Byronic heroes are basically anti-heroes. I think they started right around the middle of the industrial revolution though. I could be wrong, though, because I'm terrible with dateage. I'm also terrible with diction.Flying-Emu said:
Han Solo You're Getting Old
- Thread starter tendo82
- Start date
The Rover by Aphra Behn, a play written only slightly after Shakespeare's time features a lovable rogue as the titular character.Flying-Emu said:
Puck from Midsummer Nights Dream is an excellent example of the Lovable Rogue archetype.
The Three Musketeers are ALL loveable rogues.
Any Trickster Hero from any nations mythology falls under the loveable rogue category
The list goes on...
Is Han Solo really the pioneer of the anti-hero in geek culture? Does geek culture not precede Starwars? I think so. I can think of many anti-heroes that appeared in novels long before Star Wars. Not that I'm not a Star Wars fan. Just by the time I watched Star Wars for the first time and saw Han Solo swaggering away and making biting remarks, I already knew this character. He felt familiar. And Luke could have been a more interesting character if what-his-face was a better actor. Young coming-of-age Jedi are whiny bitches, it seems.
Heroes are cliché. Villains are cliché. Anti-heroes are cliché. Anti-villains are cliché.
We live in the Information Age, Mr Endo. Within the limits of a sentence, a character, or a canvas, there will soon be nothing left unexpressed.
Originality is a virtue of the past, impossible in this day and age, at least in combination with sanity. That is why, when you look at the TV Tropes website, there is not a single fictional thing listed that doesn't contain a trope. They are everywhere.
So one thing or the other has to die or fall away. Either our dislike of the "cliché" dies, or our love for fiction falls to a lowest common denominator. The future is a choice of one or the other. Of course, we each have limited lives, so everything is relative to our time on Earth as individuals - what isn't new to an old man is new to a child, so fiction will always have its place.
If we are tired of every trope under the sun, there will be none left to hate, and no stories left without them. At that point, I guess it's time for you to read non-fiction, stop playing games, and find a new beginning in the real world. Sometimes, that might be the better choice.
One thing's for sure. Complaining about cliché improves nothing - nothing - in the creative world. The sooner people realise this and relax, the better for all.
We live in the Information Age, Mr Endo. Within the limits of a sentence, a character, or a canvas, there will soon be nothing left unexpressed.
Originality is a virtue of the past, impossible in this day and age, at least in combination with sanity. That is why, when you look at the TV Tropes website, there is not a single fictional thing listed that doesn't contain a trope. They are everywhere.
So one thing or the other has to die or fall away. Either our dislike of the "cliché" dies, or our love for fiction falls to a lowest common denominator. The future is a choice of one or the other. Of course, we each have limited lives, so everything is relative to our time on Earth as individuals - what isn't new to an old man is new to a child, so fiction will always have its place.
If we are tired of every trope under the sun, there will be none left to hate, and no stories left without them. At that point, I guess it's time for you to read non-fiction, stop playing games, and find a new beginning in the real world. Sometimes, that might be the better choice.
One thing's for sure. Complaining about cliché improves nothing - nothing - in the creative world. The sooner people realise this and relax, the better for all.
such a really wonderful site & get information give me
Teeth Whitening [http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1851713]
Teeth Whitening [http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1851713]
Han Solo, and his likness, is popular because you can relate to him. That could be you. Most people kind of, sort of, want to do the right thing but its too much effort and a pain in the arse. Most of us are not the captain of the football team/lead actor/insert main charcter. We are surrounded by people who are more popular, gifted, respected, recognised and influential. Even if you are "known" by everyone in your social group/local night clubs/field, it's still a long way away from celebrity.
On a personal level I can't resist a smart arsed comment and often open my mouth when it made more sense not to. I was never destined for military life.
Being a hero licks balls. Its a scary, painful, awful experience. People do it as a response to events. Anyone with any sense is a reluctant hero at best. We don't seek these things out. They tend to get dropped on us.
Luke Skywalker is only relatable as a metaphor for fulfilling your potential/overcoming adversity/whatever. If the character is becoming old it is only due to poor writing and flat charecters.
On a personal level I can't resist a smart arsed comment and often open my mouth when it made more sense not to. I was never destined for military life.
Being a hero licks balls. Its a scary, painful, awful experience. People do it as a response to events. Anyone with any sense is a reluctant hero at best. We don't seek these things out. They tend to get dropped on us.
Luke Skywalker is only relatable as a metaphor for fulfilling your potential/overcoming adversity/whatever. If the character is becoming old it is only due to poor writing and flat charecters.
I guess I'm the only one here who can't see the point of the whole article?
