Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

RACA: The Definition of "Superhero"

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 26, 1994, 7:26:05 PM10/26/94
to

The definition of "superhero" presented here is the working definition
of the group proposing rec.arts.comics.alternative. When
we say "superhero" for the purposes of the rac.a
charter. This is what we mean. (Hopefully, we won't be
saying it much, as we consider the meaning of "superhero" to be
virtually irrelevant to the discussion of alternative comics :))

The definition:

A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
officer.

Comments, explication, and examples:

Note the motivation especially, the character might be a police
officer but he is not stopping the mugging for that reason.
Note also that the character would not do this only
on certain occasions, but whenever "given the opportunity."

There are some important aspects to realize in this definition for the
purposes of r.a.c. This definition makes no mention of
supervillains, costumes, powers, or weapons. It makes
no moral judgement. It refers only to a character's actions.

A "mugging" is a robbery perpetrated against a person (as opposed
to a building or group of people. More than one person is
robbed rather than mugged.)

Examples: The Punisher is a superhero. If Bob Kane/Bill Finger's original
Batman is a superhero, then the Punisher is as well. The Tick and
Zot and Vanth Dreadstar are superheroes. John Constantine is a
superhero. Swamp Thing is a super hero. Jarvis the Avengers
butler and Rick Jones and Nick Fury are superheroes. Alfred Pennyworth
is a superhero. Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen, pre-Crisis, were super-heroes.
Now, they are not although they might stop a mugging under some
circumstances, they also might call the police or Superman. Perry
White pre-Crisis, was a superhero. Now, he is not. James
Gordon is not a superhero. He would not *always* stop a mugging
were he not a police officer. Sarge Steel is a superhero. Sgt. Rock
is not a superhero. Dr. Doom is not a superhero. He might stop
a mugger in Latveria, but he would not in Chicago. Doctor Octopus would
only stop a mugger if there was a gain for him. The Flaming Carrot and Fem
Force are superheroes. The Roach is a superhero depending on the
mood David Sim is in. Jubilee is a superhero. Magneto was a superhero
for a time, but then not again. Death's Head is not. Lobo is not.
Vril Dox is not. The Hulk is currently. The original Hulk
was a superhero. The '70's Hulk was not. Krypto was a superhero.
Bouncing Boy was a superhero. Blood Syndicate and the Morlocks and
the current Abomination characterization would protect their
little corners of reality but they would necessarily stop a mugging
if given the opportunity, and except for certain Bloods I don't think
they are super heroes. But if they would stop a mugging then
they are. I simply don't read Blood Syndicate enough to gauge
them properly. Morpheus is not a Superhero. Ambush Bug is
goofy :) The Toad and Spiderkid and the Frog Man are not superheroes
because while they might try to stop a mugging they would fail miserably.

The Phantom Stranger pre-Crisis was probably a superhero, but I am still
ticked at him for hitting Red Tornado with lightning in
JLA #200. Post-Crisis, he is not a superhero. I don't know
what to do with the current version of the Spectre or Fate or
Hellstrom, but all the other versions were super heroes.
Besides I suspect they were attempting deliberately to do something
to distinguish these from superhero titles. Well, they succeeded.
--
"The Truth?!!! You can't handle the truth!!! No truth-handler, you!!! Bah, I
deride your truth handling abilities!!!!" -- Side Show Bob
The Philadelphia Phillies, 1995's defending NL Champions. (with a strike I'll
take what I can get :)) "Ipsa scientia potestas est." -- Roger Bacon

Ken Arromdee

unread,
Oct 26, 1994, 8:03:36 PM10/26/94
to
In article <38moid$d...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,

Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>The definition of "superhero" presented here is the working definition
>of the group proposing rec.arts.comics.alternative. ...

>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>officer.
>Comments, explication, and examples:

All your examples are good ones... and show exactly what's wrong with the
definition. (Though personally I think Dr. Doom would stop a mugging in
Chicago.)
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes

"No boom today. Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow." --Ivanova

Tom Galloway

unread,
Oct 26, 1994, 11:01:35 PM10/26/94
to
In article <38moid$d...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>officer.

Gee, and here I thought that was the definition of a good person.

But thanks for thinking I'm a superhero (yes, I have done this as have several
other real life people I know).

Seriously, there's something about this definition that bothers me a lot
more than anything having to do with rac.alternative. It seems to me that
such an attitude should be much more the norm than something so exceptional
to make it the definition of a superhero, much less a superhero.

"They want to see people hurting each other! Why do you think the world's the
way it is? That's all they *ever* want!" --Psycho-Pirate
tyg t...@hq.ileaf.com

Da Possum

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 12:03:20 AM10/27/94
to
In <38moid$d...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:


>The definition of "superhero" presented here is the working definition
>of the group proposing rec.arts.comics.alternative. When
>we say "superhero" for the purposes of the rac.a
>charter. This is what we mean. (Hopefully, we won't be
>saying it much, as we consider the meaning of "superhero" to be
>virtually irrelevant to the discussion of alternative comics :))

>The definition:

>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>officer.

>Comments, explication, and examples:

[ker-snip]

...>The Toad and Spiderkid and the Frog Man are not superheroes


>because while they might try to stop a mugging they would fail miserably.

What about, instead of a mugging, it was a burning building with children
inside. Let's say someone rushes inside to save the children 'cause for
some reason the firefighters aren't there. Does this mean the person's not
a hero? What does that make him...I would hope one wouldn't call him
_stupid,_ although that's what that definition inplies...

Something about that part of your definition bugs me...heroism should be
based upon something _internal._

I hope I didn't totally misread your post...that one above line just irked
the heck out of me.


--
A half-empty glass or a half-full glass... Da Possum
Tell me, what does it matter, if you can't dp0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
even differentiate between tea & cat piss? "Dude, we're there!"

ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov

unread,
Oct 26, 1994, 11:25:41 PM10/26/94
to
In ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
> The definition:
>
> A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
> a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
> officer.
>
> Comments, explication, and examples:
One word

Concrete.

Iain
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- DR A. - "We've got a lot of experience of not having -
- - any experience" -
- (Iain A. Bertram) - "But the point is ... the point is ... the poin -
- BER...@FNALD0.FNAL.GOV - is we've not been experienced for a lot longer -
- - than you." -- (Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mystic Mongoose

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 1:16:03 AM10/27/94
to
From: ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary)


>The definition of "superhero" presented here is the working definition
>of the group proposing rec.arts.comics.alternative. When
>we say "superhero" for the purposes of the rac.a
>charter. This is what we mean. (Hopefully, we won't be
>saying it much, as we consider the meaning of "superhero" to be
>virtually irrelevant to the discussion of alternative comics :))

>The definition:
>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>officer.

I have some trouble with this, but it's *almost* good. The problem here
is the general vagueness of 'stopping a mugging'. It's too concrete an
example, where we would need an abstract. Let me try:

1. Someone who believes that justice must be done;
2. Someone who enforces that justice; and
3. Someone with a distinctive means of performing that justice.

Rac.miscers may remember a discussion along these lines previously.
Now, #1 and #2 fit pretty closely with your 'mugging' defenition. And
part three eliminates ordinary police officers. However, there are
superheroes in the employ of the law, such as _Youngblood_, who are law
enforcement.
'Distinctive means' covers powers, costume, style, weaponry, or
anything else. If one is a superhero, one does something that ordinary
people don't do. 'Justice', while ambiguous, can be applied broadly.


>There are some important aspects to realize in this definition for the
>purposes of r.a.c. This definition makes no mention of
>supervillains, costumes, powers, or weapons. It makes
>no moral judgement. It refers only to a character's actions.

Well, I think the 'Justice' call is a better one. There are heroes to
whom it would be a waste of their time to stop a mugging (supervillains
to fight); they are certainly heroes. Now, loosen 'prevent a mugging' to
'stop crime', or 'help out' or 'do good', and you approach 'justice'.
I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument; I just
don't think it's fully complete, though.

The Mystic Mongoose, aka Robert W. Armstrong
"Contemplation is the fornication of the mind." -Gary Benson

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 7:27:25 AM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, t...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Tom Galloway) says:

>In article <38moid$d...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>officer.
>
>Gee, and here I thought that was the definition of a good person.

Good people might be obligated to call the police. They are not obligated
to try to prevent an armed assailant from robbing an individual.

>
>But thanks for thinking I'm a superhero (yes, I have done this as have several
>other real life people I know).

I have too Tom. Neither of us are characters, we are people.

>
>Seriously, there's something about this definition that bothers me a lot
>more than anything having to do with rac.alternative. It seems to me that
>such an attitude should be much more the norm than something so exceptional
>to make it the definition of a superhero, much less a superhero.

It isn't an attitude, Tom. It's an action. Heroism is defined by actions.
I would like to prevent the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. that attitude
doesn't make me a hero. "Superhero" verges on being technical]
jargon *for comic books* . I feel this definition works for all media
but there are certainly *no* *super* heroes in real life.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 8:00:01 AM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) says:

>In article <38moid$d...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>The definition of "superhero" presented here is the working definition
>>of the group proposing rec.arts.comics.alternative. ...
>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>officer.
>>Comments, explication, and examples:
>
>All your examples are good ones... and show exactly what's wrong with the
>definition. (Though personally I think Dr. Doom would stop a mugging in
>Chicago.)

How so, Ken? If you don't explain why they "show exactly what's wrong
with the definition" or give me a few counter examples, then your objection
is essentially gainsaying. Well, I think Dr. Doom would
walk right past a mugging in Chicago.
Especially if he were on his way to conquer the world (when
"given the opportunity" it would take Doom half a second to stop a mugger.)

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 7:20:10 AM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:

>In ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>> The definition:
>>
>> A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>> a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>> officer.
>>
>> Comments, explication, and examples:
>One word
>
>Concrete.

One word

superhero

You apparently thought this was an objection, Iain. Care to explain why?

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 8:39:22 AM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, dp0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Da Possum) says:

>In <38moid$d...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael


>
>>The definition:
>
>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>officer.
>
>>Comments, explication, and examples:
>
>[ker-snip]
>
>...>The Toad and Spiderkid and the Frog Man are not superheroes
>>because while they might try to stop a mugging they would fail miserably.
>
>What about, instead of a mugging, it was a burning building with children
>inside. Let's say someone rushes inside to save the children 'cause for
>some reason the firefighters aren't there. Does this mean the person's not
>a hero? What does that make him...I would hope one wouldn't call him
>_stupid,_ although that's what that definition inplies...

The definition doesn't imply anything of the sort. The definition
goes to one specific type of action. It didn't mention saving
anyone from a fire. It never says anything about someone
who would not take the action or who would take the action on occasion
except by exclusion (which is why I put Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen
in the examples.) It certainly never calls anyone "stupid."
The person in your example was obviously a hero.
It happens in the real world. We call those people
"heroes", not "*super*heroes". If you can divorce the word "hero" from the
word "superhero," you will see the distinction the definition draws.
"Hero" is part of the etymology of "superhero" but it has
nothing necessarily to do with the definition. It is
trivial for Superman or Iron Man or Concrete to rescue people from a
building, or at least they need not worry about flames for
the most part. One could argue that courage is part of heroism. How much
courage does it take for Superman to rescue people from a fire?
But the definition doesn't discuss *heroes*. It defines "*superhero*".

>Something about that part of your definition bugs me...heroism should be
>based upon something _internal._

The definition has nothing to do with what "heroism should be." However,
you bring up a philosophical issue which I might as well address.
"Heroism" addresses deeds, not motives, in contrast to the definition
of "superhero", which addresses both, although motivation is addressed
only by excluding people who are only doing it as part of their
job as law enforcement officers.

>I hope I didn't totally misread your post...that one above line just irked
>the heck out of me.

Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to cause you distress.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 7:53:22 AM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, tmmon...@delphi.com (The Mystic Mongoose) says:

>From: ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary)
>
>>The definition of "superhero" presented here is the working definition
>>of the group proposing rec.arts.comics.alternative. When
>>we say "superhero" for the purposes of the rac.a
>>charter. This is what we mean. (Hopefully, we won't be
>>saying it much, as we consider the meaning of "superhero" to be
>>virtually irrelevant to the discussion of alternative comics :))
>
>>The definition:
>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>officer.
>
> I have some trouble with this, but it's *almost* good. The problem here
>is the general vagueness of 'stopping a mugging'. It's too concrete an
>example, where we would need an abstract. Let me try:

No, I picked a mugging specifically as an act which any superhero in the
comics (or any other medium) would stop if given the opportunity
but that a private citizen was not under any special obligation to
prevent. A murder or rape or breaking and entering or treason
or genocide, well, an argument could be made that all
people must prevent the loss of a life. But a mugging? Well
if the assailant is armed with a gun or even a knife, it is extremely
dangerous to intervene and usually the victim is not in immediate danger.



>1. Someone who believes that justice must be done;
>2. Someone who enforces that justice; and
>3. Someone with a distinctive means of performing that justice.

Too vague. calls upon a philosophical concept, to wit, "justice."


> Rac.miscers may remember a discussion along these lines previously.
> Now, #1 and #2 fit pretty closely with your 'mugging' defenition. And
>part three eliminates ordinary police officers. However, there are
>superheroes in the employ of the law, such as _Youngblood_, who are law
>enforcement.

A superhero can be a law enforcement officer. That cannot be his primary
motivation, however. (Note the stress on "because.")


> 'Distinctive means' covers powers, costume, style, weaponry, or
>anything else. If one is a superhero, one does something that ordinary
>people don't do. 'Justice', while ambiguous, can be applied broadly.
>

Too broadly: Magneto and Dr. Doom and several other conquerors (Hitler
for instance) all thought they were administering justice.) You
are more than welcome to post any definition you want. The RACA
definition is what the writers of the rec.arts.comics.alternative
RFD will mean by "superhero" for the purposes of the discussion.

>>There are some important aspects to realize in this definition for the
>>purposes of r.a.c. This definition makes no mention of
>>supervillains, costumes, powers, or weapons. It makes
>>no moral judgement. It refers only to a character's actions.
>
> Well, I think the 'Justice' call is a better one. There are heroes to
>whom it would be a waste of their time to stop a mugging (supervillains
>to fight); they are certainly heroes. Now, loosen 'prevent a mugging' to
>'stop crime', or 'help out' or 'do good', and you approach 'justice'.
> I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument; I just
>don't think it's fully complete, though.

I agree it is an ineffective use of his powers for Superman to stop
a mugger. He would still do it if given the opportunity (which is
part of the problem that causes readers of alternative comics not to read
superhero comics in general). "Stop crime" instantly eliminates
any superhero who doesn't stop traffic offenders. "Justice" is
far too vague to be used in the presence of a concrete alternative.
If you don't feel it is complete, then give me a counter example.

Charles M Seaton

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 9:08:57 AM10/27/94
to
Michael A. Chary (ma...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:

: The definition of "superhero" presented here is the working definition


: of the group proposing rec.arts.comics.alternative. When
: we say "superhero" for the purposes of the rac.a
: charter. This is what we mean.

Well, I think Michael speaks too soon - as his email today no doubt
made clear, we don't all agree with this definition. =)
Essentially, what's in the offical RFD is what we've all agreed on;
anything else is us speaking individually.
[...]
: The definition:

: A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
: a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
: officer.

This makes Garp, from the John Irving novel, a superhero. And it
makes countless non-super heroic fantasy characters (Indiana Jones,
Gandolf, etc) superheros.
[...]
: There are some important aspects to realize in this definition for


: the purposes of r.a.c. This definition makes no mention of
: supervillains, costumes, powers, or weapons.

[...]
In other words, it doesn't mention any trait that might
distinguish the subgenre (superheroes) from the genre (heroic
fantasy). I dunno, I don't think this quite works. Of course, the
problem might be that I'm just too anal. =)

Yours,
--Ennead

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 10:29:13 AM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton) says:

>Michael A. Chary (ma...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>
>: The definition of "superhero" presented here is the working definition
>: of the group proposing rec.arts.comics.alternative. When
>: we say "superhero" for the purposes of the rac.a
>: charter. This is what we mean.
>
>Well, I think Michael speaks too soon - as his email today no doubt
>made clear, we don't all agree with this definition. =)
>Essentially, what's in the offical RFD is what we've all agreed on;
>anything else is us speaking individually.

Charles objected. Glenn and most of the rest of us agreed, if he has an
individual objection, that's his problem. Jim Drew also
had an objection similar to Tom's. His objection did not hold water either.

>[...]
>: The definition:
>
>: A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>: a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>: officer.
>
>This makes Garp, from the John Irving novel, a superhero. And it
>makes countless non-super heroic fantasy characters (Indiana Jones,
>Gandolf, etc) superheros.
>[...]

Garp isn't a superhero, imho, because he would not stop
a mugging whenever given the opportunity.
He might on occasion. Indiana Jones, Gandalf and other such characters are
superheroes.

>: There are some important aspects to realize in this definition for
>: the purposes of r.a.c. This definition makes no mention of
>: supervillains, costumes, powers, or weapons.
>[...]
>In other words, it doesn't mention any trait that might
>distinguish the subgenre (superheroes) from the genre (heroic
>fantasy). I dunno, I don't think this quite works. Of course, the
>problem might be that I'm just too anal. =)

I don't think there is a distinction between these genre for our purposes.
But if you think about it Conan and other "heroic fantasy" figures,
they would not stop a mugging whenever given the opportunity. They might
be heroes but they aren't superheroes.

Detachable Glennis

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 12:33:58 PM10/27/94
to
In article <38n56f$b...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> t...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Tom Galloway) writes:
>In article <38moid$d...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>officer.
>
>Gee, and here I thought that was the definition of a good person.
>
>But thanks for thinking I'm a superhero (yes, I have done this as have several
>other real life people I know).

So, you're an earth-prime character, then? :-) We think folks are
bright enough to consider real-life folks don't discussed in an
alternative comic book forum, unless they appear in a comic book, but
maybe they aren't. :-)

Seriously, the weakness Tom addressed might be handled by replacing
"would prevent" with "would feel compelled to prevent", and by placing
"comic book" before character, for wise guys like Tom and I.

If you feel you have a better definition, though, please post it.

Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................
"His name ends in a 'w'! He cannot be in our 'o' Squad!
--- Kanjar Ro
g-car...@uchicago.edu, if you must know
......................................................................

Todd VerBeek, GWM

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 1:03:16 PM10/27/94
to
ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>In other words, it doesn't mention any trait that might
>>distinguish the subgenre (superheroes) from the genre (heroic
>>fantasy). I dunno, I don't think this quite works. Of course, the
>>problem might be that I'm just too anal. =)

>I don't think there is a distinction between these genre for our purposes.
>But if you think about it Conan and other "heroic fantasy" figures,
>they would not stop a mugging whenever given the opportunity. They might
>be heroes but they aren't superheroes.

But what about your definition distinguishes a "hero" from a "superhero"?
What you described is just "heroics in a modern, western setting".

Cheers, Todd
of Grand Rapids MI, up-and-coming center of the comics universe!
(and a nice town... as long as you avoid the burning crosses <grin>)


Ken Arromdee

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 1:08:06 PM10/27/94
to
In article <38o4o1$7...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,

Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>All your examples are good ones... and show exactly what's wrong with the
>>definition. (Though personally I think Dr. Doom would stop a mugging in
>>Chicago.)
>How so, Ken? If you don't explain why they "show exactly what's wrong
>with the definition" or give me a few counter examples, then your objection
>is essentially gainsaying.

The examples fit the definition, but the examples don't classify characters
as most people would. (And you really don't want to be discussing Doom 2099,
Archie, and Conan on r.a.c.a., I bet, anyway.)

