Whatever happened to Eternicus the Cosmic Claw, anyway...?
So did the sixth, in Revelation of the Daleks.

And the fourth? Talons of Weng Chiang?

I would agree, the loss of the father figure can be attributed to far more literary heroes than simply the "superhero" however,I would say that it is a fair observation that the 3 most famous and influential superheroes of the 20th C, Batman, Spiderman and Superman can be seen to be motivated by the death of parental figures.

While there is according to propp's structural observations always going to be a "lack" it is notable that in these three cases it is that of a parental figure, rather than, for example a child, wife etc.

There are obvious reasons for this, the comic book was at the time these characters were created specifically aimed at children, a child cannot relate in the same way to the loss of a child or wife as to the loss of a parent.

Similarly, the sidekick (which I would not identify as a such a significant trope in the superhero narrative, 2 of the aformentioned 3 have never had a sidekick of note, and 1 was concieved without one).

The sidekick exists to externalise the thoughts of the hero, the sidekick becomes a less significant part of comic books once the thought bubble begins to be used more commonly the sidekick is needed less, similarly following "the seduction of the innocent" the idea of grown men hanging about with young boys became less palatable as the superhero narrative was looked at by the public and press in less inoccent terms.

In doctor who, the assistant (You are right the terms assistant and sidekick are interchangeable in this context) is needed for basic narrative reasons so that the doctor has someone to talk to, to create a human link to the story of an "alien" central character. It is notable that since 2005 all of the long term companions or side kicks have been human, and from back grounds that the viewer can identify with.

In contrast the pre 2005 Doctor who has for example Romana, and Adric as companions. A time lord and an alien maths genius.

I think there is an argument to be made, that the post 2005 Doctor Who conforms more closely to the conventions of the American superhero genre than the pre 2005.

As with all literature there is a counter argument to make, there will be ways that the Doctor differers from these conventions, and spotting these is going to be as illuminating as spotting the similarities.

One of the biggest problems with the question the OP asks though is "what is a superhero". I chose to take the most popular and influential heroes and look for the similarities between them, but as has allready been pointed out, we could define the term differently. To keep things simple i've drawn an imaginery line at the early 1960's when defining the traits of the superhero.

The 1970's and 80's, and then 90's superhero is different. the last decade had a more "post-modern" almost revisionist concept of the hero and in all of these decades there are exeptions that disprove the rule.

I still think in general though it is reasonable to point to the lack of a paternal figure as being common to the most significant examples of the genre and not, for example, to the direct decendants of the super hero, pulp chracters like Doc Brass, Tarzan ect.

When we go back to what i see as the popular heroes from the generation before, the Sherlock Holmes type characters, the lack of the paternal figure is not as important.

Why this changes in intereresting, i would say that looking at the superhero narrative through Freudian eyes is an interesting way to understand the genre, but that is an other discussion entiely....

Last seen being erased from Tharg's memory by a Bodger and a gallon of Process White during Dave Gibbons' page of the controversial 'Tharg's Head Revisited' in prog 500.

There is no such thing as Eternicus! No such thing as Eternicus!


I'd say that the paternal/mentor figure from Doctor Who is actually the Doctor himself. He started out as a grandfather, remember. Likewise with Sherlock Holmes.


You mean Doc Savage, Man of Bronze, I think (and antecedents). Doc Brass is Wildstorm comics non-copyright infringing Doc Savage analogue.

Ah, yes-now I remember. 'You made me a *choke* superhero!' Poor old Dan Dare MK III...


I still think Clark Savage Jr owes a lot to Hugo Danner.

You needed to add a couple of extra [quote] tags at the start of the post.

Exactly, like I say this is one of the differences between the "classic" and "modern" approaches to the character as I see it, and yes as you say holmes doesn't lack the father type figure as he is the father figure.


Well spotted. That is a sign that I have read Planetary far too often, i've started to accept Warren Ellis's analogue's as the originals

Interesting thinsg that I have never really thought about....thanks for that info dump!!!


Just wanted to comment on the "lack of the parental figure"...I don't feel that even apllies to New Who...as really it wasn't one specific person that the Doctor lost...and they were lost because he "kiled" them....which was eventually revealed that they were the bad guys mostly hence why the Doctor got rid of them.... so in that sense its not the same as the American Superheroes.....and the death of a parental figure....as someone sasi...he was theparental figure.....he talked more about being a father himself...so it seems he was more sad about losing his children....than a parent...

Hi everyone, thanks for responding to my original question so quickly.
in response to the quote that Dr Who doesn't have an alter ego, I would argue that he doesn't really need one. Nobody knows his name, or who he really is, and he regenerates every so often, so nobody would recognise him anyway.

Thank you neel for the references, they will be very helpful.

I don't think the alter ego thing matters that much anyway, it's rarely as clear cut as it seems. The Doctor is the Doctor, but he does use various 'secret identities', most notably John Smith. It's generally accepted that in superhero stories the 'superhero name' is the fictional identity and the 'common' name (and you can't get much more common than John Smith) is the 'real' identity, so the fact that in the Doctor's case the reverse is true would seem to count against him being a superhero. But then, Clark Kent isn't Superman's real name, technically (it's Kal-El), and there has been debate for years over whether Batman or Bruce Wayne is really the 'real' persona (I'd say it's Batman, as the the millionaire playboy Wayne is a carefully crafted fiction maintained to hide his secret identity: the 'real' Bruce Wayne is Batman).

Indeed, once I start writing on this subject I find it hard to stop. I wanted to do my disertation for my first degree on freudian interpretation of American comic books, but I left to study law rather than do honours. I have a lot of ideas that I now don't have a natural outlet, my law tutors don't care about the elements of freuds Uncanny that I can see in the X-men


No problem, good luck with it!

