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: 12(3)

 
 
Aertho
13:55 / 28.11.05
S'like Communism, really.
 
 
eddie thirteen
21:12 / 28.11.05
Hmmmmm, I dunno -- I'm still kinda hung up on the violence thing (go figure). My definition had superheroes fighting crime and injustice *primarily* by violent means -- which, on the face of it, okay, includes Jesus (sigh) -- but let's be honest here, no one's into this stuff because they wanna read the adventures of Parable Man, or Able to Instill Guilt Man, or Diet-Coke-into-Colt-45 Man, or whatever. Homilizing, making his opponents feel like crap, and transubstantation are, I would argue, Jesus's primary characteristics as a wielder of, like, power and shit, and the most formidable of them are less violent than they are passive-aggressive. (And no, I don't think one isolated meltdown in a temple is sufficient to classify Jesus as the asskicking type. Maybe if he'd pulled a Shadowhawk and ripped out a moneylender's spine and showed it to him. Which is kinda lame when it's Shadowhawk, but would have been pretty cool coming from the Prince of Peace.) By the same token, although Batman is clearly a superhero, and although, yeah, he often outsmarts his opponents, he's not IQ Man, or Outthink-You Man, or whatever...I mean, he's fucking BATman! Surely what makes his adventures interesting -- what makes his adventures actually, like, adventurous -- is his ability to do physical combat with his foes. (Um...like a...bat...would...)

Anyway, even most magical/psychic powers are treated in comics as being basically violent, as (I think) someone else said somewhere up there...Jean Grey psychically forcing a group of mercenaries to shit themselves isn't exactly the same thing as ripping out their spines (although certainly this isn't beyond the abilities of a less creative telekinetic), but I think we can all agree that inflicting prolapse on another person is not really a sporting thing to do. It's probably not generally considered a heroic thing to do, either, but I guess it depends on the context. In any event, it's definitely an act of aggression.
 
 
eddie thirteen
21:23 / 28.11.05
Actually, what I meant to say about Jesus was that while he didn't fight evil, etc., primarily by violent means, the word "primarily" does give the definition a little bit of wiggle room -- thereby excluding Jesus's lone instance of freaking out on the moneylenders. (Which was at any rate -- arguably -- less a reasoned attempt to use violence against "evil" than it was a nervous breakdown from a normally mellow guy when faced when the abuse of the temple.) The "primarily," however, still allows us to include non-violent strategies, spells, etc., directed against the forces of That Which Is Totally Not Cool by folks who are better known for fisticuffs.
 
 
matthew.
03:52 / 29.11.05
So wait, why isn't science fiction a genre? I don't mean to be snarky, but I see no other way to put it: saying sci-fi isn't a genre is pure, unadulterated drivel. Why not say horror is not a genre? There's just as many subgenres.

Decrescent Daytripper: You can't get a cohesive genre out of 'Finnegans Wake', 'We3', and the German or Japanese 'Metropolis' flicks
Thanks for the examples, but that's four out of infinity. If we say that Star Trek is not genre fiction, then we may as well throw out the book on genre completely.
Trek is foremost a 'space opera' and even that's pretty shaky
You just said "space opera". There you go. It's in a genre. Of course it's going to be shaky. Everything written is going to fit in multiple genres, but there are still genres for us to point at and define.

Juan_Arteaga: 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.
There you go.

"A superhero chooses to fight evil using fantastic means (a costume and/or superhuman powers) which are unusual to the superhero's everyday surroundings."
Why isn't this acceptable? Other than adding "relative to the hero's morality" just before "evil" I mean. Why can't we agree on this?
 
 
This Sunday
04:13 / 29.11.05
Science Fiction is not a genre the way horror or comedy are, because horror and comedy have (a) specific goals (to frighten or to make laugh, respectively) primary to their existence as genres. Science fiction films, stories, what have you, do not exist for any such unified goal, for one thing. Secondly, seriously, what are the defining genre characteristics that place 'Finnegans Wake', 'The Terminator', and 'Dark City' together with 'Spectacular Spider Man', 'The Manchurian Candidate', and 'Coffee and Cigarettes'? There's a fundamental flaw in stating that Nabokov's Ada belongs to the same genre as the Rutger Hauer-starring 'Split Second'.

Space Opera gets to be a genre, because it has more or less clearly defined elements that establish it as such. It's a melodramatic costume-heavy piece, with action elements, where space is the primary place and things go swoon at the drop of a hat. That's 'Star Trek' through DS9 and beyond, that's 'Babylon 5' and 'Queen Emeraldas' and 'Switchblade Honey'.

