On the very first page of the very first Spider-Man story, Stan himself refers to superheroes as "long underwear characters", saying that that was how these characters were known in the business.

Except, they weren't! Not as a general rule, anyway. Not to ANYONE I have asked who was working in the business back then. They were just called "superheroes", and what they wore was called "costumes".

An unfortunate example, perhaps, of Stan's rootie-tootie style taking him, for a moment, down the wrong path. (Perhaps he was trying to still seem hip and happening, as they changed the content, and dropped a key word from the title of that last issue of AMAZING ADULT FANTASY!)

Spot on. I detest this attitude that seems to pervade any
article written by "laymen" in regards to fantasy, sci-
fi, superheroes, etc.

I'm far from anal about satire or parody when it comes to
superheroes, but ignorance and a seeming unwillingness to
comprehend basic conceits irks me.

I've longed believed that people that don't like
fantasy/sci-fi shouldn't review or critique those genres.
Those types often lack the imagination or historical
grounding to do justice to the subject.

"That said, it takes more than simple lack of understanding of the forms and conventions to refer to a superhero's costume as "underwear". It takes contempt. "

I think you are wrong.

Ask my four year old and my nine year old what they would call them.  Unless you think they are actually full of contempt too. I see them simply identifying what they can relate too. Many adults do this too.

Oh, and being "reactionary", in this instance, referred to the established mindset of assuming civilians who use incorrect terminology as benig contemptuous. I did not mean anyone was reacting to anything.

I see them simply identifying what they can relate too. Many adults do this too

*********************

So, they see Wonder Woman, and the first thing an adult can relate to is that she's running around in her panties? Not a swimsuit bottom or anything like that. She's got to be fighting crime in her panties?

JB, I'm not quite so sure that its contempt for comics and superheroes, but a trend for folks in the media just to be immersed in pop culture moreso than whoever they are talking to or communicating with.  I think it permeates all forms of media.  I've heard sports commentators talk about "puck", referring to hockey. ("Let's talk some puck now.")  Or they will refer to a teams nickname with another nickname.  ("Let's talk about the Snakes now," referring to the Arizona Diamondbacks.)

On the web, writers use shorthand now more than ever, or hip hop terms, when writing columns or even straight news stories. 

And, honestly, with the way Victoria Secret permeates my mailbox, sometimes I think people who refer to costumes as long underwear mean it as a compliment.  Same with spandex.  I'm sure some use the term derisively, but not any more than by referring to "hockey" as "puck."

(Jim Rome is an obvious perpetrator of this way of media presentation, but there are others.)

Brian Joseph Mayer wrote: Ask my four year old and my nine year old what they would call them.  Unless you think they are actually full of contempt too. I see them simply identifying what they can relate too.

Considering that we're talking about a journalist who is more than likely neither four or nine, I think that we can exclude your analogy.  I'm quite sure no one here is slamming kids for not understanding the correct terminology. 

As a journalist, however, it's their job to know the subject they are writing about is it not?  To at least be familiar enough with the subject to write about it accurately?  I certainly hope that we hold journalists to a higher standard of research than we would, say, anyone off the street or your own children. 

It seems as though you like to pop in and declare people "wrong" in a ton of threads.  Don't know if that's your nature or if you really do disagree with people more often than you agree with them.  In any case, can you at least see that decades of derisive behavior and attitudes from people who don't read the form against those that do might somehow influence a perception that calling something worn on the outside of your clothing "underwear" is at the very least demeaning if not down right contemptuous?