Frodo is a tragic hero

Punisher is an anti-villain

and Ripley is a magnificent Bastard.

Great podcast though showcases these types of character’s though.

Of course he isn’t morally corrupt, he is ethically corrupt.

Boom! Writing Prompt complete.

I think all three definitions work and are distinct enough for each to warrant their own analysis (though as a literary term of art, antihero is an unsympathetic viewpoint character, as Brandon said).

For me, these questions have always revolved around a limited list of roles in drama, only the first of which being strictly necessary for a given work:
1) The Viewpoint Character (character in whose viewpoint the story is told, obviously)
2) The Hero (the character who defeats/resolves the conflict)
3) The Protagonist (the character with whom reader sympathy rests)
4) The Antagonist (the character who imposes or causes the conflict)
5) The Villian (The character who opposes the protagonist or hero)

The trick is that you can combine any or all of these into any given character. Only the classical, straightforward model groups the first three in one character and the last two in the other. And we’re starting to tire of classical, straightforward stuff.

As for the commentary, I think that you need to give credit to the French Revolution for the Punisher types, not American cowboys. I see the Punisher type as a backlash against bureaucracy and the assertion – we know we’re right, now off with his head. Very French.

As for Talented Mr. Ripley types, I think that by far the best for illustrative purposes is Humbert Humbert in Lolita. Everything about him is loathsome, and the desire to see him fail is what pulls the reader through the book. Thus, he’s the antagonist AND the viewpoint character, while Lolita is the protagonist. If you think about it, that was definitely the best way to tell that particular story. Especially with complex, philosophical conflict themes, I think that often the most intelligent character needs the viewpoint role, regardless of whether he’s sympathetic. Lolita is pure anti-hero theory (though this is coming from a guy who thinks Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying is a pure illustration of suspense).

Then he winds up getting caught up in the story, becomes badass, turns himself into the Punisher. He winds up killing people to protect people, ignoring the people close to him to continually run after saving more people, and eventually winds up making a pact with the collective unconsciousness of humanity to become its servant in protecting humanity after death in order to get the power to save the people he wasn’t going to make it to.

Eventually he winds up getting hung, and the spends his afterlife killing everyone in the area of an imminent threat to the world whenever he gets sent to the world. After a while, he looks at his history, sees all the blood he’s spilled for little reason, and goes, “I never wanted this to happen!” Then he becomes the Frodo, and goes back in time to kill his past self in order to create a temporal paradox in the hope that in doing so, he’ll wind up erasing himself from existence (since simply killing himself won’t work, since he’s already dead.