Is Daredevil Closer to a "costumed hero" or a "superhero"

[Silvercrest]

Like I said, I'm not trying to make something up. I'm trying to draw a chalk line around characters that are already perceived as superheroes to figure out what we mean by that term.

But I don't think it's something where you can draw a line. It's not a sharp border, it's more of a fuzzy transition. Where would you define the border of a cloud?

Oh, you can do it if you deliberately draw the line far enough outside the fuzzy area of the cloud. But then you risk including other things that aren't part of it and calling them "cloud" anyway.

Which means that you get a lot of crap mixed in with the good results. As is likely to happen if I keep drawing my lines that way.

As to the gun thing: I can't name anyone who is unambiguously superheroic and still depends on the use of guns. Who have you got in mind?

I already mentioned RoboCop, a character who was deliberately created as a comics-style superhero, and who was treated as such to an extent in the live-action TV series. Captain America has used guns on occasion, and nobody would dispute that he's a superhero.

Well, Cap gets a bye under my item #4, as he certainly isn't dependent on firearms, whether he carries them or not.

Conversely, I would tend to reject Robocop as a superhero due to the second part of #2. He has a strong code of ethics (or programming anyway ... close enough ) — but it sure doesn't limit his use of overt violence.

You might make a case as to whether my rules are usable at all, but I did write them with some pretty specific language with the intent to allow more standard heroes and disqualify superviolent characters. Unfortunately, if those four items can be interpreted to include Robocop, then they could also be made to include the Punisher ... and nobody would dispute that he's not a superhero.

I hope.


Maybe the only place you can apply my kind of formula is to stj's kind of examples ... not across the board. Would you at least agree that those rules help distinguish between superheroes, pulp heroes, and so on?

 

[Christopher]

As I've said, I think it's a mistake to treat labels as something exclusionistic, as a way of building walls between things. Categories always overlap. And labels do not define what things are or bring understanding of them. Usually an overdependence on labels keeps you from truly understanding a thing, because you're glossing over its unique attributes in favor of a fictitious pretense of uniformity. So no, I don't think rules for defining labels are helpful. I think they get in the way.

RoboCop is not a superhero because of some arbitrary set of imaginary dividing lines or categories existing externally to the character himself. He's a superhero because his creators saw him as a superhero, because he was deliberately created as an homage to superhero comics. It's a function of the intent behind the creation of the individual character.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Once one appreciates the difference between descriptive and prescriptive linguistics, it becomes fairly clear that a set of rules can't be formulated to box in literary conventions. Artists in general have a way of going against the conventional.

From the article on linguistic prescription:

Prescriptive approaches to language, concerned with how the prescriptivist recommends language should be used, are often contrasted with the alternative approach of descriptive linguistics, which observes and records how language actually is used.

The situation here on topic is entirely analogous. We can describe all we want what the various attributes of superheroes have been. But even if we can get that all nailed down, which is a big if, sooner or later a new character will be created that breaks the mold, and thereby shows that the pattern of attributes doesn't generalize the way it appeared to.

 

[stj]

^^^Quite mistaken I'm afraid. Christopher is not arguing against prescriptive linguistics, even if he thinks so. He's arguing against descriptive linguistics. His "idea" is that we know it when we see it. Since this thread proves we don't, this is manifest nonsense.

One of the most effective rhetorical devices for misleading people is falsely framing a question. The categorical rejection of generalizations, such as descriptive definitions, decontextualizes everything. As such, it is merely one of the most perfidious forms of false framing.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^^^Quite mistaken I'm afraid. Christopher is not arguing against prescriptive linguistics, even if he thinks so. He's arguing against descriptive linguistics. His "idea" is that we know it when we see it. Since this thread proves we don't, this is manifest nonsense.

One of the most effective rhetorical devices for misleading people is falsely framing a question. The categorical rejection of generalizations, such as descriptive definitions, decontextualizes everything. As such, it is merely one of the most perfidious forms of false framing.

No.

 

[Harvey]

I strongly dispute #1. The genre originated in comics, but that doesn't mean every superhero character originated in comics. There are a lot of superheroes that originated in film or television: RoboCop, the Incredibles, Captain Nice, Isis, Ralph Hinkley (The Greatest American Hero), Underdog, Darkwing Duck, Ben 10, etc. And these days there are quite a few superheroes original to prose fiction, such as the Green Blaze and her fellow Troubleshooters from my own Only Superhuman.

