help me to define "SUPERHERO"

[Ra Havok]

As in 'a superhero comic'.

What's EXACTLY meant by "superhero".



For me, A superhero is a supernaturally powered man/woman who fights crime (in 90% of the cases). These men/woman can also be aided by advanced technology (like batman) .

Agree , disagree, ... spill it!

[Beastie]

Originally posted by Ra Havok

For me, A superhero is a supernaturally powered man/woman who fights crime (in 90% of the cases).


Um, can you say 'Batman'?



Superhero, by definition, could just mean 'A hero who is super'. Super in the eyes of who is probably the question.

For instance, to many people, Martin Luthor King, Nelson Mandela and Winston Churchill may be considered 'superheros'.

I don't think it means they need to possess and particular 'super-powers' (which brings me back to Batman..................)

[Kimo]

Superheroes like say, in the comic... Planetary?

(You have to stake the goat to bait the PJ)

[Ra Havok]

okay, let me explain a bit better:

Give your personal definition of COMIC BOOK SUPERHERO

[Beastie]

Originally posted by Ra Havok
okay, let me explain a bit better:

Give your personal definition of COMIC BOOK SUPERHERO

I already did.

You looking for a slap?

[legend of 8]

Well, a superhero.... as a stereotype, would be the comic heroes, such as batman, spiderman, superman.... but it's not their powers that make them seem extroirdinary. Ok, admittedly, it DOES help, but, really, it's the choices and decisions they make. The choices they are forced to make, on a personal and emotional level.... things that we think that we may not be able to make ourselves.

In other words, your superhero doesn't have to be a gun-totin' chick, or a ass-kickin' dude in tights, but just a normal guy. Your average Joe, stuck in a very tough situation. That's what a superhero is.

Well, that's mine, anyway. Not to say I DON'T like gun-totin' chicks...... heheheheheh. I DO like them.... ok, maybe a little more than necessary.

[TheFightingFoetus]

ROB LIEFELD!!!

[Bruce Lee]

Someone who performs an act or acts of heroism that often entails saving the world or even the universe. A superhero is usually a highly skilled or powered being who is dedicated to protecting the weak from those who seek to do them harm. He or she is willing to sacrifice themselves for this goal and/or his or her beliefs.

Loston
www.lostonwallace.com

[FIG]

Originally posted by TheFightingFoetus
ROB LIEFELD!!!

He said superhero, not superZERO. Get some new glasses.:)

[Spidey]

Hero= 9/11 firefightas.
Superhero= Spider-Man.

[legend of 8]

Hey, the world has had it's share of human superhero's. Captain America was human, after all. (wasn't he?) Daredevil too. He was blind.

This should tell you something.

[Chris Piers]

Superhero - being who regularly puts him or herself in harm's way in order to protect and defend humanity and its tenets of justice.

[DrVictorVonDoom]

Chris - What's a "hero," then? It seems to me your definition fits a hero more than a superhero.

But I don't have any definition of my own, so maybe it's not my place to criticize...

[penciljack]

The conundrum here is that for every definition that can be applied (well, every definition I've seen thus far) you can find tons of characters that don't fit the definition, even though most folks consider them superheroes.

Does a superhero have to have powers? Well, then that discounts a lot of characters who are superheroes (Batman, Punisher, etc.) and similiarly qualifies characters who aren't superheroes (Cole, from the Sixth Sense, had powers. So did John Travolta in Phenomenon).

Is a character a superhero because he or she has fantastic, super-science gadgets? That would seem to suggest characters as diverse as Captain Nemo and the lead character in H.G. Wells' Time Machine were superheroes, even though they clearly were not.

It's really a dicey situation. And my argument has been that "superhero" is a limiting term because many "superhero" books clearly fit other genres, despite some things they have in common.

Spider-Man? Hulk? Superman? Superheroes, sure, but I think a clearer case can be made that they are simply Science Fiction characters. Captain America, Batman, Tom Strong, Punisher? Action/Adventure, with some elements of science fiction, obviously. And so on and so forth.

The real problem, though, as I see it, is that a lot of folks use "superhero" as a derogatory term to describe something they don't like. And further, a lot of folks who aren't necessarily into comics think that every character that appears in comics is a superhero.

So, having said all that, what I really am saying is "I don't think there is such a thing as an inclusive, definitive version of what is a superhero."

[legend of 8]

Wow... PJ, you blow me away. True, it all is. My first post was good, but yours is better.

But what you are saying is that we should abandon superhero? I think we shouldn't.

Maybe... just maybe... a "superhero" is just someone who, even though is fictional, fits into our modern day society, like he or she WAS real. Spiderman, Batman, Hulk, Captain America, Daredevil... they've been absorbed into our very CULTURE, and THAT, quite possibly, is what would make them "super."

Punisher? You'll find more have heard of Batman than Punisher. I think that's why we call them "super."

[Kimo]

Originally posted by penciljack
"I don't think there is such a thing as an inclusive, definitive version of what is a superhero."

Hannibal's on the jazz again Faceman

[DrVictorVonDoom]

Joseph Campbell* defines a hero as (to paraphrase) "one who gives himself to something greater." This obviously encompasses superheroes, but is to broad to include just them. And while I respect Campbell's work a great deal, his definition could include "villains" as well.
Again, nothing to add. But this serves to illustrate how difficult it is to define even a hero, much less something more specific.







*Author of numerous books on mythology and one of this century's foremost scholars of legend and archetypes.

[penciljack]

But what you are saying is that we should abandon superhero? I think we shouldn't.
No, I don't think we should abandon superhero, as a term or as a concept.

But I think we should be careful about applying absolutes to superheroes. For example, the erstwhile "Superheroes are killing the industry" arguments. If we can't nail down what a superhero is, can we really say they're killing the industry?

I just think the industry should work towards promoting the genre specific qualities of their titles, instead of dwelling on whether something is or isn't a superhero.

[Samael22]

Batman is not a superhero. Superman is. Spiderman is a superhero. The Punisher is not.

When you have a character that is human who performs heroic deeds, that is a hero.

A superhero needs to have super powers. I think it's as easy as that. Science fiction heroes qualify. Supernatural powers and horror stories can qualify as well.
A superhero then would be a hero who is blessed with supernatural powers and abilities that help him accomplish a quest, recover an artifact or stop a great threat.
Superhero is a fine term to fit any character that fits the criteria regardless of the genre of fiction. It does tend to have a stigma attached to in literary circles, but that is the nature of the beast.

A "villian" is one who gives himself to selfish needs and not one who gives into the greater, or outer, good.

Joseph Campbell hit it on the head.

[shavedwookie]

MALE SUPER HERO- a guy who can run around in tights............and not get mocked.

FEMALE SUPERHERO- hot large breasted ladie..........whos hot.


im sure theres more to them, but hell if i care:D

[Iron Duck 2]

As someone pointed out on another thread, the superhero genre is so all-inclusive that it's hard to define.

Kurt Busiek once posted a list of 5-6 different items (e.g., fights crime, wears a costume, has a superpower, has a "code name" or secret identity, etc.) and defined superhero as "if he has at least 3 of these, he's probably a superhero". That's probably as good as you'll get. ;)