What Puts the "Super" in "Superhero?"

[ouroboros]

I'm working on a book proposal on the subject of superheroes, and one of my angles is to talk about the word "superhero."

I would like to find out if, when most posters hear the word "superhero," they consider that it's a type of hero in some way associated with what SF/ fantasy/horror fans call "genre."

I know that some comics-fans think of "superhero" as connoting only heroes with super-powers. However, there have been many examples of the term being used for heroes with no such powers, just an aura of what Tolkien called "arresting strangeness." In fact, one of the earliest recorded uses of the term was for the pulp-hero The Shadow, who unlike his radio counterpart didn't have "the power to cloud men's minds," but depended on misdirection and his weird costume to battle evil.

Every time I see the "super" in superhero, it means something more than "a bigger version of something," like "supermarket," or "a more respected version of something," like "supermodel." For me it always connotes an affiliation to what fans call "genre" works.

Do posters hereabouts concur?

[Sharkerbob]

Usually its the super powers. Including the superhuman levels of gumption, skill, determination, stamina, resources, etc. Even Batman is really a superhuman compared to real world standards, he just looks like a "mere human" at first glance because he hangs out with the Justice League, but then he's also feared as like the most dangerous superhero of all of them regardless. Even fully human characters mostly have a level of spark and capability to them that goes beyond real life.

Also, the act of a taking on a symbolic persona is probably part of it. There are people who dress up and do "real life superhero" stuff (mostly civilian patrolling around to spot crimes instead of direct crime fighting), and in that case, obviously, there's no powers or special narrative assistance, but they make a point to adopt an identity that isn't their normal persona. Not so much a secret identity issue, but becoming a symbol of their ideals.

[Carabas]

It is a very nebulous genre to define.

I've seen fans argue to the death that Batman isn't a superhero because he doesn't have powers.
I've seen fans argue that James Bond is a superhero because he does stuff that is obviously superhuman.
Joss Whedon is on record that Buffy The Vampire Slayer is essentially a superhero series that is very inspired by Claremont X-Men comics he read in his youth.
Everybody places the Guardians Of The Galaxy film in the superhero genre despite it being just regular space opera with aliens and big space battles, with a complete lack of superpowers, costumes, or any of the other major superhero tropes.
If Guardians Of The Galaxy is in the superhero genre, where does that leave Star Wars?

[ouroboros]

It is a very nebulous genre to define.

I've seen fans argue to the death that Batman isn't a superhero because he doesn't have powers.
I've seen fans argue that James Bond is a superhero because he does stuff that is obviously superhuman.
Joss Whedon is on record that Buffy The Vampire Slayer is essentially a superhero series that is very inspired by Claremont X-Men comics he read in his youth.
Everybody places the Guardians Of The Galaxy film in the superhero genre despite it being just regular space opera with aliens and big space battles, with a complete lack of superpowers, costumes, or any of the other major superhero tropes.
If Guardians Of The Galaxy is in the superhero genre, where does that leave Star Wars?

I'm experimenting with the idea that superheroes as a genre belong to a larger "super-genre" which would include a wide variety of fantasy-related adventure-types.

The biggest problem in this formulation is that there's no current term for the "super-genre" types-- which could include anything from superspies like Bond, S&S types like Conan, and space-opera types like Skywalker-- and so anyone who introduces such a term is probably going to get shot down.

That said, even reference works like Rovin's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SUPERHEROES includes characters who don't strictly fit the mold, like Conan and Tarzan. So it seems to me obvious that there's some greater genre out there, however one chooses to define it.

[Carabas]

That said, even reference works like Rovin's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SUPERHEROES includes characters who don't strictly fit the mold, like Conan and Tarzan. So it seems to me obvious that there's some greater genre out there, however one chooses to define it.

Could be because DC and Marvel have published comics about these characters.

For some the definiton of the superhero genre is simply "published by Marvel/DC".

[codystarbuck]

To me, it implies a hero beyond the normal, even if it is a character with no superpowers. usually, though not always, there is an element of being "larger than life." Batman is a superhero, because he has been trained beyond what would seem possible, is the best at what he does, employs an amazing array of equipment, and wears a theatrical costume to create an effect.

I tend to use the term in relation to comic book characters and those revolving around those comic book archetypes. I tend to refer to characters like the Shadow or Tarzan as pulp heroes. They are the ancestors of the superhero. I would then say that the adventure heroes are their ancestors, and characters of myth and folklore as their predecessors. It's really splitting hairs, though. Genres and labels like superhero are created to discuss or classify certain stories or characters, to differentiate them from others. It's hard to create a definitive meaning for such labels, as there are as many, if not more, exceptions to the rules than examples supporting them.

[ouroboros]

To me, it implies a hero beyond the normal, even if it is a character with no superpowers. usually, though not always, there is an element of being "larger than life." Batman is a superhero, because he has been trained beyond what would seem possible, is the best at what he does, employs an amazing array of equipment, and wears a theatrical costume to create an effect.

I tend to use the term in relation to comic book characters and those revolving around those comic book archetypes. I tend to refer to characters like the Shadow or Tarzan as pulp heroes. They are the ancestors of the superhero. I would then say that the adventure heroes are their ancestors, and characters of myth and folklore as their predecessors. It's really splitting hairs, though. Genres and labels like superhero are created to discuss or classify certain stories or characters, to differentiate them from others. It's hard to create a definitive meaning for such labels, as there are as many, if not more, exceptions to the rules than examples supporting them.

But would you (or anyone) have any interest in an attempt to "weave the hairs back together," so to speak, with a general theory of superheroes, pulp heroes, space heroes, etc?

Also, on occasion I've heard the term "superhero" applied to characters who have no fantasy-aspects as such, but simply accomplish heroic feats, like McClane of DIE HARD. I understand why this happens sometimes, and yet I for one don't usually hear the term "superhero" invoked unless there's something that diverges from reality in a substantial manner. By this reasoning I'd consider both Batman and Superman "impossibilities" and McClane just an "improbability."

[Carabas]

If the most physically fit, best trained combatant in our universe tries even half the stuff John McClane pulls in Die Hard, he's dead. And even if he survives, he's not ever going to recover enough from his injuries so he can do the sequels.

[MyriVerse]

Over-the-top acts and spectacle are what make a superhero super.

[jeanvaljean]

It's gotta be the tights, man.

[yet another]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superh...ademark_status

[ouroboros]

If the most physically fit, best trained combatant in our universe tries even half the stuff John McClane pulls in Die Hard, he's dead. And even if he survives, he's not ever going to recover enough from his injuries so he can do the sequels.

I think this is a more logical position than the old "only heroes with super-powers are superheroes," but I still have problems with it.

For if you consider John McClane a superhero because he successfully commits what MyriVerse calls "over the top acts," then what's the criterion for "just plain hero?" (And here we're talking "fictional heroes," not anything in the real world.)

Would a "non-super hero" only include the kind of heroes who can shoot and sword-fight (John Wayne and Errol Flynn's various characters), but don't do anything as radical as swinging out of a building on a fire-hose? I'd say that the hype for films and fiction about more mundane adventurers doesn't usually call them "superheroes" because they know that the term creates confusion, bringing to mind guys in tights.

[Carabas]

I think this is a more logical position than the old "only heroes with super-powers are superheroes," but I still have problems with it.

For if you consider John McClane a superhero because he successfully commits what MyriVerse calls "over the top acts," then what's the criterion for "just plain hero?" (And here we're talking "fictional heroes," not anything in the real world.)

Would a "non-super hero" only include the kind of heroes who can shoot and sword-fight (John Wayne and Errol Flynn's various characters), but don't do anything as radical as swinging out of a building on a fire-hose? I'd say that the hype for films and fiction about more mundane adventurers doesn't usually call them "superheroes" because they know that the term creates confusion, bringing to mind guys in tights.

I don't consider John McClane (and Captain Blood, D'artagnan, Indiana Jones, John Crichton, Ogami Ittō, JAmes Bond, Xena, Lara Croft, Sherlock Holmes, Peter Quill...) to be superheroes, but they do perform feats that are clearly above what is possible for humans.

And of course theres bunches of characters with actual superpowers who are clearly not superheroes: Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca Harry Potter, Robocop, Commander Shepard, Forever Carlyle, Jesse Custer, Buffy Summers...

It muddies the line between what is and what isn't superhero fiction. Like I said before, I think it is incredibly subjective, what is and what isn't a superhero.

[dancj]

Could be because DC and Marvel have published comics about these characters.

For some the definiton of the superhero genre is simply "published by Marvel/DC".

Only if you're getting into (really dodgy) trademark law. No-one can really honestly say that Invincible isn't a superhero

[ouroboros]

I don't consider John McClane (and Captain Blood, D'artagnan, Indiana Jones, John Crichton, Ogami Ittō, JAmes Bond, Xena, Lara Croft, Sherlock Holmes, Peter Quill...) to be superheroes, but they do perform feats that are clearly above what is possible for humans.

And of course theres bunches of characters with actual superpowers who are clearly not superheroes: Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca Harry Potter, Robocop, Commander Shepard, Forever Carlyle, Jesse Custer, Buffy Summers...

It muddies the line between what is and what isn't superhero fiction. Like I said before, I think it is incredibly subjective, what is and what isn't a superhero.

My position, for what it's worth, is that "superheroes" is a genre that depends on certain visual and verbal tropes. Most superheroes have costumes, though on occasion readers will apply the title to characters with no costumes if they have super-powers. That's why occasionally some readers may can Buffy Summers a superhero, partly because she has a spiffy name, "the Slayer," to go with her regular name. Another one that comes to mind is the long-defunct Dell comics-character "Brain Boy," who had mental powers but no costume.

However, the genre is IMO not the same as the concept, and all of the examples you mentioned above, as well as many who don't have super-powers but are physically extraordinary in some way, like Tarzan, do fit into the basic concept of the superhero-- or rather, they and the "mainstream superheroes" all belong to a greater "genus," to borrow a biological metaphor.

I'd also add in characters who may not be quite as extraordinary as Tarzan but who manage to conquer threats that are of a "super-villain" like nature, which would include Indiana Jones, Crichton, Xena, and Lara Croft, to pick four.

But I don't think John McClane belongs in there, because what's "extraordinary" about him is not his possession of great skill or snazzy gimmicks, but that the scriptwriters simply exempt him from serious consequences, like the infamous "running through the glass" scene. He's still impressive as a "just plain hero," but he's not on the same plane (in my "book") as James Bond.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.