The title character in Hancock comes to mind as another superhero that didn't originate in comic books.

 

[Christopher]

All I'm saying is that labels can't be taken too seriously, and that they shouldn't be defined in exclusionistic terms. They have their uses, but they should be used with an understanding of their limitations. "Superhero" is a label that describes a broad and diverse category, and is useful in that sense, but it's not something where you can define a universal set of parameters that will allow a clear inclusion/exclusion for every given character. As someone said above, genre categories are a lot blurrier and messier than that. There's always a continuum between the different types, works that blend more than one genre or characters that blend more than one category. The superhero genre itself has become a mashup of multiple other genres, from crime drama to science fiction to fantasy to supernatural horror to military drama to absurdist comedy to who knows what else. And that's why it's a mistake to try to define "superhero" as just one clear set of parameters. Originally it just meant "a hero like Superman." But it's broadened and diversified a great deal since then. It's more inclusive than exclusive.

Heck, even Disney's Kim Possible is described by Wikipedia as a superhero, even though she's just a teenage girl with no superpowers and no costume. (She has a standard outfit for missions, but it's just clothing.) The characterization, I think, is more about the kind of adventures she has than the kind of attributes she has. She's a hero who takes on supervillains and superscience threats and saves the world on a regular basis.

So perhaps what defines superheroes is the level on which they operate and the degree of effectiveness they have. A superhero is someone who faces and defeats extraordinary threats as a matter of course, generally through unconventional means, and generally singlehandedly or with the support of a small number of assistants. So they're heroes operating at a higher level of danger and adventure or with a higher degree of individual effectiveness. This is usually the result of superhuman powers or of improbably exaggerated skills and frequently entails the adoption of a distinctive name and appearance, often to conceal a secret identity but sometimes merely as a symbol or public persona. But the most fundamental attribute is that they are in some way elevated above the level of an ordinary hero, thus "super" + "hero."

Of course, even this isn't a perfect definition, since it could arguably encompass James Bond and Indiana Jones. Indeed, some would argue that they both qualify. I'd say they're on the borderline, in that fuzzy, cloudy liminal region where it could go either way.

 

[JD]

Could be better to go by the type of stories told about a character, rather than that character's attributes?

 

[Christopher]

Could be better to go by the type of stories told about a character, rather than that character's attributes?

To an extent, yes. But no general definition is going to work in every case. Any sufficiently broad definition is going to produce a lot of false positives, and any sufficiently detailed definition will produce a lot of false negatives.

 

[Silvercrest]

True. The former is exemplified by my flawed solution of how you draw a line around a cloud, and the latter is exemplified by limiting super-heroes to comic books.

Still, the definition in your previous post is basically what I had in mind when I wrote my 5 (now 4) rules. Mine just had tighter parameters to attempt to weed out the fuzzy characters. Under those, Kim probably is a superhero (though I don't know the character that well). Indy and Bond are disqualified due to #2: lack of restrictions on violence ("licence to kill", anyone?) — and due to #4: heavy dependence on firearms. Also, #3 for Bond: it's arguable as to whether he's altruistically driven. "Queen and country" doesn't quite fit the bill.

I won't keep trying to defend my rules, as they're apparently based on too narrow a set of conditions. I also won't keep trying to amend them to make them "perfect". But I'd be interested in any more examples of confirmed superheroes (other than Robocop) who don't meet them. I thought they covered the genre fairly well; I'd like to see examples of where they fail.

 

[Christopher]

Well, you'd find a lot of dissent on the question of superhero violence. In the '90s in particular there was quite a trend toward violent superheroes; Wolverine became more of an unrestrained killer, Venom became an antihero, Spawn was created, and there was a whole wave of hardcore, violent superheroes with big guns. And some of that still lingers today. Two of Marvel's most popular characters, Wolverine and Deadpool, are career killers with very high body counts. And in the movies, a lot of superheroes are killers. The Marvel Cinematic Universe heroes are pretty much all killers. And Zack Snyder and David Goyer felt that even Superman had to try killing at least once before he could decide he didn't like it, as if basic decency and morality weren't enough of a reason not to do it.

