the first superhero was...?

[Kirby101]

As for the common usage argument. This is from 1934

[DrNewGod]

Anyway, I think the thread would have gone better had the question not been, "Who, before Superman, was a superhero regardless that the term didn't exist yet?" It would have been better to just ask, "Who were the most significant forerunners of Superman?" or even, "What characters were strong influences on the character known as Superman?"

That presupposes that I assume that what we now think of as the superhero predated Superman in some form; I don't. Reading the comments of others, I've formulated the opinion that superhero fiction didn't begin with Superman, but emerged (or maybe coalesced is more accurate) after him. To be sure, from the beginning, Superman had a great many of the tropes that we associate with the superhero. So many, in fact, that I can fully see why some credit him as the first in the genre.

However, if you read the first dozen or so issues of Action Comics, Superman was created more as a sub-genre of pulp fiction. The same was true of Green Lantern. I almost think that the first character created as a superhero may have been Starman, who seems the earliest that I can identify with all of the tropes in place, including a fantastical adversary in his first adventure. His predecessors, including Superman, all contributed pieces to the genre, and adapted to conform to the pieces their stories didn't innovate.

[Powerboy]

That presupposes that I assume that what we now think of as the superhero predated Superman in some form; I don't. Reading the comments of others, I've formulated the opinion that superhero fiction didn't begin with Superman, but emerged (or maybe coalesced is more accurate) after him. To be sure, from the beginning, Superman had a great many of the tropes that we associate with the superhero. So many, in fact, that I can fully see why some credit him as the first in the genre.

However, if you read the first dozen or so issues of Action Comics, Superman was created more as a sub-genre of pulp fiction. The same was true of Green Lantern. I almost think that the first character created as a superhero may have been Starman, who seems the earliest that I can identify with all of the tropes in place, including a fantastical adversary in his first adventure. His predecessors, including Superman, all contributed pieces to the genre, and adapted to conform to the pieces their stories didn't innovate.

Now I'm going to have to read some of the early Starman stuff.

My comment really wasn't a criticism of you. It was more just the way thinks turned out.

In fairness, I'm sure there are some fine technical differences between the superhero genre and things like Pulp and mythology that went before it. I'm told there are fine differences between Myth and Folktale. I'm sure there are. But, to most people, it comes down to: Was he a hero and was he superhuman? Then, by modern standards, he's a superhero.

I made a point a ways back that Superman just fought normal gangsters for his first year, which is probably what you refer to. He's basically a pulp character in a new and very visual medium during that first year. Batman more immediately fights bizarre opponents but the Shadow, though fighting gangs, often included very bizarre characters among those gangs or in addition to them. Yes, the original GL also comes across that way. His abilities are just very visual because it's a new and very visual medium as opposed to someone like the Shadow who existed in a medium of words without images, both in books and radio.

I don't think the fact that it was the comic book medium can be underestimated in terms of Superman or many of these characters.

[DrNewGod]

Now I'm going to have to read some of the early Starman stuff.

My comment really wasn't a criticism of you. It was more just the way thinks turned out.

In fairness, I'm sure there are some fine technical differences between the superhero genre and things like Pulp and mythology that went before it. I'm told there are fine differences between Myth and Folktale. I'm sure there are. But, to most people, it comes down to: Was he a hero and was he superhuman? Then, by modern standards, he's a superhero.

I made a point a ways back that Superman just fought normal gangsters for his first year, which is probably what you refer to. He's basically a pulp character in a new and very visual medium during that first year. Batman more immediately fights bizarre opponents but the Shadow, though fighting gangs, often included very bizarre characters among those gangs or in addition to them. Yes, the original GL also comes across that way. His abilities are just very visual because it's a new and very visual medium as opposed to someone like the Shadow who existed in a medium of words without images, both in books and radio.

I don't think the fact that it was the comic book medium can be underestimated in terms of Superman or many of these characters.

No hard feelings PB. My thoughts have evolved since posing this question. Much of it thanks to what you and others have said on this thread. I'm grateful.

I initially thought "the superhero" predated Superman. Reading comments here altered my thinking. Many may disagree with my conclusios. That's okay.

[BeastieRunner]

That presupposes that I assume that what we now think of as the superhero predated Superman in some form; I don't. Reading the comments of others, I've formulated the opinion that superhero fiction didn't begin with Superman, but emerged (or maybe coalesced is more accurate) after him. To be sure, from the beginning, Superman had a great many of the tropes that we associate with the superhero. So many, in fact, that I can fully see why some credit him as the first in the genre.

However, if you read the first dozen or so issues of Action Comics, Superman was created more as a sub-genre of pulp fiction. The same was true of Green Lantern. I almost think that the first character created as a superhero may have been Starman, who seems the earliest that I can identify with all of the tropes in place, including a fantastical adversary in his first adventure. His predecessors, including Superman, all contributed pieces to the genre, and adapted to conform to the pieces their stories didn't innovate.

I like the word choice of "coalesced" because I think that is appro of Superman and the superhero genre in regards to the topic at hand.

[Alan2099]

I can see disqualifying Heracles or Gilgamesh because they don't necessarily do the sorts of things we associate with superheroes. Some of the recent versions of Hercules (the Legendary Journeys) would qualify because he does the kinds of things one expects from superheroes. But that's Hercules as Superman, not the original version. Not having a secret identity is irrelevant. The Fantastic Four don't have secret identities. Even "Going about doing good" or lack of it isn't a disqualifier because you've got the anti-hero. But, when given powers, a costume and, possibly, a secret identity, he still is considered a superhero.

There are a lot of superheroes that don't have a secret identity. These days, it also seems like a rarity more than a requirement.

Rather than having a secret identity, I'd say one of the requirements would be having a Hero Identity. The name is an important part of being a hero. Another thing is the distinct costume. Reed Richards's identity might be common knowledge but being Mr. Fantastic and putting on tights with a 4 logo makes the difference between Mr. Fantastic: Superhero and Dr. Richards: Scientific Adventurer.

[TheRay]

And, I won’t argue w. them.

Out of major curiosity, which arguments would you make?