I'm confident I have the right answer. I believe you can trace all these anti-heroes back to The Shadow, whom America first met in 1930. (I like your idea, Tim -- but they sure didn't meet the Shadow on TELEVISION in 1930... Play fair, and take another swing. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of TV? -- David B)

The Shadow on the radio wasn't even close to being an anti-hero. He didn't even use a gun on the radio. He was a straight-up superhero.

I would also argue that Tim Bayliss' execution of a murder doesn't really qualify him as anti-hero because it wasn't a consistent part of his character. Also, that whole season of Homicide kind of stunk. It looked like they were throwing in any random plot development just to try to get anyone to watch.

You could make the argument that John Munch taking out the guy [Steve Buschemi] who shot Bolander, Felton and Howard - which was a high point for the series - was a more serious exploration of what tempts an honest cop to do something like that.

I would argue that the first anti-hero was Archie Bunker, which would of course only be true if you were watching the show as a conservative, otherwise he'd just be a villain. But I'm 41 and while I collect old time radio programs and know more about them than almost anyone else my age, I don't really know anything about early television.

I guess the Fugitive was technically operating outside the law, but again, if you don't do anything actually wrong, that wouldn't count, would it?

I'm not sure if he would be considered a bad guy, but Batman was a vigilante. If vigilante justice is out because Batman worked with the police (kind of), then how about the A-Team. They may have been falsely imprisoned, but they remained fugitives the entire show.

Looking back I would say the first television anit-hero was Sgt. Bilko. He was constantly fleecing his men, his Colonel and practically every guest star on the show. But you always rooted for him to succeed in his con games. The Riches have a lasting debt to Bilko and if he was around today, Bilko would be trying to collect on it! (Oooh, Gregg, I like this a LOT! -- David B)

I can think of at least three logical justifications for the increasing trend of so-called anti-heroes in television.

First and foremost, the J.R. Ewings, Patty Hugheses and Tony Soprano's most closely conform to the archetypes of classic tragedy. Like Macbeth, they seek to change their surroundings by force of will. They are bad and they are flawed. The audience identifies and sympathizes, because we catch a glimpse of our own dark souls reflected in the TV glass.

Second, there are the compromisers, the Vic Mackeys and Dexter Morgans of the world, who set out to do what they think is right. They know that their actions are wrong. They rationalize, with the hope that the ends will justify their means. In the process, our heroes must struggle with the horrific consequences and moral implications of their actions. The compromisers make for good drama, but they also remind the audience of the everyday moral dilemas that we, the viewer, struggle with.

Third, there are the Wayne Malloys and Don Drapers. These characters are confronted with a social order that is itself corrupt. Like Robin Hood, they choose to reject it entirely, in favor of a new code of ethics. It's not hard to see the appeal here. Everybody loves a rebel.