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 2:01:41 PM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:

>ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>>In other words, it doesn't mention any trait that might
>>>distinguish the subgenre (superheroes) from the genre (heroic
>>>fantasy). I dunno, I don't think this quite works. Of course, the
>>>problem might be that I'm just too anal. =)
>
>>I don't think there is a distinction between these genre for our purposes.
>>But if you think about it Conan and other "heroic fantasy" figures,
>>they would not stop a mugging whenever given the opportunity. They might
>>be heroes but they aren't superheroes.
>
>But what about your definition distinguishes a "hero" from a "superhero"?
>What you described is just "heroics in a modern, western setting".

"Hero" is an English word. It means simply a person who engages in acts of
daring and bravery. Your dictionary might differ on the exact meaning.
Other meanings include someone who is set up as an ideal (sort of like
"idol".)

I don't know what you mean by "heroics in a modern, western setting."
First of all, I don't think the word "superhero" is used to describe real
people. Second, "stopping a mugging when given the opportunity" implies
a compulsion to do so. If a superhero
encounters a mugging, he *has* to stop it. That is distinct
from heroism which to my mind entails a choice of some kind.
No choice eliminates the *option* for bravery.
"Hero" and "superhero" are two different words.
Third, "western?" I am trying not to be pedantic, but would not the action
you want to call "heroic" still be heroic in Japan.
Certainly there are Manga superheroes. And I would
argue that Sherlock Holmes and Jason were superheroes as well.

ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 2:10:00 PM10/27/94
to
In article ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
> I wrote

>>One word
>>
>>Concrete.
>
> One word
>
> superhero
>
> You apparently thought this was an objection, Iain. Care to explain why?

If your definition defines Concrete as a Superhero (in the comic book senese)
then it is a deeply flawed definition. Concrete has never to my knowledge
gone out and hunted down crime and tried to stop it. Yes he does try and
correct the injustices that he encounters as most good people try to do,
anfd yes, he can make more of a difference because of his capabilities, no,
this does not make him a superhero.

By this definition a story about Oskar Schindler would be defined as a super
hero story if he wore a cape.

Iain
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- DR A. - "The chieftain had been turned into a pumpkin -
- - although, in accordance with the rules of -
- (Iain A. Bertram) - universal humour, he still had his hat on." -
- BER...@FNALD0.FNAL.GOV - -- (Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies) -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Todd VerBeek, GWM

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 2:58:50 PM10/27/94
to
ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:
>>ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>>I don't think there is a distinction between these genre for our purposes.
>>>But if you think about it Conan and other "heroic fantasy" figures,
>>>they would not stop a mugging whenever given the opportunity. They might
>>>be heroes but they aren't superheroes.

>>But what about your definition distinguishes a "hero" from a "superhero"?
>>What you described is just "heroics in a modern, western setting".

>"Hero" is an English word.

Not exactly, but I'll accept that for the sake of argument. <grin>

>It means simply a person who engages in acts of
>daring and bravery. Your dictionary might differ on the exact meaning.
>Other meanings include someone who is set up as an ideal (sort of like
>"idol".)
>
>I don't know what you mean by "heroics in a modern, western setting."
>First of all, I don't think the word "superhero" is used to describe real
>people. Second, "stopping a mugging when given the opportunity" implies
>a compulsion to do so. If a superhero
>encounters a mugging, he *has* to stop it. That is distinct
>from heroism which to my mind entails a choice of some kind.
>No choice eliminates the *option* for bravery.

You're saying that "superheroes" do what they do because they =have= to.
In other words, their deeds aren't based on heroism but psychosis.

>"Hero" and "superhero" are two different words.

Thanks for explaining that. But until you explained that (by your definitions)
"superheroes" had to act out of compulsion instead of principled choice
(and therefore aren't really "heroes" at all, in my book) I wasn't sure that
=you= were aware of that. You see, I define a "hero" as "noble". A
"superhero" is "noble, in a great way". Your conception boggles my mind.

>Third, "western?" I am trying not to be pedantic, but would not the action
>you want to call "heroic" still be heroic in Japan.
>Certainly there are Manga superheroes. And I would
>argue that Sherlock Holmes and Jason were superheroes as well.

A poor choice of words on my part. What I was driving at (a point which you've
apparently missed entirely) is that your definition is focused on a particular
cultural setting. Would Anthro be compelled to go out looking for muggings to
stop? Hard to say, since "muggings" weren't exactly commonplace in prehistoric
times. What about a character in a totalitarian police state, where muggings
don't happen (but summary executions of dissidents do)? There are characters
who I'd consider "superheroes" who wouldn't pass your test because they'd never
have a chance to.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 3:27:37 PM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:

>>
>> You apparently thought this was an objection, Iain. Care to explain why?
>
>If your definition defines Concrete as a Superhero (in the comic book senese)
>then it is a deeply flawed definition.

I disagree. Concrete is a superhero. Explain the flaw.


>Concrete has never to my knowledge
>gone out and hunted down crime and tried to stop it.

That's unnecessary. The willingness to stop crime is the important thing.

>Yes he does try and
>correct the injustices that he encounters as most good people try to do,
>anfd yes, he can make more of a difference because of his capabilities, no,
>this does not make him a superhero.

Most good people is an open question, I would ask for evidence.
The fact that he would stop any mugging in progress makes him a superhero.
He would stop a mugging even if the assailant had a machinegun and
was the mugger was about to cause harm.

>
>By this definition a story about Oskar Schindler would be defined as a super
>hero story if he wore a cape.

No, it would not. First of all, the definition said nothing about
clothing. Secondly, Oskar Schindler would not have stopped
any mugging he came upon.

And let me just say that I find, personally, the comparison
of stopping a mugger with preventing the mass murder of a thousand
people rather odd.
(I don't mean to cause bad feelings with that last part, so please
don't take it as a deliberate attempt to cause offense, Iain.)

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 3:39:44 PM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) says:

>In article <38o4o1$7...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>>All your examples are good ones... and show exactly what's wrong with the
>>>definition. (Though personally I think Dr. Doom would stop a mugging in
>>>Chicago.)
>>How so, Ken? If you don't explain why they "show exactly what's wrong
>>with the definition" or give me a few counter examples, then your objection
>>is essentially gainsaying.
>
>The examples fit the definition, but the examples don't classify characters
>as most people would. (And you really don't want to be discussing Doom 2099,
>Archie, and Conan on r.a.c.a., I bet, anyway.)

Which examples particularly do you not find accurately classified?
I was not defining "alternative." I was defining "superhero."
I haven't read Doom 2099, but I agree that Archie and Conan
are neither superhero nor alternative. That is irrelevant
to the definition of "superhero," however.

The definition denies the false dichotomy between
"superhero" and "alternative" comics. There are some, very rare,
non-mainstream superhero comics which are "alternative." I grant you
that if the comic doesn't have a superhero,
then there is a good chance that it is alternative. But that is
largely irrelevant to a definition of "superhero." All it
proves is that someone decided to put a superhero in an alternative
book. Additionally, most , if not all,
alternative superhero titles are humor or erotica of some fabric.
(The Tick or Fem Force, for example.)
I am not trying to say anything, necessarily about alternative
comics. My task is only to define "superhero."

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 4:31:40 PM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:

>ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>In a previous article, ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) says:
>>>ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>>>I don't think there is a distinction between these genre for our purposes.
>>>>But if you think about it Conan and other "heroic fantasy" figures,
>>>>they would not stop a mugging whenever given the opportunity. They might
>>>>be heroes but they aren't superheroes.
>
>>>But what about your definition distinguishes a "hero" from a "superhero"?
>>>What you described is just "heroics in a modern, western setting".
>
>>"Hero" is an English word.
>
>Not exactly, but I'll accept that for the sake of argument. <grin>

"Hero" might come directly from the greek, but it is still most
definitely a word in the English language.

>
>>It means simply a person who engages in acts of
>>daring and bravery. Your dictionary might differ on the exact meaning.
>>Other meanings include someone who is set up as an ideal (sort of like
>>"idol".)
>>
>>I don't know what you mean by "heroics in a modern, western setting."
>>First of all, I don't think the word "superhero" is used to describe real
>>people. Second, "stopping a mugging when given the opportunity" implies
>>a compulsion to do so. If a superhero
>>encounters a mugging, he *has* to stop it. That is distinct
>>from heroism which to my mind entails a choice of some kind.
>>No choice eliminates the *option* for bravery.
>
>You're saying that "superheroes" do what they do because they =have= to.
>In other words, their deeds aren't based on heroism but psychosis.

My turn to use a wrong word. I suppose I meant a drmamtic compulsion.
That is, they are compelled by te author's sense of medium and style.
A superhero who would not stop a mugging he chanced to happen upon
would be flawed to the point of dramatic absurdity. Their
nature is to stop muggings. The Platonic form of "superhero" would
include the "concept" of mugging prevention. I certainly
would not be the first to suiggest that superheroes suffer from
psychoses. (I am *not* claiming that, however.)

>
>>"Hero" and "superhero" are two different words.
>
>Thanks for explaining that. But until you explained that (by your definitions)
>"superheroes" had to act out of compulsion instead of principled choice
>(and therefore aren't really "heroes" at all, in my book) I wasn't sure that
>=you= were aware of that. You see, I define a "hero" as "noble". A
>"superhero" is "noble, in a great way". Your conception boggles my mind.

Sorry that was poorly phrased on my part. "Noble" is too
vague a concept to be defined adequately, for me.

>
>>Third, "western?" I am trying not to be pedantic, but would not the action
>>you want to call "heroic" still be heroic in Japan.
>>Certainly there are Manga superheroes. And I would
>>argue that Sherlock Holmes and Jason were superheroes as well.
>
>A poor choice of words on my part. What I was driving at (a point which you've
>apparently missed entirely) is that your definition is focused on a particular
>cultural setting. Would Anthro be compelled to go out looking for muggings to
>stop? Hard to say, since "muggings" weren't exactly commonplace in prehistoric
>times.

Did the definition say "Hunt down muggers?" No, it said that "given
the opportunity" the character would stop a mugging. There is
nothing about hunting involved. I don't think Anthro is a superhero.
But I don't know that much about him. I don't think he would feel an
obligation to stop a mugging. As to cultural settings, well I disagree.
I think muggings as I defined them could happen every where.
(Would Anthro always prevent an attacker from taking food from
a personm if he happened upon it? If yes, he is a superhero,
if not, then he is not.)

>What about a character in a totalitarian police state, where muggings
>don't happen (but summary executions of dissidents do)? There are characters
>who I'd consider "superheroes" who wouldn't pass your test because they'd never
>have a chance to.

Judge Dredd is a superhero. That situation seems very artificial.
Chance doesn't matter. If they would stop a mugging
given the opportunity, then they are superheroes. In
some cases it might requires some hypothetical character judgement.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 4:34:38 PM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) says:

>
>In a previous article, ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton) says:
>
>>Michael A. Chary (ma...@po.CWRU.Edu) wrote:
>>
>>: The definition of "superhero" presented here is the working definition
>>: of the group proposing rec.arts.comics.alternative. When
>>: we say "superhero" for the purposes of the rac.a
>>: charter. This is what we mean.
>>
>>Well, I think Michael speaks too soon - as his email today no doubt
>>made clear, we don't all agree with this definition. =)
>>Essentially, what's in the offical RFD is what we've all agreed on;
>>anything else is us speaking individually.
>
>Charles objected. Glenn and most of the rest of us agreed, if he has an
>individual objection, that's his problem. Jim Drew also
>had an objection similar to Tom's. His objection did not hold water either.

This was phrased rather bellicosely. I apologize.

michael kelly

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 5:02:06 PM10/27/94
to
Isn't "superhero" a registered trademark (or somesuch) held jointly
by DC and Marvel? Would this exclude Valiant 'superheroes'?

--
+ Mike Kelly, Notre Dame Department of Physics mke...@ovid.helios.nd.edu +
+ +
+ Oh, and never mind the words, just hum along and keep on going. +
+ - Ian Anderson +

ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 6:02:57 PM10/27/94
to
In article ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>
> In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:
>
>>Concrete has never to my knowledge
>>gone out and hunted down crime and tried to stop it.
>
> That's unnecessary. The willingness to stop crime is the important thing.

Well if I am walking down t street to a haloween party in costume and I see
a mugging and attempt to stop it if possible to do so (something that I am
likely to do) does that make me a super hero. By your definition its does :-).

Note that Concrete's special abilities make him more capable of doing things,
this alone does not make a superhero.

>
> The fact that he would stop any mugging in progress makes him a superhero.
> He would stop a mugging even if the assailant had a machinegun and
> was the mugger was about to cause harm.
>

It makes him a hero not a superhero.

Besides, I did not say any mugging in progress, I said muggings that he
witnessed. There is a very big difference. Batman would like to stop all
muggings, Concrete just does what he can.

>>
>>By this definition a story about Oskar Schindler would be defined as a super
>>hero story if he wore a cape.
>
> No, it would not. First of all, the definition said nothing about
> clothing. Secondly, Oskar Schindler would not have stopped
> any mugging he came upon.
>

What muggings, in most Wartime situations the amount of street crime drops
dramatically. The point is that Schindler saw an injustice and did something
about it. It is a situation very analagous to a mugging being witnessed by a
passer by and being acted upon.

> And let me just say that I find, personally, the comparison
> of stopping a mugger with preventing the mass murder of a thousand
> people rather odd.

Another example.

Miracleman.

This is a character that does not give a damn about muggings. However
Miracleman, the comic is one of the extremes of the superhero genre and
could not exist without the genre. If your definition cannot contain a book
such as Miracleman then it flawed.

There are many other superheroes that do not concern themselves with everyday
events, they may or may not stop muggings. For example many of the characters
in Alan Davis' new book ClanDestine would not stop a mugging but are still
very much superheroes.

Or for example the Knights of the Round table, there philosophy was to
stop injustice. Are they superheroes. This definition when applied fully is
ridiculous. It encomppasses almost any story which contains a protaginist
who is willing to do something about any injustices.

Iain
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- DR A. - FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC -
- - -- (Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!) -
- (Iain A. Bertram) - -
- BER...@FNALD0.FNAL.GOV - -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 6:09:28 PM10/27/94
to

In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:

>In article ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>
>> In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:
>>
>>>Concrete has never to my knowledge
>>>gone out and hunted down crime and tried to stop it.
>>
>> That's unnecessary. The willingness to stop crime is the important thing.
>
>Well if I am walking down t street to a haloween party in costume and I see
>a mugging and attempt to stop it if possible to do so (something that I am
>likely to do) does that make me a super hero. By your definition its does :-).

No, because a) you aren't a "character" and b) a superhero would
stop the mugging. There is no question it being possible to do so
involved.

>
>Note that Concrete's special abilities make him more capable of doing things,
>this alone does not make a superhero.

I never said it did.

>
>>
>> The fact that he would stop any mugging in progress makes him a superhero.
>> He would stop a mugging even if the assailant had a machinegun and
>> was the mugger was about to cause harm.
>>
>It makes him a hero not a superhero.
>

Might make him both, but he would hardly be at risk in any event. To me,
"heroism" involves courage. Superheroes don't
tend to need a lot of that to stop a mugging, but as
I have said elsewhere hero" and "superhero" have distinct meanings
in this definition.

>Besides, I did not say any mugging in progress, I said muggings that he
>witnessed. There is a very big difference. Batman would like to stop all
>muggings, Concrete just does what he can.

I am certain that if you asked Copncrete, "would you like
to stop all muggings if you could?" He would say, "Yes"
and given the opportunity, he would do so. Therefore, he is
a superhero.

>>>
>>>By this definition a story about Oskar Schindler would be defined as a super
>>>hero story if he wore a cape.
>>
>> No, it would not. First of all, the definition said nothing about
>> clothing. Secondly, Oskar Schindler would not have stopped
>> any mugging he came upon.
>>
>What muggings, in most Wartime situations the amount of street crime drops
>dramatically. The point is that Schindler saw an injustice and did something
>about it. It is a situation very analagous to a mugging being witnessed by a
>passer by and being acted upon.

No, I would argue that he was under a moral imperative to prevent the mass
murder of a thousand people, given his ability to do so. No one
is under an obligation to stop someone from being robbed at
the risk of their own lives. At most, a person
has an obligation
to stop the police. Now, if the person can and does act, that's wonderful,
but I see no moral imperative forcing him.

>
>> And let me just say that I find, personally, the comparison
>> of stopping a mugger with preventing the mass murder of a thousand
>> people rather odd.
>
>Another example.
>
>Miracleman.
>
>This is a character that does not give a damn about muggings. However
>Miracleman, the comic is one of the extremes of the superhero genre and
>could not exist without the genre. If your definition cannot contain a book
>such as Miracleman then it flawed.

Miracle Man did prevent all muggings with his Golden Age. I don't
think he would tolerate the behavior.

>There are many other superheroes that do not concern themselves with everyday
>events, they may or may not stop muggings. For example many of the characters
>in Alan Davis' new book ClanDestine would not stop a mugging but are still
>very much superheroes.

Haven't read it, but if they passed a mugging on the street and refused to
stop it, then they are are not superheroes by any reasonable definition of
the term, including this one.

>Or for example the Knights of the Round table, there philosophy was to
>stop injustice. Are they superheroes. This definition when applied fully is

The knights of the Round Table are law enforcement officers by
by virtue of their oaths of chivalry. This could
therefore only be answered on an individual basis.
(Would Gawain prevent a mugging if not bound to by oath?)

>ridiculous. It encomppasses almost any story which contains a protaginist
>who is willing to do something about any injustices.

No, it doesn't. Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen aren't superheroes.
They would not stop every mugging they came across, yet
both are clearly willing to do something about injustice.

Detachable Glennis

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 2:52:58 AM10/28/94
to
In article <38p4ge$h...@news.nd.edu> mke...@ovid.helios.nd.edu (michael kelly) writes:
>Isn't "superhero" a registered trademark (or somesuch) held jointly
>by DC and Marvel? Would this exclude Valiant 'superheroes'?

Heh. Good point. Of semantics. >B^) It's a good thing that other
companies's st*p*rheroes are still otherwise excluded by the charter,
then I guess. :-) If it's on the newstand, it ain't alternative.
Next, please.

Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................

"Working from one end to the other, and all points in between"
--- Jesus Just Left Chicago


g-car...@uchicago.edu, if you must know

<A HREF="http://www.digimark.net/wraith/">Phone Homey the Page!</A>
......................................................................

John P. LaRocque

unread,
Oct 27, 1994, 7:51:56 PM10/27/94
to
>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>officer.
>>Comments, explication, and examples:

What would that make of Lobo?

--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."

Detachable Glennis

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 3:59:23 AM10/28/94
to
In article <1994Oct27...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov> ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov writes:
>In article ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>Well if I am walking down t street to a haloween party in costume and I see
>a mugging and attempt to stop it if possible to do so (something that I am
>likely to do) does that make me a super hero. By your definition its does :-).

No, it's the "if possible" part that's critical, Iain. It is the
superheroes' unrelenting compulsion to stop assault, regardless of any
danger, that makes the superheroes out of spandex still superheroes.
In other words, a quality more fundamental than the spandex to the
interpretation of these characters as superheroes, that's possibly
universal. It therefore makes an adequate test to characters only
slightly out of the standard paradigm, IMO. Books with characters
like that, will of necessity belong to the mainstream, it's not even
necessary to retain the "super" portion of the term, really. Just to
recognize that they belong to the standard mainstream tradition of
comic books.

>It makes him a hero not a superhero.

Well, possibly, but that distinction is not relevant to the task at
hand. It's just a test: "Would the character feel compelled to stop
the assault under any circumstances." I would say that if he wouldn't
he's not a superhero. But we can call him a hero, it really doesn't
matter. The exceptions, and Concrete certainly used to be like this,
occur when creators endeavor successfully to distinguish their
characters from the standard superhero paradigm, in which case it
should come as no surprise that they're problematic within that
paradigm, and should be considered alternative. But these are rare.
In fact, I'd argue that even with Concrete, his latest mini was pretty
standard superhero fare, he stops the bad guys. :-) Even so, in every
other Concrete story, the character does not display this compulsion
to fight crime.

