Pulp Hero v. Super Hero

[K.B.]

LET'S START A DISCUSSION: What's the difference between a "pulp" hero (The Shadow, Doc Savage, or the Green Hornet) and a "super" hero (Superman, Flash, Spiderman)? Where does Batman belong?

[Randy]

We'll start with a comment. I've read at other places that Doc Savage was one of the inspirations for Superman and that Stan Lee fondly remembered the Spider when Spider-man was coming together in his mind.

The Shadow and Doc fueled the hero pulps, Superman the superheroes of the forties and on into today.

Pulp heroes were a lot more violent than superheroes have ever been(read the first two Docs before the advent of his "college" that operated on criminal minds to make them "honest" citizens).

The Shadow and The Spider carried forty-fives and were not at all hesitant to use them.

One last thing. Is anyone following DC's team-up with Doc Savage, Batman, and The Spirit, First Wave?

[Henry]

Good question. The Batman probably belonged in the pulps, but he was conceived by Bob Kane as a comic book hero (which, at that time, were strictly for kids) and his costume made for visual story-telling. In his early adventures, he was a lot more violent in dispensing justice than he's ever been, and he didn't have the PC aversion to guns the writers later foisted on him. I say pulp hero, trapped in comics.

[Mohammed]

Batman has Doc Savage inspirations too.

It wasnt a big differenc in the 30s other than a pulp or comic book. Today comic book superhero are not as hardcore as they were early on and more melodrama.

I follow team up,First Wave comics.

[[deleted user]]

Interesting question, should be a fun topic. Good comments already.

Pulp heroes are us, reality.
Super heroes (at least the originals) are what we humans would like to be, the ideal. Today's super heroes not so much, perhaps, but then again, many of today's heroes are either caricatures or 'pulp supers' if you will.

As for Batman, I like Henry's "pulp hero, trapped in comics" description. :)

[Mohammed]

Pulp Heroes are reality ? Doc Savage is not like us :)

He is more like the modern master detective superhero ala Batman.

[Mary JL]

Regarding super-heroes vs pulp heroes, the pulp heroes were fully human. Yes, Doc Savage had a super brain; an incredible physical stength--but no superhuman abilities. No wings or X-ray vision or even telepathy. The absolute maximum of human physical abilities--but no "superhuman" abilities.

Although BAtman is great, and a personal favorite of mine, most modern superheo characters have a least one "superhuman" power. Not all of them, but most.
Flash's super-speed; Cyclops (X-men) has optic blasts; Mr. Fantastic's flexibility and so on.

ONe difference in the pup heroes, aslo, is conveniently Batman and Doc Savage and the Shadow had access to personal fortunes--they never had to take a day off to work--they could save the world full time!

[Mohammed]

Im the opposite of you Mary i like superhero that are more like pulp heroes in that they have no powers. My childhood hero is the first costumed hero in The Phantom. His comics are still big world wide,here in sweden too.

Other favs that have no real superpowers are Batman,Daredevil,Nightwing,Captain America(Bucky Barnes),Manhunter,Bat-girl and so on.

[Mary JL]

Actually, I like just about everything. I was a big Daredevil fan especially.

I was just making the point the pulp heroes seldom had any physical differences from regular humans and many--though not all--superheroes do.

[Mohammed]

Yeah i see what you mean and frankly im thankful that part of the pulp hero is alive strong today. I like few cosmic heroes like Nova but most are humans without superpowers.

Skilled people fighting crime interest more naturally.

[Adam]

Daredevil has super powers, at least originally. The radioactive waste that made him blind also heightened his other senses, giving him "radar."

Now in the comics I think they kind of ignore that explanation.

And Batman and the new Captain America (Bucky) may not have super powers, but they do some things that no human, even the most perfectly conditioned athlete, can really do.

But that just goes along with the pulp tradition of heroes without any "super" powers but who nevertheless did wild things and survived near-death scrapes every few pages.

[John]

I always preferred the comic book heroes without super powers, even as a kid. In the old _World’s Finest Comics_ I always found the Batman story far more enjoyable than the Superman story. If i worked out and trained hard I could BE Batman when I grew up; you had to be born on Krypton to be Superman. My favorite comic book characters were those with NO superpowers: Batman, Blackhawk, Vigilante, Green Arrow, The Ghost Rider. Straight Arrow, Tor, Tazan... there USED to be a lot of heroes with no super powers, to say nothing of other genres. Comic books today are a creatively stunted monoculture of almost NOTHING but superheroes, though there are stirrings of new directions of late.

