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(2)3

22:07 / 27.11.05

I saw a definition online that I thought was worth considering:

"A superhero chooses to fight evil using fantastic means (a costume and/or superhuman powers) which are unusual to the superhero's everyday surroundings."

It's the latter bit that I find most thoughtworthy.

22:20 / 27.11.05

Ha ha, this is almost as completely incoherent as a Grant Morrison subplot! Bravo! And cheers for recycling a dusty old thread. I often wish I had the givashit to do that my own self.

A superhero is

A) an archetypal character --> B) who is in some obvious way better than you and --> C) solves problems.

This can be distinguished from, for instance, a spy or a hardboiled detective, where

A) --> !B) is in some clandestine way better than you and --> C),

or a character on E/R or NYPD Blue, where

!A) a naturalistic character --> !B/B) --> C1).

The fancy clothes are a subordinate and not entirely necessary clause to B), and, I think, have more to do with the evolution of art instruction and printing technology than any essential taxonomy. (Michael Chabon, I believe, begs to differ.)

That there are stories where characters are A)-->B)-->C) that predate the genre (Jesus) or occur totally outside the genre (MacGyver) makes those characters superheroes only in a tautological sense (eg, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...). Writers love to mess with tautologies, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that some superheroes don't appear to be superheroes. But don't worry. Zatanna's still a superhero.

22:24 / 27.11.05

Violent or forceful methods do not keep Jesus out of the club. This is a guy who got offended by some money-men, loansharks and fixers, and busted up the temple, all "this is my father's house!" and "Who's your daddy now!" style.
And directly physical means decimate all possibility of psychic or telepathic superheroes, which doesn't work well. I think it's the 'direct' rather than the 'physical' that implies the violence and action. All direct confrontation or surpassing is violent, by nature, while not necessarily physical. Batman did not fuck over Lex Luthor in 'Rock of Ages' through purely physical means. Superman can punch time into submission, but he's not going to laser-eye a cat to knock him out of a tree. Still, under those circumstances, they'd be superheroes doing superheroing.

22:26 / 27.11.05

PS. Not all superheroes fight crime! In fact, most of them are criminals. What they fight is evil, and there is nothing Nietszchean about fighting evil.

22:37 / 27.11.05

They don't even necessarily fight 'evil' which is hard to define in any meaningful way. The superhero as does the Nietszchean superman, surpasses/confronts (and thereby violates and eradicates) something which acts as a wall or stop-gap to their moral imperative. Alan Moore as a small child, considering stabbing his mum in the back with a kitchen utensil is more superhero than the guy who joins an army he doesn't believe in and kills a thousand folks he doesn't have any disagreement with, bearing a banner he doesn't support, because it's the easy way and it's expected of him. There are no moral absolutes empirically to be proven in the world, so far as I've noted, but I believe we all certainly posses our own borders and qualifiers for these things, primarily as aesthetic concerns wrapped up in laziness. The superhero cannot, at least for one superheroic act, succumb to their innate laziness, but must burst through the easy/borders. Superman doing everything he can to help everyone who needs help, whenever and wherever, tirelessly no matter how exhausting it gets. Captain America wearing his uniform even though the symbolism is often used to represent things he does not, in the hopes that his actions under that guise will feed the read he wants from the same symbols. The end of Morrison's JLA where everybody gets to come along. Batman not letting a shitty deal turn him into a postively shitty and useless person and fundamentally, because he sets out to NOT USE A GUN which is this absurd thing and then puts himself in all manner of danger without using a gun, except where it can then further his not-turn-into-shitty-person/provide-world-with-parent-he-lacked goal. He violates himself for the ideal he is seeking, in true martyr fashion. Makes him a superhero. Not using a gun does not make one a superhero; adherence to ideal/action/desire/hope to the degree of violating world and self (both, perceived) makes one a superhero. With the addition of a recognizable costume/uniform/kit/tic and a possible secondary identity. Thereby inspiring us to further ourselves.

22:56 / 27.11.05

You are using a very plastic yardstick, and you may be confusing the term "Ubermensch" with the character Superman. There is no absolute value for evil, but the subjective value of evil is keenly felt by every superhero. A Nietszchean superhero would not have any regard for good or evil, but would act toward a sort of aesthetic self-interest*. Writers have been feeling their way around this concept for the last twenty years or so--Adrien Veidt, the Nazz (by Rick Veitch & Bryan Talbot, I think), various interpretations of Reed Richards**... maybe Casandra Nova? etc--but it's not intrinsic to the superhero type, which is

A) An archetypal character who --> B) is obviously better than you and --> C) solves problems.

*Is it possible I'm thinking of Ayn Rand?

*Note that these characters always fail to be Ubermenschen because they are too concerned about some species of "good".

23:17 / 27.11.05

I agree with the above notion against circular reasoning

I do not see anything circular in my definition. Specially after we divide the questions of what is a superhero and what is a superhero comic as separate problems to make this easier. If anything, it is an equation with an unknown variable.

A superhero comic is a comic that features X or a group of Xs in prominent roles, or focuses on how life and it's aspects would be in a world where X happens.

And, like I stated before, defining X is the problem.

