the first superhero was...?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Which makes them the most important, but not the first.

There's a "before Beatles" and "after Beatles". That matteers more than winning the replay.

Sherlock Holmes was a bit of a Superhuman.

The question that needs to be asked with any Pre-Supermahan example is,
1) Why was the word "superhero" not affixed to those characters in their time?
2) Why didn't Sherlock Holmes inspire directly the creation of other superheroes?
3) Why do people, for the most part, across the last century, did not think of Sherlock as a superhero?

[Kirby101]

You keep arguing for most important rather than first.

You are also arguing for widespread usage of the term rather than first character that fits.

This is like saying we can't discuss what the first Golden Age comic was because we didn't use that term until decades later.

You are disallowing definition in hindsight for no good reason.

Were there no Renaissance or Baroque paintings before those words were used?

[babyblob]

There's a "before Beatles" and "after Beatles". That matteers more than winning the replay.

its not a matter of winning the replay. It is a matter of who came first. There were several masked crime fighters with powers before Superman there for he is not the first. There were several bands before there Beetles so they are not the first. Just like The beetles there is a before Superman and after Superman.

I never debated what Superman did for the industry. I havnt seen any one else here debate what he did for comics. But discounting heroes like Green hornet, The Shadow, Phantom, etc... because they were not as popular as Superman is pretty much saying they did not exist. Just like the Beetles, Discounting the people before them is pretty much saying British Music did not exist before them. If Superman had not come along there may have been a comic explosion any way just with another hero. batman was based more on The Shadow and others more then Superman so he may have been the guy to strike it big. Who knows. British Music would still have been a force in time, just would have taken longer with out The Beetles.

Like I said we each have our own opinions and views. You think your view holds more weight. I think mine does. No way we are going to change each others mind which is fine. it is no ones job to change another persons mind. Just state our thoughts and let other people do with them what they will.

[babyblob]

IIRC, the radio program gave The Shadow that "cloud men's mind" thing because describing the way he could hide in shadows didn't work in narration as well as it did in print. In the pulps (at least those I've read), whether or not The Shadow had any supernatural mojo was left highly ambiguous, and I've read that Gibson did this deliberately so he could convey a spooky character that, nonetheless, wasn't completely fantastical.

This is very much the case for the radio program. if I remember right I read a story on The Shadow, like his history. And the first script for the radio program did not flow well because the narrator and voice actors had a hard time getting the Shadow hiding in the shadows and dark across in a way that would make sense. So they did a quick rewrite with the cloud men's minds aspect. And that was picked up on more and more over the years until it became fact. The early Shadow Pulps I read (I have not read near to close to all of them) They never flat out said The Shadow had powers. It was always a kind of he had powers because the bad guys think he did type thing.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You keep arguing for most important rather than first.

You are also arguing for widespread usage of the term rather than first character that fits.

Yeah I do both, because those are the only criteria that makes logical sense and is historically accurate.

Calling Sherlock Holmes the first superhero, without pointing out that none of the readers of the original stories used that word to call Sherlock, is basically confusing everyone about both Sherlock Holmes and superheroes.

But discounting heroes like Green hornet, The Shadow, Phantom, etc... because they were not as popular as Superman is pretty much saying they did not exist.

I honestly don't get where you got that notion from but that's absolutely not what I meant.

The Green Hornet, the Shadow still exist as iconic radio shows, the Phantom is a famous newspaper strip but all are influential artifacts of popular culture. They don't need some trivia contest entry for some extra scrap of fame.

Discounting the people before them is pretty much saying British Music did not exist before them.

It doesn't. It's simply acknowledging how important the Beatles are. Because doing otherwise gives a sense of downplaying their impact and confusing people.

[babyblob]

Yeah I do both, because those are the only criteria that makes logical sense and is historically accurate.

Calling Sherlock Holmes the first superhero, without pointing out that none of the readers of the original stories used that word to call Sherlock, is basically confusing everyone about both Sherlock Holmes and superheroes.

it does not matter when a word was used to describe someone. They still existed before even if the word was not used. Green Hornet The Shadow may not have been called superheroes by people at the time but they very much were.

If is like life. There were still same sex couples before people called them gay, there were still Trans gender people before people used the term. it is the same thing. just because the term did not exist at the time does not mean that is not what the people were.

These people, Superhero, Gay, Trans, they existed in these roles long before there was a word for it. It does not change who they are or what they did because they did not have a word for it.

[babyblob]

It doesn't. It's simply acknowledging how important the Beatles are. Because doing otherwise gives a sense of downplaying their impact and confusing people.

And pointing out the bands in The beetles case or the superheroes in the comics case that came before does not down play what they have done. No one here ever debated what Superman has done for the industry. They just said he was not the first. You can talk about people who came before Superman while still saying Superman had the greater impact. I like The Shadow and Green Hornet more then Superman. But I also admit that Superman had the much bigger impact, people know more about Superman, and he is much bigger in pop culture.

[Adam Allen]

Superman was indeed the most popular and the most ground breaking. He was the first superhero? maybe but only because the term did not exist yet. There were many others who had secret identities, fought crime and had powers before Superman. Even if those people did not have powers they were still superheroes. there are many heroes today that do not have powers but are still called heroes.