Speculative literature/fiction, being both science and fantasy fictions, simply cannot be sustained or defended as a genre in any way I can think of. Unless someone comes with some reasonable qualifiers, I'll probably continue believing they don't exist.

Space opera is a genre I can buy, as is 'Sword and Sorcery', the alternate history, the man and the machine, but that 'The Invisible Man', 'Invisible Man', and 'Plan 9 from Outerspace' share a genre?
 
 
Mario
11:36 / 29.11.05
Some sandboxes are bigger than others. For example, you can apply the term "historical fiction" to everything from "Titanic" to "The Ten Commandments", but that doesn't mean they are the same type of film.

The situation with science fiction is similar. Like with superheroes, there are broad criteria that can be applied, and exceptions that can be found. But despite this gray area, the basic concepts are fairly easy to recognize.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
11:38 / 29.11.05
Secondly, seriously, what are the defining genre characteristics that place 'Finnegans Wake', 'The Terminator', and 'Dark City' together with 'Spectacular Spider Man', 'The Manchurian Candidate', and 'Coffee and Cigarettes'?

The thing about Sci-Fi is that it only has ONE characteristic: All sci-fi stories use speculative science as part of the plot. Speculative Science, of course means any gadget, science, technology or scientific principle that doesn't exist, yet.

I am going to have to skip Finnegan's Wake, cause I haven't read it, but the rest...

Terminator - It uses time travel and robots. Not only that, but it the story also uses extremely advanced Artificial Intelligence heavily in the plot, and how is going to kick our ass in the future.

Dark City - Memory altering technology.

Spider-Man - Like Godzilla, it explores the effects of radiation and how it can change the ADN, your basic accident with science story. Mind you, the fact that Stan Lee knows as much about science as I know about the silk market in 15th century China doesn't change the fact that he tried to be scientific about it.

The Manchurian Candidate - Brainwashing technology.

And I don't know Coffee and Cigarettes.

There are a few Sci-Fi stories that are harder to pin down. For example Mad Max 2 and all the other post apocalyptic stories. Or E.T. and other stories with aliens, but no new made up technology. Well, you could say E.T. is using speculative science in there, if you count xenobiology. Mad Max has a harder time getting in there, even though all stories that take place in the future get called Sci-Fi, despite not having any speculative science other than trying to guess what the future is going to be like.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
11:38 / 29.11.05
Secondly, seriously, what are the defining genre characteristics that place 'Finnegans Wake', 'The Terminator', and 'Dark City' together with 'Spectacular Spider Man', 'The Manchurian Candidate', and 'Coffee and Cigarettes'?

The thing about Sci-Fi is that it only has ONE characteristic: All sci-fi stories use speculative science as part of the plot. Speculative Science, of course means any gadget, science, technology or scientific principle that doesn't exist, yet.

I am going to have to skip Finnegan's Wake, cause I haven't read it, but the rest...

Terminator - It uses time travel and robots. Not only that, but it the story also uses extremely advanced Artificial Intelligence heavily in the plot, and how is going to kick our ass in the future.

Dark City - Memory altering technology.

Spider-Man - Like Godzilla, it explores the effects of radiation and how it can change the ADN, your basic accident with science story. Mind you, the fact that Stan Lee knows as much about science as I know about the silk market in 15th century China doesn't change the fact that he tried to be scientific about it.

The Manchurian Candidate - Brainwashing technology.

And I don't know Coffee and Cigarettes.

There are a few Sci-Fi stories that are harder to pin down. For example Mad Max 2 and all the other post apocalyptic stories. Or E.T. and other stories with aliens, but no new made up technology. Well, you could say E.T. is using speculative science in there, if you count xenobiology. Mad Max has a harder time getting in there, even though all stories that take place in the future get called Sci-Fi, despite not having any speculative science other than trying to guess what the future is going to be like.
 
 
matthew.
14:01 / 29.11.05
Juan_Arteaga:The thing about Sci-Fi is that it only has ONE characteristic: All sci-fi stories use speculative science as part of the plot. Speculative Science, of course means any gadget, science, technology or scientific principle that doesn't exist, yet.
Okay. I like that. We should be able to use this.

