Are the Villains “right”?
Okay, so I was scrolling through the bnha spoilers tag whilst procrastinating work and I’m really not living for the vibes there. My biggest issues fall into two main camps: “this arc is going to be the end of the League”, and “Villain stans are hypocrites with no reading comprehension for condemning the Heroes’ behaviour”, and I believe both of these statements can be addressed simultaneously, whilst also giving me a convenient excuse to not write. So without further ado,
Right from the very beginning of the series, literally the first line, one thing is made blatantly clear: This series is not going to be about good guys and bad guys. “All men are not created equal” is not a line that implicates an inherent divide between good and evil, unless you’re an actual eugenicist. And pretty much every important character is designed to criticise a different aspect of the established system.
Izuku: The Quirkless are worthless. Not explicitly, but… everyone knows it.
Bakugou: If you have a good Quirk, you are praised and treated as special, and as a consequence you’re never expected to learn and grow as a person.
Shoto: Dedicating your entire life to becoming strong to the detriment of your own health is the best way to climb to the top.
All Might: You don’t have to worry about anything. A Hero will save you.
Shinsou: If you have a Villain’s Quirk, you’re going to be a Villain, no matter the quality of your personality.
Kirishima: If you’re not flashy, there’s no point even trying.
Hawks: Similar to Shoto, if you show natural promise then it’s acceptable to groom you as a weapon.
I’m sure there are others that I’ve missed. Each of these characters’ individual developments have been focused around them overcoming these ingrained ideas and growing and succeeding despite them - with the exception, perhaps, of Hawks. So if several of the major Hero characters are designed to illustrate and criticise the established system, what about the villains? I guess if the Heroes are stories about people succeeding despite what the world tells them, then the Villains are stories about what happens when they don’t.
Spinner: Mutants are second-class citizens and should be treated as such.
Toga: If your Quirk is considered to be bad or gross, then you should be punished for wanting to use it.
Twice: The world won’t make space for your special needs.
Magne: If you don’t fit the mould of what people want you to be, you won’t be respected.
And Shigaraki: It’s not our responsibility to help you. If you weren’t saved, that must mean you’re not worth saving.
The one thing that both the Heroes and the Villains have in common is that they are tools to show the audience the flaws in BNHA’s society. It’s canon that Quirks appeared suddenly, and though by the time BNHA is set in, society has tried to adapt to fit it and is making some progress towards being functional, it’s clear that it has a long, long way to go, because it’s failing so many people. (Draw some parallels to real life, hm?). BNHA’s overarching themes of individual worth not being more important than collective good and how rules and structure created in good will can result in a lot of pain and abuse are, first and foremost, exemplified in the characters themselves. I like to tell people who find Shigaraki’s motivations vague and uncompelling that Shigaraki doesn’t need to have a point, he is the point, and this is exactly the reason why.
I also believe that this is primarily why for Horikoshi to end the League here would be, frankly, terrible writing. We have engaged with the LOV more than pretty much any other Shonen villain group I can think of, almost any villain group at all. We’ve seen them develop as much as we’ve seen the heroes develop, especially in Shigaraki’s case, and to have Shigaraki only be their ‘first-year villain’ or whatever would be disrespectful, wasteful, and thematically inappropriate. To have a more classic, pre-developed villain whose villainy seems to stem from some inherent evil characteristic like AfO or Overhaul would ultimately defeat the story of how the worst villains are created by flaws in the system, not born.
Sometimes I can’t believe I still have to reiterate this to people, but it is possible to stan a character whilst simultaneously recognising that they are flawed, often critically so. When did we move from adoring villains to saying if you like this character you must be an inherently bad person because of this list of bad things they did?
The thing is that the vast majority of ‘opinions’ on fan blogs are… poorly thought out and shallow, to put it lightly. When it’s 2am and I’m answering an ask about my opinions on x plot point, it’s not gonna be well thought out and thoroughly researched. I’m probably a bit tipsy, kind of tired, and just typing out whatever my initial response is. And really, if I reblog a bit of art with the caption ‘Shigaraki did nothing wrong’, do you really think I’m being serious? A lot of what we say is hyperbolic and meant to either be funny or to evoke an emotion, not because we actually believe it.
That being said, the League in particular, I believe, resonates with a lot of people in the current political climate. A group of outcasts with characteristics considered undesirable by the wider population coming together and genuinely caring about one another whilst they aim to completely eradicate the system that hurt them? As an angry, marginalised leftist in a society that seems increasingly determined to wipe my chances at a good life out without blinking an eye, hell yeah that resonates with me. Being able to crumble the cripplingly complex and morally vile system I live in to dust and starting over is one hell of an appealing power fantasy. Does that mean I think murder is okay? Obviously not. It’s a fantasy. If there’s one place where I can live out those fantasies without consequences, it’s here. In fiction. And so it seems really stupid to me to be confronted with the idea that if I like a fictional violent radical I’m accused of condoning murder and kidnapping.
Part 3: Are the Heroes right?
So a lot of the posts I saw that aggravated me were framed like ‘how can the villain stans think Miruko and Gran Torino’s behaviour is worse than Shigaraki’s?’, but like… who was saying that?
I feel like certain people’s views of the heroes versus villains debate falls under the same fallacies as a lot of political arguments- that is to say, if I’m criticising one side, I must be defending the other. Which is… just blatantly untrue. When we say that the heroes’ consistent dehumanisation of a man who is, first and foremost, a victim of significant grooming and abuse throughout his life, is gross and cruel, and that this attitude is mirrored in an awful lot of the hero-villain interactions implying a certain level of empathetic alienation and lack of accountability, we’re not saying they shouldn’t be trying to take Shigaraki down. Of course they should, he’s going to decimate hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. But, like, does that mean they’re exempt from all criticism? Should we be excusing the cruel and dismissive attitudes of the heroes and ignoring the behaviours of their side that lead to further 'villainisation’ of marginalised people just because they’re responsible for saving lives? No. Because once again, one of the key themes of BNHA is that neither side is perfect, and neither side is right.
Mass murder is wrong. So is systemic cruelty towards the oppressed. You don’t have to approve of one to criticise the other. So next time you see one of those posts and jump to the conclusion that villain stans have no reading comprehension, pls remember these points.
Anyway, that’s my little rant. Sorry.
Tl;dr, villain stans aren’t stupid or glorifying murder, we’re just capable of criticising more than one type of bad behaviour.
