[narfstar]

Moonstone is publishing The Phantom and the have just put out an annual the sight of which got me thinking.
I do not usually like characters called superheroes who have no powers ( and HATE powerless kid sidekicks(down with Robin)). The GA was full of them. Anyone could put on a suit (and often did) and be labeled a superhero. It is usually completely unbelievable that they could survive long in crime fighting. I can think of five GA characters that I would deem believable as superheroes even without any powers. Number ONE of course would have to be Batman. His training and intellect elevate him to a level as one of the most powerful of superheroes IMHO. The next is The Phantom. His network and mystique put him high on the list. Next is Tarzan. Some may not consider him a SH, but just because he does not wear a suit does not mean he could not hold his own. Then there would be Doc Savage and The Shadow. It bugs in early Avengers that Cap American is always lauded as being so great without any powers. The guy is a full blown powered up SH with a special weapon. The super soldier formula made him a SH. I wonder where Stan got the idea that he was not? I will admit that at the time that writing made me admire Cap but that does not now justify it in my book.

[phabox]

Many of the members of the JSA used gimmicks and gadgets to get by, Sandman and Starman to name just two.

To me though such characters were NOT Super-Heroes but "Mystery Men" and of course back in the REAL Golden Age most of the bad guys were just common or garden crooks rarther then super-villains so things were pretty even really.

-Nigel

[Yoc]

The Spectre vs Stardust
Ohhhh, now that would be a bizarre fight no?

I've never had any problem with mystery men vs Super Heroes.  Sometimes the lack of powers makes the stories more compelling as they couldn't just punch their way through a wall to solve the problem of the day.

-Yoc

[John C]

Oddly, I've never been bothered by a lack of powers.  Maybe it's because, as Nigel points out, they weren't boxing with demigods or making spot repairs to the time-space continuum.  Tarzan excepted, I mean, since he actually did stuff along those lines on occasion in the novels.  But also, I always interpreted the word "superhero" to imply that they did things on behalf of humanity above and beyond what the heroes in our daily lives (parents, doctors, firemen, etc.) were able to do for us.  That doesn't necessarily require special abilities beyond noticing the guy with the death ray or the possibility of a "Gigli" sequel.  They're larger than life, even when they're no more capable than you or I, which is what makes them "super."

Sidekicks aren't something I see a real problem with in concept.  Kids can be competent, and in the general case, it's probably no worse than bringing a kid on a hunting trip or letting him go on a field trip to somewhere in a bad part of the city.  I have two objections in implementation, though.

The first is the "Robin effect," where the kid is sent into the line of fire to be presenting an appealing target to murderers while the real hero manages to sneak around unscathed--I mean, while I don't mind a kid being in a dangerous situation, actually placing the child in explicit danger for your own benefit is slimy.  (On the other hand, the writers may have been writing from at least indirect experience--during Prohibition, there were speakeasies specifically for children and kids were routinely employed across some organizations.  It would've been outdated by the '40s, but the adults reading might well have felt a strong kinship with the kid acting as a decoy for the mentor.)

The other problem is just one of story structure, and actually more a Silver Age phenomenon.  Kid sidekicks are an excuse for the writer to fill up panels with exposition, because the kid is invariably an idiot who asks stupid questions.  Worse is when the writer tries to pawn this off as an "audience identification figure," since that's actually directly insulting to us.  But I realize that's not just a sidekick problem.  If Robin didn't exist, Batman would have to explain obvious things to cops or talk to himself.  And today, it's worse, since the lack of kid sidekicks means that one of the heroes is required to be the moron of the group.

[bchat]

Worse is when the writer tries to pawn this off as an "audience identification figure," since that's actually directly insulting to us.

Only in the case of today's readers.  Back in the 40s, the common worker/comic reader didn't have a high level of education since they were mostly laborers and didn't need it.  If the audience didn't understand what's going-on by way of the hero explaining things to his sidekick, they weren't going to keep buying the books for long.

[JVJ]

Only in the case of today's readers.  Back in the 40s, the common worker/comic reader didn't have a high level of education since they were mostly laborers and didn't need it.  If the audience didn't understand what's going-on by way of the hero explaining things to his sidekick, they weren't going to keep buying the books for long.

I understand what you are trying to say, bchat. However, I caution everyone who makes such an observation that it is not fair to equate education with intelligence. I don't believe anyone has ever documented such a correspondence. Just because a laborer didn't get through high school doesn't imply that the "subtleties" of comic book dialog might be impenetrable to them.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[boox909]

Only in the case of today's readers.  Back in the 40s, the common worker/comic reader didn't have a high level of education since they were mostly laborers and didn't need it.  If the audience didn't understand what's going-on by way of the hero explaining things to his sidekick, they weren't going to keep buying the books for long.

I understand what you are trying to say, bchat. However, I caution everyone who makes such an observation that it is not fair to equate education with intelligence. I don't believe anyone has ever documented such a correspondence. Just because a laborer didn't get through high school doesn't imply that the "subtleties" of comic book dialog might be impenetrable to them.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

I think bchat was talking about Marvel Comics -- because you have to be pretty stupid to understand much of the junk that they publish these days.     

