It's because the list is only on Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes. Hm, perhaps we should merge them or make the links more clearer?
edited 24th Oct '10 11:53:25 AM by Scisless
It's a reference to the Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes.
Actually, Type I, 'Anti-Hero as loser', is quite a commonly-used definition of the anti-hero.
An anti-hero is a hero lacking in traditionally heroic traits. The missing elements can be things other than morality.
edited 20th Nov '10 10:00:12 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
Which is why the Type I Anti Hero is the traditional Anti Hero.
Basically, the further down the scale a character is, the less heroically inclined and the more morally ambiguous he/she will be. This also affects how much more difficult the character's development will be in terms of gaining heroic qualities. It is quite common for a Type I or II to go in a more heroic direction {though it's also quite common for them to Jump Off The Slippery Slope and end up a Type IV or V, or even a Villain Protagonist}, while a Type III, IV, or V usually move up on the scale. Another factor to take into account is the mood of the story. Is it a story where Wide Eyed Idealists prosper and save the world, or are simply a burden on the more seasoned cynic who believes in a dog-eat-dog world where Might Makes Right?
edited 20th Nov '10 4:40:06 PM by joerc45
Teacher's pet.: Pillars of Moral Character."The term is sometimes used more loosely. See Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes for the possibilities."
The above line exists in the Anti-Hero article. Why is there any confusion or change needed?
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username."Basically, the further down the scale a character is, the less heroically inclined and morally ambiguous he/she will be." - joerc
I do not regard a Knight in Sour Armor as being more ambiguous morally than the 1st type... or at least the more cowardly kinds of the 1st type. (Commissioner Gordon from The Dark Knight Saga comes to mind as a Knight in Sour Armor who exhibits a LOT of courage.)
Yes, but Types IV or V typically fall under a neutral/evil alignment, and/or Lawful Selfish, Selfish Good, and although Types II and III are usually good-aligned, they have much more distinguishable personality flaws, i.e. Mr. Vice Guy, and usually have no compunctions against morally questionable actions {i.e. murder, theft, etc}, which are usually frowned upon as being less than heroic. Another thing to point out is that they are not necessarily in direct correlation {it's not always the same but more}, a Type V anti-hero can be Affably Evil in sharp contrast to it's Type III Good Is Not Nice counterpart.
edited 20th Nov '10 4:39:30 PM by joerc45
Teacher's pet.: Pillars of Moral Character.When I saw the TRS flag on the page I thought some idiot wanted to change the name. Ahem. The types should be restored to the page because that's less work than cleaning up not only the page itself but all the wicks (e.g., Kill Bill) that refer to a "Type $N Anti-Hero." Or at least a sentence to the effect of "for the various 'types' of Anti-Hero, see Sliding Scale Of Anti Heros."
The child is father to the man —OedipusI think we should keep the articles separate - they cover some very diverse concepts.
"For other commonly-used types of Anti-Hero, see the Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes" would probably be a perfectly fine compromise.
edited 22nd Nov '10 12:20:55 PM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?

Looking through the examples on Anti-Hero, it seems that a number of them are following a description of the trope that has since been obsoleted: something about varying "types" of Anti-Hero, going up to at least Type V. The description does not describe (or no longer describes) these types. This remnant of an older version of the page is also on other potholes for the trope: for example, the character page for American Dad, which lists Stan as a "Type V" Anti-Hero with no other explanation.
Either the references to the "types" need to be cleaned up, or the page needs to be rewritten to have the "types" again. Not sure which one is more appropriate.
I have a message from another time...