You might also find it usefull to take a look at some of Alan Moore's stuff, like Promethea or even the Watchmen, which are in many ways meta-naratives on the nature of the superhero, and written by a brittish author so relevant for your question and Planetary by Warren Ellis, which is basically a history of the superhero genre, which traces the connections between superheroes and the characters from other types of literature that influenced them.

It's very clever stuff.



Yes the batman point is a really good one, he is the great example where the "fake" identity is very hard to identify. It very much depends in which writers version of the character you look at. For example, in Batman: year one, Bruce wayne can be seen to very deliverately create the batman persona as a way to make his enemies fear him, while he also uses the Millionaire playboy Wayne to fool the police.

A therapist could spend years with him and not work out who the "real" wayne/batman is.

I think the comparison between Superman and the Doctor is an interesting one, there are similarities between the back story of the characters, but one alien is the ultimate phyisical specimen the other is the ultimate mind.

It perhaps tells us a lot about the respective countries that produces these iconic characters, one which is seen as "all american" the other inherantly brittish.

That is indeed a very good point!!!!

[quote=JAS84;42174189]You needed to add a couple of extra
Thanks!

Edit: messed this one up as well!

But a fall killed the longest lasting Doctor.

And some falls kill some humans.....in the end that Doctor dying because he let go....he didn't just fall...and he wasn't even injured like the Tenth Doctor was physically....he was pretty much still alive and talking when the Watcher took over him....almost like he was just giving up his body as that is what he was told would happen, so accepted it. Compared to The Third Doctor...who actually did die...or at least lost concious and regenerated after that....

Doug Moench took this idea even further in his early eighties series Moon Knight, in which the lead character had three identities, none of which was the original man and all of which behaved as though the others were separate and distinct personalities: millionaire Steven Grant, Brooklyn cab driver Jake Lockley and vigilante Moon Knight, all fictional persona's created by former mercenary Marc Spector, originally quite deliberately, which gradually took on lives of their own and drifted apart until he was a genuine multiple personality. The question Moench seemed to be asking is, if we choose to totally immerse ourselves in created identities, how long before we lose touch with our real selves? Moench's Moon Knight was Batman taken to the next level, a great series-very well written.

Very good point.

Wasn't even injured? You can be injured internally without it showing outwardly. The fourth Doctor fell and never got up again. The tenth fell, got up and then spent about a week wandering around saying goodbye to people. I'd suggest the fourth was the one who was in pretty bad shape at the end!

Yes but there was nothing to suggest that the reason he didn't get up was because of the fall.....he let go, he was already hullucinating while hanging on before his "fall"....the Watcher was there...and he knew that this was the moment...so why would he get up? And I meant physically showings of injury....not that the Doctor wasn't hurt at all....

The Tenth Doctor was fighting on....he wasn't willing to die ...unless be killed by someone huge like the Master....so his fight to go was the same as the Seventh Doctor being Shot, and still not dying striaght away, the Fifth Doctor being poisoned...and still fighting right till the last minute, the Third Doctor being Lost for good knows how long after radiation poisoining....and who knows how long the Ninth Doctor waited for Rose to wake up...and to get back to the Tenth Doctor...how do you know he spent weeks saying goodbye? It could have been tops twenty minutes....we don't know how long he lasted either...but the fourth Doctor literally gve up his body to the Watcher...

I'll look it up, I can't say its something i've come across at all.

It occured to me, on the Superman/Doctor Brittain/America point that it also needs to be highlighted that possibly the key facor is the different decades that created them.

Supeman comes from the 30's when frankly both sides of the Atlantic had become obsessed with attaining physical perfecion, as can be seen in for example the mass exercise programmes.

The Doctor on the other hand is a product of the 60's, In this country this is the time of mass expansion of university education, the time of the space race, the early days of the computer.

Either way, there is an essay to be written here

Good point neel.
My fault. I should've shown the quote tag like this: , using a [code] tag.

No way but I seen my fave film Superman 1 to 4 (4 is awful) he does have a god like persona on earth and with "U.N.I.T" , in russell's version he is made out like god like whereas in Moffatts , he is more like a funny man in a box that well helps but isnt as godly and is more like Amy's imaginery friend rather than a saint , Rory pointed out that makes people want to impress him and then they get hurt or killed(good point) Eccleston was sort of godly but more funny and worshipped Rose but wasnt as tolerant as Tennant though tennant could be a right moody git and blooming rude, Smith seems more caring but more no nonsense , like he shoved Amy off and made her see Rory , in fact he is more kinder than Tennant or Eccleston and doesnt bang on about the time war, okay he aint as idol as the others but in the long run he is more softer ax

I don't think so he was never intended as a super hero character as portrayed by the likes of Superman etc in the USA. As he does not have a cape or perform feats of strength etc to WOW the public, like in the comic books.

Doctor Who never started as a comic book creation as the American Superheros did. But as an alien visitor to our earth who needed originally repair his ship etc.

A lot of superheroes don't wear capes or perform feats of strength to WOW the public either, though...
Technically, neither did quite a few superheroes (The Incredibles, anyone?). And several superheroes were also originally alien visitors to Earth stranded here under difficult conditions, notably the Martian Manhunter, Starfire, the Silver Surfer, Supergirl, Power Girl and that bloke in the red cape...

I don't really consider The Doctor a Superhero. Heroic, yes, but not a superhero. He has his special powers which he rarely uses(Regeneration aside) but hardly ever uses them to resolve a story/episode situation. He is fallible and can die in his current incarnation as easily as any man. He uses his wit and guile to solve situations rather than any given power.

He can also get himself into all sorts of scrapes through his own curiosity. You don't see many Heroes like Superman or Spiderman doing that.