd 2014
edited by 50.141.250.165
No, they aren't, because the adjectives are incredibly vague to the point that it's no longer a scale, it's just a set of words that may or may not actually apply to the existing scale.

What's the difference between a Pragmatic Anti-Hero and an Unscrupulous Anti-Hero? There isn't one, because those aren't comparative adjectives in any form, you might as well just be guessing.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
03:22:13 PM Feb 22nd 2014
They are still more meaningful than numbers. Now, if you have problems with telling apart one trope from another, you can ask for assistance here - whichever the result of the discussion is can be edited into the page.
Kanten
11:34:08 AM Feb 28th 2014
edited by 50.141.250.165
No, they aren't.

For example, "Unscrupulous" essentially means a complete lack of morality, in other words, not a hero at all. Something that would be applicable to the old Type V, not Type IV.
SeptimusHeap
moderator
11:45:33 AM Feb 28th 2014
"Unscrupulous" means something. "Type Whatever" doesn't. Also, we didn't have any obligation to perfectly match the old types up to the modern trope names.
back to Analysis/AntiHero

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy