Discussion Main / ByronicHero

After all, it is not morally wrong to be moody, introverted, or melancholic, and there are plenty of examples of good guy Byronic heroes. Besides no one is perfect.

Look in the second paragraph beneath personality and portrayal. Wikitroid is a wiki, but so is this site. Just examine what the page says and see it it makes sense. http://metroid.wikia.com/wiki/Samus_Aran

Let's make the Byronic hero page make the BH sound like he is more generally open to being good as well.

The most genuinely sympathetic and relatable Byronic heroes who truly do/did have some genuinely/potentially redemptive Classic Antihero traits, genuine guilt, internal conflict, and misguided good intentions in their personalities who I have come across in literature, TV, and movies are Mr. Rochester from Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë, Jaimie Lannister, Tyrion Lannister (on the show), Theon Greyjoy (on the show) from ASOIAF by George RR Martin/HBO’s GOT, Rumplestiltskin/Mr. Gold from OUAT (from S1-3A before the writers completely destroyed his original characterization along with everyone else’s in the remaining cast after S3 ended, except for maybe Regina, though they kind of got back to their roots in S7 too little to late) back Dimitri from 20th Century Fox’s Anastasia, Megara from Disney’s Hercules, and Squidward Tentacles from Spongebob Squarepants (sometimes). Yeah, they commit crime(s) sometimes. Yes, they can be Jerkasses, Manipulative Bastards, and Con artists. Yes, they may be selfish. Yes, they might harm innocents by treating them as collateral damage for a “worthy cause,” they might try to cowardly deceive and manipulate others to hide their vulnerabilities in their deep pride and self-loathing. But their extraordinarily unfair and inescapable dark tragic pasts, Hidden Hearts of Gold, uncontrollable manic depressive mood swings, genuine sense of deep self-loathing and genuine internal conflict and guilt over the collateral damage they cause innocents and/or loved ones in their prideful self-loathing and selfishness can sometimes make them sympathetic emotional cowards who we forgive. These kinds of Byronic Heroes also fall into tropes that make us want to root for their redemption/happy endings, such as the Reluctant Villain, Classic Antihero, Love Redeems, Beauty and the Beast, Jerk With a Heart of Gold if they work for it.

Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, we have Byronic heroes who could have almost been redemptive, who still got framed sympathetically, perhaps even redemptively, but who still mostly crumbled by giving into their darker nature by falling into the Fallen Hero, Love Makes You Evil, Tragic Villain, Ambiguous Disorder(s), Neglectful Parents, Redemption Rejection, or Journey from Hero to Villain Protagonist tropes like Tyrion Lannister (in the books), Anakin Skywalker, Daenerys Targaryen (on the GOT show), Jaimie Lannister (on the GOT show), and Norman Bates from the show Bates Motel. We might initially root for these guys to be redeemed, and we’re certainly not defending their bad choices when they do finally pass the point of no return, but we also feel a great sense of tragedy when they do finally fall because we think about all that potential they had to be redeemed or do good for the world which they lost and/or wasted under pressure.

On the darkest end of the spectrum of Byronic Heroes, we have ones who are complete psychopaths with no redeeming qualities who we still feel mesmerized by if only because they are the Villain Protagonist with such a mesmerizingly haunting, mysterious, and poetic story of evil, vengeance, self-destruction, and tyranny from the very beginning to the bitter end like Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights or Cersei Lannister from the show GOT.

I don't believe so. A Byronic Hero has to have a great deal of charisma. Sandor is an Anti-Villain, later Anti-Hero, so he's definitely sympathetic in spite of his flaws, but the only one shown to be drawn to Sandor in any sort of way does so because he rescued her and protects her.

The two listed examples for A Song Of Ice And Fire, Jaime and Tyrion, both have the emotional flaws (arrogance, cynicism, authority issues, introspection) of a Byronic Hero, but they both also have a great deal of charisma: Tyrion is one of the best Guile Heroes/Magnificent Bastards in the series, being incredibly persuasive despite being a disfigured dwarf, and Jaime is both incredibly attractive and quick-witted. Sandor's close, but he doesn't quite fit, lacking the in-universe charisma that a Byronic Hero requires.

What about Arya?

No. She might be able to pose as one, but the role is male.

What do you mean by «the role is male»? There's already Jessica Jones proving Byronic Heroines exist... And countless others.

I'd definitely agree, especially Second Greed from Brotherhood. Thing is, his example was completely removed with absolutely no explanation from the editor whatsoever. I'm tempted to add him back in, considering he has many traits consistent with the trope.

It's been a while since I've read Hamlet, but I'd say you've got very convincing evidence for Hamlet being a Byronic Hero. I can't accuse you of not knowing the text well, either. And this is coming from the guy who included Hamlet as a "very borderline example" on this page. Not to mention that he has strong passions and ideals as well.

The only counter-argument I could think of is that Hamlet didn't kill Claudius in Act I when he had the chance. He knew Claudius did it, and that was his chance. Byronic Heroes always struck me as being pro-active and effectual in the pursuit of their ideals.

True, but that ties in with his emotional conflict. He doesn't know if the ghost of his father is genuinely his father, or the devil trying to deceive him, so he stages The Murder of Gonzago to try and get a reaction out of Claudius, which he does. Not long after, he finds Claudius alone and is ready to do the deed, except that he's currently praying, and Hamlet doesn't want Claudius to go to heaven despite murdering his father. He wants his soul to rot in hell. The audience of course finds out that Claudius wasn't actually praying, but Hamlet is unaware. The second he thinks that he has a chance of killing him and sending him to hell for his crimes, he goes for it. Unfortunately, the man he thinks is Claudius turns out to be Polonius, and thus everything starts going to hell. While I agree that his tragic mistake is refusing to off Claudius then and there, I think his reasoning behind it falls very much into this trope. It's similar to Roy Mustang in Fullmetal Alchemist: He's biding his time and waiting for his chance to make his move, which hurts him almost as much as it does help him.

