Character Flaws vs Writing Flaws:
While catching up on some of the stuff people have commented/sent to me, I noticed someone mention how Katsuki being a bully is a flaw of his and that not every character needs to be a good person.
First of all, when did I ever say that a character has to be morally correct to be a good character? Some of my favorite characters are villains whoâve done worse things than Katsuki.
So whatâs the difference between them and Katsuki?
Well, the villains have a reason for existing. Joker is meant to serve as a parallel to Batman, challenging his morals while also showing what an unhinged Batman could look like.
On a much lesser scale, despite his extremely limited screen time, Moonfishâs bloodlust, lack of sanity, and cannibalism serve two purposes in MHA: to showcase Fumikageâs power and to give the readers an example of what the heroes of this world have to deal with.
Katsukiâs flaws are meant to show the flaws of a world that values raw power over morals, but he fails at this. The reason why? His flaws are never allowed to be flaws.
Katsukiâs aggressive and hostile nature should have him struggling to make friends, yet he has the two pillars of 1-A, that being Ejiro and Denkias described by Hori, immediately befriend him with no issues. His inability to empathize with others should have people wanting to steer away from him, but his instead 1-A loves him, Eri loves him despite being the last person who would, and anyone who doesnât love him is seen as being in the wrong.
Katsuki is meant to be a big fish in a little pond, someone whose ego isnât challenged until a certain point, and the Battle Trials were meant to show this. While yes, Katsuki has a mini-breakdown over the fact that heâs no longer in a class of people with weaker quirks, he has no issue claiming a spot as a Top Dog and he still continues to demean the people around him.
Katsukiâs aggressiveness is meant to be both a flaw and an asset. His aggressive nature is what motivates him to defeat the villain, but itâs supposed to cause him to have a one track mind when it comes to hero work. Rescue, teamwork, all of that is ignored by him to fight the big bad. His ego caused everyone to have a tougher time during the USJ, but is that ever touched upon? Nope. Itâs just ignored. When Katsuki saved Kyouka, there was no buildup to it. It just happens. We never see him struggle with teamwork because everyone else follows him like a lost puppy.
Meanwhile, Izuku is meant to be Katsukiâs parallel in this department. Heâs meant to showcase why too much selflessness isnât good while also showing that a hero is more than just their raw power. Problem is, Izuku gets completely shat on no matter what he does. He goes after a villain to protect U.A? Gets criticized. Does his best to work with Katsuki? Gets blamed despite it solely being an issue on Katsukiâs end. Does everything perfectly? Nope, still not enough. Compared to Izuku, who always seems to be in the wrong, Katsukiâs placed as this paragon of heroic virtues despite the fact both characters are supposed to be two halves of a whole. Theyâre supposed to learn from one another. Problem is, Katsukiâs flaws are always ignored while Izukuâs positive traits are demeaned.
Finally, Katsuki being a bully is supposed to serve as a starting point for his character. Heâs meant to grow and develop as a human being. Again, he doesnât, or at least he doesnât do so in an organic way. He never suffers consequences for his behavior, heâs constantly propped up and coddled instead of criticized, and heâs given some heroic moments despite there being no buildup to them. In the span of a month he goes from nearly killing Izuku to risking his life for him. Where the hell did that come from? Honestly, I wouldnât care if Katsuki being a bully is his sole purpose for existing, but heâs meant to be more than that. This is supposed to be a well developed and fully fleshed out character who grows from his selfishness and is meant to show that anyone can be a hero, no matter their starting point. But when the development is crap and he hardly changes outside of some OOC moments, then his flaws cease to be flaws that heâs meant to overcome. Instead MHA treats it as him being quirky and misunderstood.
In conclusion, you just canât present something as a character flaw and expect it to serve as an excuse as to why a character exhibits said flaw. You have to think of the following: what purpose does this flaw serve? Is it meant to be used to teach a lesson? Does it set something in motion, whether it be the development of this character, another character, or does the flaw cause the characterâs downfall? The only thing Katsukiâs flaws does right is that they set up Izukuâs story, which again would be fine if thatâs Katsukiâs purpose, but itâs not. Him being a bully isnât something that he overcomes in a natural way. His redemption story is the equivalent of filling things out of a checklist without being fleshed out. Every time he screws up, itâs never treated as a screw-up. Oh he failed the hero license exam? Well so did Shoto so heâs not unique there, and the proctors still suck his dick even while heâs âfailingâ. Him being the reason for 13âs injuries? Never brought up.
Katsukiâs flaws donât piss me off because they are flaws, but because the writing of his character IS so deeply flawed despite being a centralized character in the story.
Oh, and as always, someone can dislike a character for whatever reason they might have. If people donât like Katsuki because heâs a bully, then they have every right to. What I wrote is a response as to why I think Katsukiâs a shit character and how itâs not because of his flaws themselves, but how Hori goes about writing these flaws.