>Besides, I did not say any mugging in progress, I said muggings that he
>witnessed. There is a very big difference. Batman would like to stop all
>muggings, Concrete just does what he can.

I'd agree.

>What muggings, in most Wartime situations the amount of street crime drops
>dramatically. The point is that Schindler saw an injustice and did something
>about it. It is a situation very analagous to a mugging being witnessed by a
>passer by and being acted upon.

Well, Schindler is not a comic book character, obviously, but if he
were, the charter specificly includes all non-fiction. I hope we can
agree that all superheroes are fictional. :-)

However, since you have a lot of problems with this test, how would
you change it, without damaging it's reliability?

>Miracleman.
>
>This is a character that does not give a damn about muggings. However
>Miracleman, the comic is one of the extremes of the superhero genre and
>could not exist without the genre. If your definition cannot contain a book
>such as Miracleman then it flawed.

Hmmm. I'd personally call Miracleman an alternative treatment of a
traditionally mainstream concept, and expect the book to be
exceptional. I'd say that Miracleman is possibly the archetypical
alternative superhero, and that the distinctions you've pointed out
are vital components in that interpretation. We don't deny a small
intersection of alternative and superhero, we only say that the
intersection is rather obvious and uncommon. Enough so that the
people can get by with good old-fashioned common sense for those very
few books that do manage to cross the line. For every Miracleman
there are a hundred Batmans. Possibly more. :-) But it is the
alternative/mainstream distinction that is critical, this is not a
genre split, it's a content split. The newstand stand test is more
useful -- that's why it was included in the charter, and the
superhero test was not. That and a clearer consensus amongst the
proponents. :-) If all goes according to the Usenet version of Hoyle, we
can talk about that in news.groups. :-)

>There are many other superheroes that do not concern themselves with everyday
>events, they may or may not stop muggings. For example many of the characters
>in Alan Davis' new book ClanDestine would not stop a mugging but are still
>very much superheroes.

I don't know the book, if they would stand by and watch an assault
without intervening, I dunno about that. Superbeings, maybe. In any
case, ClanDestine is otherwise obviously mainstream.

>Or for example the Knights of the Round table, there philosophy was to
>stop injustice. Are they superheroes. This definition when applied fully is
>ridiculous. It encomppasses almost any story which contains a protaginist
>who is willing to do something about any injustices.

I believe Mike purposely avoided the word justice, if I remember
correctly. But this is restricted to comic books, I'd want an example
here. The subject of King Arthur is about as mainstream as it gets,
normally, but I'd still rather speak to specifics. Like I say, if
you have a better test for superhero, bring it on, I'd love to hear
it. :-)

Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................

ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 11:47:57 AM10/28/94
to
In article ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:

> I am certain that if you asked Concrete, "would you like


> to stop all muggings if you could?" He would say, "Yes"
> and given the opportunity, he would do so. Therefore, he is
> a superhero.
>

Ask any person (not involved in making a living off said muggings),
"would you like to stop all muggings if you could?" and my guess is
that the answer would be yes (and no I can't give evidence for this
as I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to do a survey on
the question).

If you work from this premise almost all litereature can be defined
as "superhero".

The problem with the definition is that it is a generalisation that
can easily be applied to almost all situations. If you are willing
to ignore (the unstated) features of Superhero comics the definition
fails.

For example, if you took a character from an biographical comic
(obviously not a superhero comic) and he/she stops a mugging, then
he/she is a superhero.

As for your comments on Miracleman, he does not feel compelled to help
everyone (see Golden Age), he is arbitrary in his decisions and does
not feel compelled to help everyone. Yes he does make the world a
better place (thats what all politicians attempt to do), but no he does
not attempt to prevent all injustice (within his power). By your
definition he is not a superhero.

Iain
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- DR A. - Science is not a sacred cow. -
- - Science is a horse. -
- (Iain A. Bertram) - Don't worship it. Feed it. -
- BER...@FNALD0.FNAL.GOV - -- Aubrey Eben -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 9:27:18 AM10/28/94
to

In a previous article, lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (John P. LaRocque) says:

>>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>>officer.
>>>Comments, explication, and examples:
>
>What would that make of Lobo?
>

Lobo is in my examples section. He is not a superhero. He would not
stop a mugging if given the opportunity. (Why anyone would ask if a paid
killer is a superhero in any case is beyond my ken...)

ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 11:58:14 AM10/28/94
to
In article lf...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Detachable Glennis) writes:
> Well, possibly, but that distinction is not relevant to the task at
> hand. It's just a test: "Would the character feel compelled to stop
> the assault under any circumstances." I would say that if he wouldn't
> he's not a superhero. But we can call him a hero, it really doesn't
> matter. The exceptions, and Concrete certainly used to be like this,
> occur when creators endeavor successfully to distinguish their
> characters from the standard superhero paradigm, in which case it
> should come as no surprise that they're problematic within that
> paradigm, and should be considered alternative. But these are rare.
> In fact, I'd argue that even with Concrete, his latest mini was pretty
> standard superhero fare, he stops the bad guys. :-) Even so, in every
> other Concrete story, the character does not display this compulsion
> to fight crime.
>
My problem with the definition as Michael has put forward is that he quite
clearly states that Concrete is a superhero. I find the argument from
Michael to be dogmatic and seems to be delibtrately excluding(including) many
alternative (and/or other genres) works. I cannot accept a definition
if it comes from a source that is unwilling to examine the weaknesses of the
definition and comment on them.

Now if the definition was reworked to include something along the lines of:
"compelled to stop crime at the expense of there own (personal) life"
(I will leave the exact wording to those more capable) reather than just
compelled then I would have fewer problems. There will still be exceptions
and if people are dogmatic about these exceptions problems will occur.

Iain
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- DR A. - "DROP THE SCYTHE, AND TURN AROUND SLOWLY." -
- - -- (Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man) -

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 12:32:55 PM10/28/94
to

In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:

>In article ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>
>> I am certain that if you asked Concrete, "would you like
>> to stop all muggings if you could?" He would say, "Yes"
>> and given the opportunity, he would do so. Therefore, he is
>> a superhero.
>>
>
>Ask any person (not involved in making a living off said muggings),
>"would you like to stop all muggings if you could?" and my guess is
>that the answer would be yes (and no I can't give evidence for this
>as I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to do a survey on
>the question).

Entirely irrelevant. I was responding to your direct
assertion that Concrete doesn't hunt muggers as his primary activity.
If Concrete had the opporunopportunity to stop a mugging he would do so.
That makes him a superhero. Normal people would not always do this.
Particularly in the event the mugger was armed. But a superhero would not
a care about circumstance. He would intervene. Concrete is a superhero.

>If you work from this premise almost all litereature can be defined
>as "superhero".

Nonsense. All literature does not contain characters who would
stop a mugging given the opprtunity.

>The problem with the definition is that it is a generalisation that
>can easily be applied to almost all situations. If you are willing
>to ignore (the unstated) features of Superhero comics the definition
>fails.
>

No this is untrue, you have misread my definition.

>(obviously not a superhero comic) and he/she stops a mugging, then
>he/she is a superhero.

This keeps coming up. A non fiction character would not always
stop a mugging. He might do so in specific cases but not always.
If you can think of one who would, name him. And
"character" applies to historical figure very badly, imho.
Lincoln is not a character iof a history book


>not feel compelled to help everyone. Yes he does make the world a
>better place (thats what all politicians attempt to do), but no he does
>not attempt to prevent all injustice (within his power). By your
>definition he is not a superhero.
>
>Iain
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>- DR A. - Science is not a sacred cow. -
>- - Science is a horse. -
>- (Iain A. Bertram) - Don't worship it. Feed it. -
>- BER...@FNALD0.FNAL.GOV - -- Aubrey Eben -
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 1:03:45 PM10/28/94
to

In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:


>
>As for your comments on Miracleman, he does not feel compelled to help
>everyone (see Golden Age), he is arbitrary in his decisions and does
>not feel compelled to help everyone. Yes he does make the world a
>better place (thats what all politicians attempt to do), but no he does
>not attempt to prevent all injustice (within his power). By your
>definition he is not a superhero.
>

I don't think this accurately depicts Golden Age but I felt this
was an important enough point to address separately.
Alan Moore's Miracle Man was clearly a super-hero. I think the Gaiman
version in Golden Age would stop a mugging if he encountered it. If he
would not, if Miracle Man in Golden Age, would see a mugging and not
prevent it, then he is not a superhero. He might have powers, he have
a sense of justice or what he thinks is justice, but if he would not
stop a mugging, then he is not a superhero under *any* reasonable definition
of the term including mine. If Miracle man thinks mugging is beneath his
notice, then he is virtually apathetic. *I* think he
would stop a mugging. My reading of Golden Age is that he doesn't
*concern* himself with stopping muggings but that if a mugging happenned
and he were given the opportunity to prevent it, he would.
An important thing to remember in the case of Miracle Man and Spectre and
Doom Patrol and Concrete and Animal Man and a few others others is that
these books are trying deliberately -- I think -- to
distinguish themselves from "normal" superhero
comics. They are doing something different. To my mind that means that
they can no longer be considered superheroes in some cases,
they are something else, and I'm sorry if my thinking that
certain long establish judgements on who is not a superhero
is troubling. If the Doom Patrol would ignore a mugging happening right
in front of them, or even one they knew about across town, then they
are not superheroes. At the very
*least* they are part of the exception, *not* the rule. A definition can
only concern itself with the rule. I think Concrete and Miracle Man
both are superheroes because they both would, imo, stop
a mugging if given the opportunity, but if
they would not, then they aren't superheroes. Fine, so the
Spectre isn't a superhero currently. So what? Magneto isn't either.
(I don't think the current Spectre would stop a mugging if homicide wasn't
involved.)

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 1:34:07 PM10/28/94
to

In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:

>In article lf...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Detachable Glennis) writes:
>> Well, possibly, but that distinction is not relevant to the task at
>> hand. It's just a test: "Would the character feel compelled to stop
>> the assault under any circumstances." I would say that if he wouldn't
>> he's not a superhero. But we can call him a hero, it really doesn't
>> matter. The exceptions, and Concrete certainly used to be like this,
>> occur when creators endeavor successfully to distinguish their
>> characters from the standard superhero paradigm, in which case it
>> should come as no surprise that they're problematic within that
>> paradigm, and should be considered alternative. But these are rare.
>> In fact, I'd argue that even with Concrete, his latest mini was pretty
>> standard superhero fare, he stops the bad guys. :-) Even so, in every
>> other Concrete story, the character does not display this compulsion
>> to fight crime.
>>
>My problem with the definition as Michael has put forward is that he quite
>clearly states that Concrete is a superhero. I find the argument from
>Michael to be dogmatic and seems to be delibtrately excluding(including) many
>alternative (and/or other genres) works. I cannot accept a definition
>if it comes from a source that is unwilling to examine the weaknesses of the
>definition and comment on them.

But I sincerely believe that Concrete is a superhero. I don't quite
know what you mean by dogmatic. If you mean that I am
being doctrinal, I suppose that I am. I was
quite careful with my definition. I can
honestly say that there was not a single word in the definition that
did not have some reason to be there. I specifically excluded
any mention of powers, or wardrobe, justice, or even comic books.
Addionally I think that I have responded at length to most
of your objections, Iain. I have taken care to
read every post, and to get explanations about what precisely you and Ken
particularly were saying. I have responded to every person in the thread,
including Glenn though
I chose to respond to him in e-mail. I have yet
to be convinced of any weakness or counter-example. That isn't
dogmatism. That's intellectual integrity. I had this
definition for several years before
Glenn decided to use it. I have
dealt with most of the objections before at one time or another..

If you mean that I am being arrogant, I am honestly sorry. Iam
trying to be clinical, but I will soften my tone if you like.


>Now if the definition was reworked to include something along the lines of:
>"compelled to stop crime at the expense of there own (personal) life"
>(I will leave the exact wording to those more capable) reather than just
>compelled then I would have fewer problems. There will still be exceptions
>and if people are dogmatic about these exceptions problems will occur.
>
>Iain
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>- DR A. - "DROP THE SCYTHE, AND TURN AROUND SLOWLY." -
>- - -- (Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man) -
>- (Iain A. Bertram) - -
>- BER...@FNALD0.FNAL.GOV - -
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

Detachable Glennis

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 2:09:02 PM10/28/94
to
In article <1994Oct28...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov> ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov writes:
>
>Now if the definition was reworked to include something along the lines of:
>"compelled to stop crime at the expense of there own (personal) life"
>(I will leave the exact wording to those more capable) reather than just
>compelled then I would have fewer problems. There will still be exceptions
>and if people are dogmatic about these exceptions problems will occur.

I have no problem with any of that, in fact it's almost identical to
what Jim Drew suggested. :-) I'll forward your comments and thanks for
the suggestion.

Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................

"Working from one end to the other, and all points in between"
--- Jesus Just Left Chicago

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 1:54:20 PM10/28/94
to

In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:


>Now if the definition was reworked to include something along the lines of:
>"compelled to stop crime at the expense of there own (personal) life"
>(I will leave the exact wording to those more capable) reather than just
>compelled then I would have fewer problems. There will still be exceptions
>and if people are dogmatic about these exceptions problems will occur.

Too many exceptions because "crime" is too vague. Is Superman compelled
to stop traffic offenders, or prostitutes? I deliberately picked
a mugging as a crime that every superhero would be compelled by the
by the drama of the type to stop, but which other characters especially
in comic books are under no such dramatic geas to interfere with as a
general rule though they might do so on certain occasions.
Also, I didn't include risk in the definition because many
superheroes aren't risking anything to stop a mugging.

John P. LaRocque

unread,
Oct 28, 1994, 6:25:44 PM10/28/94
to
In article <38qu7m$a...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,

Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:

>>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>>officer.

>>What would that make of Lobo?

>Lobo is in my examples section. He is not a superhero. He would not
>stop a mugging if given the opportunity.

Maybe that's why I find the character so appealing...

>(Why anyone would ask if a paid
>killer is a superhero in any case is beyond my ken...)

I guess I have a twisted sense of humor.

>"The Truth?!!! You can't handle the truth!!! No truth-handler, you!!! Bah, I
>deride your truth handling abilities!!!!" -- Side Show Bob
>The Philadelphia Phillies, 1995's defending NL Champions. (with a strike I'll
>take what I can get :)) "Ipsa scientia potestas est." -- Roger Bacon

The Mystic Mongoose

unread,
Oct 29, 1994, 2:56:33 AM10/29/94
to
ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
> tmmon...@delphi.com (The Mystic Mongoose) says:

>From: ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary)
>
<snip>
>
>>The definition:

>>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law
>>>enforcement officer.
>
>> I have some trouble with this, but it's *almost* good. The problem here
>>is the general vagueness of 'stopping a mugging'. It's too concrete an
>>example, where we would need an abstract. Let me try:

>No, I picked a mugging specifically as an act which any superhero in the
>comics (or any other medium) would stop if given the opportunity
>but that a private citizen was not under any special obligation to
>prevent.

'Special obligation?' How would you define that? No particular moral imperative?

> A murder or rape or breaking and entering or treason
>or genocide, well, an argument could be made that all
>people must prevent the loss of a life. But a mugging? Well
>if the assailant is armed with a gun or even a knife, it is extremely
>dangerous to intervene and usually the victim is not in immediate danger.

No, most times the victim *is* in immediate danger. Most muggings, in
fact, are violent; for the simple reason that it's easier to kill someone
and take their wallet than it is to keep them quiet and alive and take
their wallet. The 'classic' mugging doesn't really exist much anymore.

>>1. Someone who believes that justice must be done;
>>2. Someone who enforces that justice; and
>>3. Someone with a distinctive means of performing that justice.
>
>Too vague. Calls upon a philosophical concept, to wit, "justice."

It *should* be vague. A vague defenition is needed to include superheroes
as varied as The Punisher, Slapstick, The Spectre, and Superman. And the
difference between a superhero and a supervillain *is* a philosophy; one
is on the side of good/justice/law/order/whatever, and the other acts for evil,
selfish, or spiteful reasons.
I say that 'justice' is a well-recognized concept with a reasonable set of
commonly accepted boundaries. As a hero strays closer to the edge of those
boundaries- as some do- it becomes harder and harder to call them a hero.

>> Rac.miscers may remember a discussion along these lines previously.
>> Now, #1 and #2 fit pretty closely with your 'mugging' defenition. And
>>part three eliminates ordinary police officers. However, there are
>>superheroes in the employ of the law, such as _Youngblood_, who are law
>>enforcement.

>A superhero can be a law enforcement officer. That cannot be his primary
>motivation, however. (Note the stress on "because.")

You're talking motivation here; once again, abstract concepts. What is
that motivation? I'd say 'Justice' covers it pretty well.
And what if a police officer, off duty, stops a mugging? He's probably
not doing it *because* he's a cop, although that makes him better suited
to stop a mugging. He's doing it because it's the right thing to do...
which is probably the reason he became a cop in the first place. (The
people who became cops becasue of general dental plans and all would
probably *not* stop a mugging off-duty.)

> 'Distinctive means' covers powers, costume, style, weaponry, or
>anything else. If one is a superhero, one does something that ordinary
>people don't do. 'Justice', while ambiguous, can be applied broadly.
>
>Too broadly: Magneto and Dr. Doom and several other conquerors (Hitler
>for instance) all thought they were administering justice.)

No, Dr. Doom is out for revenge. Magneto doesn't care about 'justice';
he is out to 'establish a world where mutants rule over humans'. Or, at
the very least, where mutants are free from human persecution.

>You are more than welcome to post any definition you want.
>The RACA definition is what the writers of the rec.arts.comics.alternative
>RFD will mean by "superhero" for the purposes of the discussion.

"You might be right, Mongoose, but it won't matter anyway."

>> Well, I think the 'Justice' call is a better one. There are heroes to
>>whom it would be a waste of their time to stop a mugging (supervillains
>>to fight); they are certainly heroes. Now, loosen 'prevent a mugging' to
>>'stop crime', or 'help out' or 'do good', and you approach 'justice'.
>> I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument; I just
>>don't think it's fully complete, though.

>I agree it is an ineffective use of his powers for Superman to stop
>a mugger. He would still do it if given the opportunity (which is
>part of the problem that causes readers of alternative comics not to read
>superhero comics in general). "Stop crime" instantly eliminates
>any superhero who doesn't stop traffic offenders. "Justice" is
>far too vague to be used in the presence of a concrete alternative.
>If you don't feel it is complete, then give me a counter example.

A counter example? Someone like the Spectre, who might allow a mugging
to take place and then later mentally convert the criminal.
Stopping a mugging is a pretty good example; then again, lots of people would
stop a mugging. Given the opportuntity and ability, I would as well.
Opportunity... and ability. 'Ability' is a big part of this; a mugging
is just on the level where a normal human could prevent it.

And later, talking with Da Possum (Yet Another Animal Nickname On
Usenet. Hoo boy.)

>"Hero" is part of the etymology of "superhero" but it has
>nothing necessarily to do with the definition.

No, I'd say it has a *lot* to do with the definition: a 'superhero' is
a 'super' 'hero'. Now, 'hero' may be difficult to define exactly- either
'mugging' or 'justice' may work in this case- but a super-hero is a hero
that has super abilities.
'Super' is not limited to a costume, codename, powers, or weaponry,
although those are often a part of it. 'Super' means that the indivdual
has distincinve methods, means, or attitude which he uses while being a
hero. He is not joe average on the street, who may well be a hero; he
has something *beyond* what normal people have.