If you're saying that "Han Solo" was fresh the first time we saw him and stale thereafter, I'd have to reply that it's only we were too young to have seen Humphrey Bogart or umpteen other hardnosed but ultimately softhearted detectives that populated the detective movies of old.
It was indeed a stroke of genius to put such a character in a straight up "good vs. evil" film as a sidekick, rather than as a leading man. Then again, the only reason it worked so well was because Han played the foil to Luke's "young naive kid" in the story.
So, as I see it, Han was an overused cliche the moment he arrived but I was too young to know it. And he'll go on being an overused cliche because, really, that particular archetype has strong appeal with us hard-nosed, bitter, burnt-out but ultimately soft-hearted detectives. Gamers! I meant to say gamers!
If you're saying that "Han Solo" was fresh the first time we saw him and stale thereafter, I'd have to reply that it's only we were too young to have seen Humphrey Bogart or umpteen other hardnosed but ultimately softhearted detectives that populated the detective movies of old.
It was indeed a stroke of genius to put such a character in a straight up "good vs. evil" film as a sidekick, rather than as a leading man. Then again, the only reason it worked so well was because Han played the foil to Luke's "young naive kid" in the story.
So, as I see it, Han was an overused cliche the moment he arrived but I was too young to know it. And he'll go on being an overused cliche because, really, that particular archetype has strong appeal with us hard-nosed, bitter, burnt-out but ultimately soft-hearted detectives. Gamers! I meant to say gamers!
Okay but forgive me if I only cover Shakespeare. I don't have time to also cover Thomas Harman, Chaucer, Milton or Ovid or Homer. I did enough of this in college.Flying-Emu said:
Shakespere sometimes liked his rogues in groups like the Watch in Much Ado About Nothing, Stephano and Trinculo in the Tempest, or Pistol and the others (whos names escape me for the moment) in Henery V. But the rogue also flew solo at times like Puck from Midsummer Nights Dream or Kate (or maybe Sly too) from Taming of the Shrew.
Trust me (I've read a lot of stuff in my life) the rogue has been a well used archetype for a long time; since before stories were written down.
Right on. This is a bit clearer in the original novelization of New Hope: when Luke first meets Han, the young, naive kid is impressed with the older Han's worldly, devil-may-care attitude. When your only male role model up to that point has been boring, play-it-safe Uncle Owen (who's parenting style Luke was already chafing against at the beginning of the story), Han comes across extremely appealing.domicius said:
But during Leia's rescue from the Death Star, the novel makes it clear that Luke is less impressed with Han's recklessness that almost gets them killed. And Han also changes from "cool, older guy I want to emulate" to "rival for Leia's affections" (gross). The novelization of Return of the Jedi also had Luke reflect on Han's last name, "solo"--"Solo means alone". Luke feels pity for Han's loner nature, but in Jedi Han comes to trust people other than himself--a far cry from the "I take orders from one person, Princess--me" Han of New Hope.
So I guess Han rises above most of his clones because he actually has a character development arc. He's not the same person at the end of the trilogy that he is at the start. Like another poster noted, we like Han because we recognize our self-serving natures and hope that if push came to shove, we'd make the right decision like Han does (or Bogart's Rick Blaine in Casablanca. But, it's sadly typical for imitators to miss the point of the original in the first place, and focus on superficials.
can you explain how star wars is a copy of the arthurian legend? I can accept maybe a small link, but an exact copy?[/quote]
No it's honestly almost a carbon copy. I believe it was the History Channel that ran a big special on it, but we first went over it in English in college. Luke is Arthur. Just like Arthur's father who was originally a good and powerful king Uther, but is turned to darker magic to change his appearance so he can sleep with Ingraine whom he deeply covets. Darth Vader is turned to the dark side of the force to become more powerful to protect Padme. Now the slight difference is that Vader is also Sir Modred in Star Wars, but it would have been kind of akward to have a son of Luke's appear out of no where in Star Wars. Now knowing that no one can know who the child belongs too Arthur is sent with Merlin to be kept secret until he is ready to become king. Exactly like Luke when he is sent with his relatives and is looked after by Obi Wan Kanobi. Also Modred is never told about his father, and Luke and Leia have no idea about each others existance. The day finally comes when Sir Kay brings his "brother" Arthur to the tournament where he is told to find a sword, and he then pulls the famous Sword from the Stone. I can't think of a more classic parallel than to receiving his father's light saber who was arguably one of the strongest Jedi. Just like in arthur's tale not everyone believes in him right away. Luke had to prove himself to Han Solo and the rebel alliance,and it is with only Obi Wan's assurance in the boy that they trust him. In the Arthurian legend Arthur loses the sword from the stone in a great battle, and is taken to the Lady of the Lake ( Yoda) for council and growth. After great effort he is given Exaclibur as proof that he is more powerful. Even Darth Vader is impressed by Luke's new light saber, if you recall he inspects it and even compliments Luke's skill. Now we are at the Vader as Modred part of the tale. Modred tricks Arthur into going to France to revenge the honor of one of his nights while he tries to become king of England. I can't think of anything that screams louder than "you are now in a fully functioning Death Star" moment. Where a fight occurs between Modred and Arthur through a mistake. A snake in the grass freightens a soldier and he draws his sword which causes the soldiers to all start fighting. Darth Vader was twisted by the "snake in the grass" Palpatine to fight Luke and ends up killing Palpatine instead of Luke knowing that it would kill him with the lightening and the ship exploding. Modred runs up a long spear to deal the death blow to Arthur knowing he is going to die. It's reasonable to say that Luke left a part of him there as well, because the darker side that was consuming himm with the hatred of Vader was lost. Oh and since we are on topic of Han Solo who is obviously Sir Lancelot who covets Gwynevere in the legend just like Han Solo loving Laei. I know we all like to ignore the fact the Luke was in love with his sister, but it is a fact. They compteted over her in the first 2 movies. So I guess in all it's not a carbon copy, but it is about as close as you can get. Of couse you could go much deeper into the story elements as well, then is just a brief over view.
