BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

What is a Superhero?

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
moriarty
15:24 / 11.01.02
In another thread, Flux admitted to a dislike of the comic title The New Gods, a Kirby title that I adore. So, I got to thinking that part of the reason that I love this title is because it is one of the purest examples of the Superhero genre I know of.

The more I think about it, though, the more unsure I am if that is true. The New Gods (and the rest of the Fourth World books) are missing many of the ingredients that one normally associates with the superhero genre, like secret identities and the fight against crime.

This also applies to many other titles that are discussed on this board. A few people have stated that they don't feel that the X-Men is even a superhero comic anymore, if it ever was. The Fantastic Four (possibly the greatest "superhero" comic ever) always seem to get involved in scientific adventures or are the targets of professional jealousy, not normally the stuff of your standard superhero comics. Batman is always being discussed as a superhero that isn't really a superhero proper.

On the flip side, if we were to accept these characters as superheroes, then we open the genre up to all sorts of other characters, like Popeye (considered by many to be the first superhero), Zorro, any of the pulp characters including Tarzan, Doc Savage, and The Shadow.

I realize that defining a genre is next to impossible, but I'm especially interested in knowing where people here personally feel that the line is drawn.

[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: moriarty ]
 
 
deja_vroom
15:41 / 11.01.02
If it's wearing the undies over the trousers, then it's a Super-Hero. Obviously.


No, seriously, to me what defines the Super-Hero as a genre-defining character is really the costume. If he/she wears a costume, it's a Super-Hero. Mandrake or Tarzan wouldn't be super-heroes, in my point of view. I recognize it's a bit simplistic, and I can't wait to have all the holes in my theory exposed.

[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: Marquis de Jade ]
 
 
Rev. Jesse
12:45 / 12.01.02
"with powers beyound mortal ken" is how I would define a superhero. That would include all sorts of cats, including Batman, Tom Strong, the 4th World comics etc.

It is also a genre issue of the comic. Most superhero comics are brightly lit, and full of big punch-ups with characters that are somewhat microdimensional. A lot of them focus on melodramatic themes of saving the world too.

But mostly, superhero comics focus on the difference between the hero and that of modern man. Batman never has to go to the bathroom. All the heroes are above the vast, unwashed, masses and don't have to deal with the problems we do, they are too busy saving the world.

Thusly, I would put Batman in the superhero genre but not Paul Pope's Eclipso or One Trick Rip Off.

-Jesse
 
 
Rev. Jesse
13:24 / 12.01.02
"with powers beyound mortal ken" is how I would define a superhero. That would include all sorts of cats, including Batman, Tom Strong, the 4th World comics etc.

It is also a genre issue of the comic. Most superhero comics are brightly lit, and full of big punch-ups with characters that are somewhat microdimensional. A lot of them focus on melodramatic themes of saving the world too.

But mostly, superhero comics focus on the difference between the hero and that of modern man. Batman never has to go to the bathroom. All the heroes are above the vast, unwashed, masses and don't have to deal with the problems we do, they are too busy saving the world.

Thusly, I would put Batman in the superhero genre but not Paul Pope's Eclipso or One Trick Rip Off.