> It is trivial for Superman or Iron Man or Concrete to rescue people
>from a building, or at least they need not worry about flames for
>the most part. One could argue that courage is part of heroism.
>How much courage does it take for Superman to rescue people from a
>fire? But the definition doesn't discuss *heroes*. It defines
>"*superhero*".

I would contend that courage falls under my definition, part #2:
enforcing or causing justice. A hero must *act*. In this, 'stopping a
mugging' is such an act. So is aving a life. So is rescuing people from a
burning building. Your definition falls under mine; it's a special case
that can be used as a general litmus test. But an acid is not acidic
because it turns litmus paper different colors; an acid is acidic because
of it's inherent chemical properties.
Your criteria *tests*. My criteria *defines*.

The Mystic Mongoose, aka Robert W. Armstrong
"Vengance..." "No. Justice." -Mr. Freeze and Batman, B:TAS.

Glenn Carnagey

unread,
Oct 29, 1994, 7:41:33 PM10/29/94
to
In article <38u9oh$5...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>What is this doing off of news.groups?

Because it's irrelevant to the news.groups discussion, or that would
be my guess. :-) One more time for the hard of hearing: alternative
comic books are defined in relation to mainstream comic books, they
are not defined in relation to superhero comic books. What is this
thing doing on news.groups?

>In any case, if r.a.c.a defines superhero so broadly that police in comic
>books are considered superheroes because they'd stop a mugging, I'll certainly
>vote against the group on those grounds alone. This definition produces
>some of the most absurd results I've seen for any proposed definition of
>"superhero".

I thought you'd read that definition? Obviously not, or you wouldn't
have brought up the police reference. So, it wouldn't be of any use
to ask you to produce some of these chimerical "absurd results," I
suppose. No matter, it's not relevant, anyway. It was just a test we
had discussed, and it's not even mentioned in the RFD. We're
discussing the RFD, here on news.groups. One of these posts you're
going to actually speak directly to an issue, and drop these oblique
pot-shots, and I'll promptly die of a heart attack right there on the
spot. :-) Please, if you're going to cross-post to news.groups,
address the RFD for the group. There is a charter included in that
RFD. RACA does not define superhero, and you would have known that if
you'd read the RFD, which is in news.groups, where it belongs. RACA
is not concerned with the defining of superhero comic books, that's
the domain of RACM. However, should you read the RFD, and consquently
offer any substantive suggestions to amending the RFD, we will happy
to consider them. As it is, I'm unconvinced you'd vote for the group
under any circumstances, since you have failed to respond to any
offers of compromise.

Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................

John P. LaRocque

unread,
Oct 29, 1994, 10:37:45 PM10/29/94
to
In article <5o9X7qB.t...@delphi.com>,

The Mystic Mongoose <tmmon...@delphi.com> wrote:

>>>1. Someone who believes that justice must be done;
>>>2. Someone who enforces that justice; and
>>>3. Someone with a distinctive means of performing that justice.

>>Too vague. Calls upon a philosophical concept, to wit, "justice."

> It *should* be vague. A vague defenition is needed to include superheroes
>as varied as The Punisher, Slapstick, The Spectre, and Superman. And the
>difference between a superhero and a supervillain *is* a philosophy; one
>is on the side of good/justice/law/order/whatever, and the other acts for evil,
>selfish, or spiteful reasons.

Well, remember Dr. Zero (from Epic's Shadowline) who rescued kids
from burning buildings to get on the 5:00 news? I think a lot of this
talk about what a superhero it is spitting hairs. You won't get
a definition that coverse all the superheros. Just come up with one
that explains away about 2/3 of them (maybe a little more), and say
that *most* superheroes fit that description. Perhaps a series of
OR statements ("Must fit at least one of the above") might be
preferable to AND statements ("Must fit all of the above").

> And what if a police officer, off duty, stops a mugging? He's probably
>not doing it *because* he's a cop, although that makes him better suited
>to stop a mugging. He's doing it because it's the right thing to do...
>which is probably the reason he became a cop in the first place. (The
>people who became cops becasue of general dental plans and all would
>probably *not* stop a mugging off-duty.)

That makes most superheroes just superpowered peopole who make
citizen's arrests (and sometimes executions). I personally think
that the emphasis on superheroes has held back comics as an artistic
form but that's just my opinion, and that the notions of justice
held by the "heroes" (the Punisher, and even Batman) is sometimes
perverted.

>>Too broadly: Magneto and Dr. Doom and several other conquerors (Hitler
>>for instance) all thought they were administering justice.)

> No, Dr. Doom is out for revenge. Magneto doesn't care about 'justice';
>he is out to 'establish a world where mutants rule over humans'. Or, at
>the very least, where mutants are free from human persecution.

Maybe the one requires the other, in Magneto's perception. That mutants
must dominate mankind to prevent persecution by humans of mutants.
Star Trek:DS9's storyline around the Dominion works out to something
along these lines. Actually, I rather like Dr. Doom and Magneto -
real 3-dimensional villains with personalities (not just baddie
of the month). [who's Professor X? I don't remember him... ]

>>superhero comics in general). "Stop crime" instantly eliminates
>>any superhero who doesn't stop traffic offenders. "Justice" is
>>far too vague to be used in the presence of a concrete alternative.
>>If you don't feel it is complete, then give me a counter example.

And many "heroes" have their own concepts of justice and crime
that reside outside of societal norms (i.e. the Punisher).

>The Mystic Mongoose, aka Robert W. Armstrong
>"Vengance..." "No. Justice." -Mr. Freeze and Batman, B:TAS.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 29, 1994, 11:30:47 AM10/29/94
to

In a previous article, tmmon...@delphi.com (The Mystic Mongoose) says:

>ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>> tmmon...@delphi.com (The Mystic Mongoose) says:
>
>>From: ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary)
>>
><snip>
>>
>>>The definition:
>>>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law
>>>>enforcement officer.
>>
>>> I have some trouble with this, but it's *almost* good. The problem here
>>>is the general vagueness of 'stopping a mugging'. It's too concrete an
>>>example, where we would need an abstract. Let me try:
>
>>No, I picked a mugging specifically as an act which any superhero in the
>>comics (or any other medium) would stop if given the opportunity
>>but that a private citizen was not under any special obligation to
>>prevent.
>
>'Special obligation?' How would you define that? No particular moral
>imperative?

Yes, if you mean what I think you do.



>> A murder or rape or breaking and entering or treason
>>or genocide, well, an argument could be made that all
>>people must prevent the loss of a life. But a mugging? Well
>>if the assailant is armed with a gun or even a knife, it is extremely
>>dangerous to intervene and usually the victim is not in immediate danger.
>
> No, most times the victim *is* in immediate danger. Most muggings, in
>fact, are violent; for the simple reason that it's easier to kill someone
>and take their wallet than it is to keep them quiet and alive and take
>their wallet. The 'classic' mugging doesn't really exist much anymore.

This is simply wrong. Most muggings do *not* result in injury
to a victim. If you disagree, well, check your facts. I'll
be more than willing to discuss this in e-mail but the
violence of muggings is off topic here.

>>>1. Someone who believes that justice must be done;
>>>2. Someone who enforces that justice; and
>>>3. Someone with a distinctive means of performing that justice.
>>
>>Too vague. Calls upon a philosophical concept, to wit, "justice."
>
> It *should* be vague. A vague defenition is needed to include superheroes
>as varied as The Punisher, Slapstick, The Spectre, and Superman. And the
>difference between a superhero and a supervillain *is* a philosophy; one
>is on the side of good/justice/law/order/whatever, and the other acts for evil,
>selfish, or spiteful reasons.

Epistemological nonsense. Definitions should be as specific and precise
as possible. Vagueness should be avoided. With the possible
exception of the current version of the Spectre, who is
not a superhero at the moment imnsho, my definition *does* include
those characters you mentioned.

> I say that 'justice' is a well-recognized concept with a reasonable set of
>commonly accepted boundaries. As a hero strays closer to the edge of those
>boundaries- as some do- it becomes harder and harder to call them a "hero"

Well, I defy you to name those commonly accepted boundaries. "Justice"
is vague. Most people think that "justice" include vengeance.
I hate Victor Hugo, and I think Les Miserables is a horrid book
but he covers this fairly well it in. "Justice" has
no place in any precise definition, unless "justice" has been
previously defined as a technical term.

"Hero" and "superhero" are separate words.

>>> Rac.miscers may remember a discussion along these lines previously.
>>> Now, #1 and #2 fit pretty closely with your 'mugging' defenition. And
>>>part three eliminates ordinary police officers. However, there are
>>>superheroes in the employ of the law, such as _Youngblood_, who are law
>>>enforcement.
>
>>A superhero can be a law enforcement officer. That cannot be his primary
>>motivation, however. (Note the stress on "because.")
>
> You're talking motivation here; once again, abstract concepts. What is
>that motivation? I'd say 'Justice' covers it pretty well.

Nope. The motivation can be a lot of things. Spiderman
says his motivation is "with great power comes
great responsibility" which is "guilt" in his case, if you ask me.
Is the Punisher seeking "Justice?" Hardly...

> And what if a police officer, off duty, stops a mugging? He's probably
>not doing it *because* he's a cop, although that makes him better suited
>to stop a mugging. He's doing it because it's the right thing to do...
>which is probably the reason he became a cop in the first place. (The
>people who became cops becasue of general dental plans and all would
>probably *not* stop a mugging off-duty.)

If he's a character, and he would stop a mugging -- and not just
in a specific instance either, you can't qualify it, he has
to written such that he would stop "a mugging" -- then he is a superhero,
if he is doing it because it is "the right thing to do."
Dick Turpin and Maggie Sawyer of Metropolis's Special Crimes
Unit are superheroes. Harvey Bullock is a superhero. If that seems
counter intuitive read some of SPCU's current series or Harvey's solo
issues in the pre-Crisis Batman titles. Those types of cops
are superheroes in comic books. And Dirty Harry is a superhero
as well. I think that even without a definition
you would have an easy time characterizing Harry Callahan as a superhero.

>> 'Distinctive means' covers powers, costume, style, weaponry, or
>>anything else. If one is a superhero, one does something that ordinary
>>people don't do. 'Justice', while ambiguous, can be applied broadly.
>>
>>Too broadly: Magneto and Dr. Doom and several other conquerors (Hitler
>>for instance) all thought they were administering justice.)
>
> No, Dr. Doom is out for revenge. Magneto doesn't care about 'justice';
>he is out to 'establish a world where mutants rule over humans'. Or, at
>the very least, where mutants are free from human persecution.

Read Emperor Doom, Doom truly believes the world
would be better with him in charge, and based on that
book, he has a good case. Doom might want revenge on Richards, but
he sees that as just. "Justice" is often considered to include
"vengeance" (cf. the Old Testament.) Magneto wants justice
for all mutants because they are unjustly persecuted.

>
>>You are more than welcome to post any definition you want.
>>The RACA definition is what the writers of the rec.arts.comics.alternative
>>RFD will mean by "superhero" for the purposes of the discussion.
>
>"You might be right, Mongoose, but it won't matter anyway."

Don't put words in my mouth, Mongoose, I, personally -- taking off my
defend-the-definition-for-the-sake-of-a-new-group hat for a second --
think you are *definitely* *WRONG*.

>>> Well, I think the 'Justice' call is a better one. There are heroes to
>>>whom it would be a waste of their time to stop a mugging (supervillains
>>>to fight); they are certainly heroes. Now, loosen 'prevent a mugging' to
>>>'stop crime', or 'help out' or 'do good', and you approach 'justice'.
>>> I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument; I just
>>>don't think it's fully complete, though.
>
>>I agree it is an ineffective use of his powers for Superman to stop
>>a mugger. He would still do it if given the opportunity (which is
>>part of the problem that causes readers of alternative comics not to read
>>superhero comics in general). "Stop crime" instantly eliminates
>>any superhero who doesn't stop traffic offenders. "Justice" is
>>far too vague to be used in the presence of a concrete alternative.
>>If you don't feel it is complete, then give me a counter example.
>
> A counter example? Someone like the Spectre, who might allow a mugging
>to take place and then later mentally convert the criminal.

I included the Spectre in my examples. In the current version I am
not altogether certain he would cross the street to spit in a mugger's
shadow. And the action you described wouldn't make him a superhero in my
opinion. If he wouldn't stop an assault if he witnessed it, caring only
that the mugger repent, then he ain't superhero. He is a character with an
independent agenda.

> Stopping a mugging is a pretty good example; then again, lots of people would
>stop a mugging. Given the opportuntity and ability, I would as well.
> Opportunity... and ability. 'Ability' is a big part of this; a mugging
>is just on the level where a normal human could prevent it.

Not if the mugger had a semi-automatic weapon. I agree ability
is part of this, I did not specifically include it in the definiton
because I wanted it to be a simply "a mugging" not necessarily,
but possibly having bells and whistles attached.

>And later, talking with Da Possum (Yet Another Animal Nickname On
>Usenet. Hoo boy.)
>
>>"Hero" is part of the etymology of "superhero" but it has
>>nothing necessarily to do with the definition.
>
>No, I'd say it has a *lot* to do with the definition: a 'superhero' is
>a 'super' 'hero'. Now, 'hero' may be difficult to define exactly- either
>'mugging' or 'justice' may work in this case- but a super-hero is a hero
>that has super abilities.

I disagree, both with your semantic interpretation of "superhero" and
"hero". And with your subsequent chararacterization of "superhero."
"Hero" and "superhero" are no more related than "geos' and "geomancy."
There might be a superficial similarity but it is largely irrelevant.
"Hero" refer to people who do acts of great courage or ability, and
a lot of what superheroes do is not extraordinary for them to do in any
way. Stopping a mugging requires no special courage or output of effort
for Thor or Spiderman or Superman or... Why should they be
"heroes" for that? They are not "heroes" for that act. They are
superheroes.

> 'Super' is not limited to a costume, codename, powers, or weaponry,
>although those are often a part of it. 'Super' means that the indivdual
>has distincinve methods, means, or attitude which he uses while being a
>hero. He is not joe average on the street, who may well be a hero; he
>has something *beyond* what normal people have.

Define "distinctive" in a way that doesn't include every police officer who
happens to carry a badge so that we recognize them.

>> It is trivial for Superman or Iron Man or Concrete to rescue people
>>from a building, or at least they need not worry about flames for
>>the most part. One could argue that courage is part of heroism.
>>How much courage does it take for Superman to rescue people from a
>>fire? But the definition doesn't discuss *heroes*. It defines
>>"*superhero*".
>
> I would contend that courage falls under my definition, part #2:
>enforcing or causing justice. A hero must *act*. In this, 'stopping a
>mugging' is such an act. So is aving a life. So is rescuing people from a
>burning building.

An invulnerable or immortal character requires no courage to rescue
people from a burning building (unless he is afraid of the inevitable
lawsuit :))

>Your definition falls under mine; it's a special case
>that can be used as a general litmus test. But an acid is not acidic
>because it turns litmus paper different colors; an acid is acidic because
>of it's inherent chemical properties.

That's what definitions are supposed to do.
Your definition is so vague as to include characters that are not
superheroes by any standard other than itself. My definition includes
everyone who could be called a superhero
without intellectual dishonesty, but more of that below.

> Your criteria *tests*. My criteria *defines*.

Wrong. And rather condescending. You're fond of tying etymology and
definitions? Well, definitions should be *definite*. A definition
should be able to say to the question "What is X?" that "X is
<definition>." and leave no room for debate. I grant you that
most dictionary definitions
don't do this, but I am not a lexiconographer, if I were I probably would
you use your definition first. But that equivocates on "definition." Any
science defines terms in this manner. Mathematics and analytic philosophy
and physics are, in particular, cold blooded about it. My goal
in formulating this definition for the present conversation was to have
the most precise possible definition for epistemological purposes. I wanted
to *know* "superhero" qua "superhero." My definition
isn't pretty. If you asked me what a superhero was, and I told you my
definition, or anyone else, your first reaction would most likely
be "No, it isn't." But that's why I must defend it.
You might have the same reaction if I told you that the
most important event in the history of humanity was the civil
execution of a minor rebel in the middle east two thousand years ago, but
two billion people profess to agree with that contention.
(Of course, that brings up "what's "important?" But I won't argue the
definition of "important" here :))
--

Ken Arromdee

unread,
Oct 29, 1994, 4:02:25 PM10/29/94
to
In article <38tpr8$9...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,

Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>If he's a character, and he would stop a mugging -- and not just
>in a specific instance either, you can't qualify it, he has
>to written such that he would stop "a mugging" -- then he is a superhero,
>if he is doing it because it is "the right thing to do."
>Dick Turpin and Maggie Sawyer of Metropolis's Special Crimes
>Unit are superheroes. Harvey Bullock is a superhero. If that seems
>counter intuitive read some of SPCU's current series or Harvey's solo
>issues in the pre-Crisis Batman titles. Those types of cops
>are superheroes in comic books. And Dirty Harry is a superhero
>as well. I think that even without a definition
>you would have an easy time characterizing Harry Callahan as a superhero.

What is this doing off of news.groups?

In any case, if r.a.c.a defines superhero so broadly that police in comic


books are considered superheroes because they'd stop a mugging, I'll certainly
vote against the group on those grounds alone. This definition produces
some of the most absurd results I've seen for any proposed definition of
"superhero".

--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes

"No boom today. Boom tomorrow, there's always a boom tomorrow." --Ivanova

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 29, 1994, 5:19:07 PM10/29/94
to
In a previous article, arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) says:

>In article <38tpr8$9...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>If he's a character, and he would stop a mugging -- and not just
>>in a specific instance either, you can't qualify it, he has
>>to written such that he would stop "a mugging" -- then he is a superhero,
>>if he is doing it because it is "the right thing to do."
>>Dick Turpin and Maggie Sawyer of Metropolis's Special Crimes
>>Unit are superheroes. Harvey Bullock is a superhero. If that seems
>>counter intuitive read some of SPCU's current series or Harvey's solo
>>issues in the pre-Crisis Batman titles. Those types of cops
>>are superheroes in comic books. And Dirty Harry is a superhero
>>as well. I think that even without a definition
>>you would have an easy time characterizing Harry Callahan as a superhero.
>
>What is this doing off of news.groups?

It is off news.groups because it is not germain to the *CHARTER* of a group
being discussed. I posted it before the RFD was posted.

>In any case, if r.a.c.a defines superhero so broadly that police in comic
>books are considered superheroes because they'd stop a mugging, I'll certainly
>vote against the group on those grounds alone. This definition produces
>some of the most absurd results I've seen for any proposed definition of
>"superhero".

Ken, the definition, which you apparently did not
bother to read, specifically discludes "law enforcement" officers
in the performance of their duty. This way
superheroes can include Superman, the Avengers, JLA, and
other offically "deputized" superheroes.
Additionally, Glenn has said he will elimimate "superhero" from the
charter. And Ken, you keep saying that
the examples are absurd. And the results are wrong. First of
all, this is a definition, it doesn't have "results." Second, you
have yet to explain which example is not accurate, please say
exactly which examples you find wrong.

David Goldfarb

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 7:02:26 AM10/31/94
to
Katie Schwarz <katie@physics2> wrote:
)Superhero stories are at bottom
)about the specialness and power of the self, which is why they appeal
)to children and adolescents who aren't yet members of adult society.

I've often wondered if the traditions of individualism in
US culture are a reason why superheroes are much more popular here
than in other countries.

David Goldfarb | "Boom. Sooner or later. Boom!"
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@UCBOCF.BITNET |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Grail"

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 9:02:09 AM10/31/94
to

In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:

>Michael Chary's definition:


>>>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>>>officer.
>>>

>Tom Galloway's objection:
>>>Gee, and here I thought that was the definition of a good person.
>>
>Michael's reply:
>>Good people might be obligated to call the police. They are not obligated
>>to try to prevent an armed assailant from robbing an individual.
>
>I think you're onto something here, Michael, although your definition
>above is too broad. A superhero acts directly, as an individual (or in

How so? Who does it include who is not a superhero?