No it's honestly almost a carbon copy. I believe it was the History Channel that ran a big special on it, but we first went over it in English in college. Luke is Arthur. Just like Arthur's father who was originally a good and powerful king Uther, but is turned to darker magic to change his appearance so he can sleep with Ingraine whom he deeply covets. Darth Vader is turned to the dark side of the force to become more powerful to protect Padme. Now the slight difference is that Vader is also Sir Modred in Star Wars, but it would have been kind of akward to have a son of Luke's appear out of no where in Star Wars. Now knowing that no one can know who the child belongs too Arthur is sent with Merlin to be kept secret until he is ready to become king. Exactly like Luke when he is sent with his relatives and is looked after by Obi Wan Kanobi. Also Modred is never told about his father, and Luke and Leia have no idea about each others existance. The day finally comes when Sir Kay brings his "brother" Arthur to the tournament where he is told to find a sword, and he then pulls the famous Sword from the Stone. I can't think of a more classic parallel than to receiving his father's light saber who was arguably one of the strongest Jedi. Just like in arthur's tale not everyone believes in him right away. Luke had to prove himself to Han Solo and the rebel alliance,and it is with only Obi Wan's assurance in the boy that they trust him. In the Arthurian legend Arthur loses the sword from the stone in a great battle, and is taken to the Lady of the Lake ( Yoda) for council and growth. After great effort he is given Exaclibur as proof that he is more powerful. Even Darth Vader is impressed by Luke's new light saber, if you recall he inspects it and even compliments Luke's skill. Now we are at the Vader as Modred part of the tale. Modred tricks Arthur into going to France to revenge the honor of one of his nights while he tries to become king of England. I can't think of anything that screams louder than "you are now in a fully functioning Death Star" moment. Where a fight occurs between Modred and Arthur through a mistake. A snake in the grass freightens a soldier and he draws his sword which causes the soldiers to all start fighting. Darth Vader was twisted by the "snake in the grass" Palpatine to fight Luke and ends up killing Palpatine instead of Luke knowing that it would kill him with the lightening and the ship exploding. Modred runs up a long spear to deal the death blow to Arthur knowing he is going to die. It's reasonable to say that Luke left a part of him there as well, because the darker side that was consuming himm with the hatred of Vader was lost. Oh and since we are on topic of Han Solo who is obviously Sir Lancelot who covets Gwynevere in the legend just like Han Solo loving Laei. I know we all like to ignore the fact the Luke was in love with his sister, but it is a fact. They compteted over her in the first 2 movies. So I guess in all it's not a carbon copy, but it is about as close as you can get. Of couse you could go much deeper into the story elements as well, then is just a brief over view.
Han Solo will never die. (for the fact that in the new Star Wars mmo every other smuggler will be called xhansolox)
I really wouldn't call Han Solo a very good example of an anti-hero, he's more of a Lovable Rogue [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoveableRogue]. What makes an anto-hero for me is when you find yourself thinking "what are you doing you idiot? That's not right!" about the protagonist. Which I did about Case when I read Neuromancer.
You could have replaced that character type with any character type and still had the same article. Of course your opinion applies to you, and of course there are going to be people that agree with it somewhere, no need to even ask. Personally, I'm tired of the "Guy thrust into hopeless battle with insufficient training but with good decision making that helps him survive" archtype, but that's just myself.