Heroes and Antiheroes

In contemporary literature, the figure of the antihero has become increasingly common, and in fact has begun to completely replace that of the flawless hero typical of past literary traditions.  Some critics have claimed that this trend is bad, in that if people view flawed characters as heroes they will be more likely to emulate flawed or immoral behaviour.  I do not agree with this, because I do not think that fascination with a certain kind of character necessarily extends to admiration/emulation of such characters' behaviour.  I think that the current popularity of antiheroes illustrates an increased fascination, perhaps, with the negative side of human nature, but fascination alone is not a bad thing.

What is a bad thing, I think, is the literary community's recent tendency to condemn 'classical' flawless (or only slightly flawed) heroes as flat, two-dimensional, or unrealistic.  This is not necessarily the case; some real people exist who actually possess very few negative features and who act in almost invariably admirable ways.  Furthermore, even unrealistic characters can be interesting, complex, and (to go along with the first type of critic) inspirational.

There does not have to be only one ideal type of character or protagonist in literature.  Different characters have different types of value.