I missed the pulps, but enjoyed their rebirth in paper backs. Here, by and large, were the very types of exceptional but not super heroes I’d preferred in the comics.

I’ve always thought Superman was a combination of Doc Savage (that part’s well-known) and John Carter of Mars. He, too, could leap tall buildings in a single bound. I don’t blame Siegel and Shuster too much for cribbing; they were, after all, teenagers when they conceived the character.

The non-super hero comic characters, despite their strapping physiques and fighting skills, had to rely much more on cleverness and strategy than did the superheroes, which made for more interesting stories. The superheroes were the fantasies of very small children, much like the Seven Remarkable Servants and similar characters in Grimm’s Fairy Tales. The Pulp heroes weren’t exactly great literature, but the reflected the more mature fantasies of, say, teenagers, already coming to grips with the knowledge that there were limits on what they could accomplish.

[Mohammed]

Adam wrote: "Daredevil has super powers, at least originally. The radioactive waste that made him blind also heightened his other senses, giving him "radar."

Now in the comics I think they kind of ignore that ..."

Of course there is fantasy elements in superhero but heroes like Batman,Bucky,Nightwing,DD are more interesting to me because they have to use their martial skills,weapons,mind to win against villains. They dont have powers that make them godlike.

Thats why Superman dont have great rogue gallery like Batman and co does. How can you make great villains for a god like superhero like that. Why every story is about Lex Luthor.

[Adam]

I feel the same way, Mohammed. One of the first Batman comics I read as a kid introduced Killer Croc, and I'll never forget seeing Bruce Wayne being bandaged up by Alfred after being viciously beaten up by Croc. He was human and he could bleed. At least sometimes.

Superman stories could be interesting when there were other people's lives at stake, but Superman himself was never that interesting to me.

[Mohammed]

I feel the same exactly Batman is my fav because he bleeds,he is human and Superman i can enjoy at times because of other people being at stake but Superman himself i find dull.

Weird enough i can enjoy Smallville,movies and Elseworld stories but his regular lets fight small time criminals and Lex i could never read in comics.

[Adam]

Yeah, Smallville is enjoyable, mostly because it focuses on Clark, and he's a good character on the show. The problem I have with most Superman stories is that Clark Kent isn't written in a very interesting fashion.

Also, on Smallville he's still exploring his powers and finding out exactly what he can do. I really liked the episode in which he jumped farther than he'd ever jumped before, from one building to another in Metropolis to save Ma Kent, who was being held hostage.

[John]

A confession: I often, as a kid, found myself rooting for Lex Luthor against Superman. After all, he WAS the underdog, no superpowers, just a well-developed mind.

[Mary JL]

I remember reading about Lex Luthor back in the 1960's. Even then, I wondered why he'd need to rob banks, when he could sell his inventions for a fortunre.

The way he is portrayed now is more realisitc. He has lots of money; what he craves is power.

[Mohammed]

Adam wrote: "Yeah, Smallville is enjoyable, mostly because it focuses on Clark, and he's a good character on the show. The problem I have with most Superman stories is that Clark Kent isn't written in a very in..."

Yeah Clark is more interesting in Smallville than the adult Superman/Clark.

Frankly only Christopher Reeve made older Clark interesting to me.

[John]

A good example of the superiority (no pun intended) of a character with no super powers over a superhero is the afore-mentioned Ghost Rider in his cowboy form vs. his modern, bike riding flame-head form. In the old days he used clever devices of his time to trick people into THINKING he was a ghost with supernatural abilities. Kids could imagine doing something similar. Nowadays he actually HAS superpowers, so his challenges are much more basic; no cleverness required. Another example: the comic book Spirit, one of the greatest comics of all time, vs. the movie Spirit, maybe the worst big budget movie of all time. The producers, board of directors, whoever, figured he just HAD to have SOME kind of superpowers (“What?! We paid that kind of money for a superhero who’s not super? Are you an IDIOT??!! No teenager’s gonna wanna see a comic book character with no super powers!”) So they translated his famous ability to take a punch into being invulnerable. After fifteen minutes of watching him NOT be in any danger, I ejected the rented movie. Thank God I didn’t pay to see it in the theater.

