REEDING INTO THINGS #26: SUPERHEROES ARE NOT A GENRE

[Joel Phillips]

<img src="http://x-mencomics.com/xfan/images/columns/ritlogo.jpg" align=left width=115 height=100 border=0 alt="Reeding Into Things">By Joel Phillips

Superheroes are NOT a genre


I’ve figured out the one big problem I’m having with superheroes these days. It’s not a new problem, it’s just finally gotten to me is all. The problem is that comic book writers and companies treat superheroes like their own genre, which they really shouldn’t be.

What do I mean? Well some people use the word “genre” to mean any classification of media that share a characteristic. This definition, however, is far too broad. Under such a definition, we could say that movies with dogs in them constitute a genre of film. Obviously, that’s a misuse of the word. A genre is indeed a classification of media that share characteristics, but those characteristics go to tone, style, and intent. Mystery is a genre. Romance is a genre. Comedy is a genre, albeit a broad one. Superheroes, however, are NOT a genre.

Superheroes are, at best, a set of adaptive traits which can be applied to true genres. Westerns function the same way: when we say a film is a Western, it gives some idea of the look of the film and the kinds of settings and characters it will contain. What it doesn’t tell us is what the film is actually about. There are comedic Westerns, romantic Westerns, action-oriented Westerns, horror Westerns, and on and on. It’s the exact same thing with superheroes. Saying a story is about superheroes gives us ideas about characters, settings and appearances, but says nothing about what the stories are actually about.

Superheroes can be used to great effect in a wide variety of settings. Super powers make for great opportunities for comedy. Superhuman romances exaggerate normal human traits to highlight aspects of relationships that would otherwise go unnoticed. There aren’t many genres that wouldn’t blend well with superhero traits to form something new and interesting. What’s bothersome about most superhero comics today is that they aren’t really about anything, and they have given up on touching new genres and ideas. Superheroes have all settled for action-adventure, and of a very specific variety too: hero fights villain. Only the players change, but the game is always the same.

Superheroes are often compared to mythic archetypes, but one look at superheroes in the last decade shows why that comparison no longer holds up. Mythic figures work as archetypes because the same figure can be used in a wide variety of ways to make points about a wide variety of topics. Major franchise superheroes aren’t allowed that same variety. They are used in one way, to tell one kind of story, and they tell it over and over again.

There’s nothing wrong with action-adventure, and there’s no reason why a comic can’t be pure escapism if it wants to be. But the superhero characters that have the greatest fan base, and thus the greatest starting appeal, are left to action-adventure to the exclusion of everything else. Spider-Man, it seems, can’t be used in any other capacity besides kicking the behind of his bad guy of the day. That’s all he’s good for. He has half a dozen titles, but they are all devoted to telling the same kind of stories. You would think there might be room for one title out of six to attempt something with the character besides the standard “here is a bad guy, let me fight him” scenario.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with superheroes as characters, there’s something wrong with attempting to make them their own genre. Superhero clashes lose their potency when they stop having any real reason for existing beyond “this is what we do”. There’s great power in superheroes as story devices, but it’s only new, small time superheroes that are truly allowed to tap into that power; which is why their stories can resonate with even those readers who find themselves burned out on the usual superhero fare.

Can big name superheroes be used to tell different kinds of stories? Yes. Will they? Probably not. Companies probably see it as damaging to the property. One would think that the same mentality that says you can have five X-Men titles that needn’t intersect would allow for one of those titles to attempt something new, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

I like superheroes, and there are tons of great superhero characters I enjoy. I’ll be watching and waiting for the day when they’ve got something new to show me.

<center><hr width=75%></center>

Joel Phillips likes stories that are about things, not just starring certain people.

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of ComiX-Fan or its other staff in general.

[Liquvo]

My viewpoint:

Superheroes have become a genre for two main reasons:

1) Popularity in the comics medium
2) Similiar pervasive themes/ideas/motifs

The second one here is what defines "superheroes" as a genre - superhero books tend to have differnt over- und underlying themes and metaphors then Science Fiction or general fantasy stories do.

***Not all books with superheroes are superhero books, though.

[BoomBot]

Good colum Joel but I find this one unusually bitter. You do have your points but I find some examples faulty. Spider-Man is good for comedy, romance, action, and more. People relate to him as the teen who can't get the girl but has the powers we all want. You may not think his stories are like that now but that why's he's so popular. X-Men are an analogy to prejudice and hate, which the stories don't always point that out but oh well, and what not.

[Dylan McKay]

I think the real under lying theme of the X-Men is that they are freaks and geeks who kick ass and generally look like supermodels...

But I digress, I agree with Joel here. Spiderman is a great example. We two major ongoings, why not have one dedicated to character driven humour and the other dedicated to action adventure? Would Spiderman not be successful if every issue had people laughing out loud? Would it not work well to have a writter like Joe Casey explore the Bruce Wayne character and how he's a hero even without the cape and cowl?

[John Q.T. Nguyen]

And there's the Eastern Western (see: Once Upon a Time in China and America)... ;D

[Jim Lemoine]

I'm curious, Joel... have you read Jurgens' Thor? What's your take on it, or J.J. Miller's Iron Man?

[Alex Guillen]

Nalyd, good point about Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Sometimes I think we just look at superheroes like gods were viewed in the past. this is our new myth and we like and enjoy that they go out and fight the "villains" all the time, it's the same formula that's wroked since the beginning of stories.
Sure they can be used for many other type of stories but in the end the "superhero" factor is what grabs our minds in the first place, people with powers or doing things we only dream of doing ever in our lifetime and living lifes full of danger and romance.
In the end, they are reflections of society and their creators and even if we don't like them to diversify into other areas, we still see our lifes reflected on the pages of every comic we read.

[Arachne]

I feel that superheroes are a genre. When I buy the new Spider-man or X-Men trade, I'm buying superheroes. But today when I left work with my brand new manga, I left with a horror story, a cop drama, and a high school teen angst story. : shrug : Maybe it's just me but when I look at American comics, it's all superhero or not.

[Scott Williams]

All I can say Joel is that I agree, and that Redneck Comics (http://redneckcomics.8m.com/) tells comedies about superheroes. Everyone go check that out. It's free, buddy! :cool:

[Robb Welch]

Formerly Known as The Justice League comes to mind.

And sure dont see X-Statix falling under any of this.

Or Daredevil ....

not the Hulk.....

Actualy I dont know any titles besides the spider-man, X-Men and a few other titles. Not from Marvel anyway. I know DC has this problem major though. Except for Vertigo and Wildstorm, of course.

[BlakGard]

I agree that Superheroes are not a genre, but I don't see that the problem with the industry is that they are treated as such. Most books that I pick up aren't all action/adventure. They have some good dramatic parts, a little bit of comedy (mostly as comic relief), some mystery, an occasional horror, etc. I definitely think that it's a mistake to have a book devoted to "character-driven comedy" and another book devoted to action/adventure, because then each book gets pegged as a certain thing. Personally, I prefer they mix it up. Have some stories that are primarily action, then some drama, maybe an issue here and there that is more comedic, etc. That's pretty much what we have.

[Joel Phillips]

Originally posted by Jim Lemoine
I'm curious, Joel... have you read Jurgens' Thor? What's your take on it, or J.J. Miller's Iron Man?

I haven't read them, so I can't comment. Sorry.

There was other stuff I was gonna respond to but I've honestly forgotten what it was. I'm looking back over everyone's posts and it's completely gone out of my head. Which is probably for the best, since my waning interest in superheroes (this is my farewell to the topic) makes me disinclined to engage in lengthy conversation about them.

[A.W. Pemberton]

I do believe there is a thing called the "superhero genre", but i also believe most comics dont fall anywhere near it. I'd define a story that fall into the "superhero genre" as one than explores the nature of "the superhero", rather than stories where people with super-powers do stuff. I totally agree that we need stories that are about relevant things, not just the same rehashed adventures over and over.

Id like to know what youve tried from the Wildstorm range. Its worth a look before you dismiss the medium completely (especially Planetary, Wildcats v3.0, Authority v1. All these books explore the nature of the superhero in one way or another).

[Robb Welch]

how does a genre become a genre? if there are enough stories about the subject, does this not create a genre? Its all very relative. If you want to concider Romance a genre... well what made it a genre? the fact that its so abundent. and that makes us relate to it. Relativity is a funny thing.

[Joel Phillips]

Originally posted by 2501
Id like to know what youve tried from the Wildstorm range. Its worth a look before you dismiss the medium completely (especially Planetary, Wildcats v3.0, Authority v1. All these books explore the nature of the superhero in one way or another).

I've read scattered issues of Planetary and Authority (which volume I honestly don't know), but probably not enough to form a decent opinion. I understand your referencing them in regards to this topic though, since it was clear that they attempted other topics and methods of storytelling that more "conventional" superhero titles don't.

Originally posted by Perfect Methods
how does a genre become a genre? if there are enough stories about the subject, does this not create a genre? Its all very relative. If you want to concider Romance a genre... well what made it a genre? the fact that its so abundent. and that makes us relate to it. Relativity is a funny thing.

No, something doesn't become a genre just because there is a lot of them. There are a lot of movies with dogs in them, but that doesn't make them a genre.

Romance became a genre not just because there are lots of romances, but because romance is a widely used topic which has certain moods, themes and norms that reappear often in romances. Superheroes don't have shared STORY traits, except those they have co-opted from action-adventure, their true genre. They have shared CHARACTER traits (that is, what makes a superhero a superhero), but that's different... notice that nobody is claiming superheroes aren't a distinct character type.

It's like if over the years a thousand movies were made with monkeys in them, but the films were all mysteries. What we have isn't a new genre of monkey movies, it's merely a series of mysteries that share a common character type (monkeys). Take the shared character type away and they fall right in with other mysteries. It's the same for superheroes: they aren't a new genre, merely an established one (action-adventure) with a shared character type (superhumans).

[Marc-Oliver Frisch]

Your thesis itself is sound, for the most part, but I think you're working from two false assumptions.

Assumption Number One:

Originally posted by Joel Phillips
Well some people use the word “genre” to mean any classification of media that share a characteristic. This definition, however, is far too broad. Under such a definition, we could say that movies with dogs in them constitute a genre of film.

Well, no, we couldn't. Movies with dogs in them are not dog movies -- they're just movies with dogs in them. Movies starring a cast of dogs, however, are, quite clearly, falling in the genre of dog movies.


Assumption Number Two:

Originally posted by Joel Phillips
A genre is indeed a classification of media that share characteristics, but those characteristics go to tone, style, and intent. Mystery is a genre. Romance is a genre. Comedy is a genre, albeit a broad one. Superheroes, however, are NOT a genre.

Superheroes are, at best, a set of adaptive traits which can be applied to true genres.

There are no "true" genres. The assumption here seems to be that a given work can only ever belong to one particular genre, and that's incorrect.

There are such things as romantic comedies, science fiction adventures, erotic mystery thrillers or, well, dog romances.

Likewise, works starring a superhero are belonging to the genre of superheroes, but might just belong to any number of other genres as well.

SLEEPER? Why, that's a superhero espionage thriller. AVENGERS? Superhero action. PLANETARY? Superhero mystery. POWERS? Superhero crime noir. The recent MIGHTY LOVE? Superhero romance. SUPERMAN'S FOUR-LEGGED PAL KRYPTO? Superhero dogs!

You get the idea.

"Genre" is not something that is set in stone. Sometimes you may well have a "main genre," but mostly that's not at the exclusion of everything else.

[Dylan McKay]

Originally posted by Joel Phillips


I haven't read them, so I can't comment. Sorry.

There was other stuff I was gonna respond to but I've honestly forgotten what it was. I'm looking back over everyone's posts and it's completely gone out of my head. Which is probably for the best, since my waning interest in superheroes (this is my farewell to the topic) makes me disinclined to engage in lengthy conversation about them.

It's a shame, as you say in the article, superheroes should spread beyond the boundaries of action adventure, and at least in the case of J.J. Miller's Iron Man you get a perfect example of superheroes really moving beyond the typical superhero story and telling great stories in general. One of the stupidest editorial based creator changes in a history of stupid editorial changes. I'm still in shocked that he was removed from the title and it happened about 6 weeks ago.

[nekretaal]

Superheroes aren't a genre the way that Greek Myths aren't a genre. If they're treated as a genre, the genre is thin.

The best way to look at the stories within comic books, even stuff like Spider-man, is that they move in between science fiction, fantasy, and horror. Romance plots are occaionally found within as well.

[Alex Groff]

I'm not aiming this at you, Joel, but in general:

There is the argument that superheroes do not step outside the slapstick or uber-serious action roles.

But that argument has to ignore a slew of books: Planetary, Sleeper, Wildcats Version 3.0, X-Statix, (current) Iron Man and Thor, Powers, Automatic Kafka, the Invisibles, and the list goes on.

These are many books that enter other non-action genres. But most people don't pay attention to them. And then they get cancelled because no one is paying attention to them.

Then we have something to complain about, but it's our own fault.

Before complaining, I think we as a community need to open our eyes to our options. There is a comic for everyone. There's even a book for transgender readers (see NBM/ComicLit's How Loathsome), which is about as niche market as one can get, I imagine. All finding these books requires is that we keep our eyes open, and try new things out.

[bravelybravesirrobin]

Um guys I think a lot of you are confused about the concept of genre. As a Media Student let me just explain a few key ideas


Firstly Genre is roughly divided into two elements. The semantic and syntatic conventions.

Semantic conventions (or iconography) are the characterisitics most people assume makes up a genre. These are the visual or character characteristics that we immediately associate with a given genre. For example cowboys are a semantic element of the western genre we see cowboys and assume it is a western.

Themes might also apply here although there is some dispute and many believe they should apply to the -

Syntatic elements. These are the story elements of a genre, the type of story told in this genre it's conventions and rules. The stricitest syntatic genre is the slasher film which has a VERY strict structure of killer moves through group of teenagers killing each one until forced into a final confrontation with the "final girl"

Note both the final girl and killer are semantic elements. replace final girl with Ripley and ghost face with an alien and you're still dealing with a syntatic slasher film but msot people see alien as a sci-fi film because it has science fiction iconography.

The main genres, romance, westerns, horror, drama, action and others all contain both these elements. Comedy and Sci-Fi though are more difficult to deal with. Sci-fi most theorists hold is almost entirely made of semantic elements.... sure there are some themes and story ideas (the what if and time travel) but Sci-Fi is mainly a set of semantics (aliens, advanced tech, space ships) placed over another genre's syntax..... for example Star\Wars is sci-fi semantics over a western story.

Comedy works in reverse.... it's normally a story (make people laugh) based around another genre's semantics, normally romance or drama. although certain sub-genres such as slapstick have their own syntax.



So in asking if Superheroes are a true genre we must first ask if they have both conventional story elements and conventional visual elements.

OBVIOUSLY super heroes has a full compliment of semantics e.g. guys in spandex, anyone with more than human abilities that the text chooses to emphasise (which is actually a convention of action films) AND THAT ARE EXPLAINED (which is markedly different from action. if Arnie blows away a whole army by himself that's action. If the film explains that he can do this because of his advanced military training then he becomes a super-hero) these and MANY other are examples of the semantics of super heroes. Any collection of semantics can loosely be termed as a genre so YES. genre is an accurate term for super heroes.

The question raised in this article is if they have a syntax. And on this issue I agree with the writer that they don't. For the most part super heroes appropriate science fiction themes and action/adventure plots. The more street level heroes appropriate a detective story syntax and so on.

Therefore every "pure" super-hero comic of what is called the super-hero genre is a hybrid genre text of superhero genre and action/adventure genre. Often with further hybridisation of Soap opera, comedies, detective stories and especially in the big two Sci-Fi and Fantasy.



However, there is a school of thougth amongst media theorists that any repeated collection of hybrids is in itself a genre. For example is the Sit-Com, a hybridisation of drama, romance, soap opera (and soap opera itself could be an example of this) and comedy a hybrid genre or its own genre? If it is it's own genre then super-hero comics in the style of the x-men or spiderman would also be termed a genre?


I wrote my final thesis on this subject and trust me its a massive can of worms that's really hard to argue. Basically if someone somewhere identifies it as a genre then it probably is.

[DCUnited]

Hey bbsr ya might want to use language that more people can understand or try not to get too confusing. I've taken a few media courses myself, and I was slightly confused by that.

[Kevin Sutton]

Originally posted by bravelybravesirrobin
Firstly Genre is roughly divided into two elements. The semantic and syntatic conventions.

Am I to assume based on your position that superheroes have the semantic elements of a genre but borrow the syntatic elements of other genres?

If so, then whether it's a genre or not depends on whether a genre requires having both or just one.

[Dylan McKay]

Originally posted by bravelybravesirrobin
...


My question is, what is your opinion on the other major superhero style. The heroic deconstruction. Is that a genre and to what degree is it broader than superheroes?

[wyzeguy]

Wow. Following all this is exhausting.

I have to agree with braverobin's examination of the different elements that make up a genre, and with the school of thought that it's hard for a given style of story to fall within a single genre and none others. A lot of the most successful stories can be broken down into smaller genres, and on and on until it's not a genre anymore but a concept.

When Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman, they had absolutely no clue how much the superhero concept would catch on and take on a life of its own (I doubt the word "superhero" was even thought of until decades later). They were just putting things in there (like adventure, sci-fi, fantasy, and romance) that they liked and that they hoped would appeal to some kind of audience and would be sold as a marketable idea. They didn't bother to decide whether or not this could constitute a genre because they were still trying to sell it to newspapers and publishers without any real expectation that Superman would be picked up. Then they sold Superman to National (later known as DC Comics) for a little over a hundred dollars, and they still didn't know it would catch on. Then Bob Kane and Bill Finger threw their interest in detective stories, horror, crime drama, and a "mystery man" angle (popularized by Lone Ranger and Zorro, to name a few, long before Superman) into the proverbial blender and they came up with Batman in response to National's request for another series like Superman. Kane and Finger just did something altogether different with the superhero idea. In fact, creators have been doing different things with that basic concept for about 70 years now. Some characters hold similarities with one another, but most are markedly different with one another. And the same characters can be used to tell a wide variety of stories.

Let's take Star Wars. It can be best described as a space opera. So right off the bat, it straddles two different genres. Now, can we find any other genres? Action's a huge one, and it takes up a huge portion of the plot. Romance is another huge one, as Han, Leia, and Luke will tell you. Comedy? That's there as well, in smaller supply, but if you take out the space opera and the action and the romance, you'd still have Leia fussing, C-3PO stressing out, and Obi-Wan muttering, "I have a bad feeling about this" two seconds before he's inevitably proven right. Take away any of those elements and the movie could still stand (just not as well), because it's ultimately not about any one thing, but about quite a few elements working in concern.

How about Lord of the Rings? Let's see: Fantasy, action, adventure (or, if you prefer, action/adventure), romance, horror, and political commentary, just to name a few. Fantasy provides the setting, adventure provides the plot, and action, romance, horror, and political commentaries provide the suplots and the meat for the main conflicts. All of those genres/elements work together to create a larger story in which a lot is going on.

That's how I see the superhero genre/concept. It can hold sci-fi, fantasy, romance, action/adventure, western, horror, and umpteen other different things, along with the superhuman angle. Take away Spider-Man's powers and superhero theatrics, and you still have romance, comedy, and drama. In fact, a recent issue of Ultimate Spider-Man focused solely on Peter's Aunt May and what goes through her head as she worries about Peter to her therapist. Spider-Man is mentioned, but without the basic connection that Spidey is her nephew, because she doesn't know. Spider-Man is someone she encountered once, and who is on the news quite a bit. The issue could have been told just as well without any mention of Spider-Man, so how should it be classified? If "superhero" isn't a genre, what happens when the stories focus on something else besides superheroes? And yes, superhero stories focus on something else a lot more frequently than most people realize. It's quite a flexible one because it can allow for countless different reinterpretations of the same elements, countless different mixtures, and countless different ways of telling a story.

I don't know if the above paragraphs even make sense or make my point clearly, but basically, rather than saying superhero books are about nothing, they're quite often about everything.

Whether or not they constitute an actual genre involves a level of anal semantics that kind of take all the fun out of it. Some of te best stories in history have straddled genre lines, because ultimately, so does life experience.

[Robb Welch]

Everyones kinda re-iterating what I said....

I think....

['zel-J]

Originally posted by Arachne
I feel that superheroes are a genre. When I buy the new Spider-man or X-Men trade, I'm buying superheroes. But today when I left work with my brand new manga, I left with a horror story, a cop drama, and a high school teen angst story. : shrug : Maybe it's just me but when I look at American comics, it's all superhero or not.

Hmmm, interesting point. I think a lot of Brits would agree that American comics tend to be synonymous with Spiderman/Batman/Supes etc (I know theres other types, but thats what we think of first...).

British comics tend to be more anthology-type things, like the Eagle and 2000 AD (lots of sci-fi, aimed at boys) and Bunty, Judy and School Friend (school stories, melodrama, historical stuff, aimed at girls), with the comedy stuff like the Beano for younger kids.

What do people think, is this because of differing national tastes, or do any Media Studies bods have any high-falutin' theories?

[Dylan McKay]

I think it's kinda practical. Until the past five years. Animation was the only other medium that could tell superhero stories. And even then/now, comics are by far the cheapest way to tell superhero stories. So comic books co-opted the style or genre as their own. The weird thing is, it's really only in the past 10-20 years that superhero comics became so dominant. In the 70's and before, all forms of action adventure could be found in comics.