B.

[boox909]

Worse is when the writer tries to pawn this off as an "audience identification figure," since that's actually directly insulting to us.

Only in the case of today's readers.  Back in the 40s, the common worker/comic reader didn't have a high level of education since they were mostly laborers and didn't need it.  If the audience didn't understand what's going-on by way of the hero explaining things to his sidekick, they weren't going to keep buying the books for long.

I wonder if anyone has done any work on this -- it is an interesting notion, albeit not a politically correct one.

B. 

[boox909]

Many of the members of the JSA used gimmicks and gadgets to get by, Sandman and Starman to name just two.

To me though such characters were NOT Super-Heroes but "Mystery Men" and of course back in the REAL Golden Age most of the bad guys were just common or garden crooks rather then super-villains so things were pretty even really.

-Nigel

Amen! 

B.

[narfstar]

Life education beats school education hands down. The literacy rate was higher then than now. Kids learned to read in school. Now they are taught (I use the term loosely because teaching does not occur without learning) all types of things before they can read. Many never learn to read. Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader is an example of what is wrong with our education. Too much is thrown at kids without assuring that first they have basic literacy and numeracy. 

Back to superheroes- I think it has often been suggested that the kid sidekick was for kids to relate to. Even in GA books I find nonpowered kid sidekicks ridiculous. I guess if I consider adult heroes costumed "mystery men" then there is less need for a super power. If they are put in a world with superheroes or supervillians they no longer belong. Since many GA companies never intermingled their charcters I can take those. As a child of the sixties though, with the JLA etc, I find non-powered characters as not belonging in the same "universe". I liked the Marvel New Universe concept where there was an explanation of people gaining powers through a mysterious white event. The only book of the New U I really liked was DP 7. Really liked that one dealing with people thrown into their situation.

[bchat]

However, I caution everyone who makes such an observation that it is not fair to equate education with intelligence.

Knowledge does not equal Intelligence.  Never has, never will.  My one grandfather invented a machine to make the work easier at one of his jobs, the other one "turned $1 into $8" quite often and one of my great-grandfathers ran his own business.  Not one of them finished high-school.

[JVJ]

I think bchat was talking about Marvel Comics -- because you have to be pretty stupid to understand much of the junk that they publish these days.     

B.

I wouldn't know B.
I stopped buying Marvel Comics back in 1998 or so. Whenever they decided to go with a single distributor and set off the SECOND Marvel Implosion, I decided then and there that they were too dumb to receiving MY money. I think I've purchased ONE book (by accident) since that day. It was the first issue of Alias and I didn't realize that MAX was Marvel.

Somehow I've survived for over a decade without reading a Marvel comic.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

I liked Avengers Next and J2. The only Marvel books that I get are the Avengers Next TPBs when they come out sporadically. I gained an interest in the characters even if the stories can be lacking.

[bchat]

I liked Avengers Next and J2.

I thought the entire MC2 line (Spider-Girl, A-Next, J2, etc) was fun to read, which is what comics are supposed to be.  Thunderbolts was a good book too, but on each run Marvel's changed the focus of the title and I've dropped it.

I think bchat was talking about Marvel Comics -- because you have to be pretty stupid to understand much of the junk that they publish these days.

I wouldn't personally blast the readers of Marvel's comics.  "To each his own."  Marvel Comics itself, on the other hand, is fair game.  They've done a great job of making their books unreadable either by "changing directions" on certain titles or forcing every book they publish to tie-in with their "Big Events", which I usually ignore.  I hate when a good storyline gets derailed by these "forced crossovers".  Marvel could probably have more decent selling books if they would just leave them alone and let the crossovers with other titles be more organic.

[DOC]

Many of the members of the JSA used gimmicks and gadgets to get by, Sandman and Starman to name just two.

To me though such characters were NOT Super-Heroes but "Mystery Men" and of course back in the REAL Golden Age most of the bad guys were just common or garden crooks rarther then super-villains so things were pretty even really.

-Nigel

Agree. Now we have metahumans and whatever Marvel uses. Always loved mystery-men. I keep thinking there was a story during the Byrne Suoerman run how they made Clark's outfit and Pa Kent mentioning the Mystery Men of the 40's, am I not remembering right?

[John C]

This isn't quite on the topic, but does anybody know where the term "mystery men" comes from?  While it seems common wisdom that it was a general term of the Golden Age, the earliest references to it I've found are from Roy Thomas's All-Star Squadron.  But I know that he's usually a more rigorous researcher than to coin a term and merely assert its age.

Oh--and when I was talking about insulting the reader's intelligence, I meant the conceit of "burying" exposition in dialogue.  If you really need to explain something in a comic, nobody's going to begrudge you a caption or two.  And if you need to explain the plot in an epilogue, then you didn't execute the plot properly in the main part of the story and would be better off adding the explanation to the action itself.  Y'know, "show, don't tell."  The kid sidekick makes it too easy to reverse that approach.

[phabox]

Hot on the heels of Superman's debut Victor Fox launched 'Mystery Men Comics' starting with an August 1939 cover date which ran for a total of 31 issues and showcased such Fox Features stars as The Blue Beetle and Green Mask among others.