[Adam]

John, if you enjoyed rooting for Lex Luthor as a kid and haven't already read Mark Millar's "Red Son," by all means do so the next time you feel up to reading a superhero comic. It details the adventures of a Soviet Superman and an American Lex Luthor. I thought it was pretty good.

[John]

Sounds intriguing! I’ll look for it. Thanks!

[Werner]

I agree with those who've expressed the thought, above, that heroes without superpowers are more interesting -- more innately believable, realistic, capable of being identified with-- than the super-powered variety. As a kid, I preferred the former in comics (though I did read the latter, too); and now as an adult, I enjoy movies about characters like Batman and the Phantom, but I don't get into the whole superhero craze --the Superman and Spiderman movies, etc.

However, though I've never watched Smallville (too many schedule conflicts in recent years) :-(, I was a big fan of the 90s TV series Lois and Clark, starring Dean Cain and Terri Hatcher. Was anyone else here into that series, too? The writers there did a very good job of updating many of the characters and concepts I remembered from the comic books, IMO, but fleshed them out much more than the comic books ever could. There was a leavening of well-done humor, but a strong serious side as well; and for me, it was a plus that the focus was at least as much on personal relationships and character as on super-powered derring-do.

[Henry]

I was a Batman fan before it was cool--while all the other boys liked Superman ('cause he's strongest!). I've occasionally read Superman stories and watched almost every Superman screen adaptation, but yeah--he's kinda' boring. Every plot had to be catalyzed by someone finding kryptonite. Even on Smallville, 99% of all episode plots use the "meteor rock" device. (And there's been no consistency about whether Kryptonite merely negates his superpowers or kills him.) In all fairness to the character, he was not quite so invincible early on (1938-45-ish) and a lot more entertaining.

I must disagree about Spiderman, though. Yes, he has superhuman abilities, but he definitely bleeds. Sometimes I think the writers made him TOO human--to the point of wimpiness.

[Henry]

A book like that sounds right up my alley. Good insight about the Black Bat/Two-Face/Dr. Midnite.

[Mohammed]

Black Bat and Two Face is too close to be an accident,chance.

[Silver]

In the Nostalgia Ventures reprints of The Shadow they discuss the fact that Batman was actually modeled on The Shadow, right down to the first Batman adventure being a retread of one of The Shadow's adventures. And at the very beginning Batman carried .45s like the Shadow. The Shadow even used a boomerange and rope to access from one skyscraper to another in a few adventures.

[Jim]

Funny, but I just read about that today. According to Cracked.com, Batman was a rip-off of Zorro.

Zorro was first at being a millionaire playboy-slash-dark costumed evil face puncher. Zorro had a secret cave under his mansion where he kept his horse and Zorro stuff, not unlike a certain caped crusader. The big difference being that Zorro didn't call it the Zorrocave or the Zorrohorse.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_17299_...

This article lists 6 characters that were rip-offs, including Superman (you'll have to go to the previous page). I don't know enough to say if they are completely correct, but it's interesting reading.

Warning: The writing is tongue-in-cheek & quite often vulgar. This article didn't seem too bad, though.

[Adam]

Silver, Batman never carried a pair of .45s like the Shadow did. He used a pistol in one of his early adventures to fire a silver bullet into the heart of a vampire, and there might have been a few other isolated examples of knife- and gun-wielding on Batman's part, but a pair of .45s was never part of his gear.

[Jim]

I think this is a good instance of 'all art is derivative'. I doubt even the authors knew what all the influences were on them at the time.

[Silver]

Adam - I'll have to search through my Nostalgia Ventures reprints and make sure what the article(s) said. I believe it was an extremely short-lived thing - maybe just the first adventure, the one that was a rehash of a Shadow adventure - but I think it did occur. It was immediately squashed as not suited to this new character. I'll let you know what I find.

So true, Jim. As writers say, 'there's nothing new under the sun'. But as I told Adam, I'll be digging out the articles from Nostalgia Ventures that I remember as saying it was a pretty clear choice of influence, The Shadow to Batman. I won't swear to it without doing my research, though.