By the way, DD, how is Finnegan's Wake science fiction? I would say it's more of an extension of themes earlier explored in Joyce's other books, ie about the paralysis and stagnation of Dublin, as well as being about the freedom and universality of pure language. I'll be honest: I only read a hundred pages of the book, but from what I've read on the book, nobody has mentioned that Joyce was writing science fiction.
Also, how is Ellison's Invisible Man science fiction? Isn't it historical fiction?

Mario:Like with superheroes, there are broad criteria that can be applied, and exceptions that can be found. But despite this gray area, the basic concepts are fairly easy to recognize.
This is what I'm saying: the basic ideas and conventions are there to point out. If there weren't there, then the idea of genre wouldn't be very fun to argue.

There's a fundamental flaw in stating that Nabokov's Ada belongs to the same genre as the Rutger Hauer-starring 'Split Second'.
Well, now you're being silly. That's comparing apples to oranges. Why don't we just compare Citizen Kane to Speed 2? I'm sure I can make some wild tenuous connection of genre...
 
 
This Sunday
20:11 / 29.11.05
'Finnegans Wake' has time-viewing television, time as a loop/not-loop playing a big part, a proposed rupture in the fabric of reality, Issy stands outside reality at one point and HCE stands for and beyond and at time sometimes. Reality shifts continuously, there's the musueum of history that is in fact, a museum containing actual historic events and speculation.

That's science fiction, if anything is. It's got science. Speculative science.

The thing is, if I write a story about using a hammer and a toaster to kill someone, that's speculative fiction about science, 'cause hammers and toasters are science things, they're tools, machines, and by using them to kill, I am adding a non-normative use to them, which is to say, speculative.

To say "all science fiction has an element of science" or all "historic fiction has a historic setting" does not make them genres, to my mind. 'The Aviator' has science and science-novelty, and a historic setting, and it's fictionalized, but it isn't particularly likely to be called science fiction.
 
 
This Sunday
20:16 / 29.11.05
'Invisible Man' the Ellison thing, is science fiction, most definitely. At least, it's speculative fiction of a fantastical nature. He becomes literally obscured at points, living in his warm hole, parasiting power off the city with and using his powers of obfuscation as invisibility. The paint that makes up WHITE with its bits of "dead black" mixed in. It's beyond the metaphor-as-obvious-metaphor and into the realm of being, where you can read something literally and it holds together. The invisibility/obfuscation is not simply a metaphor for passing, or for disenfranchisement and empire-minded whitefolk mentally editing out the black man.
Either the narrator is nutes and therefore entirely untrustworthy, or things must be taken literally at points, in order to sustain the narrative believability. Maybe both.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
22:51 / 29.11.05
The thing is, if I write a story about using a hammer and a toaster to kill someone, that's speculative fiction about science, 'cause hammers and toasters are science things, they're tools, machines, and by using them to kill, I am adding a non-normative use to them, which is to say, speculative.

You could say that, but then that would mean you didn't finish reading what I wrote. I said "... that doesn't exist yet" at the end.

Hammers and toasters are not science fiction, but if you make it a quantum hammer and a radioactive toaster, then you get science fiction.

By the same token, what Julius Verne wrote a century and more ago was science fiction in it's time, but now exists. I think it qualifies as Steam Punk these days.
 
 
matthew.
23:04 / 29.11.05
IMVHO, I don't think anybody thinks Jules Verne is steampunk. I'm under the impression that steampunk is supposed to be ironic. I'm seriously happy to be proved wrong on this, though.
 
 
Mario
01:18 / 30.11.05
The name is slightly ironic (a riff on cyberpunk) but the genre itself is actually fairly popular. Verne is the grandaddy of the genre (more so than Wells, who tended to skimp on explaining how stuff worked).
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
02:32 / 30.11.05
Actually, Verne and wells wrote plain Sci-Fi, but the thing is that their stories take place in the somewhat distant past from our point of view, so they are basically steampunk to us, but for them that was the future.
 
 
matthew.
02:40 / 30.11.05
So the steampunk thing is something retroactive - we're imposing it on them.
 
 
Red Mosquito
04:42 / 30.11.05
Interesting discussion. I think any attempt to put a closed definition on The Superhero is doomed to failure. Blimey! proposed a three-element definition (an archetypal character who is in some obvious way better than you and solves problems) but it seems to me too general to be of any real use.

I think Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance is a better way to approach the problem:

Instead of [general explanations, and definitions based on sufficient and necessary conditions], he points to ‘family resemblance’ as the more suitable analogy for the means of connecting particular uses of the same word. There is no reason to look, as we have done traditionally -- and dogmatically -- for one, essential core in which the meaning of a word is located and which is, therefore, common to all uses of that word. We should, instead, travel with the word's uses through "a complicated network of similarities, overlapping and criss-crossing".