Saying Superman is the first and discounting everyone else who came before just because the term superhero did not exist is a bit goofy in my view. Would the comic book industry exist if not for Superman? Most likely not. Does that make him first? No. Just makes him the most popular. Saying a group of people did not exist because the popular term was not there at the time they existed is not true.

Science fiction was defined by Star Wars. That does not mean it did not exist before Star Was. Jini Hendrix was a defining guitar player but that does not mean there were non before him.

Just a side note. The term Superhero did not even start with Superman. At least if Mike Benton who in a 1992 book called "Superhero comics of the golden age The Illustrated History" said the term superhero was used as early as 1917 to describe a public figure of great talents or accomplishments,

Okay, two things. First, you are all blowing past the significance of superheroes being created and flourishing in comic book format as if you can separate the two, and you really can't. It may the case that other characters were printed in comic form before him, but it's also the case that words and pictures and stories in general existed before him; none of that changes the fact that "superheroes" as they exist today were created and evolved in comic books, and likewise comics as an industry developed driven in large part by this particular type of character, superheroes. Yes, those characters have gone on to be portrayed in books and tv shows and video games and movies. But the particular format of comic books is where they were defined and flourished. And, symbiotically, the economic and cultural impact of the "comic book" format developed driven largely by superhero characters, and it is an art form distinct from others like (for instance) manga. I have to say, it's kind of weird to me, that I would need to emphasize the importance of this on a comic book forum.

So, that's one: Characters whose development did not happen primarily in comics are disqualified, because "superheroes" as an archetype cannot be separated from their primary medium. (Note: We're talking history, not the future, because that's a whole different discussion.)

Anyway, secondly, I think the argument that Superman is only suggested as being the first over characters like the Phantom or the Shadow ignores the fact that there have been other superheroes more popular than Superman for probably all of his existence. Look at the number of comic book titles, tv shows, movies, etc that he's carried, and Batman has always been competitive, if not clearly more popular than Superman. Spider-Man has been more popular for most of his existence. Captain America, Wolverine ... if you talk to young kids in the last decade about their favorites, Deadpool is more popular than Superman. (Which is kind of mystifying, given the rated-R movie, but that's besides the point.)

Thing is, while the Big Blue Boy Scout has always had his fans, he has usually not (if ever) topped the lists in the Most Popular category. Yeah, he may be more popular than the comics versions of Hercules, the Green Hornet, etc, but that is not why he is considered the first superhero. It's not just a matter of popularity; it's that he represents a new archetype, that characters from Batman and Captain America, to Wolverine, Punisher, and Deadpool, are all a part of, in a way that characters like Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan just are not.

[Powerboy]

As others have pointed out, you [Revolutionary Jack] keep saying that being the character to be most attached to the term superhero makes him the first. As far as I know, he was the first character to be called a superhero. But then the question became, who of those before him would count as superheroes? So, yes, he is the first in the sense that the term was attached to him. But you seem to want to insist that it would not matter if the term had existed three thousand years earlier because nobody met the requirements until Superman.

You somewhat argued that part of the criteria is that Superman is a character for and of the modern world. Incidentally, that's really making the definition Superman-centric and then arguing that- shock- only Superman meets the criteria. You argued Heracles is disqualified perhaps because he represented a time when what counted as heroic was very different than what is considered heroic now. But he was changed throughout the ages to adapt to new times. You certainly would not argue that some of the things Superman did in 1938, just 80 years ago, would be considered heroic now?

Not really important as I would consider Heracles more a mythical character. The fact he is also a Marvel Comics character says something though. Arguing that the original version of Heracles or Thor would not meet some very specific standard of a superhero is irrelevant because Superman throwing enemy soldiers to their deaths wouldn't either and that was only eighty years ago.

I'd go for the Shadow and Zorro, both of whom meet any unbiased definition, especially the Shadow. In fact, he met your definition until you realized he did and added extra Superman-centric stuff to disqualify him. That he was, at the time, thought of as a pulp character does not mean he does not meet all the criteria of a superhero.

The question is not who is most associated with the term superhero (Superman) or the best example (Superman) but what previous characters met the criteria had the term existed, which is at least one by your own criteria and several by any reasonable criteria.

[Powerboy]

This is very much the case for the radio program. if I remember right I read a story on The Shadow, like his history. And the first script for the radio program did not flow well because the narrator and voice actors had a hard time getting the Shadow hiding in the shadows and dark across in a way that would make sense. So they did a quick rewrite with the cloud men's minds aspect. And that was picked up on more and more over the years until it became fact. The early Shadow Pulps I read (I have not read near to close to all of them) They never flat out said The Shadow had powers. It was always a kind of he had powers because the bad guys think he did type thing.

I'll also say that my introduction to the Shadow was comics and they gave me this impression of him as this sort of lunatic firing twin uzis all the time. Then I listened to the radio show and realized he was nothing like that. Then I read a couple of the novels from even before the radio show and realized he truly went out of his way to not kill people and did so only as an absolute last resort.