Personally, I think a commitment to preserving lives is fundamental to superheroism; I think superheroes should be seen more as rescuers than warriors. But a lot of fans -- and creators -- disagree.

 

[Silvercrest]

Yeah, and come to think of it: If preservation of life is a criterion, then comics Daredevil is a superhero and movie Daredevil certainly isn't!

That's certainly not limited to DD, but it answers the OP's question, if not in the way it was intended.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, and come to think of it: If preservation of life is a criterion, then comics Daredevil is a superhero and movie Daredevil certainly isn't!

Well, actually, that depends on what part of the movie you mean. He starts out as a killer, but the story of the film is about his journey from being a lethal vigilante to a nobler, more ethical kind of hero. So he is a true superhero by the end of the movie, when he's decided there's a better way than blood vengeance. Sort of the same arc as Oliver Queen on Arrow.

I think the problem is that the idea of heroes who don't kill is far less a part of the motion picture vocabulary than of the comics vocabulary, and so movie heroes need to be given reasons for choosing not to kill. There's also the structural difference; an ongoing serial works better with nonlethal protagonists since it allows you to bring back recurring villains, but a movie calls for a more decisive conclusion.

 

[Silvercrest]

I realized I'm guilty of lingering prejudice. The bloodthirsty Daredevil who kept repeating, "I'm the good guy... I'm the good guy..." was very offputting when I first saw it. (Yeah, Matt, you keep telling yourself that... no one else will.) It's the first thing I always envision about that movie, even though I know he grows out of it.

Guess I was just looking for a callback to the OP. ("Appropriate"? What's that?)

I haven't taken the time to see Arrow yet, even though it sounds good. One of these years, perhaps.

 

[stj]

No.

At least you had enough sense to avoid trying to give any reasons. "You know it when you see it" is against description. And "a moral code" is blatantly prescriptivist.

Anyone who is interested in a descriptive definition is interested in why some characters are labeled superheroes while other characters who do much the same thing are not. Why isn't Marshall Thompson in World of Giants cited as an early example of noncostumed superhero created for TV? Why is it that no one every called Indiana Jones a superhero? Why is it that Black Canary is a superhero but Emma Peel isn't? (Don't try to tell me that Emma Peel didn't wear a costume.) Why aren't Kill Bill or Sucker Punch labeled superhero movies?

A descriptive definition does not have to be unfailing to be a good definition. I repeat, people who want to claim that a single exception falsifies a generalization are irrationalists. I have found they usually "think" that if they contrive a "gotcha," (usually imaginary by the way,) they have somehow supported their position. A generalization and a law of nature are not the same thing, and it's crazy to pretend they are.

Silvercrest's #1, an origin in the comics, for instance, works tolerably well if you simply realize that comics and animation are both cartoons. Drawing a tight distinction is obstructive pettifogging. If you realize that including things meant to ridicule superheroes along with things sincerely (not incompatible with a light hearted approach, you should know) using them, it works fairly well. If you're discussing the expression of personality in portraiture, citing caricature takes some justification. Captain Nice indeed!

Using a little common sense, you should realize, means that the exceptions are breaking down to, let's see, Isis, maybe Greatest American Hero, Hancock, Ben 10 and Robocop. For seventy years of television and over a century of movies, that's not much of a haul.

As for the allegation that there are lots of superheroes originating in novels, are there? There are a couple of theme anthologies. There's one where the superheroes all die young because of using their powers; Austin Grossman's Soon I Will Be Invincible; a recent one about some young woman who was the child of superheroes; Perry Moore's YA; Only Superhuman; John Ridley's Those Who Walk in Darkness and its sequel.

And that's throwing in stuff about supervillains, and parodies, which is really too indiscriminate to be worth much.

One thing about emphasizing the comics origin is that it highlights how close the Punisher is to superhero status. It may violate prescriptive desires to disallow the uncomfortable implications about the audience, but it does describe usage better. Another thing is that it highlights how some live action verges on cartoons. Yet another thing is that it highlights a secular trend away from words.

