So, by your definition, a firefighter, a doctor, or an EMT are not a heroes because they are unable to do superhuman things. They are limited by human abilities. I would call those people heroes because they go above and beyond the call of duty to do noble things (like save people’s lives) despite the fact that it may cost them their own. I believe you described someone who is “super” not heroic. Hence my definition.
3 Likes
They’re not literary characters.
2 Likes
A hero is not restricted to being a literary term.
Edit: a protagonist is. But I’m not arguing batman isn’t a protagonist
2 Likes
It is when you’re talking about a literary character.
1 Like
The definition of a word doesn’t change based on whether or not you use it on a fictional character or a real one. They may change based on the context you use them in. Like the word “cool” can be used to describe a cold object or a sign of enthusiasm/respect towards a person. But the word cool doesn’t change based on whether or not we use it in fiction or real life. Can you name some other words that do?
2 Likes
A fictional character is by nature in a different context than a real one, so the literary definition of “hero” is the one that applies in the context of a literary figure.
And frankly, I take serious exception to your attempt to label one of the founding characters of the superhero genre as something other than a hero. Again, if you think he’d be a bad person if he existed in real life, that’s fine. I’m not sure I’d disagree. I don’t have a problem with the title of this topic beyond the obvious: he’s not a real person, so he can’t actually be a bad person.
1 Like
Sure, I guess I’m saying he wouldn’t be a hero in real life. But my definition of hero doesn’t change based on real life or fiction. So I’d say he isn’t a hero in fiction either. I can’t find any sources that showcase how a word changes definition in real life vs fiction. I can find semantical change (ie. the example of cool I provided), but not in the context of fiction vs. reality. I’d love for you to provide sources on that as I like to be informed. Or at the very least provide examples of other words that do what you claim happens to the word hero.
2 Likes
Myth.
2 Likes
How does the definition of myth change in a literary context vs. real context? I can think of a semantical context where it could be used to describe folklore or a false belief. But the actual definition of “myth” doesn’t change based on whether or not it’s used in a book or in real life. Do you see what I mean?
2 Likes
No, I don’t see what you mean. In a literary context, a “myth” is a genre. It is not a false belief. To apply the second definition in the context of the first is to create a category error.
A non-literary definition of “hero” is irrelevant to a literary subject.
3 Likes
the problem isnt that Bruce doesn’t donate to charity he does, he is on the board of arkham asylum and fund a large portion of it, problem is arkham doctors and staff are not well vetted and those controling arkham are often corrupt. also by your arguement you could also say Superman and Flash are bad beacause they chose to use thier time and and ablities focusing on thier citiies when flash’s speed he could provide instant medical transport around the world. or Superman instead of defeating bankrobbers could be destroying entire terrorist organizations in a day. or aquaman is bad because of how he uses his wealth or Zatanna could be using magic to fix major world problems and build schools or her wealth as a major entertainer for charity. Batman is not the only rich superhero the point is Batman is not the only one who could have a better use of time and talents than being a crime fighter
2 Likes
Batman is a hero, he is a tragic hero in that he never fully succeds and creates a lot of his own problems but he is a hero
3 Likes
In some stories, this is absolutely true. It’s probably not true in stories from his first 30 years or so, but it has become an increasingly common depiction of him from the Bronze Age onward.
2 Likes
@AlexanderKnox If I use the word “myth” in a sentence, it would have the same meaning whether I said that sentence in real life in a real conversation or if I wrote it down in a book. That sentence would still mean the same thing. Now, if you’re trying to categorize the word hero as a literary device synonymous with “protagonist”, fine. But that’s not what we’re talking about at all. Nor is it reflective of the use of the word “hero” in the context of comics and Batman. The word “hero” is used within comics the same way it is used outside of it. Batman is called a hero within comics and outside of it. Not restricted to the protagonist-ic definition. Which is what I am arguing against. You can most certainly apply those thoughts inside of a literary work.
@Izzy11 An important distinction between those characters is that they have actual superpowers. Meaning they can do far more than an average person. Another important distinction is who their other persona is. Unless they put on those suits, they are not able to make an impact on the world. Without the “S”, Superman is just plain old Clark Kent from Kansas. Without the suit, Barry is just an average dude. They have no influence or power beyond their immediate circle. Without the cowl, Batman is Bruce Wayne. A billionaire with an extreme amount of influence over his city and the rest of the world economically, politically, and socially. That is why Bruce is different.
2 Likes
yeah I know:)
2 Likes
i’d argue plain or not they can still influnce things, Clark is a reporter so thats major influence, second if power its influnce there is still Zatanna who is a famous performer, Oliver Queen also rich, Ted Kord, again rich, Tim Drake (rich), Victor stone well known athlete, diana who is a literal ambassador(thought sometimes she does use infleunce) Black Lighting was secreatary education (that may have been retconned) also in the digital age you don’t need money to be influncial Barry could post videios of him eating like a thousand hotdogs and becomes an internet sensation. if anything I think Bruce is too rich to have influnce in the main populace he is hard to relate too. someone like Starfire would have an easier job influncing people
3 Likes
Alright, based on that list. People I would make the same criticisms of:
- Oliver Queen
- Ted Kord
- Mister Terrific
But it’s also worth noting that I’m not nearly as familiar with their comics/villians so I don’t feel as comfortable stating a definite take on them. They could have other stuff going on.
However, while Clark being a reporter is not the same influence as the literal billionaires described above. I guess Tim is rich, but he’s also a child and not nearly as rich as a billionaire (nor does he have the same influence). Victor Stone is a college athlete. They don’t actually money off their work so he doesn’t have much influence as Bruce. Maybe just promoting good habits and being a good influence, but still. But he is also a literal cyborg with superhuman powers. People like him and Diana, Zatanna, and Black Lightning have actual superhuman abilities. That once again separates them in my eyes. It justifies them putting on the cowl/suit. I can’t think of a justification for Bruce putting on the suit and wasting all that money on his gadgets outside of really weird self-therapy.
1 Like
ok I dont get the whole they have superhuam abilities argument, Batman has reached a level via training in such to be superhuman. just because someone has a super power does not mean that is the only way they can help people. Bruce can justify it out of his training. also having superpowers doesn’t justify becoming a super hero you have to have some sort of motivation otherwise you shouldn’t be doing it. also if waynetech is coming up with a lot of the gadgets anyway and I trust batman more with them than the millitary
1 Like
Agreed, having powers doesn’t make you a superhero. It makes you super. And what you do with them makes you a hero. I think that the other people you’ve described fit my definition of hero but (once again) I’m not as familiar with their back stories. Maybe it could be argued that bruce is super based on his training, but I still wouldn’t call him a “hero” under my definition. I don’t find his decisions to be noble nor do I find them to be the best use of his wealth. I do believe that the other characters do though.
Edit: It’s also important to note how Bruce got his “powers.” His wealth allowed him to go through all the training and schooling that gave him his intelligence and fighting skills. I think any wealth that went to that could have been better spent.
1 Like
yeah i don’t know much about the other characters either, just pointing out that large amounts of wealth are kind of commonish like reporter love interest in superhero comics. again we don’t know how much control of wealth Bruce had as a child or if there was just an alotted amount for schooling. on making the gadgets I firmly believe at least some would have been made either way like his armour, the planes could easily of been designed and made for military or as prototypes to show them, but cause of his paranoia which is a negative character trait he never gave it to the military. or he did and its just stylized differently like his armour no soldiers want a fancy bat symbol all black, but bullet knife proof lightweight, yes please
2 Likes