Pulp Hero v. Super Hero

[Jim]

I loved James Coburn as Flint.

[Christopher]

Tyrone wrote: "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 physica..."

Its funny you mentioning James Coburn as the Stainless Steel Rat, as I read somewhere that back in 1979/80 when Kelvin Gosnell and Carlos Ezquerra adapted the first two novels into graphic novels for 2000 AD, they envisaged Jim DiGriz to look like James Coburn from his Flint days.

And you can see the resemblance here: http://www.2000adonline.com/books/sta...

I have no idea who could play DiGriz these days in a movie, Coburn was briliant in Flint. Maybe George Clooney, depends on how well he does in the new Man From Uncle movie, to see if he can strike the right balance.
I'm not sure if there are many actors who look like they are not afraid to throw a punch but would much prefer to talk themselves in and out of trouble.

But Angelina Jolie is a must as Angelina DiGriz...

[John]

Just to revist Batman / gun issue ... I always thought he eschewed them because his parents had been gunned down and he didn't want to lower himself to the weapon's level.

[Tyrone]

He did, but that choice was something that was specifically examined in the Batman Year Two storyline. He meets another masked vigilante called the reaper, who is a mirror of himself but has nothing of the restraint that Bruce was given by his parents.
He is the equal of Bruce in skill, but better armed (using hand held scythes and pistols) and armoured and beats Bruce comprehensively. He is also a killer, slaughtering not only the criminals but citizens and police who are in his way.
Bruce not only realises he has to take up the weapon that killed his parents (the actual pistol in this case) but also align himself temporarily with the crime bosses he has been working against, in particular one Joe Chill, responsible for his parents death, in order to lure The Reaper so Batman can take him down.
Anyway to cut a long story short, Bruce doesn't become a killer, but Chill gets killed anyway and Bruce puts away guns altogether. It's an interesting premise with a more interesting side plot that the main story.

Angelina Jolie. Perfect. Stunningly attractive, lethally capable but somewhat damaged. Great call!

[John]

Interesting premise, though not historically true to Batman's 1930's (?) legacy, from my quick google of Batman Year Two. I'm not a Batman scholar per se, but an interested party over the years ... first I've heard of another masked vigilante called Reaper. Kind of Revisionist Genre History for The Batman. Still, it is interesting.

[Christopher]

So are we agreed that Batman is a Pulp Hero and not a Super Hero? And if that's true, what do we make of the new breed of hero as typified in that movie Kick-Ass? Maybe there should be a new category of "Pulp-Vigilante" where these kids don't exhibit all the traditional skills of Pulp/Super heroes?

[John]

I agree and think it's an apt distinction. Haven't seen Kick-Ass but have heard a thing or two. In the end, it's far more engaging a story if the hero is not virtually indestructible ... where s/he truly puts life and limb on the line.

[Werner]

John, I heartily agree with you on that!

[John]

Absolutely, Werner. Otherwise the hero is seen as what is termed by some as a "Mary Sue" character, always winning in a manly manner but never susceptible to real harm. I had never heard of the term until recently but have understood the basics of it for a while for writing purposes, and I'm sure you have too for your own writing.

Al Harron blogged about that recently when it came to criticisms of Robert E. Howard's Conan : http://theblogthattimeforgot.blogspot...

[Werner]

John, I'd heard the term, but didn't know what it meant. (I assumed it meant a character who was overly "goody-goody" and prissy.) No, Conan definitely wasn't a "Mary Sue" (in either sense!).

[Silver]

I'm back! For a momentary breather from the wild days at work, anyway. I managed to dig up that article, and I was only partly right. Best I can make out, the single .45 was cut before publication. The article was in the Nostalgia Ventures, Inc. reprint Volume 9 of The Shadow, and I quote in part:

'The Shadowy Origins of Batman' by Will Murray
(©2007 by Will Murray)

The early Batman packed a .45 automatic. He was permanently disarmed after a violent story in Batman #1. "I goofed," recalled [writer Bill] Finger. "I had Batman use a gun to shoot a villain, and I was called on the carpet by [editor] Whit Ellsworth. He said, 'Never let us have Batman carry a gun again.'"

So I guess it was cut before publication.

[Adam]

Silver, something about that doesn't seem right. Keep in mind that Batman #1 came out after Batman had already been featured in several issues of Detective Comics, starting with #27.

[Silver]

Adam, there has been some previous discussion about Batman carrying guns in early stories. Perhaps it didn't become an issue until Bill Finger had him actually use the weapon in Batman #1? That paragraph is lifted directly out of the article.

I'm not well versed in comic book lore, so I don't know how reliable an expert Will Murray is. I would like to think Nostalgia Ventures, Inc. vetted him before inviting him to write a guest column, but there's no guarantee.

I invite anyone who knows about Will Murray to chime in on this topic.

[Adam]

I'm sure Will Murray knows his stuff, but everyone makes mistakes.

I feel qualified to speak on this because I've been reading the Batman Chronicles, which reprint every Batman story in chronological order. As discussed previously, Batman first appeared in Detective Comics #27. He used a pistol to kill a vampire at the end of Detective Comics #32. Batman #1 came out after Detective Comics #38.

One explanation for Murray's essay could be that he got the information directly from Bill Finger, who hardly cares as much about the chronology of Batman as a nerdy, obsessive fan who's recently been re-reading Batman's origins.

When he said "Batman #1" he could have meant Batman's first appearance in Detective Comics, or any other number of things.

Primary sources are important, and often forgotten in the internet age. I've heard plenty of "experts" repeat the same incorrect information over and over after it was stated once.

[Silver]

Very true and very perceptive.

The fact remains, too, that our primary sources are final products, which cannot tell us what went on behind the scenes before the actual publication of a piece. Considering that the possibility of its future importance to connoisseurs (I like that word better than the equally true and suitable obsessive fan) would not have crossed anyone's minds in those days, I'm sure material such as the galleys of original concepts of a story that got changed in any major way were long ago destroyed.

[Adam]

True. So many things that we now treasure ... comics, adventure serials, pulp magazines, radio shows ... were completely disposable media at the time of their creation. Bill Finger might never have stopped to consider that people would still not only care about Batman and Green Lantern in the 21st century but love and obsess about the characters.

If you look at Finger's quote itself, and not Murray's text around it, it could mean any number of things. Also, I'm only a little ways into my early-days-of-Batman reading project, so it could occur in a later story ... the one Finger's referring to that his editor called him on the carpet for.

[Brad]

Hi, everyone!

I'm very glad to have found this group and look forward to perusing all the topics.

I know I'm coming to this excellent discussion late, but I'd like to toss in my two cents.

I think the distinctions between pulp hero-adventurers and superheroes are, more than anything else, a question of history, markets and media. I think it has less to to do with powers or resources or costumes, etc. Simply enough, it depends on the medium in which a particular character first originated. This is why Batman, a character with a decidedly pulp bearing, is still labeled a "superhero". He originated in comic books as part of the then-emerging world of superheroes--in direct response to the debut of the archetype, in fact. Admittedly, I always get stuck on the question, "Does Batman really qualify as a superhero?" He obviously has no superpowers, right? But that lack of powers doesn't make him a "pulp" hero, either. Likewise, Adam Strange is a very Buck Rogers type of hero, just a guy with a rocket pack and a ray gun. But we can't label him a comic-strip or movie-serial hero because of those similarities to Buck Rogers. Just the same, we can't call him a pulp hero. That's not where he was born.

Conversely, many pulp heroes share many traits with superheroes in general, but they were born in pulps, so I don't think of them any other way. A good example is The Avenger. Through a deeply impactful trauma, he gained the ability to basically sculpt his face so he could look like almost anyone he wanted. Sounds like some iterations of Clayface, but that doesn't make him a superhero.

Also interesting is something I found poking around on the Internet for a definition of "superhero". The entry in Wikipedia on the subject says, "'Super-heroes' is a trademark co-owned by DC Comics and Marvel Comics." Certainly, that isn't to say characters from other companies aren't superheroes, but it does make the term unique to comic-book characters.

The same entry also mentions the terms "costumed crime fighter" and "mystery man". Right there are terms within the bounds of the comics medium that can better define Batman than "superhero". Though they sound an old-fashioned mouthful, I use them myself sometimes on those days when my mind is in pulp-land and I can't get myself to say the words, "Batman is a superhero."

[Brad]

Oops! Forgot to share the link to the Wikipedia definition of "superhero": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhero

[Elie]

Hi, I'm new to the group also (but not to Goodreads). I agree with Christopher that you guys have nailed a good description of Superhero v Pulp hero. I started off as a big fan of the comics and it led me back towards the pulps. I still enjoy both today, but I recognize I'll be reading very different stories with each.