-Jesse
 
 
This Sunday
10:20 / 27.11.05
I had posted a sort of request for this over in the 'Is Grant Morrison wasting his time...' thread (I think people decided he wasn't, basically), but there wasn't really any response and the thread itself dwindled to dead pretty soon thereafter.
So: Definition of a superhero or the superhero genre?
I'll give mine, but I'm relatively sure many people (here and elswhere) will disagree. I seriously want to know what definition, what qualifiers, other folks are using, because apparently, my definition is flawwed and not universal in any way.
Right, then. Superhero: someone with a recognizable kit/costume/tic, with a recognizable gig or catch, who is capable of going beyond the normative steps in life, either through superhuman powers and abilities beyond the ken of mortal men and monkeys, or simply through having the will to do so. With (a) being the Superman model and (b) being, Batman-esque... the fundamental qualifier being the decision, though, the will to action. There can and usually is a moral element to the story, however one is not absolutely required and when you get down to it, you can make a moral out of anything. So, Here Comes Everybody and Batman, superheroes. Holden Caulfield and that kid from 'The 400 Blows' perhaps, not so much. Not until like the fourth Antoine Donnel/Truffault picture, anyway. Rothstein from 'Casino' is a no, because he stops, he pauses and thereby fails, while Jesus from 'The Bible' (and all sorts of other books, movies, and Pat Boone albums) is a superhero and the New Testament, predominately a superhero narrative. If he can be your saviour and redeemer, he can be my superhero. And not because of his heat vision and powers of flight, either. These are symptoms but not cause, not root. The root is Nietszche's (Can anyone spell that from memory? There's your superpower, then.) superman concept. It goes backwards from that, comes before that, but that's the best definition I can come across. Superhero invalidates the paused, tentative entity. The superhero story, then, should imply on some level that we, the audience, and all people, must move on, progress, develop and otherwise supplant the superhuman. An inspiring call to arms, whether underlined by tragedy and paranoia or absolutely enthusiastic.

So, anybody with me on this? If not, please detail your definition(s).
 
 
LDones
12:27 / 27.11.05
Daytripper I often enjoy your thinking and just as often wish you'd put a bit more clarity to your points. Or a paragraph demarcation or two.

You start off with something that strikes me as arbitrarily specific, but other than that I'm with you 100% on your examples of superhero stories, you're spot on.

Jesus is a superhero. Morality and the ability (through whatever means) to confront and deal with extraordinary circumstances with one's own extraordinary resources/abilities are the essence of superhero stories. MacGyver is a superhero.

I agree that, like any morality tale, a proper superhero tale contains a motivator for its audience to make more of themselves, move beyond power-fantasy types of wish fulfillment and into self betterment wish fulfillment. I don't think this is necessary, but I do think it's an extremely important facet to the concept, and emblematic of the 'genre' or idea at its most positive/effective.

Something a bit more base, like Dragonball Z is sort of a superhero story, but I don't know that it's a good example of the idea of superheroics, anymore than something like Shadowhawk is, which is emblematic of the worse kind of empty superhero narratives. (Unless it's for comedy, in which case it's genius)

I'm with a lot of other people when I say that superhero stories have been for me, since I was a child, a compass for good and moral behavior, for better or worse. I hold that as an essential part of the notion of superheroes, whether it's held to in a loose sense like in Morrison's JLA, or purposely conspicuous in its absence, like in a more maudlin piece like Watchmen or Dark Knight Returns.

It's Stan Lee, Great Power/Great Responsibility, it's an equation that's intrinsic to the notion of superhero, whether adhered to or ignored or struggled with, just like discomfort with the body and aging and disease and xenophobia are intrinsic to the horror genre. Either wanting superhumanly strong people to exist so that they can help take responsibility of you and others or to right wrongs you perceive, or using them as an example of behaviors to strive for in your own responsibilities to other living things and your life.

I think more specific rules and delineations about costumes and looks and crimefighting are useless, except to limit the experience (not that they're not useful, I just don't think they're essential). It's like capital-P Postmodernism, the naming of concepts that serves no purpose but to catalogue and label and reduce as a result.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
13:04 / 27.11.05
McGuyver is not a superhero. McGuyver doesn't follow any of the trappings of the superhero genre, except that he is a good guy and he fights crime. By that definition, half of all cop shows are superhero shows.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
13:36 / 27.11.05
To me, there are two types of genres: The genres that depend on the setting, and the genres that depend on the mood or plot of the story. Actually, that would be three, what with plot and mood... but never mind.

A good example of a genre that depends only on the setting would be Westerns. What must a story do to be a western? Easy, it must take place in the Wild West, or in a setting that resembles the wild west in some way like Bravestar.

What must a story do to be a superheroes story? Easy, it must have superheroes in it. No! Actually, not even that. It must take place in a world where superheroes exist, or even existed. For example, Wanted and Empire don't have any superheroes in them, but they take place in a world where superheroes used to live, which makes them superhero stories. Superhero stories that explore the genre after superheroes have been wiped out.

Wow, Juan! You are telling us that superheroes stories are superhero stories cause they have superheroes in them? Wow! You magnificent retard, how long did it take you to figure that out?

OK OK, I know I am not saying anything earth shattering, but I just wanted to make clear that superhero stories do not have an specific mood or plot; they just have superheroes in them, that is all.

Perhaps it would be easier for us to identify the elements we identify with superheroes and discuss if they are necessary or not.

Costume: This is what makes superheroes extremely easy to identify, but is it necessary? Jenny Sparks is a superhero, but she doesn't have a costume. She does have a very recognizable union jack shirt and white jacket, though.

Superpowers: Well, technically speaking, Batman and Green Arrow don't have superpowers, but they do have abilities not many or any people can imitate. Punisher doesn't have powers at all. All he has is a costume, without it he would just be an asshat with a gun.

Secret Identity: This one is not necessary at all. We have seen plenty of superheroes lately who don't have one.

Supervillains: Not quite sure they are necessary. A superhero can spend his whole careen catching back robbers. It would be boring, but he can do it.

OK, I am not sure about costumes and superpowers, but the last two are a sure 'NO'. Anybody else can come up with more elements?
 
 
LDones
13:40 / 27.11.05
MacGuyver has special abilities that are generally beyond mortal ken. While I think there is some sort of argument to be made that most characters in thrillers/cop shows/action movies are tailored toward a superhero equation (people like to identify with 'special' characters, people inordinately good at things, (ie. Tony Soprano and his high IQ and seeming inability to be killed, though they factor it well into his character)), I think MacGuyver is a particular case where the superheroics are explicit. His superpower is concocting insane shit out of mundane shit, and making incredible escapes.

The A-Team is a superhero show, Mr. T being a prime example of a character on that show with strong morals and extraordinary/absurd abilities.

Law & Order is not a superhero show. CSI might be considered one, but that's largely due to poor writing giving their characters nonsensical deductive abilities.

Superheroes/villains and superhero stories are not limited to colorful tights and comics pages. They don't require origin stories or secret bases or regular crimefighting habits.

The movie 'Commando' is an attempt at a superhero story, and falls under the Shadowhawk column, I think.

Alfred Bester's 'The Stars My Destination' is a superhero story.

Hannibal Lechter is a supervillain. The Silence of the Lambs is somewhat of a superhero story, though the superhuman character in it is Lechter, and the story is of a regular human with strong morals and above-average abilities contending with him and the extraordinary world he represents.

Hamtaro and his pals are superheroes. I'd argue that the girls from Azumanga Daioh and Yotsuba from Yotsuba&! are as well.

I'm sure many disagree and I'm interested to discuss why.
 
 
Mario
14:16 / 27.11.05
I'd say that any definition of "superhero" would have to be conditional. You want to avoid making it so generic as to become irrelevant, but not too narrow as to rule out borderline cases.

I'd say that for a comic to qualify as a superhero book, it must have most (if not all) of the following criteria:

1) Distinctive appearance. Either a flamboyant costume, or some features that mark the character as other than normal (e.g. The Hulk).

2) Superhuman abilities. Most often superpowers, but physical, technological, or mental capabilities beyond that of the ordinary man on the street qualifies.

3) A reliance on combat to move the plot. I believe it was the late Archie Goodwin who once described superhero comics as "Soap operas where fights replace love scenes".

New Gods is an interesting case. While certain stories qualify as superheroics, others (like "The Pact") are an entirely different matter.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
16:33 / 27.11.05
I'd say that any definition of "superhero" would have to be conditional. You want to avoid making it so generic as to become irrelevant, but not too narrow as to rule out borderline cases.