I am not saying you're wrong necessarliy, but I would
like more to go on before I am going to be able to consider the
objection thoughtfully.
--
"*DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING?* I'LL TOUCH WHATEVER I WANT TO. RAARRRGGHH!!!!!"
- Homer Simpson on the complexities of temporal causality and time travel
"It's science fiction and that's certainly fiction in science."
- David Chary "Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon

Marc Singer

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 9:13:59 AM10/31/94
to
Just some more kindling for the fire...

In his book _Super Heroes: A Modern Mythology_ (which I *highly* recommend),
Richard Reynolds proposes a working definition of superheroes and the
superhero genre, based on seven points. He defines them as:

1. Being marked out from society, and often reaching maturity without
parents.

2. At least some of the superheroes have godlike powers; others will have
lesser powers, but "consort easily with these earthbound deities."

3. Heroes are devoted to justice, overriding even their devotion to the law.

4. The superhero is highly extraordinary, esp. in comparison to their
surroundings.

5. The superhero is extraordinary compared to his/her own alter ego.

6. Superheroes are above the law, but capable of considerable patriotism
and moral loyalty to the state (if not to the letter of the law).

7. The superhero stories [this, I think, is a key phrase -- defining the
character as hero by the continuity he/she is part of] use science and/or
magic to create a sense of wonder.

I think we can streamline this; not every superhero will have absent parents.
Generalizing it, here's one possible definition of superhero:

1. The superhero is marked out from society.
2. The superhero is extraordinary in his/her abilities (yes, this damn well
does include Batman).
3. The superhero is devoted to justice, even above the law.
4. The superhero has an extraordinary, other identity (not necessarily a
secret identity, just one that marks them apart from the citizenry).

5. A character is part of the superhero genre/continuity if they inhabit
a continuity/shared system of stories in which most of the protagonists
fit the above criteria.
So Lobo may not be devoted to justice, Batman may not be able to
fly, but both are clearly part of superhero comics.
I think to use the "continuity clause," that you're a hero if you're
part of superhero continuity, you should have to fulfill at least some of
the criteria for being a superhero yourself.

It's not perfect (for example: what is "extraordinary" measured against?
Many members of the LSH do not posess powers that are remarkable for their
species -- but they are remarkable compared to real-life humans. And they
also have remarkable morality/courage. In which aspect is "remarkability"
more important?), but I think it works in most cases. And I personally
feel that defining heroes solely on their inclination to stop a mugging
just leaves out too much.

This definition is actually pretty similar to the one Ennead uses, but
it doesn't have any of all that (IMO slightly condescending) stuff about
superheroes needing to fight constant physical battles and posessing
grossly exaggerated secondary sex characteristics. To me, that's defining
a genre by some of its worst, most overused (and completely non-essential)
cliches; it's sort of like defining science fiction as "stories with
rocketships and big nasty monsters."

Comments, anyone? And btw, why does RACA need a definition of superheroes
for its charter? (I know the less chance there is one, the more likely
I'd be to vote for it.) I just kind of like the academic exercise of
hashing out a definition here.

Marc

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 10:00:50 AM10/31/94
to

In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:

>1. The superhero is marked out from society.

Discludes the Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane titles. While
they were supporting cast in Superman, they superheroes in their
own book. Also, it might disclde Zatara and Zatanna who are
stage magicians in their civilian guises (though one could assert that
any celebrity is "marked out from society.") Also, I find it rather vague.

>2. The superhero is extraordinary in his/her abilities (yes, this damn well
>does include Batman).
>3. The superhero is devoted to justice, even above the law.

Justice is vague.

>4. The superhero has an extraordinary, other identity (not necessarily a
>secret identity, just one that marks them apart from the citizenry).

Peter Parker? Don Blake? Barry Allen? Ray Palmer?

>5. A character is part of the superhero genre/continuity if they inhabit
>a continuity/shared system of stories in which most of the protagonists
>fit the above criteria.
> So Lobo may not be devoted to justice, Batman may not be able to
>fly, but both are clearly part of superhero comics.

I can't see Lobo as a superhero.

> I think to use the "continuity clause," that you're a hero if you're
>part of superhero continuity, you should have to fulfill at least some of
>the criteria for being a superhero yourself.

Please expand on this. I am not certain I take your meaning correctly.

>It's not perfect (for example: what is "extraordinary" measured against?
>Many members of the LSH do not posess powers that are remarkable for their
>species -- but they are remarkable compared to real-life humans. And they
>also have remarkable morality/courage. In which aspect is "remarkability"
>more important?), but I think it works in most cases. And I personally
>feel that defining heroes solely on their inclination to stop a mugging
>just leaves out too much.

For the sixth or seventh time, I am not defining "hero." I am defining
"superhero." And for the God-knows-what time: who does
my definition disclude that you feel is a superhero? Who
does it include who isn't? People have claimed it's inclusive, exclusive,.
and vague(*?*), but thus far no one has seemed forthcoming with examples
and I would truly and sincerely like some. Iain was
very kind to give me Concrete and Miracleman to work with
and I explained my reasoning. I don't know if Iain got annoyed or
was convinced or decided I was irrelevant and not worth talking with,
but at least he explained his viewpoint enough to be responded to
intelligently. I don't think I am asking much to be given counter examples
if you feel my definition is inadequate or semantic objections if you find
it unclear.

>
>Comments, anyone? And btw, why does RACA need a definition of superheroes
>for its charter? (I know the less chance there is one, the more likely
>I'd be to vote for it.)

We don't really. Glenn's my buddy, and he asked me to post a definition
and defend it, since the question was sure to come up. I posted
it because I was asked to do so.

>I just kind of like the academic exercise of
>hashing out a definition here.

This is why I was willing to do so as well :)

Marc Singer

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 10:54:32 AM10/31/94
to
In article <3930r2$d...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,

Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:
>
>>1. The superhero is marked out from society.
>
>Discludes the Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane titles.

Good; they aren't superheroes. Do you think they would feel any more
compelled to stop a mugging than, say, a police officer?

Note that when Jimmy is playing Elastic Lad or Flamebird or whoever, he is
marked out from society -- because not everyone is putting on a costume,
fighting crime, stretching, whatever.

While
>they were supporting cast in Superman, they superheroes in their
>own book. Also, it might disclde Zatara and Zatanna who are
>stage magicians in their civilian guises (though one could assert that
>any celebrity is "marked out from society.") Also, I find it rather vague.

I, too, agree that you could argue about celebrities already being somewhat
marked out; crimefighters definitely are.

It's supposed to be vague; you will never find one specific, non-vague
law that defines superheroes, at least not one that doesn't leave a *lot*
of borderline cases. But perhaps you can define superheroes through the
intersections of lots of vague guidelines.

>>2. The superhero is extraordinary in his/her abilities (yes, this damn well
>>does include Batman).
>>3. The superhero is devoted to justice, even above the law.
>

>Justice is vague.

I prefer it to "good," simply because peoples' ideas of good will vary
even more than the ideas of "justice". However, if you really want to, you
can look at justice as punishing wrong *and* helping those in need.

>>4. The superhero has an extraordinary, other identity (not necessarily a
>>secret identity, just one that marks them apart from the citizenry).
>

>Peter Parker? Don Blake? Barry Allen? Ray Palmer?

Let me make myself clear: the "other identities" that are extraordinary in
those cases, and the ones that I'm referring to, are Spider-Man, Thor,
Flash, and Atom. In other words, the hero has one identity that is
extraordinary. This even applies to someone like Reed Richards; it's no
secret, but there's a difference between Reed the pipe-smoking scientist
who wears tweed to lectures at Empire State U, and the Reed who puts on
blue spandex to punch Dr. Doom. The point is, there is an extraordinary
identity, and usually an identity split or separation.

>>5. A character is part of the superhero genre/continuity if they inhabit
>>a continuity/shared system of stories in which most of the protagonists
>>fit the above criteria.
>> So Lobo may not be devoted to justice, Batman may not be able to
>>fly, but both are clearly part of superhero comics.
>

>I can't see Lobo as a superhero.

Personally, I can't either, but he is part of a superhero continuity, and
therefore would be discussed in a superhero group, rather than an alternative
comics group.

>> I think to use the "continuity clause," that you're a hero if you're
>>part of superhero continuity, you should have to fulfill at least some of
>>the criteria for being a superhero yourself.
>

>Please expand on this. I am not certain I take your meaning correctly.

Okay. Just because you are a character in a superhero universe/continuity,
doesn't make you a superhero. Thus, Lois Lane, Jim Gordon, Maggie Sawyer,
etc. are not superheroes. (If they wanted to, people could use the same
rationale for why Vertigoey tupes aren't superheroes, even when they
interact with superhero continuity.) In order to be considered a "super-
hero," you have to fulfill at least some of the extraordinary/justice/
identity/etc. criteria used to define "superhero," being in the continuity
isn't enough. Perhaps this is obvious and I'm just overstating it.

>>It's not perfect (for example: what is "extraordinary" measured against?
>>Many members of the LSH do not posess powers that are remarkable for their
>>species -- but they are remarkable compared to real-life humans. And they
>>also have remarkable morality/courage. In which aspect is "remarkability"
>>more important?), but I think it works in most cases. And I personally
>>feel that defining heroes solely on their inclination to stop a mugging
>>just leaves out too much.
>

>For the sixth or seventh time, I am not defining "hero." I am defining
>"superhero." And for the God-knows-what time: who does
>my definition disclude that you feel is a superhero? Who
>does it include who isn't? People have claimed it's inclusive, exclusive,.
>and vague(*?*), but thus far no one has seemed forthcoming with examples
>and I would truly and sincerely like some. Iain was
>very kind to give me Concrete and Miracleman to work with
>and I explained my reasoning. I don't know if Iain got annoyed or
>was convinced or decided I was irrelevant and not worth talking with,
>but at least he explained his viewpoint enough to be responded to
>intelligently. I don't think I am asking much to be given counter examples
>if you feel my definition is inadequate or semantic objections if you find
>it unclear.

First of all: I just wrote "heroes" to save my poor fingers, I know you're
defining "superhero" -- so am I.

Second: Your definition doesn't leave out any superheroes -- quite the
opposite, it includes non-s.h.s. But it leaves out many characteristics
which I feel are essential to superheroes, like the extraordinariness of them,
or their "different" identities.

Who does it include who isn't? Anyone who would feel compelled to stop
a mugging. The fact that you had to *specifically write out law enforcement
officers*, because your definition described them as well, should tell you
something about the definition.

It's like Plato (Aristotle? damn!) defining humans as featherless bipeds,
Diogenes producing a plucked chicken, and the first philosopher then
defining humans as featherless bipeds with short nails. Yes, technically
the definition works, but only because of an addition that excludes
everything the basic definition does include and shouldn't. The basic
definition is still too inclusive, it just has some ugly qualifiers tacked
on. I'm sorry, but this is a complex thing you're trying to define here
and it cannot be simplified to "would they feel compelled to stop a mugging?"
I'm sure Dirty Harry would, even after he retired as a cop, yet he's not
a superhero by any stretch. There, that's my opinion.

>"*DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING?* I'LL TOUCH WHATEVER I WANT TO. RAARRRGGHH!!!!!"
>- Homer Simpson on the complexities of temporal causality and time travel

That was hilarious, wasn't it?

Marc


Charles M Seaton

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 11:57:27 AM10/31/94
to
Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:

[Richard Reynolds' excellent list of superhero traits snipped.]

: 1. The superhero is marked out from society.


: 2. The superhero is extraordinary in his/her abilities (yes, this damn
: well does include Batman).
: 3. The superhero is devoted to justice, even above the law.

Some people will complain this is too vauge, but personally I like
it. Usually this can be well understood on a common-sense level,
imho.

: 4. The superhero has an extraordinary, other identity (not necessarily a


: secret identity, just one that marks them apart from the citizenry).
: 5. A character is part of the superhero genre/continuity if they inhabit
: a continuity/shared system of stories in which most of the protagonists
: fit the above criteria.

I especially like both 4 and 5 - they seem to solve the "Strider"
problem quite well. Now, iyho, does a superhero have to fufill
_all_ of these traits, or just most of them?

: So Lobo may not be devoted to justice, Batman may not be able to


: fly, but both are clearly part of superhero comics.
: I think to use the "continuity clause," that you're a hero if you're
: part of superhero continuity, you should have to fulfill at least some of
: the criteria for being a superhero yourself.

I agree - the "continuity clause" defines whether or not a character
is in the _genre_, not if she's a superhero. Lois Lane is part of
the superhero genre, whether or not she is herself a superhero.

I think I like this definition better than the one I've occasionally
posted - I'll have to think about it. If I ever post my definition
again, I'll definitely swipe ideas from this first. =)

Oh - and speaking of me:

[...]
: This definition is actually pretty similar to the one Ennead


: uses, but it doesn't have any of all that (IMO slightly
: condescending) stuff about superheroes needing to fight constant
: physical battles and posessing

My most recent version said something like "Frequently gets in
conflicts fought for the good of society," which I find both
accurate and non-condescending.

: grossly exaggerated secondary sex characteristics. To me, that's


: defining a genre by some of its worst, most overused (and completely
: non-essential) cliches; it's sort of like defining science fiction
: as "stories with rocketships and big nasty monsters."

It's "sort of like" it the same way a mirage is "sort of" like a
lake - they look the same on first glance, but even the most casual
inspection makes one of them fade away.

I could easily name a hundred sci-fi stories that have neither
rocketships or monsters; with more effort I could find 1000. This
includes many prominant examples of the genre - things like
Nebula-award winners ("Doomsday Book") and world-famous sci-fi
novels ("1984"). To suggest that traits that are so obviously
inessential to a genre are important would be, obviously, silly.

OTHO, how many superhero titles can you think of that feature
neither large-muscled men, large-breasted women or conflicts fought
for the good of society? 1000? 100? 20? Are they prominant,
clear-cut examples of the genre ("Superman"), or borderline cases
("Concrete")? Judging from the superhero comics I've read (and I've
read thousands), these traits are true for at least 95% percent of
superhero comics; to deny an obvious observation by calling me
"condecending" is avoiding the question, not answering it.

As far as I can tell, people object to this trait NOT because it
isn't true, but because - in their opinion - it speaks badly of the
genre. I.e., whichever traits you LIKE become "essential";
whichever traits you don't like, even if they're true 99% of the
time, are "inessential" and "overused." This is, imo,
intellectually dishonest.

: Comments, anyone? And btw, why does RACA need a definition of


: superheroes for its charter? (I know the less chance there is one,
: the more likely I'd be to vote for it.) I just kind of like the
: academic exercise of hashing out a definition here.

Obviously, I like the academic exercise too. =) And I agree, RACA
doesn't need to define superheroes (and the charter doesn't) - but
the discussion can be fun, nonetheless.

Sorry about the harsh tone - but your offhand smear of me seemed a
bit unfair, too. I quite liked your post on the whole. =)

Yours,
--Ennead

Ken Arromdee

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 12:31:03 PM10/31/94
to
Congratulations. Jesus is a superhero.

>5. A character is part of the superhero genre/continuity if they inhabit
>a continuity/shared system of stories in which most of the protagonists
>fit the above criteria.
> So Lobo may not be devoted to justice, Batman may not be able to
>fly, but both are clearly part of superhero comics.
> I think to use the "continuity clause," that you're a hero if you're
>part of superhero continuity, you should have to fulfill at least some of
>the criteria for being a superhero yourself.

Swamp Thing, John Constantine, Dream, and Hellstorm are all superheroes by this
definition, because of their shared continuity. Probably Conan too, since
Conan is officially in continuity with the Marvel universe, though crossovers
are obviously few (albeit not nonexistent).

The definition should work better if you allowed for degree of emphasis on
the superhero continuity. If it's there, it may or may not be emphasized
enough to matter. This _will_ still start debates, but hopefully fewer
ones.

Marc Singer

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 3:26:44 PM10/31/94
to
In article <3937ln$i...@nic.umass.edu>,

Charles M Seaton <ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>
>[Richard Reynolds' excellent list of superhero traits snipped.]
>
>Some people will complain this is too vauge, but personally I like
>it. Usually this can be well understood on a common-sense level,
>imho.

I think that's exactly how it was designed. (Not by me.)

>: 4. The superhero has an extraordinary, other identity (not necessarily a
>: secret identity, just one that marks them apart from the citizenry).
>: 5. A character is part of the superhero genre/continuity if they inhabit
>: a continuity/shared system of stories in which most of the protagonists
>: fit the above criteria.
>
>I especially like both 4 and 5 - they seem to solve the "Strider"
>problem quite well. Now, iyho, does a superhero have to fufill
>_all_ of these traits, or just most of them?

Hurm. Have to think on that one. Five seems quite essential, at least
for determining genre. The "extraordinariness" is also essential -- other-
wise they wouldn't be "super," would they? The being marked out from
society isn't so fundamental; although I can think of a lot of violations
and borderline cases for the "justice" and "separate identity" traits,
I regard these traits as fundamental to the genre as a whole.

So my weighting of the traits, in decreasing importance:

Extraordinary/Part of continuity that carries all these traits
Devotion to justice/Separate identity
Distinguished from society.

>: So Lobo may not be devoted to justice, Batman may not be able to
>: fly, but both are clearly part of superhero comics.
>: I think to use the "continuity clause," that you're a hero if you're
>: part of superhero continuity, you should have to fulfill at least some of
>: the criteria for being a superhero yourself.
>
>I agree - the "continuity clause" defines whether or not a character
>is in the _genre_, not if she's a superhero. Lois Lane is part of
>the superhero genre, whether or not she is herself a superhero.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. And since (if this were being used
to weed out superhero comics/characters so as to determine whether or not
they should be discussed in a alternative/superhero newsgroup (which it's
apparently not, but don't let that stop the thread!)) this is more to
determine the genre of characters rather than exactly where each character
is located, I think it works pretty well.

>I think I like this definition better than the one I've occasionally
>posted - I'll have to think about it. If I ever post my definition
>again, I'll definitely swipe ideas from this first. =)

Better yet, just read Reynolds' book. Solely focused on superhero comics,
but really good stuff. It's quite current, too; there's a brief afterword
that touches on Image Comics and the death of Superman.

>: This definition is actually pretty similar to the one Ennead
>: uses, but it doesn't have any of all that (IMO slightly
>: condescending) stuff about superheroes needing to fight constant
>: physical battles and posessing
>
>My most recent version said something like "Frequently gets in
>conflicts fought for the good of society," which I find both
>accurate and non-condescending.

Hmm... I'll buy that.

>: grossly exaggerated secondary sex characteristics. To me, that's
>: defining a genre by some of its worst, most overused (and completely
>: non-essential) cliches; it's sort of like defining science fiction
>: as "stories with rocketships and big nasty monsters."
>

>I could easily name a hundred sci-fi stories that have neither
>rocketships or monsters; with more effort I could find 1000. This
>includes many prominant examples of the genre - things like
>Nebula-award winners ("Doomsday Book") and world-famous sci-fi
>novels ("1984"). To suggest that traits that are so obviously
>inessential to a genre are important would be, obviously, silly.
>
>OTHO, how many superhero titles can you think of that feature
>neither large-muscled men, large-breasted women or conflicts fought
>for the good of society? 1000? 100? 20? Are they prominant,
>clear-cut examples of the genre ("Superman"), or borderline cases
>("Concrete")? Judging from the superhero comics I've read (and I've
>read thousands), these traits are true for at least 95% percent of
>superhero comics; to deny an obvious observation by calling me
>"condecending" is avoiding the question, not answering it.