While I was aware of Hamlet's motives behind not killing Claudius in Act I because he wants him to go to Hell, I still wouldn't have said that in favour of him being Byronic until now. This is a very convincing argument and I'm going to edit the Hamlet example to being just a straight example.

I agree! Good call.

I put Montana back in. Your reason for deleting him is just bad. "There's literally nothing heroic about him", that's true, but would you please take the time to read more than just the name of the trope before making such adjustments? The very first line of the trope's description states unambiguously that anti-heroes and even villains can be Byronic heroes.

EDIT: I also put Rorschach back in, for similar reasons. I'm not very familiar with the character but some reading convinced me that cutting the example was unjustified as well.

I certainly took the time to read "more than just the name of the trope" - that assumption's a bit on the "uncool" side, yeah? (Which I've heard somewhere isn't cool, when you're editing tropes.) In fact, I'd say that actually knowing some of Byron's work (and his contemporaries) would sum up to a bit more than reading "just the name of the trope." I won't make any similar assumptions - I'll just guess that you've read him, too. But really: a) you could certainly have replied to this question long, long ago (instead of pushing for an edit war - which won't happen, I'm not that invested or aggressive about it); and b) let's keep those assumptions to a minimum and just work out what works here and what doesn't, on a site which is awfully fun to read.

So - I strongly disagree with Montana being any kind of Byronic hero: "never are they evil for evil's sake." If we can justify how none (or even very few, I'll agree) of his evil actions are, pretty much, purely evil, then sure. He doesn't seem that way to me at all.

As for Rorschach? I am familiar with the character, and also familiar with the archetype of the Byronic hero. A key element of that Byronic hero archetype, largely lost in the glut of "badasses" in the Chromium Age, is that in other circumstances, they'd be just as dashingly heroic as the dashingly heroic hero. It's not just about being a Nineties Anti-Hero. It's not just about making morally gray decisions.

This trope doesn't define it all that way, only because modern vampire fiction and Chromium Age superheroes muddied the waters. I can live with that, no worries.

But when you come down to "considered very attractive physically, possessing a great deal of charisma, sophistication, and intelligence, as well as emotional sensitivity, which may translate into moodiness"? Rorschach's got the last two in spades, and you could argue intelligence as well (though it's seriously overpowered by his convictions, which cause him to miss out on his reasoning). The rest? Nope.

He just doesn't seem to fit the archetype. In my opinion, at all, but I can see how some might think he has a toe in the water. As for wading in or dunking underwater? I don't see how that makes sense.

Feel free to show me how it does. But let's keep that "cool" thing going, instead of pretending that I'm just diving into shit without bothering to think at all. I left this discussion post up for quite a while, waiting for anybody to dispute it, before I made any edit. I stand by my reasoning - but I'm certainly open to convincing.

In the end, I just think it's silly to throw in eighty characters because they "kinda sorta" fit a trope. Tony Montana fits plenty of tropes, as does Rorschach. They'll be all over the site; I can honestly guarantee they won't be left out!

Why didn't you have these reasonsings the first time around? Go ahead, I won't stop you.

Actually kinda sorta did have those reasonings the first time round, if you look back (look at my sarcastic bit for Rorschach and the direct trope quote for Montana - and my point that a Byronic Hero is generally a whole package, not just bits and pieces). I just didn't expound on them at length, so as not to bore everybody. My bad - I'll expound in the future!

Feel free to revert if I'm stepping on your toes, but it seems that you've agreed with the reasoning above, so I'll jot those two off the list again. Thanks for getting it back on track!

That's really a pickle, because "modern" can mean "after the Middle Ages", "After the French Revolution" etc. I think the differentation shouldn't be done at all - or if it is really needed, label them with centuries instead of the vague Modern/Classical.

I remember seeing him there... someone probably just took it down.

It takes some thinking about, but yes, he does fit the mold rather well. Passionate? Yes, since he was willing to make a Deal with the Devil to become captain of the Black Pearl. Introspective? Indeed, if you watch the second movie, he spends quite a bit of time inwardly focused: both on his growing attraction to Elizabeth, on his predicament, and on his heart's desire, which is why he needed Elizabeth around in the first place, since he had conflicting emotions on what he really wanted, yet another Byronic trait. Disdain for authority goes without saying, cynical and jaded, definitely, though it's difficult to see behind his comedic exterior. Determined to live out his philosophy at all costs? Well, considering his backstory (too complicated for this), oh yeah: it's bitten him in the ass a few times, but he never compromises his own principles, though his principles are more morally flexible- and at times inscrutable- than other characters', arguably another Byronic tendency. I could do a whole analysis on the character, but I think I've made my point. It's just not as easy to spot because a) it's a movie, not a book, so it's not as easy to show the Byronic introspection as it would be on paper, b) until the 4th movie, he isn't the main character; therefore, we wouldn't be seeing things from inside his head enough to make the other qualities as obvious, and c) he seems to be having too much fun to qualify for this trope; however, keep in mind that Byronic Heroes are not exactly the most open about their inner emotional state; the only reason we know is because we can see their private moments, something which doesn't happen too often with Jack.

I tried redoing the definition a bit to make it a little more consistent. Any improvement?

Yes, Thank you.

Seconded, well at least for the Byronic Hero and Villain Protagonist part of it. (Both of these are considered protagonists in the story but act like villains). The two articles don't have any way of differentiating themselves from each other, and even their laconic versions sound exactly the same.

The difference is that the Byronic heroes have some redeeming qualities.

I'd be okay with adding that. I'd like to add that I think the laconic description really is more fitting for the Villain Protagonist.