It's clear how he was a major part of the basis for Batman as was Zorro with the secret identity, the masked man fighting against a corrupt system and so on.

[babyblob]

I'll also say that my introduction to the Shadow was comics and they gave me this impression of him as this sort of lunatic firing twin uzis all the time. Then I listened to the radio show and realized he was nothing like that. Then I read a couple of the novels from even before the radio show and realized he truly went out of his way to not kill people and did so only as an absolute last resort.

It's clear how he was a major part of the basis for Batman as was Zorro with the secret identity, the masked man fighting against a corrupt system and so on.

Oddly enough my first introduction to The Shadow was the movie with Alec Baldwin. My dad took me to see it when it came out. I loved it. He took me to a toy store which was our .routine after seeing a movie and I got a Shadow Action figure. The one with the removable mask. I remember watching thinking "Damn this guy is such a cool superhero."

It was only a few years ago that I started to read the old pulps that have been reprinted and listening to the radio shows. (I can give a link on where you can listen and download the old radio shows form that era if you are into that kind of thing)

[Revolutionary_Jack]

As others have pointed out, you [Revolutionary Jack] keep saying that being the character to be most attached to the term superhero makes him the first.

For the label "superhero" to have any meaning, for any label to have any meaning, then yes it's important to attach this distinction.

The topic is "first superhero" and not "first hero" (because that would be an even bigger can of worms).

But you seem to want to insist that it would not matter if the term had existed three thousand years earlier because nobody met the requirements until Superman.

Languages and meanings of words change. Values change. 3000 years ago, the English language didn't exist. The word "super" is of course Latin in origin and it means "over" or "above" and was used as an adjective and at times negatively (the last Roman King was called Tarquin Superbus, or Tarquin the Proud, with Superbus meaning excessive insane pride...over time, superbus became superb, and then super).

You somewhat argued that part of the criteria is that Superman is a character for and of the modern world.

I'd argue that Superman and the superhero genre is a character of the modern American world. The superhero genre is fundamentally an American genre after all. Other countries have tried to produce their take on superheroes but none of them have established themselves, even in their home countries, as icons on the same level as American superheroes.

You argued Heracles is disqualified perhaps because he represented a time when what counted as heroic was very different than what is considered heroic now.

The Ancient Greek and Roman world had an attitude to Heracles that's totally remote. People of Ancient Greece worshipped Heracles as quasi divine and sometimes as a real god, and made temples to him and honored him and so on. Bloodlines of famous kings claimed to descend from Heracles. Alexander the Great and his family are supposed descendants of him. Whereas nobody today in real life would walk around and erect temples to Superman and worship him as a god...and before people bring up a few fringe fans, let me point out that people who identify as "Jedi" or as Superman aren't as big as even a cult like Scientology in terms of popularity, adherence, and observance. To the extent that people are flocking away from the big major religions of the world, they aren't building altars to superheroes, not yet anyway.

No major political figure elected to high office will walk around and claim that they are actually descendants of Superman, Batman, or the bloodline of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. People in Ancient Greece did that. So when people say that Heracles and others were the superheroes of the Ancient World they do not know what they are talking about. The attitudes and mores of people in the past doesn't even remotely approach anything like superhero fandom.

Not really important as I would consider Heracles more a mythical character.

People in the Ancient World didn't consider Heracles a mythical character. A lot of people thought he legit existed and believed in the stories of the 12 Labors as literal events. Real historical people claimed descent from Heracles. Heracles came to be worshipped as a god. No comic fan thinks of Superman versus Doomsday as a real event of history which actually happened in the early 90s in the same way the OJ Simpson Murder Trial and Bill Clinton are real events in the same time period.

The fact that Heracles and Thor are comic characters by Marvel later on, doesn't mean that the attitudes towards them are consistent to how they were in Ancient times.

Would people call Jesus Christ is a superhero? Or the Prophet Muhammed? Or you know in India, you have a polytheistic religion called Hinduism where people believe in Krishna and others as legit real people and the events of the text as stuff that really happened. Are you gonna tell a billion people (far bigger than the fandom of superheroes) that their centuries and millenia of belief is equivalent to stuff made up by exploited and cheated American writers and artists of the mid-20th Century?

[babyblob]

they aren't building altars to superheroes, not yet anyway.

I would for sure join the Church of Moon Knight and we would have holy wars against the Church of Batman!

[BeastieRunner]

I would for sure join the Church of Moon Knight and we would have holy wars against the Church of Batman!

I pegged you more for the Brotherhood of Mutants but you can never tell by just looking.

[babyblob]

I pegged you more for the Brotherhood of Mutants but you can never tell by just looking.

Sadly and I am only saying this because I think I can trust you guys. I am not a real mutant. Just a wanna be fat guy with a cool name and snazzy wardrobe. Magneto would see through me in a second. But since I have a massive mental disorder The Church of Moon Knight would welcome me. And though I would question any group that would welcome me, I would be very loyal. At least until The Members of the Church of Batman offered to have me hang out in the Temple of the Condiment King. Because I am sure that place has great burgers and fries. And that is my real plan all along.