evilthecat said:
By threatening to shoot babies out of catapults?
Empty threats.
evilthecat said:
Okay. I think we have an issue here.
I don't think atoning means anything. Darth Vader isn't an antihero because he atones at the end. It's a character arc, sure, but merely having a character arc does not imply someone is a hero or antihero. If anything, "atonement" is more a property of villains. An antihero is a person who has a heroic narrative but lacks heroic attributes. They are a literary subversion of what heroic characters "should" be like.
Atoning is what turns a villain protagonist into an anti-hero. Early Sandor is most certainly a villain, he protection of Sansa, and subsequent atonement pushes him in the anti-hero territory.
evilthecat said:
In this sense, the difference between an antihero and a villain is going to be narrative role. I think there's room for manouever on whether or not you see littlefinger as possessing a heroic narrative, but I think in order to include some of these other characters you kind of have to say that he does. He's a horrible character fighting against (but also very much part of) a system which is horrible and unfair. The heroism, in this case, is the capacity to stand against that system in spite of having to live within it.
I think you're confusing the concept of anti-hero with villain protagonist.
An anti-hero is a protagonist that is morally dubious and possesses several non-heroic traits, whether be it his ego, cowardice, greed, and so on, but he's still essentially a good person. A villain protagonist is a character who the narrative is centred on, but who is undoubtedly a bad person with no redemptive factor. There is nothing "heroic" about Littlefinger's narrative either, passed his childhood.
evilthecat said:
Pre-Ramsey Theon was deliberately written, I think, to be the most revolting character possible. He's a smirking goon utterly convinced of his own importance and who constantly abuses his power over everyone around him. Also, massive misogynist, which is an easy way to make a character incredibly hateable.
I highly disagree here, pre-Reek Theon was written to be as vulnerable, scared, and overcompensating as possible. Everything he does reeks of a lack of self-confidence and a desire to please, or to belong. He tries to boost his ego as much as possible, but keeps failing over and over again. As Luwin said, he's not the man he's pretending to be, he's a scared child alone in an alien world, someone who grew up either the victim of bullying older brothers, or the hostage of a cold foreign man who never bothered to make him feel safe or comfortable. Along with Catelyn and Jaime, Theon is probably GRRM's best written character.
evilthecat said:
So what?
Part of a class system is that you can't choose your social circle. If you're a noble, you don't hang out with 99% of Westerosi, you can't hang out with them even if you wanted to because they will never accept you as a peer. Your peers are other nobles.
The poorest of the rich isn't exactly someone I would have sympathy for. He's no victim here.
evilthecat said:
Again. Heroic narrative. Non-heroic characteristics.
Steerpike in the Ghormenghast trilogy is an antihero. He lies, manipulates and ultimately kills his way up the hierarchy without a trace of remorse or conscience (indeed, one of the first things we are told about him is that he utterly lacks a conscience) but by doing so he drives forward the plot in the way a standard hero would. We don't need to morally sympathize with him as a person to be invested in the struggle.
Again, what you mean is villain protagonist, not anti-hero.
Littlefinger simply doesn't have enough redeeming qualities to be an anti-hero.
evilthecat said:
Is littlefinger a bad person? Sure. Would a world in which littlefinger actually got his wish and acquired the power he craves be a bad world, or a worse world than the one which already exists? Not really. Honestly, the biggest monster so far both in terms of raw body count and potential to seriously wreck the world is probably Dany. Her morality has thus far proven far more destructive than littlefinger's amorality.
And? Morality is determined through intentions, not results.
