NEW CROWNER 03/24/13: Costumed Non Super Hero

Total posts: [30]
1 2
Isn't it a bit contradictory that Costumed Non Super Hero lists as examples... so many super heroes? Perhaps the definition should be more specific: the character uses a costume, has no powers... and nobody else has "powers" within that work. As with Zorro. Or someone may have powers, but as an exception (even in-universe, the idea is that there won't be a new ally or enemy with powers every episode)
Ultimate Marvel: the best comics of all time
Dragon Writer
This article assumes that one of the requirements for being a superhero is having supernatural superpowers - which as the examples bear out is not the case. All you really need is to fight crime while wearing an identity-hiding disguise.

edited 30th Sep '12 9:55:30 AM by Stratadrake

I propose to limit to the first two paragraphs, and build from there. If he has no powers, but there are superheroes in the setting (as with Batman, Green Arrow, and most examples), then it's a superhero and not this trope, period. By definition, a "costumed non-super hero" can't be a superhero.
Ultimate Marvel: the best comics of all time
I am against the proposal to remove, from Costumed Non Super Hero, the ones in settings with superpowers. Someone can be a Costumed Non Super Hero whether or not there exist heroes with superpowers.

Also, the removal of such settings would not end the confusion about the "superhero" label. Is a "superhero" one with superpowers, or just one with a costume? The "superhero" label might appear even in settings with no superpowers.
I get the sense it's supposed to be read "costumed 'non-super' hero", not "costumed 'non-super hero'". In other words, it's not that it's not supposed to contain superheroes, but just the opposite: it's a bunch of superheroes, but they're not, you know, super. So, they're "non-super heroes", not "not superheroes", if that makes sense.
[up]Pretty much.

There was a bit of ambiguity about whether "Super Hero" even includes these guys or not back when I made this trope. It has as far as I know always included two different definitions: "has superpowers" and "uses stereotypical superhero tropes". So, Superman is both, Batman is only the second, Herakles is only the first, ergo Herakles and Batman have nothing relevant in common. I'm not sure if that TRS discussion about Super Hero ever went anywhere. But apparently the characters under this trope are still "super heroes" even in trope terms now. (Even Zorro kind of is; at least he's been mentioned as a precursor.) I don't think that's a very sensible way of defining the "single" trope Super Hero — I'm not a fan of deliberately using family resemblance — but I'm not going to contest it.

Anyway, the actual reason this trope exists? Because people were already using it, a lot. They just called it Badass Normal. But that makes no sense at all except that Batman happens to be both. So it's needed with just the definition that it has now.

So... if it's settled superheroes don't need powers, this is actually Sub-Trope, and I suggest a name change to remove the paradox. Something like "Non-Powered Costumed Hero" was suggested in the YKTTW. Even something like "Powerless Superhero" could be considered, except that that would muddle the neat definition in case someone happened to somehow manage to be a superhero in someone's mind with no costume or powers.

By the way, the Laconic page contains the exact intended definition, so anyone confused about it can refer to that. (Although I am tempted to change it very slightly. I just haven't wanted to open a TRS discussion to debate it likely just among myself, nor to just change the core definition unilaterally because that's not technically allowed. Well, now that we're here, I'm going to add "or to save people" in the middle, and I hope no-one objects. Oh, and now I had to tweak it a bit to exclude firemen and police officers too.)

edited 13th Dec '12 2:12:50 AM by VVK

No more comments? I think I'll change the title without further ado unless someone objects by the end of the week or so. No point in keeping these threads hanging around.
Even something like "Powerless Superhero" could be considered, except that that would muddle the neat definition in case someone happened to somehow manage to be a superhero in someone's mind with no costume or powers.
I'd scoff at this, but considering the fate of Most Common Super Power... and in fact, there are superhero stories involving people without costume or powers, generally de/reconstructions. Super Hero has always been more a genre than a distinct character type, which is one reason I have trouble putting a lot of claimants to the throne - the Shadow, the Phantom, Zorro, Buffy, etc - in it.

I might make an exception for Hercules and other mythological heroes, but only because in a way the Superhero genre as it exists now is an evolution from their tropes.

Anyway, Superhero Minus Super?

[down] And that's the thing, I'd place Shadow and Phantom (and almost the Spirit) in that category too; in fact, I dare you to name a 20th-century pre-Superman "superhero" that wouldn't fall in that category.

edited 3rd Jan '13 3:53:00 AM by MorganWick

9 shimaspawn2nd Jan 2013 05:47:49 AM from Here and Now , Relationship Status: In your bunk
Zorro isn't actually a superhero. He belongs to it's predecessor trope the Masked Hero with the Scarlett Pimpernel and the Lone Ranger. They eventually evolved into costumed superheroes without powers, but they don't quite follow the same logic and tropes.

edited 2nd Jan '13 5:48:10 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
[up] That's assuming there is some accurate definition for superhero, and also one so precise that it can exclude cases that share a lot of the tropes. I don't see anything like that for the current Super Hero trope.
Wait, will something weird happen if I change the trope name and make this a redirect while this discussion is attached here?
12 SeptimusHeap6th Jan 2013 06:28:08 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
a) the link at the top will redirect to some new page.

b) the tag won't display on that page.

c) you'll receive a welcome message from me when you appeal the edit suspension you received for unilaterally renaming this
Well, I was trying to avoid the last by asking earlier whether anyone objected. I'll be even more careful from now on. Can we put up a crowner or something? I don't even know how to do those things, and sometimes it just seems no-one else cares or has anything to say so nothing will happen in such a thread if all I do is suggest a course of action.
14 SeptimusHeap6th Jan 2013 12:34:16 PM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
How Crowners Work is the place to for crowners.
Oh, right. I can't think why I didn't think to look for a page on it before.
Obviously I'm still missing something since I ended up with no options. I hope the way it is now is right.
17 SeptimusHeap18th Jan 2013 02:34:21 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
We seem to have sufficient consensus now?
19 SeptimusHeap12th Feb 2013 10:26:47 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Let's get it to 15 votes.
[tup]Yeah, I think it should be renamed.
Calling for a rename.
So, I'm guessing that means we're throwing the door open for name suggestions?
23 SeptimusHeap8th Mar 2013 02:04:51 PM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Still can't think of anything more elegant than "Non-Powered Costumed Hero".
25 SeptimusHeap24th Mar 2013 02:48:14 PM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
The crowner was added. I'll holler to get the thread title changed, since the moderator doing this changed the tag and not the title.

Alternative Titles: Costumed Non Super Hero
24th Mar '13 2:50:55 AM
Vote up names you like, vote down names you don't. Whether or not the title will actually be changed is determined with a different kind of crowner (the Single Proposition crowner). This one just collects and ranks alternative titles.
At issue:

Total posts: 30
1 2