I'm not calling you condescending, I'm saying that I find a definition
of superheroes that claims they *must* have exaggerated muscles and breasts
to be a little condescending towards those comics.

>As far as I can tell, people object to this trait NOT because it
>isn't true, but because - in their opinion - it speaks badly of the
>genre. I.e., whichever traits you LIKE become "essential";
>whichever traits you don't like, even if they're true 99% of the
>time, are "inessential" and "overused." This is, imo,
>intellectually dishonest.

I could take the same tack and argue that the traits are included in the
definition because - in the definer's opinion - it speaks badly of a genre
they don't like. Whichever traits they dislike become essential.

Would the comics of the 1940s be considered to have "exaggerated secondary
sex characteristics?" Hardly by today's standards. Are they still
superhero comics? What about the omnipresent exaggerated racial and
national characteristics in 1940s comics -- are *they* essential to a
definition of superhero comics (and comics in general) as well? Many
of the purely visual elements will wax and wane over time (once you could
have defined superhero comics as "having little yellow boxes with narration
by the editor," or "having characters who wear capes") and hardly seem
tied to the deeper qualities that distinguish superheroes from everything
else, and include all superheroes.

Marc

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 4:50:10 PM10/31/94
to

In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:

>In article <3930r2$d...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:
>>
>>>1. The superhero is marked out from society.
>>
>>Discludes the Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane titles.
>
>Good; they aren't superheroes. Do you think they would feel any more
>compelled to stop a mugging than, say, a police officer?

Pre-crisis, in their own titles, they were. Andmy definition was
expanded specifically to accomodate them when I was formulating it.
Look at the Lois Lane series in Suiperman Family. That chAracter
was a superhero.

>>they were supporting cast in Superman, they superheroes in their
>>own book. Also, it might disclde Zatara and Zatanna who are
>>stage magicians in their civilian guises (though one could assert that
>>any celebrity is "marked out from society.") Also, I find it rather vague.
>
>I, too, agree that you could argue about celebrities already being somewhat
>marked out; crimefighters definitely are.
>
>It's supposed to be vague; you will never find one specific, non-vague
>law that defines superheroes, at least not one that doesn't leave a *lot*
>of borderline cases. But perhaps you can define superheroes through the
>intersections of lots of vague guidelines.

I disagree here. Definitions should be a precise and specific as possible.
Vague references are weaknessses.

>>>3. The superhero is devoted to justice, even above the law.
>>
>>Justice is vague.
>
>I prefer it to "good," simply because peoples' ideas of good will vary
>even more than the ideas of "justice". However, if you really want to, you
>can look at justice as punishing wrong *and* helping those in need.

Is that your definition of justice? I'll have to think about that.
An immediate problem I see is the vagueness of "wrong" and "need."

>>>4. The superhero has an extraordinary, other identity (not necessarily a
>>>secret identity, just one that marks them apart from the citizenry).
>>
>>Peter Parker? Don Blake? Barry Allen? Ray Palmer?
>
>Let me make myself clear: the "other identities" that are extraordinary in
>those cases, and the ones that I'm referring to, are Spider-Man, Thor,
>Flash, and Atom. In other words, the hero has one identity that is
>extraordinary. This even applies to someone like Reed Richards; it's no
>secret, but there's a difference between Reed the pipe-smoking scientist
>who wears tweed to lectures at Empire State U, and the Reed who puts on
>blue spandex to punch Dr. Doom. The point is, there is an extraordinary
>identity, and usually an identity split or separation.
>

Okay, granted.

>>>5. A character is part of the superhero genre/continuity if they inhabit
>>>a continuity/shared system of stories in which most of the protagonists
>>>fit the above criteria.
>>> So Lobo may not be devoted to justice, Batman may not be able to
>>>fly, but both are clearly part of superhero comics.
>>
>>I can't see Lobo as a superhero.
>
>Personally, I can't either, but he is part of a superhero continuity, and
>therefore would be discussed in a superhero group, rather than an alternative
>comics group.

But my definition denies that false dichotomy. Superhero
doesn't necessarily preclude alternative, but usually does.

>>
>>Please expand on this. I am not certain I take your meaning correctly.
>
>Okay. Just because you are a character in a superhero universe/continuity,
>doesn't make you a superhero. Thus, Lois Lane, Jim Gordon, Maggie Sawyer,
>etc. are not superheroes. (If they wanted to, people could use the same
>rationale for why Vertigoey tupes aren't superheroes, even when they
>interact with superhero continuity.) In order to be considered a "super-
>hero," you have to fulfill at least some of the extraordinary/justice/
>identity/etc. criteria used to define "superhero," being in the continuity
>isn't enough. Perhaps this is obvious and I'm just overstating it.
>

Okay. Though I think Maggie Sawyer ios a superhero.

>>but at least he explained his viewpoint enough to be responded to
>>intelligently. I don't think I am asking much to be given counter examples
>>if you feel my definition is inadequate or semantic objections if you find
>>it unclear.
>
>First of all: I just wrote "heroes" to save my poor fingers, I know you're
>defining "superhero" -- so am I.
>

Okay, my bad, I apologize.

>Second: Your definition doesn't leave out any superheroes -- quite the
>opposite, it includes non-s.h.s. But it leaves out many characteristics
>which I feel are essential to superheroes, like the extraordinariness of them,
>or their "different" identities.
>
>Who does it include who isn't? Anyone who would feel compelled to stop
>a mugging. The fact that you had to *specifically write out law enforcement
>officers*, because your definition described them as well, should tell you
>something about the definition.

That was part of the definition. It wasn't an addendum, it was part.
A "carbunkle" is a "red gemstone." "Red" isn't an added qualifier. It is
part of the definition. I wrote out law enforcement officers in the
performanceof their duty because they aren't superheroes. That wasn't a
dodge, it was an attempt at accuracy. Please explain why you feel Jimmy Olsen,
pre-Crisisin his solo adventures was not a superhero?

>
>It's like Plato (Aristotle? damn!) defining humans as featherless bipeds,
>Diogenes producing a plucked chicken, and the first philosopher then
>defining humans as featherless bipeds with short nails. Yes, technically
>the definition works, but only because of an addition that excludes
>everything the basic definition does include and shouldn't. The basic
>definition is still too inclusive, it just has some ugly qualifiers tacked
>on. I'm sorry, but this is a complex thing you're trying to define here
>and it cannot be simplified to "would they feel compelled to stop a mugging?"
>I'm sure Dirty Harry would, even after he retired as a cop, yet he's not
>a superhero by any stretch. There, that's my opinion.

I have already said that I feel Dirty Harry *is* a superhero. I want
you to explain why he is not, please.

>>"*DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING?* I'LL TOUCH WHATEVER I WANT TO. RAARRRGGHH!!!!!"
>>- Homer Simpson on the complexities of temporal causality and time travel
>
>That was hilarious, wasn't it?

Yep, but I got it wrong, now I have corrected it :)
--
"*DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING?* I'LL TOUCH WHATEVER I FEEL LIKE! RAARRRGGHH!!!!!"


- Homer Simpson on the complexities of temporal causality and time travel

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 4:51:44 PM10/31/94
to

In a previous article, mke...@iron.helios.nd.edu (michael kelly) says:

>
>How do we define "mugging"?
>
>--

This was defined in my original post. Basically, a mugging is a robbery
which targets an individual rather than a group or structure.

Jason Fliegel

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 6:11:02 PM10/31/94
to
In article <393kcl$9...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>In article <3939kn$c...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>,

>Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>>Congratulations. Jesus is a superhero.
>
>Appearance? Genre/Continuity? (Don't tell me he met the Buddha, they
>accidentally fought each other, and then they teamed up to defeat
>Ahriman. :-) ) And I don't even want to think what you'd consider the
>separate identity...)

Plus, he wasn't too big on the justice thing. And, as a Jew, I think
I speak for all of the non-Christians on the net when I say "What
extraordinary abilities?"

No offense intended towards anybody's religion.

--
Jason Fliegel | jb...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu | (804) 979-0339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Upon your feet, you have ten toes. They look just like... po-ta-toes!"
Fone Bone's love poem, from Jeff Smith's Bone #9 ("The Mystery Cow")

Benjamin S Abruzzo

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 6:41:00 PM10/31/94
to
Sorry to be vague, but A superhero is just that a super hero....
This would be a person who does the hero thing (ie saving someone while
risking their own life), but has enhanced/added/exceptional powers (ie
flies, strength, advanced matrial arts and detective skils) and uses them
whenever possible (or not)....
This alows us readers and normal people such as Lois Lane or Alfred, or
Aunt May to be heros, while Thor, Superman, and Reed Richards/Mr.
Fantastic are super heros....
And LOBO wouldn't be a superhero because he isn't a hero of any kind
(usually)...

Scott Abruzzo (Benjamin)

"When all else fails, redefine!"

.....If you want to learn about the publications from Pardon Me Is This
Seat Taken Productions, such as The Salad Bar and Short Order Authors,
All you have to do is say "What the hell are you talking about, Scott?".....

Marc Singer

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 3:34:29 PM10/31/94
to
In article <3939kn$c...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu>,
Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>Congratulations. Jesus is a superhero.

Appearance? Genre/Continuity? (Don't tell me he met the Buddha, they


accidentally fought each other, and then they teamed up to defeat
Ahriman. :-) ) And I don't even want to think what you'd consider the
separate identity...)

>>a continuity/shared system of stories in which most of the protagonists


>>fit the above criteria.
>> So Lobo may not be devoted to justice, Batman may not be able to
>>fly, but both are clearly part of superhero comics.
>> I think to use the "continuity clause," that you're a hero if you're
>>part of superhero continuity, you should have to fulfill at least some of
>>the criteria for being a superhero yourself.
>
>Swamp Thing, John Constantine, Dream, and Hellstorm are all superheroes by this
>definition, because of their shared continuity. Probably Conan too, since
>Conan is officially in continuity with the Marvel universe, though crossovers
>are obviously few (albeit not nonexistent).

Oddly enough, and I know many will disagree with me, I have no problem
with any of those being considered at least ancillary or fringe super-
heroes. Especially since that's the tradition they all started from,
except Conan.

Although a lot depends on how you interpret the criteria -- does Dream
have a devotion to Justice (this is the shmuck who let the Cuckoo go free)?
Does Swamp Thing have an alter ego, esp. after Moore?

>The definition should work better if you allowed for degree of emphasis on
>the superhero continuity. If it's there, it may or may not be emphasized
>enough to matter. This _will_ still start debates, but hopefully fewer
>ones.

I quite agree.

Marc

Marc Singer

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 9:00:40 PM10/31/94
to
In article <393oqi$j...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,

Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:
>
>Pre-crisis, in their own titles, they were. Andmy definition was
>expanded specifically to accomodate them when I was formulating it.
>Look at the Lois Lane series in Suiperman Family. That chAracter
>was a superhero.

I personally feel that she is not a superhero, simply because a) no
extraordinary identity, b) not really separated from society, c) no
remarkable abilities beyond those of her fellow citizens (although she
did have a remarkable personality & will). And I'm not so sure if her
devotion to justice above the law is all that strong -- especially not
in a world of folks like Batman.

I imagine that I just see "Superhero" as suggesting some qualities that
you don't, qualities which don't have much bearing on whether someone
would stop a mugger or not. I prefer a definition which includes these
other qualities.

>>It's supposed to be vague; you will never find one specific, non-vague
>>law that defines superheroes, at least not one that doesn't leave a *lot*
>>of borderline cases. But perhaps you can define superheroes through the
>>intersections of lots of vague guidelines.
>

>I disagree here. Definitions should be a precise and specific as possible.
> Vague references are weaknessses.

This isn't a precise field, and there will always be too many borderline
cases for a precise definition to work; precise borderlines would either
include too many or too few. IMO.

>>>Justice is vague.
>>
>>I prefer it to "good," simply because peoples' ideas of good will vary
>>even more than the ideas of "justice". However, if you really want to, you
>>can look at justice as punishing wrong *and* helping those in need.
>

>Is that your definition of justice? I'll have to think about that.
>An immediate problem I see is the vagueness of "wrong" and "need."

I think that if you take out justice, you have no way of defining a
superhero genre. Justice is even present, albeit wordlessly and unenumerated,
in your definition of stopping a mugging.

>>Personally, I can't either, but he is part of a superhero continuity, and
>>therefore would be discussed in a superhero group, rather than an alternative
>>comics group.
>

>But my definition denies that false dichotomy. Superhero
>doesn't necessarily preclude alternative, but usually does.

Well, I was just working on this definition from the assumption that it
would be used to determine whether a character is discussed in a "superhero"
or "alternative" group -- I know it's not *really* being used for that,
that was just my interest in this exercise.

>I wrote out law enforcement officers in the
>performanceof their duty because they aren't superheroes. That wasn't a
>dodge, it was an attempt at accuracy. Please explain why you feel Jimmy Olsen,
>pre-Crisisin his solo adventures was not a superhero?

The cops: I agree, they aren't superheroes, but *not* because they would
fail to stop a mugging, or would only do so through a sense of duty.
Batman only stops crime due to a sense of duty, it's just duty to Justice,
not Law. Besides, he has plenty of other superhero traits which the police
mostly lack.

Jimmy Olsen: When he was playing Elastic Lad or Flamebird, definitely a
superhero. But since these were just part-time roles, I think most of the
time he was just "a character in a superhero continuity." He did not
have extraordinary appearance or powers (except when playing superhero),
and I don't think he was all that devoted to Justice above Law, at least
not enough to qualify as a "Superhero," otherwise he would've been playing
superhero and drinking gingold 24/7. :-)

>>I'm sure Dirty Harry would, even after he retired as a cop, yet he's not
>>a superhero by any stretch. There, that's my opinion.
>

>I have already said that I feel Dirty Harry *is* a superhero. I want
>you to explain why he is not, please.

No special appearance or abilities (his movie-protagonist ability to not
get killed in any of his umpteen sequels notwithstanding) or separate
identity. Not part of an overall continuity, which rules out him even
being a character in the superhero genre (as opposed to Dan Turpin, who
is one). Although I'll grant he is devoted to justice above the law,
I doubt he's much more devoted than Harvey Bullock or Jim Gordon.

Marc

ObEnnead: I figured out a compromise on heroes' secondary sex traits
that I think you'll like. The main reason I object to it is that it's
a purely visual qualifier, and one whose standards will change a lot over
time (or even from artist to artist); it's judging a genre by its window
dressing. I'll bet that every Western ever made has a horse in it, too,
but I don't see the horse as a *defining characteristic* of the Western.

Anyway, what if you said that the superhero (as a general rule) is
portrayed as the perfect or ideal specimen of his/her sex? I don't know
if this is always true (Ben Grimm?), but it does seem to resonate more
deeply and have less to do with the surface trappings. Perhaps "the hero
is presented as having ideal qualities of his/her sex"? That includes
the Hulk and the Thing for their muscles, etc. without ruling them out
for their grotesquely twisted bodies...

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 10:52:30 PM10/31/94
to

In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:

>>expanded specifically to accomodate them when I was formulating it.
>>Look at the Lois Lane series in Suiperman Family. That chAracter
>>was a superhero.
>
>I personally feel that she is not a superhero, simply because a) no
>extraordinary identity, b) not really separated from society, c) no
>remarkable abilities beyond those of her fellow citizens (although she
>did have a remarkable personality & will). And I'm not so sure if her
>devotion to justice above the law is all that strong -- especially not
>in a world of folks like Batman.

She had detective skills most people can only dream of and was a
practioner of an alien martial art form. I didn't say anything
about devotion to justice, but this is where we go to your
definition. I don't mind justice, I just think it's so vague
as to be to inclusive.

>
>I imagine that I just see "Superhero" as suggesting some qualities that
>you don't, qualities which don't have much bearing on whether someone
>would stop a mugger or not. I prefer a definition which includes these
>other qualities.

Nolo contendere. I don't prefer such as definition.

>
>>>It's supposed to be vague; you will never find one specific, non-vague
>>>law that defines superheroes, at least not one that doesn't leave a *lot*
>>>of borderline cases. But perhaps you can define superheroes through the
>>>intersections of lots of vague guidelines.
>>
>>I disagree here. Definitions should be a precise and specific as possible.
>> Vague references are weaknessses.
>
>This isn't a precise field, and there will always be too many borderline
>cases for a precise definition to work; precise borderlines would either
>include too many or too few. IMO.

Obviously, I disagree.

>
>>>>Justice is vague.
>>>
>>>I prefer it to "good," simply because peoples' ideas of good will vary
>>>even more than the ideas of "justice". However, if you really want to, you
>>>can look at justice as punishing wrong *and* helping those in need.
>>
>>Is that your definition of justice? I'll have to think about that.
>>An immediate problem I see is the vagueness of "wrong" and "need."
>
>I think that if you take out justice, you have no way of defining a
>superhero genre. Justice is even present, albeit wordlessly and unenumerated,
>in your definition of stopping a mugging.

Perhaps it can be inferred, but my definition only describes an action.

>>performanceof their duty because they aren't superheroes. That wasn't a
>>dodge, it was an attempt at accuracy. Please explain why you feel Jimmy Olsen,
>>pre-Crisisin his solo adventures was not a superhero?
>
>The cops: I agree, they aren't superheroes, but *not* because they would
>fail to stop a mugging, or would only do so through a sense of duty.
>Batman only stops crime due to a sense of duty, it's just duty to Justice,
>not Law. Besides, he has plenty of other superhero traits which the police
>mostly lack.

Only through your definition. I feel this comes close to making
the issue a matter of opinion. Now, it could be argued that who is and is
not a superhero *is* a
matter of opinion, but I want a definitive description, myself. :)

>
>Jimmy Olsen: When he was playing Elastic Lad or Flamebird, definitely a
>superhero. But since these were just part-time roles, I think most of the
>time he was just "a character in a superhero continuity." He did not
>have extraordinary appearance or powers (except when playing superhero),
>and I don't think he was all that devoted to Justice above Law, at least
>not enough to qualify as a "Superhero," otherwise he would've been playing
>superhero and drinking gingold 24/7. :-)

No, but look at his adventures with the Newsboy Legion in Superman
Family.

>
>>>I'm sure Dirty Harry would, even after he retired as a cop, yet he's not
>>>a superhero by any stretch. There, that's my opinion.
>>
>>I have already said that I feel Dirty Harry *is* a superhero. I want
>>you to explain why he is not, please.
>
>No special appearance or abilities (his movie-protagonist ability to not
>get killed in any of his umpteen sequels notwithstanding) or separate
>identity. Not part of an overall continuity, which rules out him even
>being a character in the superhero genre (as opposed to Dan Turpin, who
>is one). Although I'll grant he is devoted to justice above the law,
>I doubt he's much more devoted than Harvey Bullock or Jim Gordon.
>

These assume your definition. I could just as easily say he is because he
would a mugging
and would do so even if suspended from the force. But the fact is that
Harry Callahan has extaordinary detecive and marksmanship skills. He
is able to psyche out his opponenets. He can win despite
enormous obstacles. He is almost the archetype of the
hard boiled, tough cop. That character is a superhero.
Pre-Crisis Bullock had a lot of solo adventures, and I would have been hard
pressed to describe him as other than a superhero.


"Homer, me and some of the ghouls were talking, and we don't feel the
project is moving along like we'd hoped."
"Can't murder now. Eating."
--
"*DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING?* I'LL TOUCH WHATEVER I FEEL LIKE! RAARRRGGHH!!!!!"