Agreed, otherwise we will stay here all week talking to LDones about why I Love Lucy is not a superhero story, despite the fact that she has the superpower of tricking people even though she is mentally challenged.

Anyway, about combat moving the plot along, I don't think that is true. An element I forgot to mention that define superheroes is "Crime Fighting". That is what superheroes do, they fight crime, no two ways about it. But, and here is the tricky part, we do not have to see them fighting crime. There are plenty of superhero stories where we do not see the superheroes fighting crime, either because they do it off panel or because they are simply not doing that right now.

Combat doesn't have to move the plot along or even exist in superhero comics. For example, lets take a look at J.Torres 'Sidekicks', a comic about a superhero highschool. There is very little fighting in there, and mostly it's just training sequences. And yet, it is a superhero comic, with superheroes who fight crime. We just don't see them do it, that's all. Another good example, I suppose, would be Andi Watson's 'Love Fights', but I have only read the first issue of that.

I would change that "Combat moves plots" to "Fights crime or something at some point explicitly or implicitly."
 
 
LDones
16:47 / 27.11.05
I'd love to stay and engage you all week, Lucy, but so far you haven't addressed a single point I've made with a counter of your own.

Let's get divisive. Is Jesus a superhero? Why, or why not?

I think he is. In his story, he possesses extraordinary powers. He does not fight crime, but suffering and ignorance. Though perhaps non-essential, he has a unqiue origin story. An archvillain (again, not entirely essential to my point, but helpful). His story is indeed a morality story, wherein the decision-making capabilities and resolve of himself and his supporting cast are tested.

If Jesus is a superhero, then the definition becomes broader. If not, then I'd like to know why you think not.

I don't think superhero stories need combat, per se, but Jesus' story does have some ear-chopping and cart-overturning in it.
 
 
sleazenation
17:07 / 27.11.05
I thought Jesus was more of a zombie than a superhero, although being a zombie doesn't prevent one being a superhero, as we have seen in Marshall Law...
 
 
Triplets
17:13 / 27.11.05
No no, Zombie Jesus was part of the early 90s grim n grrritty reboot.
 
 
Aertho
17:22 / 27.11.05
Isn't Jesus zombiefied after most of His superhero antics are done?
 
 
This Sunday
17:26 / 27.11.05
Zombie kickboxing tranny Jesus is still a hero! A superhero! Even when he's a vampire.

And since when are enforced poverty, cruelty and disengenuousness NOT crimes by the sensibilities of Jesus? A superhero must abide their own laws and ethics, not societal or governmental. Otherwise, ninety-percent of them would hang up the tights and capes.
 
 
Mario
17:49 / 27.11.05
Now, I'd say Sidekicks ISN'T a superhero comic. It's a teen romance comic frosted with a touch of superhero. But the story is much more about growing up than it is punching out the bad guys.

I might add another criterion:

Alternate identities (not necessarily secret ones). Every superhero has a name/persona other than that they use normally. Even when everyone knew Wally West was the Flash, his interaction with others was different when he had on the red tights.
 
 
LDones
17:57 / 27.11.05
Daytripper, you're spot on, but at that point crimefighting becomes synonymous with action via moral conviction. It's still the central morality theme that superheroics hangs on.

And Mario, by the rule of requiring alternate identities, neither Zatanna nor Klarion are superheroes, off the top of my head. Neither, for that matter, is Flex Mentallo. Would you agree with that?

Zatanna's 'work' clothes don't count, a lot of people put on special outfits and personas to get laid or work at McDonald's and that doesn't qualify them - the clothes and personality may add, but they're not mandatory to the superhero, I wouldn't think. You can get into discussions of identity malleability being inherent in superhero narratives, but that's something else entirely.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:16 / 27.11.05
Slight digression: Would it be churlish of me to point out a faulty premise here?