And Star Trek is not a western. Powerful nations sending their ships in voyages of discovery? That a lot closer to 15th century Europe than to Bonanza.

23:20 / 27.11.05

What I'm trying to get across, I suppose is that, yes it's always an aesthetic call, evil doesn't necessarily enter the picture and if it does it's because of the laziness/aesthetic principle(s) rather than being simply that it's EVIL. However, I would posit that superheroes get to break through an be ubermenschen at least temporarily, in order to qualify as superheroes. They may ultimately, or at our point of entry into their personal narrative, fail, but they can and have at least made the effort and temporarily surpassed their wall of self/society.
Is that any clearer?

23:24 / 27.11.05

Star Trek is the John Wayne/Stagecoach western. In the same way that 'The Crow' as revenge story is modelled on the spaghetti style western. The Man With No Name comes back to life (instead of wandering into town) and fucks up folks who fucked with him and his, mercilessly and unrelentingly. It follows the conventions of behaviour, rather than those concerned with setting.

23:45 / 27.11.05

Here's a question to meditate upon.

Is it possible to tell a "superhero story" without ANY of the standard superhero trappings? Or are the only things that make a story a superhero story _precisely_ those trappings?

In other words, if you take a superhero comic, and take away the costumes & the powers, is it still a superhero story?

(As a data point: Seven Samurai has been done with DC Superheroes. Specifically, in two 1994 annuals. )

23:57 / 27.11.05

Unbreakable?

23:58 / 27.11.05

Nevermind. Bruce has superpowers in all of his movies.

00:09 / 28.11.05

Hoom, interesting. It seems you can take away the costume (Unbreakable) or the powers (3000 Miles to Graceland) but not both.

00:48 / 28.11.05

Star Trek is the John Wayne/Stagecoach western. In the same way that 'The Crow' as revenge story is modeled on the spaghetti style western.

See what you are doing here. You are saying that The Crow is a western because the story resembles the plot and mood of a western story (you are possibly thinking of Once Upon a Time in the West). But when you take the revenge plot of Once Upon a Time, and you change the setting, then it is no longer a western; it is just a revenge story, like hundreds that have existed before and after the Western genre came and went. Just like taking the plot of Seven Samurai and putting it in The Magnificent Seven, doesn't make Magnificent Seven a samurai story.

You cannot divorce westerns from their setting. Specially since setting is all it has. A western can have a thousand plots; some may be revenge stories, others may be comedies, or a caper, but as long as it takes place in the wild west, or a place that resembles it, then it is a western.

And Star Trek was made to resemble naval adventures more than any movie John Wayne ever showed up in.

00:51 / 28.11.05

Unbreakable?

Actually, Unbreakable follows a lot of trappings. We even get Samuel L Jackson to explain how the trappings are being used in this movie, including Bruce Willis' kryptonite.

00:52 / 28.11.05

Star Trek's only military/naval when that Sherlock Holmes writer gets involved. Actually, for OrigiTrek, I like his take best, anyway, but... the rest of the time it's as anti-military, orders be damned, tame and seduce and shoot whatever you can't do either of those to. Which is a western by tropes.
The thing is, no genre is actually a real emperically derived thing. We come close, we make approximations, but nothing fits perfectly and then can be applied universally. Which means I probably shouldn't have restarted this thread.
I'm digging the responses, though, so I'm glad I did.

00:53 / 28.11.05

You cannot divorce westerns from their setting.

Space... the final frontier. Dun DaDaDaa DaDaDAA! Dun Dun DunnnDaDaDaa!

01:19 / 28.11.05

Chad, even if we agree that Star Trek is a western (and I'll rather bite my own feet off and bleed to death) it would be because you guys say the setting RESEMBLES the wild west, so again, you can't divorce westerns from their setting. Bravestar doesn't take place in the wild west either, but whatever planet it takes place in, does resemble it enough.

01:46 / 28.11.05

Why is everything RESEMBLANCES with you, kiddo?

You're fighting rilly rilly hard. Chill bro. Better to argue the behaviour of genres, and not their appearances. I retracted my Unbreakable suggestion, but for you: name a book or film that uses superhero behavior, but without the superhero encoutrements. Can it be done?

Erin Brockovich?

02:14 / 28.11.05

Because if it doesn't look like a duck, then it is most probably not a duck.

02:17 / 28.11.05

name a book or film that uses superhero behavior, but without the superhero encoutrements. Can it be done?

If you take any story about some guy who fights some sort of evil, but without superpowers, a costume or whatever, sure. But it's not a superhero story. Erin Brokovich or Dangerous Minds or whatever you care to mention may have some of the morals, plot devices and behaviour of superhero comics, but they are not superhero movies.

You can say Erin Brokovich is a superhero movie as much as I can say it is Tolkienesque high fantasy with a touch of film noir.

02:18 / 28.11.05

But if it walks, talks, and sleeps with everything is doesn't shoot and then shoots half of everything it sleeps with before leaving for to further the frontier exploration and conquest/civilizing, just like a duck?

02:28 / 28.11.05

If Cap Kirk lived in the world without law where he had to shoot bad guys fairly often, and he had to go around in his space wagon civilized this lawless frontier, then his world would look like a duck, wouldn't it?

I am just saying it looks a lot more like 15th century Europe, with big slow boats fighting big slow boats from other countries for pieces of lands, and shooting at the savage natives.

02:42 / 28.11.05

I'm inclined to disbelieve both intrepretations of Star Trek. Sure, it's like a Western. Sure, it's like a naval engagement story. But, uh, call me crazy, but isn't it science fiction first and foremost? Arguing the secondary genre (probably in Trek's case, the eight or ninth genre) seems a little superfluous and somewhat threadrotty.

Blimey wrote: PS. Not all superheroes fight crime! In fact, most of them are criminals. What they fight is evil, and there is nothing Nietszchean about fighting evil.

The superhero fights (super)villains whose villainy is relative to the superhero's "hero" status. For example, in the recent Lex Luthor miniseries by (blank), Luthor is portrayed as trying to "save" the world from Superman, who is an alien, a scary superpowered alien who could topple the world or punch time into submission. These are scary powers. That's why Luthor wants to get rid of him. Because Luthor has incredible smarts, and incredible wealth, his abilities are above and beyond the average joe. Then he's a superhero, too.
(Haha, devil's advocate)

02:49 / 28.11.05

Science fiction isn't really a genre, though. Trek is foremost a 'space opera' and even that's pretty shaky. Fantasy and science fiction, which is to say, speculative fiction, is not really a genre in that it has no inherent tropes. One is where you can (almost) believe it could happen, the other is when your suspension of disbelief is belied by your inherent lack of any faith in even the possibility. You can't get a cohesive genre out of 'Finnegans Wake', 'We3', and the German or Japanese 'Metropolis' flicks. Speculative (science or fantasy) lacks the modes and qualifiers that horror, westerns, space opera, or sword & sorcery or comedy arguably have.

02:59 / 28.11.05

I had this same argument over genre (specifically horror films) and everybody came up with nothing definite. I must admit that this whole thread vaguely amuses me because nobody is going to agree on anything. A genre's conventions may be "objective" by the genre itself is too subjective.

Boboss said "I think I should stress that whilst I believe there are objective criteria that define genre catagories (particular conventions, etc...), those criteria are open to change, and/or interpretation. This makes genre a semi-vague system of catagorisation.

I ain't talking about objective as in written into the bedrock of existence, but rather, as I've said above, *culturally agreed upon*."

03:03 / 28.11.05

Something productive!

Speculative (science or fantasy) lacks the modes and qualifiers that horror, westerns, space opera, or sword & sorcery or comedy arguably have.

DD, what do you believe are the requisites of each genre? What elements are present in all of the above, and are yet differentiated between them?

Hopefully, we can build a framework by which a superhero genre can be hung. Perhaps "the superhero genre" is just another speculative framing device?

03:06 / 28.11.05

I must admit that this whole thread vaguely amuses me because nobody is going to agree on anything.

Schadenfreude!

03:24 / 28.11.05

Oh boy, if we are going to start arguing what's a genre and what is not, then we should better stop, cause it's going to get uglier before it gets pretty.

03:30 / 28.11.05

Ah, c'mon, this here? This is beautiful, this is. I can't be the only one who likes reading everyone else's thoughts, even and especially those I don't particularly hold with.

03:39 / 28.11.05

I like reading people's thoughts, but we can't even agree on what we are arguing about! We are going to end up arguing about the meaning of each word we use.

For example, I do believe Sci-Fi is a genre. The thing with it is that it is so vast, and it covers so much, that it's just really really hard to tackle, but when we see a movie, it's not hard to recognize it as a Sci-Fi movie.

03:55 / 28.11.05

"A superhero chooses to fight evil using fantastic means (a costume and/or superhuman powers) which are unusual to the superhero's everyday surroundings."

I like this, even if I don't necessarily think it's rock solid from the specificity/vagueness of 'evil'. But that aside, it includes Jesus. It includes B.A. Baracus and Flex Mentallo.

And most importantly, it includes Bicycle Repair Man, who is absolutely vital to this discussion.

I might substitute evil with 'perceived evil or injustice', which would then make someone like the chap from the Scarlet Pimpernal a superhero, which I'm not altogether opposed to.

V For Vendetta is another example of a superhero in a non-superhero story, and one wherein the moral actions of the character are constantly in question.

Dig the breakdown of Batman above, about compromising/handicapping himself to provide something to the world he thinks it's missing, very well put.

03:59 / 28.11.05

Someone please define genre. Hurry.

04:31 / 28.11.05

Genre: a set denoted by commonly agreed upon elements (atmospheric or other).
At it's loosest, I'll say I think of the genre of comedy as being, essentially, anything where the attempt to be funny comes before anything else. Other genres are, unfortunately, most likely to be way more complicated, involve many more variables, and also very likely to quickly splinter into myriad sub-genres what may in fact be genres to themselves as they grow in popularity.

A

13:44 / 28.11.05

I find it something of a superheroic feat that a topic which only recieved two replies has been resurrected after the better part of four years and gone on to flourish.

Page: 1(2)3