- Homer Simpson on the complexities of temporal causality and time travel

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 11:25:22 PM10/31/94
to
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>>Michael Chary's definition:
>>>>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>>>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>>>>officer.
>>>>
I commented:

>>I think you're onto something here, Michael, although your definition
>>above is too broad. A superhero acts directly, as an individual (or in
>
>How so? Who does it include who is not a superhero?
>
Pre-crisis Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White; Dick Turpin, Maggie
Sawyer, Alfred Pennyworth, Jarvis, Rick Jones. Those are not generally
considered superhero characters, and including them in your definition
will get you endless arguments. Anyway, you don't have to call these
characters superheroes to call their comics superhero comics: they
take place in a setting where the superhero premise is accepted -- a
super-identity goes with being an action hero. They are comics about
individuals acting directly, rather than as a member of society, against
whatever evil antagonist appears in front of them.

I haven't read pre-crisis Lois Lane, but did she have a super-identity?
Did she take on a different appearance when fighting bad guys? Did she
use a distinctive style and methods, like Batman, or just whatever
came to hand? If not, she wasn't a superhero. Does anybody besides
Michael agree that she was? (As opposed to being in a superhero setting.)

Katie, keeper of the Hawk & Dove flame
ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 11:45:46 PM10/31/94
to
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:
>>
>>[Lois and Jimmy] aren't superheroes. Do you think they would feel any more

>>compelled to stop a mugging than, say, a police officer?
>
>Pre-crisis, in their own titles, they were. Andmy definition was
>expanded specifically to accomodate them when I was formulating it.

A mistake, in my opinion. I prefer to say that Lois Lane is not a
superhero -- no costumed identity -- but her comic is a superhero
comic since she's an action hero in a superhero setting. That's what
seems intuitive to me; does anyone besides Michael not agree?

>Look at the Lois Lane series in Suiperman Family. That chAracter
>was a superhero.

Hard to get ahold of on short notice; is there an archive book I can
leaf through in the store?

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 12:28:00 AM11/1/94
to
Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
[In response to the definition cited by Marc Singer]

>Congratulations. Jesus is a superhero.

Ah, I thought it was time for Jesus to be brought up as an example.
This is why I think action and fighting have to be in the definition.
If you ask the proverbial man-in-the-street what a superhero is, I'd
say there's a 100% probability he'll mention fighting: a superhero
does good primarily by winning violent confrontations with antagonists
who are clearly intended to be in the wrong. (Doesn't have to do that
every panel, or even every issue, but it has to be obvious that it's
primary. If it's not obvious -- if the premise is questioned -- it
isn't mainstream.) This excludes Jesus, Buddha, the Pope and Schindler.

(This reminds me of a Saturday Night Live fake ad last year for
Philadelphia Action Figures, based on the hit movie. The AIDS
discrimination victim came with bazooka, his lawyer with flame
thrower, his lover drove the Philadelphia-mobile, etc. Loved it.)
>
[Marc's definition]


>>5. A character is part of the superhero genre/continuity if they inhabit
>>a continuity/shared system of stories in which most of the protagonists
>>fit the above criteria.
>

>Swamp Thing, John Constantine, Dream, and Hellstorm are all superheroes by this
>definition, because of their shared continuity. Probably Conan too, since
>Conan is officially in continuity with the Marvel universe, though crossovers
>are obviously few (albeit not nonexistent).
>
>The definition should work better if you allowed for degree of emphasis on
>the superhero continuity. If it's there, it may or may not be emphasized
>enough to matter. This _will_ still start debates, but hopefully fewer
>ones.

Good point. Swamp Thing and John Constantine are near superheroes.
(I measure nearness by the number of criteria they fulfill. Constantine
doesn't have an alter-identity, Swamp Thing [I guess -- not familiar
with him] doesn't fight much, but they fit all the other criteria.)
I don't know Hellstorm; is he like Constantine?

Dream is not a superhero, and the shared continuity is not used in a
way that makes him one. Sandman would have to be judged mainstream on
some other basis.

Conan [I guess -- not familiar] is an action hero, though not super,
and could be judged mainstream on that basis.

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 12:56:35 AM11/1/94
to
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>Basically, a mugging is a robbery
>which targets an individual rather than a group or structure.

Again, I think you're onto something, although your specification of
mugging is confusing, since we all recognize that Superman and Green
Lantern don't have a steady diet of muggings, muggings, muggings
although they do have a steady diet of fighting, fighting, fighting.

But you're describing the kind of evil that superheroes recognize:
there's a particular antagonist or crisis, the threat is immediate
and physical, particular individuals are in danger, and the primary
goal is to defeat the bad guy. They give lip service to safeguarding
innocent bystanders; winning the fight is what counts. Even in the
DC universe more children probably suffer from malnutrition and
diseases than from super-villains, but Superman doesn't devote
himself to that; it may cross his mind occasionally, but he doesn't
focus on it. That's the difference between superheroes and, say,
Jesus, or Schindler (who did not defeat the bad guy).

(Also, I think "rather than a structure" is a mistake: Superman
would stop vandalism, arson and bank robbery even if no individual
were in immediate danger.)

Katie, keeper of the Hawk & Dove flame

ka...@physics2.berkeley.edu

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 2:01:54 AM11/1/94
to
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:
>>3. The superhero is devoted to justice, even above the law.
>
>Justice is vague.
>
You can argue about whether a given superhero actually improves
the state of justice and goodness in the world (as Francis Uy
pointed out, there are a lot more efficient ways for Superman
to make the world a better place than by punching muggers). But
you can't argue about whether the writers of Superman intend the
readers to believe he is accomplishing good on the whole. (He
doesn't have to succeed 100%, but it is clear that he mainly
succeeds.) If it isn't obvious that the writer wants you to think
the character is a good person who makes the world better -- to be
on the character's side -- it's not a mainstream comic.

Katie
ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 2:09:02 AM11/1/94
to
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>[why pre-Crisis Lois Lane was a superhero in her own title]

>She had detective skills most people can only dream of and was a
>practioner of an alien martial art form. I didn't say anything
>about devotion to justice, but this is where we go to your
>definition. I don't mind justice, I just think it's so vague
>as to be to inclusive.

Okay, that makes her as much of a superhero as John Constantine.
I didn't know that stuff and was judging by post-Crisis Lois.
Mea culpa.

Katie
ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

michael kelly

unread,
Oct 31, 1994, 11:37:07 AM10/31/94
to

How do we define "mugging"?

--
+ Mike Kelly, Notre Dame Department of Physics mke...@ovid.helios.nd.edu +
+ +
+ Oh, and never mind the words, just hum along and keep on going. +
+ - Ian Anderson +

ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 10:02:33 AM11/1/94
to
The basic problem with the Superhero definition is that it
concentrates on the idea of characters who would stop a
mugging. This leads to the necessity of discussing different
characters motivations, and hence, arguments over the
definition.

I would propose a different definition that attempts to avoid
this problem.

A superhero comic is one in which beings with extraordinary
powers resolve conflicts (ususally the prevention of crime by
similarily powered beings) via violent conflict and where
this conflict is the main story of the book.

For example, Superman never tries to prevent crime by helping
to remove the major causes of crime, that is poverty, lack of
education etc. In fact the only crime he really fights against
is that perpetrated by supercriminals, very non typical crimes.


On the other hand Concrete is a story about a character with
amazing powers but the stories are only rarely concerned with
violent conflict and are obviously not superhero in origin. (I
would say that Concrete has more in common with stories like
Frankinstein, etc that with super hero comics)

Iain
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- DR A. - I HOPE WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY OF THIS -
- - 'FOUL FIEND' BUSINESS AGAIN. -
- (Iain A. Bertram) - (Death, Terry Pratchett) -
- BER...@FNALD0.FNAL.GOV - -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Galloway

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 1:00:11 PM11/1/94
to
In article <1994Oct27.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Detachable Glennis <lf...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Seriously, the weakness Tom addressed might be handled by replacing
>"would prevent" with "would feel compelled to prevent", and by placing
>"comic book" before character, for wise guys like Tom and I.

Nope. Still doesn't work. After all, I feel compelled to prevent such
when I see 'em, and I'm a comic book character (remember Admiral
Tom Y. Galloway from Star Trek #4?). So I still would count as a
superhero.

"No deep-space meteors crashing down on our heads...no radioactive spiders
infecting our bloodstreams...no blasts of cosmic energy mutating our cells...
at this rate we're *never* gonna be superheroes."
"O ye of little faith.." --Jason Fox and Marcus
tyg t...@hq.ileaf.com

Abhiji...@transarc.com

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 11:27:52 AM11/1/94
to

katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) writes:

> >>[Lois and Jimmy] aren't superheroes. Do you think they would feel any more
> >>compelled to stop a mugging than, say, a police officer?
> >
> >Pre-crisis, in their own titles, they were. Andmy definition was
> >expanded specifically to accomodate them when I was formulating it.
>
> A mistake, in my opinion. I prefer to say that Lois Lane is not a
> superhero -- no costumed identity -- but her comic is a superhero
> comic since she's an action hero in a superhero setting.

There are several occasions in the past where Lois has had super powers
temporarily (even one occasion where she calls herself Superwoman).
Ditto for Jimmy, who was even an LSH member. That alone makes them
superheroes.

> >Look at the Lois Lane series in Suiperman Family. That chAracter
> >was a superhero.
>
> Hard to get ahold of on short notice; is there an archive book I can
> leaf through in the store?

Nope. And you really don't want to read old issues of Superman family
Trust me :-).

Marc Singer

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 2:06:34 PM11/1/94
to
In article <ciham8SSM...@transarc.com>,
<Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:

>
>
>katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) writes:
>>
>> A mistake, in my opinion. I prefer to say that Lois Lane is not a
>> superhero -- no costumed identity -- but her comic is a superhero
>> comic since she's an action hero in a superhero setting.
>
>There are several occasions in the past where Lois has had super powers
>temporarily (even one occasion where she calls herself Superwoman).
>Ditto for Jimmy, who was even an LSH member. That alone makes them
>superheroes.

For those adventures, perhaps. I don't think they can be considered *in
general* to be superheroes, since those were only temporary aberrations.
If Jimmy really were a superhero all the time, he'd be Elastic Lad or
whoever on a permanent basis; instead, he's just a character in a superhero
setting (of that, there is no doubt), but that's different.

After all, Perry has been a superpowered crimefighter a few times; that
doesn't mean that he's generally been a superhero for the 50+ years of
his existence.

Marc

The Road to Elmoville

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 1:28:54 PM11/1/94
to
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
> Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>Look at the Lois Lane series in Suiperman Family. That chAracter
>>was a superhero.
>
> I personally feel that she is not a superhero, simply because a) no
> extraordinary identity, b) not really separated from society, c) no
> remarkable abilities beyond those of her fellow citizens

Well, she did know klurkor, Kryptonian karate.
--
"Heredity is the science whereby one learns that if your parents and
grandparents don't have kids, you probably won't either."
--A. B. Krisciunas

elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)

Abhiji...@transarc.com

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 12:32:30 PM11/1/94
to

ENN...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton) writes:

> OTHO, how many superhero titles can you think of that feature
> neither large-muscled men, large-breasted women or conflicts fought
> for the good of society?

I believe the phrase you used earlier was exaggerated secondary sexual
characterstics. Superhero comics without "Large-muscled men" and
"large-breasted women" ? Sure.

Almost all Golden Age superhero comics. The one real exception I can
think of is Hawkman, and that is mainly because the artist was copying
Alex Raymond. Look at the some of the other prominent Golden Age
artists : most heroes look like they're on a starvation diet.

Of the major Silver Age superhero artists : Kubert, Kane, Infantino
almost never used large muscled men or large breasted women. Kirby did
ONE really large breasted woman (Big Barda) in all of his work. Kirby
is traditionally associated with drawing muscular people, and that is
correct sometimes, but only sometimes. Many of his heroes : Mr. Miracle,
Reed Richards, Ant Man, Iron Man, the early X-men, even Captain America
(at times) aren't particularly well muscled. Some of his characters
such as Thor and many of the other Asgardians are well muscled, but
there are explanations for those. [ Not to mention that Kirby liked to
draw everyone, including supporting characters as being somewhat thick
set and well built.] Steve Ditko's Spider Man looked like he was
suffering from malnutrition.

The large majority of 70s comics (except for a few artists like Barry
Windsor Smith). The prime Superman artist throughout was Curt Swan, and
his Superman was hardly large muscled. Of the Batman artists, Marshal
Rogers used to draw slender people, mostly. Berni Wrightson would
occasionally draw overmuscled people, but that was mainly in horror
comics. Neal Adams is a bit iffy. I'd claim that he drew people who
were superbly physically conditioned rather than having exaggerated
physiques.

Most major 80s superhero comics artists : George Perez, John Byrne,
Frank Miller, Bill Siencwicz do not use abnormal physiques, although
there may be the occasional character who has such a physique. Its true
that the late 80s, early nineties have seen an upsurge of artists
who draw in this manner : McFarlane, Lee, Liefeld etc.

> read thousands), these traits are true for at least 95% percent of
> superhero comics; to deny an obvious observation by calling me
> "condecending" is avoiding the question, not answering it.

While its certainly been the case that most superhero characters in
comics have inhumanly flawless physiques and nearly perfect features,
the "large muscled men and large breasted women" syndrome
is of relatively recent vintage. I doubt very much that it holds for
even 95% of the superhero comics published today (more like 40-50 % :
most Image, the occasional DC, some Marvel, some other indy). And it
certainly has not been true for the vast majority of superhero comics
in the past. Its certainly not "obvious" to me.


Ken Arromdee

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 4:43:20 PM11/1/94
to
In article <1994Nov1...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov>,

<ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov> wrote:
>A superhero comic is one in which beings with extraordinary
>powers resolve conflicts (ususally the prevention of crime by
>similarily powered beings) via violent conflict and where
>this conflict is the main story of the book.

Okay, much mythology, and the Bible emphasize, would be superheroic if put in
comic form. So are Conan, comic adaptions of Star Wars or Alien vs. Preda-
tor, etc. Swamp Thing, John Constantine, and Hellstorm are still arguable.

Most problem cases with many different rules fall in just a few categories:
1) Non-superhero action-adventure. Conan, Star Wars, etc.
2) "More-realistic" treatment of characters from superhero universes. Hulk,
LSH, any villain-based book with a non-cardboard villain (Doom 2099), etc.
3) Supernaturally-based characters. Hellstorm, Swamp Thing, Spectre, etc.
Given the history of the medium, they also tend to fall under 2), but I think
emphasizing that factor may be missing the point.
4) Meta-fiction. Includes Watchmen, and parodies.

How about a definition which explicitly lists such classifications of problem
cases, and says whether or not to include them? It can't be much _worse_....

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 7:44:06 PM11/1/94
to

In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:

>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>>Michael Chary's definition:
>>>>>>A superhero is any character who, given the opportunity, would prevent
>>>>>>a mugging and who would not be doing so *because* he is a law enforcement
>>>>>>officer.

>>>I think you're onto something here, Michael, although your definition
>>>above is too broad. A superhero acts directly, as an individual (or in
>>How so? Who does it include who is not a superhero?
>>
>Pre-crisis Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White; Dick Turpin, Maggie
>Sawyer, Alfred Pennyworth, Jarvis, Rick Jones. Those are not generally
>considered superhero characters, and including them in your definition
>will get you endless arguments. Anyway, you don't have to call these

Lois Lane was a brilliant detective and a master of fighting.
Apart from putting a costume on, I don't see an
appreciable difference between her pre-Crisis version and Batgirl.

Jimmy Olsen used to hang out with the Newsboy Legion and Guardin in
some of his adventures. He was constantly acquiring powers (almost
a poor man's "Dial" H for Hero :)) Additionally, he had a signal
watch that was only slightly less effective than Johnny Thunder's
"Cei-U" mantra for calling a powerful friend. And he had a Legion flight
ring.

Perry White was a crusading reporter and editor, whoused to track
down, expose, and beat up criminals semi-religiously.

Jarvis has been known to beat up villains on occasion, and he has
foiled a supervillain plan more than once. (He also was a villain's
pawn once.) In any event, he is more of an Avenger than Moon-dragon.
(I expected people to argue that Jarvis would not stop a mugging given the
opportunity, actually.)

Dick Turpin and Maggie Sawyer are obvious superheroes given their
current title.

Alfred Pennyworth has impersonated Batman so many times, I'm surprised he
didn't get the cowl instead of Dick. He has run the computer on occasion.
He has faced supervillains in combat once or twice. I can see the
argument against him stopping a mugging actually, but I think he would.
The fact is that he is an integral part of the Batman team. And
without that team, Batman is just the Question with better fighting skills.

Rick Jones used to be Captain America's "Bucky."

>I haven't read pre-crisis Lois Lane, but did she have a super-identity?
>Did she take on a different appearance when fighting bad guys? Did she
>use a distinctive style and methods, like Batman, or just whatever
>came to hand? If not, she wasn't a superhero. Does anybody besides
>Michael agree that she was? (As opposed to being in a superhero setting.)

I have addressed Lois above and elsewhere, but let me say that I am trying
to keep this rather formalized. If everyone said they thought they
weren't superheroes, I would post to convince them otherwise. I wou;ld
not suddenly stop believing they were.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 7:53:18 PM11/1/94
to

In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:

>Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>[In response to the definition cited by Marc Singer]
>>Congratulations. Jesus is a superhero.
>
>Ah, I thought it was time for Jesus to be brought up as an example.
>This is why I think action and fighting have to be in the definition.
>If you ask the proverbial man-in-the-street what a superhero is, I'd
>say there's a 100% probability he'll mention fighting: a superhero
>does good primarily by winning violent confrontations with antagonists
>who are clearly intended to be in the wrong. (Doesn't have to do that
>every panel, or even every issue, but it has to be obvious that it's
>primary. If it's not obvious -- if the premise is questioned -- it
>isn't mainstream.) This excludes Jesus, Buddha, the Pope and Schindler.

Buddha is a historical figure, not a character.
Buddha isn't a superhero because he wouldn't step two feet out of his
way to avoid a pit. He was denying reality.

Jesus wasn't a character, and so is excluded from my definition.
(If you insist, e-mail me about it, because I ahve definite views on this
topic but I *refuse* to litter the news group with them.)
As for not fighting, I know several temple merchants who
would take issue with that.

(This wasn't technically in reaction to my definition
but I thought I had better address it.)

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 7:59:03 PM11/1/94
to

In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:

>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>Basically, a mugging is a robbery
>>which targets an individual rather than a group or structure.
>
>Again, I think you're onto something, although your specification of
>mugging is confusing, since we all recognize that Superman and Green
>Lantern don't have a steady diet of muggings, muggings, muggings
>although they do have a steady diet of fighting, fighting, fighting.

It doesn't matter. I haven't precluded other actions, just singles one
type out. Besides, more major stuff could be argued that
*everyone* is obligated to try to stop, and less stuff
is generally ignored.

>
>But you're describing the kind of evil that superheroes recognize:
>there's a particular antagonist or crisis, the threat is immediate
>and physical, particular individuals are in danger, and the primary
>goal is to defeat the bad guy. They give lip service to safeguarding
>innocent bystanders; winning the fight is what counts. Even in the
>DC universe more children probably suffer from malnutrition and
>diseases than from super-villains, but Superman doesn't devote
>himself to that; it may cross his mind occasionally, but he doesn't
>focus on it. That's the difference between superheroes and, say,
>Jesus, or Schindler (who did not defeat the bad guy).

Yes, I am describing that sort of action, and intentiopnally so.
I don't see where your objection is, if you have one ?


>
>(Also, I think "rather than a structure" is a mistake: Superman
>would stop vandalism, arson and bank robbery even if no individual
>were in immediate danger.)

Perhaps, but I was defining "mugging." It has a fairly well accepted
definitionand i can't change that.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 8:06:05 PM11/1/94
to

In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:

I don't know if the above is an objection I am meant to answer or not.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 8:09:32 PM11/1/94
to

In a previous article, ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov () says:

>The basic problem with the Superhero definition is that it
>concentrates on the idea of characters who would stop a
>mugging. This leads to the necessity of discussing different
>characters motivations, and hence, arguments over the
>definition.