On that basis, I think Juan_Arteaga's approach was on the right track. He listed common elements like costume, superpowers, secret identities and supervillains, but wasn't satisfied that all of them were strictly necessary. I think if the list is expanded to include things like morality, setting, etc, we'd be on the way to a meaningful explanation of what a superhero is.

On the other hand, Wittgenstein also said the only way to truly understand language is to use it and to immerse youself in its culture. So the only way to really understand what is a superhero is to read superhero books!
 
 
Mario
11:58 / 30.11.05
So the steampunk thing is something retroactive - we're imposing it on them.

Sort of. It would be more accurate to say that the definition is predicated on them. The basic defintion of steam punk is

"Science fiction stories using 19th-century technologies. You know, like in a Jules Verne story."

Perhaps it's inaccurate to call Verne a steampunk author, but without him, there likely wouldn't be any steampunk stories.
 
 
This Sunday
13:06 / 30.11.05
I'd put 'steam punk' into the 'alternate history' category. There's not a whole lot of difference in the technological applications of, say, Moorcock's 'War Amongst the Angels' and Nabokov's 'Ada'. Sub-genre, but not genre in and of itself.

Of course... I started to really be swayed by the 'new technology' argument for an SF genre, until I hit the alternate history again, and realized, it doesn't need new technology. Alien stories require new tech to be introduced, just to get them there. Wherever, there, happens to be. But, alternate histories? Are 'Man in the High Castle' or 'Forrest Gump' science fiction, then, or some other strange breed? I want to say all 'alternate histories' fall under what is commonly understood as science fiction, but, seriously, 'Forrest Gump' or 'Zelig'?
 
 
Mario
13:43 / 30.11.05
Yeah, it fits as a particular "style" of alternate history.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:57 / 30.11.05
Well, from a booksellers' perspective (as I recall- it's been a while) alternate history was classed as a sub-genre of science fiction. The Man In The High Castle has almost always been published as science fiction, and won a slew of awards for, well, science fiction.

How about something like mid-period Ballard? I'm thinking of Crash, or (closer to the toaster/hammer analogy) High Rise. No new technologies there, though I'd argue that both are sf- especially Crash- it's fiction based on an obsession with, and fetishisation of, technology, even though that technology (the car, broadcast media) was already well in place as a part of society.
 
 
matthew.
23:14 / 30.11.05
Can we then say that science fiction as a genre means there is a prominent element of technology? At some point, the narrative purposefully focusses on technology as a means to further the plot, the theme, or the characters' arcs.

But then, I'm thinking, what about the subgenre of the "techno-thriller?" Why can't we call, say, Digital Fortress by Dan Brown, a science fiction novel?

Actually, DD, I'm starting to be swayed by your earlier statements.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
23:19 / 30.11.05
Of course... I started to really be swayed by the 'new technology' argument for an SF genre, until I hit the alternate history again, and realized, it doesn't need new technology. Alien stories require new tech to be introduced, just to get them there. Wherever, there, happens to be. But, alternate histories? Are 'Man in the High Castle' or 'Forrest Gump' science fiction, then, or some other strange breed? I want to say all 'alternate histories' fall under what is commonly understood as science fiction, but, seriously, 'Forrest Gump' or 'Zelig'?

Well, first of all, I don't think Forrest Gump counts as a Alternate History story. Sure, Forrest Gump is a fictitious character who show up in real history events and manages to change the course of history in his way. But if Forrest Gump is an Alternative History story, then any story where fictitious characters show up in real events should be alternative history stories. That would mean that Saving Private Ryan is an alternative history story, or that Full Metal Jacket is one too.

Sure, all those movies showed events that didn't really happen, and characters that never existed, which means that - in a really pedantic and technical way - they are Alternate History stories. But, the difference between Forrest Gump and one of those stories where the nazies won WW2 is that in Forrest GumpNazis, Saving Private Ryan and Full Metal Jacket, the course of history was the same as the real course of history.

OK, and back to Sci-Fi.

Yeah, you are right; Alternate History stories do not require any new science at all. Another group of stories that don't require it is Post Apocalyptic stories like Mad Max 2 & 3 and Water World. It seems like stories that explore what might have been and what might be like in the future also get piled up on the Sci-Fi pile. Now, we can expand the definition of Sci-Fi we have to include these type of stories, but that would be kinda stupid cause it could mean that everytime a "Sci-Fi" story that doesn't fit shows up, we just make the definition longer and that would make this whole exercise lose it's meaning.