[Adam]

I recently read Batman Chronicles Vol. 1 and am in the middle of reading Vol. 2. They are chronological reprints of every single Batman story ever published, beginning with Detective Comics #27, so I can pretty confidently say that Batman never carried a pair of .45s.

Could you be thinking of the Spider? He carried a pair of semiautomatic .45s (like the Shadow) and an air pistol for close, silent kills.

[Dan]

Did Batman sport a .45 in Year One?

Those Nostalgia Ventures reprints of the Shadow are pretty cool. I like the extras, like how most of The Case of the Chemical Syndicate was lifted from a Shadow Story, Parnters in Peril.

[Adam]

It's been a little while since I read Year One, but I'm pretty sure Miller stuck to the established Batman mythology and didn't put any deadly weapons in his hands. (Also not spotted in Year One: giant apes, Batman breaking necks with his feet, evil Chinamen with hatchets, and vampires.)

Year One did, however, feature Gordon sporting a baseball bat to lay down some justice among his brother officers, which was awesome.

[Dan]

I think this is one of the Batman covers I was thinking of:



I think there's another cover from around the same time period with Batman wearing a shoulder holster, the strap partially obscuring the emblem on his chest.

[Dan]

Found it. I should mention that I haven't read either of these and have no idea if Batman actually uses a gun.

[image error]

[Silver]

As I indicated earlier, I won't be voicing a further opinion until I do my research. But yes, Dan, The Case of the Chemical Syndicate (Batman)/Parnters in Peril (The Shadow) is what I was referring to.

[Mohammed]

There are stories,articles out there how Bill Finger added to Batman,Bruce Wayne elements that are directly from Zorro. Check out there similaries and how early Zorro was the inspiration is pretty clear.

Like Superman taking Fortress of Soltitude from Doc Savage. Some Pulp heroes really are one of the reason Batman and co are big today.

Myself i just hope The Shadow and co is as readable today as other pulp genres i have read.

[Silver]

Well, I find them very much so. I'm currently working my way chronologically through them. In fact, I've started a discussion thread lower down about the novels.

[Adam]

I re-read The Case of the Chemical Syndicate (Detective Comics #27) last night, and there are indeed no twin .45s strapped to Batman's utility belt. The violence is a little over the top in some of those early stories, but aside from firing the silver bullet into the vampire's heart in Detective Comics #32, Batman never wields a firearm. He kills a few people (neck breaks, falling off buildings), but his M.O. isn't really that different from what it is today ... gas pellets, batarangs, etc.

That doesn't mean he NEVER did, but he didn't in any of the published stories about him in 1939 and 1940 (and most of 1941, though I'm not done with that year yet).

Silver, did you manage to dig up that article in Nostalgia Ventures you referred to?

I searched around and found this: http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/390/, which is a pretty neat comparison of "Partners in Peril" and "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate."

[Silver]

Didn't get a chance to go looking for that yet.

Adam, that is so totally cool.

[Adam]

Isn't it? So much cool information, and so well presented. I'd never seen that blog until today, but I will definitely be reading it from now on.

[Mohammed]

Silver wrote: "Well, I find them very much so. I'm currently working my way chronologically through them. In fact, I've started a discussion thread lower down about the novels."

Which The Shadow book/story would say is a good way to start ?

I have read Doc Savage and want to read The Shadow next.

[Mohammed]

Thanks scott and i have read First Wave books.

I adore the first special Batman/Doc Savage issue. Doc Savage looked so damn cool in that comic with Phil Noto art.

[Silver]

Mohammed - Definitely start at the beginning with The Living Shadow. The adventures evolve throughout the series. Scoot is right about how cool the Nostalgia Ventures reprints are, but they hop all over the place with their story selections.

[Christopher]

Hi, I'm a newbie, Jim kindly invited me, and I think you guys pretty much nailed the differences between Pulp Hero and Super-Hero.

All I can add is this, for me a super hero works because he/she is cursed with some kind of vulnerability that can be life threatening or pychologically damaging. Like Superman and Krytonite. Which is a throw back to the greek myths with Achilles and his heel.

But a Pulp hero has no invincibilty and therefore no need to give him/her a fatal flaw or vulnerability to make him/her interesting to readers.

What a Pulp hero has is a mission or crusade, usually a heightened sense of justice, albeit a rough-justice and this pyschological trait, this inner hero or anti-hero of Pulp propels the Pulp Hero on against his enemies in persuit of justice or whatever stokes the fires of his passion.

Personally as much as I like super heroes I'll take the bad boy Pulp heroes everytime. Would anyone consider Ian Flemming's James Bond a Pulp hero/anti-hero? Or Harry Harrison's Stainless Steel Rat?

Great group you have here.
Thanks.

[Christopher]

Can I just add this one after thought to my previous rambling comment on Super heroes v Pulp heroes...?

Although Pulp heroes don't need the Super hero vulnerability to make them intereesting, the Pulp hero being much more "ordinary" than "super" will almost always have typical human frailities to hinder his endeavors...Like for example James Bond's weakness for beautiful women when he should be watching his back. But always teh Pulp Hero's over riding sense of mission or justice will propel him to surmount his all too human weaknesses.

This is something the average Super hero is not necessarily concerned with, because Super heroes are busy tackling their dsyfunctional sense of a lack humanity. Or at the very least a dislocated human-bond to society. An alienation brought by their very existence. They tend to brood. Quite a lot. But usually in a sexy if slightly teenage self obsessed way. Think James Dean if he wore a Big "S" on his chest.

In other words Super heroes spend quite a bit of time feeling sorry for themselves. Maybe they weren't breast fed enough as super-children, who knows?

Whereas Pulp heroes' only worry is an over indulgence in their human side, like unnecessary cruelty, vengence or vices.

Ramble mission completed.

[Jim]

Welcome, Christopher. Glad you made it. The pulp hero's sense of justice is often an Achilles Heel. They keep letting the bad guys live.

I love Harrison's Slippery Jim DiGriz (the SS Rat) & also Jason... (the guy from the Death Worlds trilogy, D'Anault?). They're both a lot of fun. I really only cared for the first few of the Stainless Steel Rat books. That sort of humor gets old after a while.

Harrison's spoof on Campbell's writing, Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers, is another favorite. I still have The Black Star Passes. I haven't read either in years, but back to back, they're great.

[Christopher]

Jim wrote: "Welcome, Christopher. Glad you made it. The pulp hero's sense of justice is often an Achilles Heel. They keep letting the bad guys live.

I love Harrison's Slippery Jim DiGriz (the SS Rat) & als..."

That's a good point about the Pulp hero's Achilles Heel letting off the bad guys.

I would add to that the Pulp hero's zeal, his crusade at its most interesting for me is when its causes others close to him/her to be in danger. Forcing the Pulp hero to share with us a greater sense of danger through his bad choices. Although he's a mortal acting at the height of his mortal skills set, his ideology may mean the sacrfice of friends etc in persuit of justice...

With the super Hero there is a similar dilema and inability to protect those close to him/her but its more as a bi-product of the danger brought about by what the Super Hero is: a near invincible force andultimate threat to evil.

Whereas the Pulp hero seems to often appear as an under dog and initially a small threat to the bad guys... until they wise up and by then its too late.

Admitedly these are only small distinctions between Super and Pulp hero and the lines blur easily at the edges.

I agree there's a marked difference between the freshness of 1960s/70s Harry Harrison SSRat stories where the style and formulaic structure was still flexible(the first 4 or 5) and the latter day 1980s and 1990s sequels where the only thing that changes is the subject for satire.

I think it was the 2000AD magazine graphic novels causing a resurgence in demand for SSRat, inspired more books to continuation down the path of satire. Which is fine, but after the first few books I think readers prefer a heightened sense of emotional intensity that the SS Rat books by design don't deliver.

Having said, that I'd love if they made the first three Stainless Steel Rat books into movies.

[Tyrone]

I don't wan't to get into the detail of the debate that came before but in my opinion Batman is pure pulp hero, not super hero. He has no special ability, only a superbly trained mind, peak physical training and the wealth to enhance those two. He also has the single mindedness and determination to render his efforts 'superhuman' aided by his wealth and training. He is super in effect but still human. It is the combination of his qualities and advantages that makes him 'superhuman'.

I completely agree on the stainless steel rat. I'd love to se films of the first few books. I always had James Coburn in my head while reading the books. Not sure who would do it these days...