The New Gods (and the rest of the Fourth World books) are missing many of the ingredients that one normally associates with the superhero genre, like secret identities and the fight against crime.

So I was hallucinating the part where Orion takes on the identity of "Red O'Ryan" and battles the minions of Intergang with the assistance of Metropolis cop Dan "Terrible" Turpin?

Frankly, I agree with that, if anything, the Fourth World saga was too much of a superhero story—that by binding himself so closely to the tropes of the genre, Kirby hamstrung himself creatively. No matter what his intentions or ambitions for the saga, it was never able to transcend its origins. It was a good superhero story, yeah, but it was never anything more than a superhero story.
 
 
Aertho
18:39 / 27.11.05
Yay for Jack Fear, finding the exact words and article to describe why I'm ambivalent toward the Fourth World.

neither Zatanna nor Klarion are superheroes

I get that Klarion is a raw adventure, with weirdnesses. But what's Zee then? She knows Martian Kung Fu, for God's sake. 7S is plumbing new overlaps and ressurecting lost genres... Ystin = mythic fantasy. Jake = street level heroics. Frank = horror tales of suspense. Shiloh = summer blockbuster parable? Alix = ?
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
18:51 / 27.11.05
I'd love to stay and engage you all week, Lucy, but so far you haven't addressed a single point I've made with a counter of your own.

Because you have broadened the definition of superheroes to such extents that it becomes completely meaningless.

McGuyver? The A Team? The Silence of the Lambs? Commando? CSI?

If I don't tackle your arguments it is because they are so out there I don't even know where to begin.

It would be like me asking people to prove me that Star Trek is not a western. Look! It has gun fights... from time to time, and Kirk grew up in a ranch somewhere! WESTERN! No! no no no no! Double Infinites of Noes!

I think here is your problem:

Superheroes/villains and superhero stories are not limited to colorful tights and comics pages. They don't require origin stories or secret bases or regular crime fighting habits.

You are asking us to strip down the superhero genre and remove everything that makes it recognizable as superheroes. No wonder you end up considering stuff like freaking Silence of the Lambs as a superhero movie. Not every story with a character that can do stuff better than others is a superhero movie. Willy Wonka can do chocolates better than other people, and it would ludicrous to say he is a superhero.

Maybe I do not know what exactly makes a superhero story, but I know enough to tell you that any of the examples you mentioned and I repeated here lack any of the elements that make superhero stories recognizable.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
18:56 / 27.11.05
I get that Klarion is a raw adventure, with weirdnesses. But what's Zee then?

Klarion is no supehero, agreed. But Zee? Well, she is hard to pin down. Lets see... Zee as a member of the JLA with the costume and the crab on her head: bonafide superhero. Zee outside the JLA? Beats me, what the hell is Mandrake? Pulp hero? Although I have no problem saying that Mandrake as a member of the Defenders of the Earth is a superhero.

  
 
Juan_Arteaga
19:01 / 27.11.05
Now, I'd say Sidekicks ISN'T a superhero comic. It's a teen romance comic frosted with a touch of superhero. But the story is much more about growing up than it is punching out the bad guys.

Correct in some points, Mario. Sidekicks is not a story about superheroes doing what superheroes regularly do. But it is a story that deals with superheroes, just from another angle. It deals with kids training to become superheroes. Think of it as one of those war movies that focuses on the guys at boot camp, but with more romance.
 
 
Mario
19:14 / 27.11.05
"And Mario, by the rule of requiring alternate identities, neither Zatanna nor Klarion are superheroes, off the top of my head. Neither, for that matter, is Flex Mentallo. Would you agree with that?"

As presented in 7 Soldiers? No, they are fantasy/horror comics.

But I might point out that my original post stated "most (if not all) of the following criteria". There are borderline cases. There are ALWAYS borderline cases.

Flex is an interesting case, since his miniseries isn't a superhero story, so much as it is ABOUT superhero stories. But the character, as used in Doom Patrol, may be closer to the mark...I don't know, as I haven't read those stories yet.
 
 
Mario
19:17 / 27.11.05
"So I was hallucinating the part where Orion takes on the identity of "Red O'Ryan" and battles the minions of Intergang with the assistance of Metropolis cop Dan "Terrible" Turpin?"

That would be the secret identity that lasted all of 5 pages and was never mentioned again?

"No matter what his intentions or ambitions for the saga, it was never able to transcend its origins. It was a good superhero story, yeah, but it was never anything more than a superhero story."

Again, I point at stories like "The Pact" and "Himon" which transcended the superhero genre.
 
 
Mario
19:21 / 27.11.05
"Correct in some points, Mario. Sidekicks is not a story about superheroes doing what superheroes regularly do. But it is a story that deals with superheroes, just from another angle. It deals with kids training to become superheroes. Think of it as one of those war movies that focuses on the guys at boot camp, but with more romance."

OTOH, I would define Sidekicks as a story about growing up, viewed through the lens of superheroes. The core plotline could easily take place at a school for athletes or performers.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
19:49 / 27.11.05
True, the core plot of Sidekicks could work in a chess academy, but I still believe it is a superhero story, even if only because it has superheroes in it. As I said before, I believe the superhero genre depends only in the setting. The setting of Sidekicks is a school that teaches kids how to become superheroes. Going with that idea, The core plot of The Magnificent Seven could work with Samurais (As it already did) or in outer space (as it already did, too). But just because the core plot can be moved around to different settings, doesn't mean The Magnificent Seven is not a western, or that Seven Samurai is not a samurai movie.
 
 
Mario
19:55 / 27.11.05
That's actually a very good point. Perhaps we should differentiate between two questions:

"What is a superhero?" and "What is a superhero comic?"

It seems to me that you can have superheroes in a non-superhero comic, just as easily as you can have non-superheroes in a superhero comic.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
20:21 / 27.11.05
Yeah, that's a good idea.

Now, I am still not decided what makes a superhero, so that will have to be homework for another day.

But I like my definition of what is a superhero comic.

OK, here we go. A superhero comic is a comic that features a superhero or superheroes in prominent roles, or focuses on how life and it's aspects would be in a world where superheroes live.

Sidekicks features superheroes in the leading roles, even though it is basically a highschool dramedy. Empire, Wanted and Gotham Central on the other hand do not have any superheroes as regular characters, but focus on how the world would be if superheroes lived in them. And that makes them all comics about superheroes, even if they also handle other genres like comedy, police procedurals, etc.
 
 
Jack Fear
20:32 / 27.11.05
A superhero comic is a comic that features a superhero or superheroes in prominent roles, or focuses on how life and it's aspects would be in a world where superheroes live.

Nice and circular. Why not just boil it down to "A superhero comic is what I point at when I say 'superhero comic'"? (apologies to Damon Knight.)

Oh, and STAR TREK is so a Western. Exploring the lawless frontier, fulfilling manifest destiny, bringing the benefits of the white man's civilization to the poor heathen natives... I mean, really. Don't let the superficial aspects fool you. Look at what the thing is, and what it does.
 
 
Mario
20:35 / 27.11.05
That works.

As for a definition of superhero, I think the triumverate of distinctive costume, special powers, and alternate identity is a good (tho not perfect) starting point.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
20:39 / 27.11.05
Why not just boil it down to "A superhero comic is what I point at when I say 'superhero comic'"?

Why not remove that dead critter from your ass? Christ, whoever thought the Internet was a communication tool was so wrong.
 
 
Aertho
20:43 / 27.11.05
Watch it, Arteaga. Those hands are deadly.
 
 
This Sunday
21:25 / 27.11.05
I agree with the above notion against circular reasoning, which is, why I revived this thread in the first place. Using the "I know it when I see it" argument is only good for God and porn, and then only as a personal marker, anyway; doesn't carry any empirical weight.

And Trek is a Western. I wonder, actually, if the western might be a very good model for this discussion? There is a difference, I think we can agree, between the western and the cowboy. Does a western need a cowboy, or a cowboy, the western? Does a superhero story, then, require a superhero, and similarly, can superheroes exist in not-superhero stories? Not cross-genre stuff (which is the sort of thing that just disproves the universality of any genre convention-set), but actually a story that is not a 'supehero story' and involves superheroes.

Since some people are saying here that 'Flex Mentallo' is not a superhero story, then, it must, from that definition, work. What I don't get is how 'Flex Mentallo' is not a superhero story. Costume(s)? Check. Power(s) and moral action/decision beyond the like of mortal folk? Check. Crime fighting? Check. Is it predominately a story in which a costumed individual/group use a variety of special abilities and decisive actions to fight injustice(s) and violations of their moral order and boundaries? Does it inspire us, the audience, to the necessity of bettering ourselves? An inspiration garnered through tactics or fear, loneliness, hope and love? Again, how is it not a superhero story and how is our lovable Man of Muscle Mystery not a superhero?

Zatanna's definitely a superhero(ine), as far as I'm concerned, because she fulfills my definition of superhero. Captain America and Captain Blood are superheroes, as are Narutaki from 'Steam Detectives' and The Man with No Name as played by Mister Eastwood. 'Split Second''s Harley Stone might have been a superhero, as he has kit and justice, but he does not take the extra step in capacity to distinguish himself from the mortal fold. Our dear old pan-universal Uncle Al wrote a wonderful guide on How to be a Superhero the Aleister Crowley Way, and called it something like 'Magick without Tears'. Spider-Man isn't a superhero because he fights crime... he primarily fights crime to take pictures of himself and sell them to pay the rent he's perpetually late with and keep his aunt from dying of her billion and three illnesses. He's not a superhero for seeking to pay his debts, to pay rent or pay off his guilt in the death of his uncle. He's a superhero because he has willingly plugged through all that and acted from a moral conviction in ways that surpass the average and allowed him to arguably change the course of that mighty river called life.

It's the Superman spiel all over again. Mighty river-changing, leaping higher than high, faster than fast, more powerful than a speeding train of thought.
 
 
eddie thirteen
21:32 / 27.11.05
Interesting conversation. How about this:

"Superhero: A person who fights crime and injustice primarily by violent means, using abilities or employing trappings so unlikely as to be considered absurd or flatly impossible in the real world."

I'm sure this can be tinkered with, but I think it covers most of the bases and arrives at a portrait of the superhero recognizable to the average bear. It rules out Jesus, who isn't often depicted as someone inclined to beat the crap out of the forces of evil. More broadly, it rules out any protagonist who doesn't use violence against his/her foes...and for better or worse, I think the possession and exercise of the power to kick ass is pretty crucial to the constitution of the superhero. This definition also rules out the folks from the various incarnations of CSI, who have abilities that (while uncommon) are not exactly unheard of in the forensics community -- maybe they're a little exaggerrated, sure, but that's TV (see also just about any cop show).

But this definition may *not* rule out, say, The A-Team or Walker, Texas Ranger. In both cases, protagonists do display abilities that are rooted in the real world -- surely, there are many kung fu experts; B.A. Barracus is very strong, but so are a lot of people; in the event that a plan came together, a person with the right engineering background probably really could make some fairly formidable weapons from common household items. I guess the real question is whether you think the abilities these particular characters possess are so absurdly powerful/well-developed that they become ridiculous by any realistic standard. I don't think anyone would argue that the A-Team or Walker are less likely than Buffy Summers, for instance, but that's not the litmus test -- the question is, are these people depicted as being SO strong, so adept at kung fu, and so good at building anti-aircraft weapons out of gum and popsicle sticks, that it defies belief?

...Probably, yeah. In which case they're superheroes.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply