A superhero is defined as a "benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers." Batman essentially has no super powers. He can't fly, run abnormally fast, or anything spectacular. There is clearly a very distinct line between Batman and what is defined as a superhero. On the other hand, he can perform better than an average human. Batman is a great character because people can look up to him and realize that its possible to be like him. It gives hope to the readers of the comics. He inspires the audience to believe that they can have a great impact on the world, even if they don't have any super powers. Regardless of his impact on his fans, Is he really a superhero or not?
I would describe certain aspects in order to develop your topic further.
– BMartin438 years ago
Great idea for a topic. I think it depends on the criteria of the definition of "super hero". Finding a definite definition of the term might help to influence how the topic proceeds from here. I don't really think that there is a right or wrong answer to this question, but just depends on how you define super hero and other terms related to the character. Great topic! – SeanGadus8 years ago
I think if you narrow the criteria so much for a superhero (i.e. superpowers, benevolence), it'll become harder to see a character like Batman as a superhero. Heroes like Batman blur the lines of good and evil. He certainly does good things for Gotham - cleaning up crime, stopping murderers, etc. - but he is also a vigilante that the police (the other "do-gooders") hate. He is very much human but is also created and thriving under special circumstances. He's a complex character and I think that definitely needs to be considered here, as well as a more definite definition of what exactly a superhero means, as suggested above. – karebear78 years ago
In Watchmen there was a lot of distinction made between the costumed heroes/vigilantes' and the one 'superhero,' Dr. Manhattan. This prompt is mainly definition-based, so I might go into the word's etymology? 'Super' typically means above, literally or figuratively, so you could discuss the grounds for superiority? – m-cubed8 years ago
If a superhero is based on the willpower to kickass and save the world, yes, but if it's based on having super abilities then no. However, that brings into question Hawkeye - who, essentially, has no superpower. Can just kickass at archery haha. Same with Joker, he's just a maniac and super psychotic. This is a cool topic, for sure! If I was a DC fan I would totally try my hand at it, but I don't have enough knowledge about Batman! – scole8 years ago
Do you believe that any of the people that Batman saved from imminent peril would say, "Well, that was nice. But he isn't a superhero, he's too rich." IN a way, I think that your strict definition of what makes a "superhero" might be pigeon-holing your argument quite a bit. For past generations, the mutant human with super strength or the ability to fly may very well have been the norm for what makes a superhero- as you stated, with "superhuman powers." IMO, Batman doesn't fit your definition as a superhero, he REDIFINES it. In a modern, capitalist world, someone could easily become a "superhero" strictly through financial means. – AndyJanz8 years ago
There's how we define the "super" part of the word, but there's also how does one define a "hero". Is a hero a literary hero, someone who follows particular narrative arcs, someone who upholds a particular morality, or just the protagonist of a work? Are they a hero because they save people, or because they fight crime? Then are emergency response personnel and police also their own type of hero? – sk8knight8 years ago
This question is pointless because the discussion should not be focused on the possession of super powers nor should it be focused on the distinction between “hero” and “superhero.” The author is really interested in the perception of heroic acts by society, and the battle against semantics, I guess. – T. Palomino2 years ago