I've selected a lot of material with multiquote to go through. I don't have the wherewithal to address all points comprehensively, and due to length I'm simply dropping a lot of it, so I might miss stuff or duplicate points already addressed, but I'll try to get across my major points in some sensible order.
Reality evidently has infinite complexity. Words, as labels, suggest relationships in reality, even though the number of strings of letters into words and books that has ever existed is some large finite number. That means that for each work of fiction, there are potentially infinitely many interpretations all compatible with the original. There are, if you will, infinitely many adaptations possible that are all meaningfully distinct. This infinitude is tapped when authors apply their imaginations to create imaginary realities compatible with the original description. Because the space to explore in this manner is infinite, relationships not originally contemplated can emerge or be introduced. Often, this results in a denial of conditions that had held before, while leaving affirmed only a small core. This small core, or, more precisely, the inner core that is always in common over all adaptations, is really what one is seeking for the definition of the essential character of the work, but it's hard to pin down. The phrase je ne sais quoi is a descriptive means of expressing this difficulty in describing it. While it is not a prescriptive denial of the theoretical possibility of nailing it in words, that phrase offers a few words of caution that unless the utmost care is exercised, formulating a generally applicable prescriptive definition is likely to run into serious problems.
I think that Watchmen is more than a deconstruction of superheroes. It introduces superheroes in its own right and stakes out new territory for superheroism.
The basic thesis of Watchmen, as it were, is that, in the course of the greater good, the ends justify the means. It regards saving humanity from itself as a job too tough even for Superman, so to speak, and therefore, in accordance with its thesis, Watchmen requires a measured application of evil to save humanity from itself. I don't agree with the thesis, but it is what it is, and the superheroes in the story act in accordance with it. Their superheroic acts involve applying violence in negative ways, by any means necessary, and to degrees limited only by the scope of their mission, whatever mission it is that they've accepted. Even before Ozymandias's plan comes to the fore, both The Comedian and Doctor Manhattan are routinely shown performing evil acts in the service of the US government. This is in keeping with the theme that the ends justify the means, and it foreshadows Ozymandias's master stroke. Rorschach can also be viewed in the context of the ends justifying the means, since in the service of his own idealism, self-destruction is ultimately the only course he will accept. One of the superheroic deeds of the surviving Watchmen is in recognizing the necessity of their own evil acts.
Watchmen is hardly a corner case worthy only of a footnote.
What it illustrates is that the best definition of superhero is simply to fixate on, as Christopher put it, "super" + "hero".
In general, the degree to which Silvercrest#2,3,&4 apply is a function of "hero". The degree to which Silvercrest#2,4,&5 apply is a function of "super". Furthermore, with respect to Silvercrest#5, in some cases, it's entirely fair to say that the pursuit of powers itself can be a heroic act, such as if that involves sacrifice, say in the pursuit of extensive training. With respect to Silvercrest#3, one could also argue that a high moral code entailing self-sacrifice is itself superhuman.
In becoming overly specific and expressing criteria beyond that which is necessary and entailed by the core meaning, the utility of what you consider the official definition to be is accordingly diminished. My view is that you get lost in the trees and can't see the forest. That's not an argument against realizing all the detail and beauty in a specific tree.
Well, outside of formal logic, I never claimed that, so I don't know what you're talking about.
I never said that only perfect definitions are valid. I even proposed one of my own, while at the same time fully expecting it to have counterexamples.
Having been in discussions with Christopher for something approaching two years now, I don't have a lot of confidence in assertions of the form "Christopher is not arguing against X, even if he thinks so", regardless of what X is and whether I agree with X.
Who's categorically rejected descriptive definitions? Generally speaking, a validly formulated descriptive definition can be useful, as a generalization about what has been the case in language or in art, even if it has some exceptions. However, how useful it is depends upon many factors, including to what end it is applied. Additionally, descriptive definitions don't tend to have much predictive power for how future examples will behave, especially in the long run and especially if they have a lot of moving parts. Having thought about why that is, I offer the following hypothesis.
Reality evidently has infinite complexity. Words, as labels, suggest relationships in reality, even though the number of strings of letters into words and books that has ever existed is some large finite number. That means that for each work of fiction, there are potentially infinitely many interpretations all compatible with the original. There are, if you will, infinitely many adaptations possible that are all meaningfully distinct. This infinitude is tapped when authors apply their imaginations to create imaginary realities compatible with the original description. Because the space to explore in this manner is infinite, relationships not originally contemplated can emerge or be introduced. Often, this results in a denial of conditions that had held before, while leaving affirmed only a small core. This small core, or, more precisely, the inner core that is always in common over all adaptations, is really what one is seeking for the definition of the essential character of the work, but it's hard to pin down. The phrase je ne sais quoi is a descriptive means of expressing this difficulty in describing it. While it is not a prescriptive denial of the theoretical possibility of nailing it in words, that phrase offers a few words of caution that unless the utmost care is exercised, formulating a generally applicable prescriptive definition is likely to run into serious problems.
For what it's worth, Merriam-Webster cites the earliest known usage of the word superhero as being in 1917...
... nevertheless, this is pretty good.
I'm going to close with a discussion of Silvercrest#2,3,4,&5.
I think that Watchmen is more than a deconstruction of superheroes. It introduces superheroes in its own right and stakes out new territory for superheroism.
The basic thesis of Watchmen, as it were, is that, in the course of the greater good, the ends justify the means. It regards saving humanity from itself as a job too tough even for Superman, so to speak, and therefore, in accordance with its thesis, Watchmen requires a measured application of evil to save humanity from itself. I don't agree with the thesis, but it is what it is, and the superheroes in the story act in accordance with it. Their superheroic acts involve applying violence in negative ways, by any means necessary, and to degrees limited only by the scope of their mission, whatever mission it is that they've accepted. Even before Ozymandias's plan comes to the fore, both The Comedian and Doctor Manhattan are routinely shown performing evil acts in the service of the US government. This is in keeping with the theme that the ends justify the means, and it foreshadows Ozymandias's master stroke. Rorschach can also be viewed in the context of the ends justifying the means, since in the service of his own idealism, self-destruction is ultimately the only course he will accept. One of the superheroic deeds of the surviving Watchmen is in recognizing the necessity of their own evil acts.
Watchmen is hardly a corner case worthy only of a footnote.
What it illustrates is that the best definition of superhero is simply to fixate on, as Christopher put it, "super" + "hero".
In general, the degree to which Silvercrest#2,3,&4 apply is a function of "hero". The degree to which Silvercrest#2,4,&5 apply is a function of "super". Furthermore, with respect to Silvercrest#5, in some cases, it's entirely fair to say that the pursuit of powers itself can be a heroic act, such as if that involves sacrifice, say in the pursuit of extensive training. With respect to Silvercrest#3, one could also argue that a high moral code entailing self-sacrifice is itself superhuman.
In becoming overly specific and expressing criteria beyond that which is necessary and entailed by the core meaning, the utility of what you consider the official definition to be is accordingly diminished. My view is that you get lost in the trees and can't see the forest. That's not an argument against realizing all the detail and beauty in a specific tree.