I think this problem will be endemic to any definition which is
specific enough to be workable epistemologically.

>
>I would propose a different definition that attempts to avoid
>this problem.
>
>A superhero comic is one in which beings with extraordinary
>powers resolve conflicts (ususally the prevention of crime by
>similarily powered beings) via violent conflict and where
>this conflict is the main story of the book.

Okay, this obviously a different project than my own.
I think there are all kinds of superhero comics though.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 7:46:27 PM11/1/94
to

In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:

>Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>Pre-crisis, in their own titles, they were. Andmy definition was
>>expanded specifically to accomodate them when I was formulating it.
>
>A mistake, in my opinion. I prefer to say that Lois Lane is not a
>superhero -- no costumed identity -- but her comic is a superhero
>comic since she's an action hero in a superhero setting. That's what
>seems intuitive to me; does anyone besides Michael not agree?
>

I have addressed this elsewhere in the thread.

>>Look at the Lois Lane series in Suiperman Family. That chAracter
>>was a superhero.
>
>Hard to get ahold of on short notice; is there an archive book I can
>leaf through in the store?

My guess is you won't be able to find them, but I liked the series.
You'd have better luck getting hold of her own title.

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 8:36:21 PM11/1/94
to

In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:
>
>For those adventures, perhaps. I don't think they can be considered *in
>general* to be superheroes, since those were only temporary aberrations.
>If Jimmy really were a superhero all the time, he'd be Elastic Lad or
>whoever on a permanent basis; instead, he's just a character in a superhero
>setting (of that, there is no doubt), but that's different.
>
>After all, Perry has been a superpowered crimefighter a few times; that
>doesn't mean that he's generally been a superhero for the 50+ years of
>his existence.
>

I have already argued the case for Jimmy and Pery in response to Katie's
request.

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 2, 1994, 12:07:54 AM11/2/94
to
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>[ Gives evidence for why he thinks pre-Crisis Lois and Jimmy, Jarvis,
Alfred and Rick Jones are superheroes]

>>I have addressed Lois above and elsewhere, but let me say that I am trying
>to keep this rather formalized. If everyone said they thought they
>weren't superheroes, I would post to convince them otherwise. I wou;ld
>not suddenly stop believing they were.

Okay, what you believe is up to you. What I had in mind when I asked
"does anyone else consider them superheroes?" was that the reason you
put forth your definition in the first place was as an aid to deciding
which comics should be considered alternative -- but people who have
replied so far seem to find your definition confusing and unconvincing,
even though you remain convinced. If that's how most people react, then
the definition isn't much use in a charter, although it does spark
interesting academic discussions like the one we're having now.

Katie
ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 2, 1994, 2:13:21 AM11/2/94
to
<ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov> wrote:
>The basic problem with the Superhero definition is that it
>concentrates on the idea of characters who would stop a
>mugging. This leads to the necessity of discussing different
>characters motivations, and hence, arguments over the
>definition.

Exactly. Michael Chary says he is making such a definition in order
to have an exact test that is free of vagueness. Unfortunately,
what someone _would_ do can be vague, too. It's a hypothetical.
Would John Constantine stop a mugging? I don't know. I tend to think
not, but it's pretty debatable. Asking what someone _would_ do
won't stop all arguments.

>I would propose a different definition that attempts to avoid
>this problem.
>
>A superhero comic is one in which beings with extraordinary
>powers resolve conflicts (ususally the prevention of crime by
>similarily powered beings) via violent conflict and where
>this conflict is the main story of the book.

Now, some people are quick to object that a definition along
those lines is vague and ought not to contain the word "usually."
Tom Galloway, for instance. :-) But really, it's not the category
of superhero that needs to be as tight as possible, free from
significant gray areas -- it's the category of alternative, since
that's the one that's trying to get a group passed. I suggest that
a _mainstream_ superhero comic be defined as one that _obviously_
satisfies a definition similar to the one above, one where the
premise that this is natural and good is taken for granted.

The definition of alternative would then have to go on to specify
genres that are mainstream but not superheroes, such as action-
adventure (GI Joe) and fantasy-horror (Sandman).

There could also be superhero comics that are not mainstream
because they question the premise, Watchmen being the canonical
example.

Katie
ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

Charles M Seaton

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 10:46:47 AM11/1/94
to
ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov wrote:
[...]
: A superhero comic is one in which beings with extraordinary

: powers resolve conflicts (ususally the prevention of crime by
: similarily powered beings) via violent conflict and where
: this conflict is the main story of the book.

This is both too exclusive and too inclusive. It excludes Watchmen
(where the violent conflict is not the main story) and Zot! (ditto)
but includes The Lord of the Rings and a few hundred other fantasy
and sci-fi novels.

Yours,
--Ennead

Jol Silversmith

unread,
Nov 2, 1994, 7:31:52 AM11/2/94
to
In article <396q5h$8...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,

Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>>> Hard to get ahold of on short notice; is there an archive book I can
>>> leaf through in the store?
>>
>>Nope. And you really don't want to read old issues of Superman family
>>Trust me :-).
>
>Hey, I liked that title.
>:)

I'll second that. Back when being a "Dollar Comic" really meant
something, when Supergirl was Kara, and DC could publish Krypto
stories with a straight face... :-)

--
Jolyon "Jol" Silversmith ______________________________ jsil...@nyx.cs.du.edu
___ [Also try silv...@vax.lse.ac.uk or jol.sil...@launchpad.unc.edu] ___
____________ I have a firm grip on reality. Now I can strangle it. ___________

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 8:30:05 PM11/1/94
to

In a previous article, t...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Tom Galloway) says:

>In article <1994Oct27.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>Detachable Glennis <lf...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>Seriously, the weakness Tom addressed might be handled by replacing
>>"would prevent" with "would feel compelled to prevent", and by placing
>>"comic book" before character, for wise guys like Tom and I.
>
>Nope. Still doesn't work. After all, I feel compelled to prevent such
>when I see 'em, and I'm a comic book character (remember Admiral
>Tom Y. Galloway from Star Trek #4?). So I still would count as a
>superhero.
>

I hate to break this to you, Tom, but you aren't a character.
A character was named after you. There is a difference. The definition
quite specifically says "character."

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 1, 1994, 8:31:29 PM11/1/94
to

In a previous article, Abhiji...@transarc.com () says:

>katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) writes:
>> >Look at the Lois Lane series in Suiperman Family. That chAracter
>> >was a superhero.
>>
>> Hard to get ahold of on short notice; is there an archive book I can
>> leaf through in the store?
>
>Nope. And you really don't want to read old issues of Superman family
>Trust me :-).

Hey, I liked that title.
:)

Jeff Epstein

unread,
Nov 2, 1994, 8:54:23 AM11/2/94
to
In article <3980ro$r...@nyx.cs.du.edu>, jsil...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jol Silversmith) writes:
|> In article <396q5h$8...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
|> Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
|> >
|> >>> Hard to get ahold of on short notice; is there an archive book I can
|> >>> leaf through in the store?
|> >>
|> >>Nope. And you really don't want to read old issues of Superman family
|> >>Trust me :-).
|> >
|> >Hey, I liked that title.
|> >:)
|>
|> I'll second that. Back when being a "Dollar Comic" really meant
|> something, when Supergirl was Kara, and DC could publish Krypto
|> stories with a straight face... :-)
|>
|> --
I'll third that. I've still got a lot of those issues and they're fun to read.
Who was it who said " The Golden Age of comics is whenever you started to
read them." ? Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen, Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane,
these are fun stories. Who misses Kandor, and Nightwing & Flamebird ?
How about the "real" Superboy, Kal-El , and his basement laboratory, and
Krypto ? Simplistic perhaps, but enjoyable.

Jeff

Black As Your Glenn

unread,
Nov 2, 1994, 3:16:26 PM11/2/94
to
In article <397ssv$j...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>
>In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:
>
>>Okay, what you believe is up to you. What I had in mind when I asked
>>"does anyone else consider them superheroes?" was that the reason you
>>put forth your definition in the first place was as an aid to deciding
>>which comics should be considered alternative -- but people who have
>>replied so far seem to find your definition confusing and unconvincing,
>>even though you remain convinced. If that's how most people react, then
>>the definition isn't much use in a charter, although it does spark
>>interesting academic discussions like the one we're having now.
>
>"Superhero" as in the one-liner, but I thought it had been eliminated from
>the language of
>the charter?

Yeah, "non-superhero" got deleted from the one-liner. We didn't take
out "comics" yet. :-) Superhero comics are only referred to in the
charter as being one of the most common mainstream genres now. The
RACA proponents (which includes Mike :-) decided against going with
any particular definition for superhero, and just stick with
delineating mainstream and alternative. But we did use Mike's as a
test, since it didn't seem to knock out any non-superhero comic books
we could come up with at the time. As Mike says, superhero/
alternative is a false dichotomy.

Pax ex machina,
Glenn
............................................................
"Are you looking for the motherlode?
No, my child, this is not my desire. I'm diggin' for fire."
--- the Pixies
g-car...@uchicago.edu, if you must know
<A HREF="http://www.digimark.net/wraith/">Phone Homey the Page!</A>
......................................................................

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 2, 1994, 1:17:57 AM11/2/94
to
Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>Most problem cases with many different rules fall in just a few categories:
>1) Non-superhero action-adventure. Conan, Star Wars, etc.
>2) "More-realistic" treatment of characters from superhero universes. Hulk,
>LSH, any villain-based book with a non-cardboard villain (Doom 2099), etc.
>3) Supernaturally-based characters. Hellstorm, Swamp Thing, Spectre, etc.
>Given the history of the medium, they also tend to fall under 2), but I think
>emphasizing that factor may be missing the point.
>4) Meta-fiction. Includes Watchmen, and parodies.
>
>How about a definition which explicitly lists such classifications of problem
>cases, and says whether or not to include them? It can't be much _worse_....

Yes! Exactly what I think an alternative charter should do: define
superhero so as to cover the obvious ones, then go on to say "the following
are mainstream, although not clear-cut superheroes..." (I'd say 1-3 would
not be wanted in the alternative group, but 4 would be acceptable.)

I assume "supernaturally-based" includes Sandman and Hellblazer, right?

Katie
ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 2, 1994, 6:24:15 AM11/2/94
to

In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:

"Superhero" as in the one-liner, but I thought it had been eliminated from


the language of
the charter?

>
>Katie
>ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

Michael A. Chary

unread,
Nov 2, 1994, 4:46:23 PM11/2/94
to

In a previous article, lf...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Black As Your Glenn) says:

>In article <397ssv$j...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>>"Superhero" as in the one-liner, but I thought it had been eliminated from
>>the language of
>>the charter?
>
>Yeah, "non-superhero" got deleted from the one-liner. We didn't take
>out "comics" yet. :-) Superhero comics are only referred to in the
>charter as being one of the most common mainstream genres now. The
>RACA proponents (which includes Mike :-) decided against going with
>any particular definition for superhero, and just stick with
>delineating mainstream and alternative. But we did use Mike's as a
>test, since it didn't seem to knock out any non-superhero comic books
>we could come up with at the time. As Mike says, superhero/
>alternative is a false dichotomy.

Well, I still think my definition works, but Glenn has given me permission
to stop defending it, so that's what I am gonna do :) It's been a week,
I have made all my points. I have said what I think the issues are
and anyone who wants to judge my definition on that basis can
do it without my help. (Or even outside that basis for that manner.)
If anyone really wants my opinion, for some reason (though God only knows
why anyone would), I suppose I'll post responses later on in the week (I am
kind of tired at this point. :)) Anyway, I just thought I should post
something to officially get off the case so to speak.

ber...@d0ssc1.fnal.gov

unread,
Nov 2, 1994, 6:31:19 PM11/2/94
to
In article ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>
>
> Well, I still think my definition works, but Glenn has given me permission
> to stop defending it, so that's what I am gonna do :) It's been a week,
> I have made all my points. I have said what I think the issues are
> and anyone who wants to judge my definition on that basis can
> do it without my help.

You can stop defending it.

I don't really care about the definition as I will be ignoring it as
unworkable. I can still tell a superhero comic at a mile without a definition
and any definition would need to be pages long to fully describe mainstream
superheroes without dragging in a multitude of other genres.

Iain
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- DR A. - "Are you a physicist?" -
- - "Me? I don't know anything about science!" -
- (Iain A. Bertram) - "Marvellous! Ideal qualification!" -
- BER...@FNALD0.FNAL.GOV - -- (Terry Pratchett) -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Bernstein

unread,
Nov 3, 1994, 1:33:30 PM11/3/94
to
Jeff Epstein (exu...@exuexu.ericsson.se) wrote:
: Who was it who said " The Golden Age of comics is whenever you started to
: read them." ?

I don't know, but it sounds to me like a rephrase of a statement by Isaac
Asimov (I think) that the Golden Age of science fiction is twelve.

--
Mark Bernstein
ma...@cimage.com

Nick Eden

unread,
Nov 5, 1994, 4:20:12 AM11/5/94
to
> I'll second that. Back when being a "Dollar Comic" really meant >
something, when Supergirl was Kara, and DC could publish Krypto
> stories with a straight face... :-)

Back when being a "Dollar Comic" mant something Action Maxx was the
formost character. What does that have to do with the way Detective
Comics Comics was treating the Superman?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would have happened of (a) Bouadicea had been the daughter of Edward
the Confessor? (b) Canute had suceeded in sitting on the waves?
Does it matter?

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 1:36:24 AM11/7/94
to
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:

[Presumably, superhero definitions should not classify Jesus as a


superhero.]
>>Ah, I thought it was time for Jesus to be brought up as an example.
>>This is why I think action and fighting have to be in the definition.
>

>Jesus wasn't a character, and so is excluded from my definition.

This seems like an awfully artificial distinction to me. What if
there's a comic book based on the Bible and Jesus is a character
in it? I think Jesus would stop a mugging.

I think Michael meant that characters are fictional; to avoid issues
like whether Jesus is fiction, Michael could require that the story
be intended as fiction by the author to be in the superhero genre.
But I think it's more natural to put the extraordinary, incredible
and fantastic characteristics in the definition, so that a
non-fiction superhero is simply a contradiction in terms.

(Reading this over, I thought it might draw the reply "but Jesus
is extraordinary, incredible and fantastic." Exactly: Jesus is not
excluded by the first part of my definition -- the super-identity
-- but by the second part -- the primary focus on defeating enemies
in violent conflicts. As far as I can tell Jesus is only excluded
from Michael's mugging definition by being "not a character.")

Katie (hope I'm not being too pedantic here... Jesus is a classic
test case for any superhero definition, so I thought it was worth
attention)
ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 1:49:11 AM11/7/94
to
Detachable Glennis <lf...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>[in defense of Michael Chary's mugging definition of superhero]
>No, it's the "if possible" part that's critical, Iain. It is the
>superheroes' unrelenting compulsion to stop assault, regardless of any
>danger, that makes the superheroes out of spandex still superheroes.
>In other words, a quality more fundamental than the spandex to the
>interpretation of these characters as superheroes, that's possibly
>universal. It therefore makes an adequate test to characters only
>slightly out of the standard paradigm, IMO. Books with characters
>like that, will of necessity belong to the mainstream, it's not even
>necessary to retain the "super" portion of the term, really. Just to
>recognize that they belong to the standard mainstream tradition of
>comic books.

Makes sense to me. Any book with characters satisfying Michael's
definition is certainly mainstream, and that includes action heroes
and vigilantes besides the costumed ones that we normally think of
as superheroes. Michael's definition caused confusion because he
omitted the spandex part and thus included more than the usual
usage of superhero. I'd restate Glenn's second sentence above as
"It is the unrelenting compulsion to stop assault ... that makes
the heroes out of spandex still mainstream."

>[snip]
>Well, Schindler is not a comic book character, obviously, but if he
>were, the charter specificly includes all non-fiction. I hope we can
>agree that all superheroes are fictional. :-)

I'm not happy with this, because you can have mainstream non-fiction.
Marvel published The Life of Pope John Paul II, didn't they?

Katie
ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

Katie Schwarz

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 2:16:11 AM11/7/94
to
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) says:
>>
>>But you're describing the kind of evil that superheroes recognize:
>>there's a particular antagonist or crisis, the threat is immediate
>>and physical, particular individuals are in danger, and the primary
>>goal is to defeat the bad guy. They give lip service to safeguarding
>>innocent bystanders; winning the fight is what counts. Even in the
>>DC universe more children probably suffer from malnutrition and
>>diseases than from super-villains, but Superman doesn't devote
>>himself to that; it may cross his mind occasionally, but he doesn't
>>focus on it. That's the difference between superheroes and, say,
>>Jesus, or Schindler (who did not defeat the bad guy).
>
>Yes, I am describing that sort of action, and intentiopnally so.
>I don't see where your objection is, if you have one ?
>>
Hmm, I guess this is the distinction that Mystic Mongoose drew
between "defining" and "testing" (H+ concentration defines, litmus
paper tests). I was trying to abstract the common characteristics
of the superhero genre; you were trying to ask a specific concrete
question to get a yes or no answer. Both definitions have their
place, but in this case giving ONLY the test is confusing, because
you can't hook up a machine to get an objective answer; you can
only interpret the text, and as long as you're interpreting, the
abstract characteristics are more generally recognizable.

A good definition for an "alternative" charter might go something
like, "A mainstream superhero comic is one where blah, blah,
blah (abstract characteristics). If you're not sure whether it's
mainstream, ask yourself: would the hero be compelled to stop
any mugging they encounter by intervening on their own rather
than calling the police? If so, it's mainstream."

Katie
ka...@physics.berkeley.edu

Ken Small

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 9:39:29 AM11/7/94
to
In article <39lc3n$h...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>,
Tom Galloway <t...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <39kht8$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>,

>Katie Schwarz <katie@physics2> wrote:
>>>Jesus wasn't a character, and so is excluded from my definition.
>>This seems like an awfully artificial distinction to me. What if
>>there's a comic book based on the Bible and Jesus is a character in it?

>Son'O'God Comics in National Lampoon by Neal Adams anyone?

He's definately a superhero there.

--
Ken Small kens...@mcs.com
"I used to get A's is psychology class, but it didn't make my life okay."
-- Loud Family

Copenglennen

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 1:20:58 AM11/8/94
to
In article <39kil7$5...@agate.berkeley.edu> katie@physics2 (Katie Schwarz) writes:
>Makes sense to me. Any book with characters satisfying Michael's
>definition is certainly mainstream, and that includes action heroes
>and vigilantes besides the costumed ones that we normally think of
>as superheroes. Michael's definition caused confusion because he
>omitted the spandex part and thus included more than the usual
>usage of superhero. I'd restate Glenn's second sentence above as
>"It is the unrelenting compulsion to stop assault ... that makes
>the heroes out of spandex still mainstream."

Yes, I'd probably have to give you that. For instance, Mickey Mouse
and Roy Rogers would both probably share the same compulsion. Not to
mention Lassie. :-)

Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................
"Continuity wasn't "in bad shape." It was Chernobyl."
--- Mark Waid
"Sideburns! Bah! I wouldn't wish them on a monkey!"
--- Dorkin
g-car...@uchicago.edu, http://www.digimark.net/wraith/
......................................................................

Tom Galloway

unread,
Nov 7, 1994, 9:03:35 AM11/7/94
to
In article <39kht8$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Katie Schwarz <katie@physics2> wrote:
>>Jesus wasn't a character, and so is excluded from my definition.
>This seems like an awfully artificial distinction to me. What if
>there's a comic book based on the Bible and Jesus is a character in it?

Son'O'God Comics in National Lampoon by Neal Adams anyone?

"`I must carry this burden myself!' said Jesus crossly." --Thant Tessman
tyg t...@hq.ileaf.com

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages