Are you differentiating between protagonists and heroes? Because it seems like you may have a bit of a circular definition going here -- Humbert Humbert can't be a hero even though he is a protagonist, because he doesn't behave heroically.

If one's definition of hero excludes from consideration characters that display those kinds of qualities, then naturally one wouldn't be able to think of heroes that have those qualities.

I assume that in a lot of genre fiction unpleasant character traits work as a sort of antithesis to "petting the dog" (a term for the convention in movies of showing a character being kind to an animal as a shorthand for trustworthiness and likability) -- the pattern of having a "villain" display racist or sexist views seems to be in pretty common usage as a similar shorthand.

flamingb-- excellent point. Rabbit Angstrom comes immediately to mind. He's an unlikeable protagonist, and he's racist and sexist and a lot of other things.

So now I'm wondering about the distinction between a hero and an antihero, and if that has to do primarily with these unsavory, unlikeable characteristics such as sexism and racism. So that any hero who falls clearly into the realm of racism, for example, can only be an antihero.

I'm confusing myself. I have to go away and think about it.

L.M. Montgomery's books, especially the Annes, are rife with minor and major characters (perhaps not Anne herself, though, come to think of it, who would be the hero) who hold to the standard views for their time regarding foreigners, the French (her books are set in the Maritimes), and of course Yankees. They're quite vocal about it. Does that count?

It's been a while now, but when I reread one of the Dr. Doolittle books as an adult (which I had loved as a child) I was taken aback at the cheerful racism the good Doctor (and the narrator) had toward the African characters. Anybody else read 'em more recently?

Cultural/social context is a big part of it, though--Hawkeye, in Last of the Mohicans (and I mean the book, not the movies) is one seriously racist guy. He's otherwise likeable, but it's the insidious kind of racism that used to pass for being open-minded. Four hundred plus pages of "you ain't bad for an Injun" kind of comments. I found the entire book repulsive for its petting-the-proud-brave with one hand and smacking the crap out of the savage-injun with the other.

On the other hand, Twain is far less twisty with his racism, instead being aware of it and using it to his story's advantage. Yeah, the language drives parents up the wall (especially as we go more and more PC), but the underlying message--and the MC's viewpoint--are very much non- to anti-racist.

Gone with the Wind is another one in which the racism seems to be more from the portrayal by the author, and found in the narration, than from any overt act on the part of a main character. Frankly, I don't mind racist or sexist characters, but you can tell when it's the author's own bias being shoved down your throat.

What about Robinson Crusoe, where Friday is automatically a slave in Robinson's mind, and assumes the role willingly? It seems to me that both the author and the narrator are racist in this particular case. But then, in 1719, who wasn't?

This is a fascinating question... i can think of some like the above and also more recently works that were more sexiest and the story the hero evolves, and grows into falling in love with the Herione or befriending the other main character. The reason that you would not see this in more recent work is probably because of the PC word... which i wish that word would go away, i personally am sick and tired of hearing it and seeing it being applied, especially in history... if we can not learn from our mistakes, (from our past or history) what do we learn from? Fascinating question... i am finding myself asking my friends and family the same question for the last 24 hours after reading this...

Pride and Predjudice's Mr Darcy was not only sexist but classist,who found himself loving Miss Bennett dispite the fact that she was so far beneath his standard. Normally a character like him would repulse me but the time period almost excused his behaviour.The beautiful way he was written also had alot to do with the way I viewed him almost as the underdog

Does the "hero" include the voice of the author/narrator? And does it allow for the very stereotyped portrayal of women or other races in books? If so I'd like to point with Robyn to "The Last of the Mohicans" - when I read it I just couldn't get past the constant contrast between Cora, who had Negro blood, and Alice, who was more purely Caucasian. Even though the author endowed Cora with lots of noble characteristics and portrayed Alice as (maybe just my take on this) a bit of a bimbo, Cora was still inferior and had to be killed in the end. It belatedly occurs to me that the author was making a point with this, it's years since I've read it - I'll have to go back and check, now.

Also Sherlock Holmes is consistantly dismissive of women and they have very little personality in the novels. Dr Watson was more kindly disposed towards them, but he doesn't go anywhere near towards treating them as equals.

In popular Australian literature (I am Australian), the Linton family in the Billabong books and the author voice are quite dismissive of their Aboriginal staff member "Billy" and the Aboriginal race in general, although as Brenda Niall points out in "Seven Little Billabongs" Jim, the hero, does evolve throughout the series a little and by the end is getting quite thoughtful about this. But he is clearly the hero figure in the thirteen or so books which precede the wider perspective.

An interesting question though - I hope I haven't mused at too much length here.

Sheena -- gosh no. I'm glad that so many people have piped up, because there's a lot to think about. I'm going to post about this again in the next few days.