I think that  makes 'Mystery Men' a genuine 1940's term.

-Nigel

[John C]

I hadn't thought of the Fox title, which is embarassing since I enjoy the series, but I'm not sure that's what I was thinking of.  What I'm looking for is...well, to use dictionary-speak, a citation, someplace where the term is actually in use in the context of describing a superhero/action-hero.

[JVJ]

I hadn't thought of the Fox title, which is embarassing since I enjoy the series, but I'm not sure that's what I was thinking of.  What I'm looking for is...well, to use dictionary-speak, a citation, someplace where the term is actually in use in the context of describing a superhero/action-hero.

I put "mystery men" (in quotes) and 1930 together in Google and discovered a book written in 1930:
http://www.fairinvestment.co.uk/Bookshop/Book/mystery-men-of-wall-street/21365/

I have no idea if this is the earliest use of the term, but it certainly preceded the Fox title and the "common" usage in the 1940s. It's not a great leap from going to Wall Street invisible manipulators to "super heros" manipulating justice behind the scenes.

Ain't Google the cat's pajamas?

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[JVJ]

I hadn't thought of the Fox title, which is embarassing since I enjoy the series, but I'm not sure that's what I was thinking of.  What I'm looking for is...well, to use dictionary-speak, a citation, someplace where the term is actually in use in the context of describing a superhero/action-hero.

Here's another book from 1929 that uses the term to refer to magicians:
GOLDSTON, Will
Tricks You Should Know
      1930 1930 - GOLDSTON, Will. Tricks You Should Know. London: Will Goldston, circa 1930. Small octavo, original pictorial boards. $200. First separate edition of this compendium of magic tricks, illustrated with photographic frontispiece and numerous in-text diagrams, from the collection of magician Eric Lewis. "This book is taken from the Edition De Luxe of my book, Sensational Tales of Mystery Men [published in a limited edition in 1929]. The magician who does not know the contents of this volume will soon be behind the times" (Introduction). Goldston was a talented magician and professional dealer and agent (handling more than 200 magicians). For many years he managed the "Conjuring, Theatrical, & Entertainment Departments" at Gamage's Department Store in London. He also founded "The Magicians' Club," acting as club treasurer alongside Harry Houdini, who served as its first president. Bookplate of magician Eric C. Lewis, who constructed illusions for Doug Henning and David Copperfield. L

[paw broon]

This is intriguing stuff and as a long time "superhero" fan, I've done a wee bit of thinking on powers and the lack thereof.  I've had a personal project on the go off and on for the last few years cataloguing (on card files, as I find it quicker and easier than using a computer with which I'm not very good),obscure "superheroes".  Now, I realise one person's obscure is anothers "got the t-shirt" and to many of you folk, you'll be familiar with lots of my list, but, I started to think about the term superhero and came to the conclusion, as someone above says, that these are larger than life characters, in comics, pulps, books and story papers, dressed wierdly and fighting crime. Nowadays I use the terms:- superhero, masked and/or costumed hero, mystery man.
I agree with the point about non-powered heroes fighting gangsters and back street criminals, and succeeding, but how would Batman, Green Arrow, Catman(American or Australian), The Phantom manage against the might of nazi Germany or Japan during the war? Even though some of them succeed in the comics, it's not really very likely in reality.  And that very point makes me realise that we are all reading  comic books with very little based on real life.  I can't speak for recent comics as I hardly ever see them.
I read for diversion and because I love the idea of masked, costumed heroes, super powered or not. 
I don't like kid sidekicks and for the most part think they are a waste of space, although, as with Doctor Who assistants, they can serve an explanatory purpose.
As for the Tarzan thing, can we not just agree that he is an adventurer, rather than a costumed hero?  Same with Sherlock holmes, Dixon Hawke, Doc Savage.  No super suits, masks or secret identities.

[narfstar]

Categorizing is always a subjective thing. After this thread I would go along with the categories below. I agree that unreal is a very intrinsic part of our fun. Even within our unreal world I have to have some parameters that make it suspended unbelief believable. I go with my believability.

Mystery Men: Costumed characters without powers who fought non-powered villains and was not involved with powered heroes.

Superheroes: Have a power or weapon that puts them beyond the normal. The non-powered characters that I elevate to this are Batman (his brain puts him above and you could say weapons,) Tarzan his rearing, Phantom (his mystique and network,) Doc Savage with his training regime and mind. I can accept them holding their own with other heroes and against super villains.

GA heroes seldom associated with other heroes so most were OK at the time. With all the revivals I would prefer the Mystery Men stick to common criminals and not work alongside superheroes. Just my oponion

[DOC]

So Sandman, The Atom (before his radiation exposure), and Batman (before Crisis) were "super-heroes" due to they were in the JSA?

[narfstar]

My idea is not that it makes them superheroes but that they are out of place and unbellevable in those settings. Except Batman who transends his normalcy.

[DOC]

Why would they be out of place? Sandman shoudn't team up with say Dr. Fate? What about heroes with gadgets like Starman?