An imperfect definition that serves to advance thinking is vastly preferable to a dogmatic and sterile insistence that only perfect definitions are valid. That nonsense only serves to stifle thinking.

 

[Harvey]

Using a little common sense, you should realize, means that the exceptions are breaking down to, let's see, Isis, maybe Greatest American Hero, Hancock, Ben 10 and Robocop. For seventy years of television and over a century of movies, that's not much of a haul.

It's not that surprising to me. Hollywood is incredibly risk-adverse. Why spend hundreds of millions on an original superhero idea when there are hundreds of pre-sold superheroes from a century of superhero comic books out there?

Having said that, haven't some adaptations introduced characters that didn't originate in the comics? I'm thinking of Harley Quinn from Batman: The Animated Series, but there must be a few examples of superheroes in the same vein, no?

It certainly seems like superheroes original to the screen have been more prevalent in comedies than dramas. Not only Hancock, but also My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Specials, The Incredibles, Sky High, The Meteor Man, etc.

 

[Christopher]

Having said that, haven't some adaptations introduced characters that didn't originate in the comics? I'm thinking of Harley Quinn from Batman: The Animated Series, but there must be a few examples of superheroes in the same vein, no?

It's generally supporting characters or villains created in screen adaptations that have been added to the comics: Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, Hot Dog from The Archies, Harley Quinn, Renee Montoya, Lock-Up, Mercy Graves, Livewire, Chloe Sullivan. (And arguably Mr. Freeze. He was called Mr. Zero in the comics prior to his renaming in the '66 sitcom, and his modern personality/backstory was created for Batman: The Animated Series.) However, Montoya, who started out as a cop, has gone on to become the superhero The Question. And Isis, who was created for television, was briefly added to the DC comics universe, though she didn't last long. And the version of Aqualad created for Young Justice inspired the creation of a similar character for the comics, although the difference in production times meant he appeared in comics first.

You could consider Batgirl a borderline case, since the producers of the TV series asked the comics people to create her so she could be added to the show. So she's something of a joint creation.

 

[JD]

As for the allegation that there are lots of superheroes originating in novels, are there? There are a couple of theme anthologies. There's one where the superheroes all die young because of using their powers; Austin Grossman's Soon I Will Be Invincible; a recent one about some young woman who was the child of superheroes; Perry Moore's YA; Only Superhuman; John Ridley's Those Who Walk in Darkness and its sequel.

Are the characters in George R.R. Martin's Wild Cards shared universe stories considered superheros? I haven't read the books, but I'm pretty sure I've seen them called superhero stories.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As for the allegation that there are lots of superheroes originating in novels, are there? There are a couple of theme anthologies. There's one where the superheroes all die young because of using their powers; Austin Grossman's Soon I Will Be Invincible; a recent one about some young woman who was the child of superheroes; Perry Moore's YA; Only Superhuman; John Ridley's Those Who Walk in Darkness and its sequel.

Are the characters in George R.R. Martin's Wild Cards shared universe stories considered superheros? I haven't read the books, but I'm pretty sure I've seen them called superhero stories.

Yes, it's a play on the Super heroes in the real world concept.

 

[Christopher]

As for the allegation that there are lots of superheroes originating in novels, are there? There are a couple of theme anthologies. There's one where the superheroes all die young because of using their powers; Austin Grossman's Soon I Will Be Invincible; a recent one about some young woman who was the child of superheroes; Perry Moore's YA; Only Superhuman; John Ridley's Those Who Walk in Darkness and its sequel.

Are the characters in George R.R. Martin's Wild Cards shared universe stories considered superheros? I haven't read the books, but I'm pretty sure I've seen them called superhero stories.

Actually superhero prose fiction is quite the fad lately. When I wrote Only Superhuman years ago, I thought it would be the superhero elements that would make it stand out from the crowd of transhumanist SF novels; but by the time I got it published, it was the hard-SF elements that made it stand out from the crowd of superhero novels.

Here's a blog devoted to superhero novels, and browsing it will reveal there's quite a long list:

http://superheronovels.com/

And yes, Wild Cards was definitely meant as superhero fiction. It was one of the major deconstructions of the genre that came along in the '80s, something of a spiritual sibling to Watchmen, I'd say.