Personally, I still believe Sci-Fi is a genre, despite that a few subgenres from it don't seem to fit under the umbrella, and maybe they should get their own umbrella. Heck, according to my copy of a Discworld Novel translated to Spanish, Discworld is a Sci-Fi series. *shrug*
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
23:23 / 30.11.05
But then, I'm thinking, what about the subgenre of the "techno-thriller?" Why can't we call, say, Digital Fortress by Dan Brown, a science fiction novel?

Can't say about Digital fortress, but a techno-thriller like Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon wouldn't be considered a Sci-Fi story, at least by me.

Cryptonomicon's entire plot runs on computers, but it runs on computers that we already have and do the same stuff ours can do. They are not science fiction, they are plain science.

In other words: No new science? Not Sci-Fi.

Well, at least not to me.
 
 
matthew.
00:03 / 01.12.05
At my local Chapters, Cryptonomicon is invariably in the sci-fi section, along with the Dune series, if that's any indication.
 
 
Juan_Arteaga
00:25 / 01.12.05
It's an indication the world is wrong, and it should be purified with fire!
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
03:32 / 01.12.05
I think what quite a bit of this boils down to is that science fiction is fiction written by science fiction writers. Philip Roth's Plot Against America (despite being as alternate-worldy as Man In The High Castle) doesn't fall under that category, because as any fule kno Roth is a SERIOUS author what writes LITERATURE and stuff, whereas Ballard, Stephenson and Dick are science fiction writers, and live in the corner and eat shoe-polish or something. Unfortunate, but it seems to be the way these things work.

I think the other problem we're coming up against here, both with the SF example and the more on-topic one of superheroes, is that there is no hard and fast definition- the edges keep sliding just when you think you've got it. (Try coming up with an all-encompassing definition of "game" for similar fruitless fun). It's easier to label these things after the fact than it is to use these labels to come up with actual definitions for the genres.

(Sorry if this is a bit incoherent- I'm at work and trying to look busy, so keep closing my Barbelith window mid-sentence).
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
03:36 / 01.12.05
You did -not- just pull the low art/high art routine, did you? Are we still on that?

-Good- art versus -bad- art.
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
03:56 / 01.12.05
Stoat: I think the other problem we're coming up against here, both with the SF example and the more on-topic one of superheroes, is that there is no hard and fast definition- the edges keep sliding just when you think you've got it. (Try coming up with an all-encompassing definition of "game" for similar fruitless fun). It's easier to label these things after the fact than it is to use these labels to come up with actual definitions for the genres.

What was the end result - if any - to the "game" debate?

The shifting borders is pretty much where it goes with me. I find it even harder simply because I tend to prefer things which don't strictly adhere to one genre but go under multiple classifications (generally I prefer sci-fi that's comedy as well, or hard-boiled noir on top, for some small examples). Is there any way to effectively categorize something that's meaningful for more than one person? Everything is constantly being filtered through more than one lens, and everyone's embarking on these postmodern quests to merge/bind/destroy genres when, as this thread shows, the question of basic definition is barely there.

I wrote a "superhero story" once, although I'm not exactly sure what gives me the right to call it that. There were a couple tropes - including some of the diction and imagery - that make it that for me. The principle of naming one's self, maybe, was part of it. The focus on dress/costumes was important as well. It's meant for a larger collection of interlinked stories, each one dipping into a different genre (there's a sci-fi one, a superhero one, and a Bonnie & Clyde-style caper story) but definitely fringed with more than one.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
04:23 / 01.12.05
You did -not- just pull the low art/high art routine, did you? Are we still on that?

-Good- art versus -bad- art.

Not really- I just referenced it as an example of how silly a lot of this genre definition stuff can get. I'd rather read Stephenson than Roth any day...
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
04:25 / 01.12.05
I know, sorry. It remains one of the things that riles me up the most.
 
 
This Sunday
05:46 / 01.12.05
To clarify why I put in 'Forrest Gump' but left out 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Bringing Out the Dead' is that Gump actually effects and changes things actively. It's not a 'this happened in the past but changed or effected no great part of recognizable history' as the insertion into famous events and crediting him with the development, invention, or engendering of various historical aspects, novelties, et cetera, to me, firmly roots it as an alternate history and not simply taking place in history.

And did this thread just hit a hundred posts? Wasn't expecting that.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply