#whc1 analysis

Some people tend to simplify the debate about Beomseok's actions as he was justified versus not justified, or that he is an evil terrible person versus he did nothing wrong -- just look at his life circumstance. As usual, people don't understand that people are complex creatures, and two things can be true at once.

To everyone who is a Beomseok defender, yes, of course we all understand why he did what he did. Yes, of course we all feel bad for him. But it doesn't justify or excuse his actions. Both things can be true at once -- we understand why he acted the way he did, and we all sympathize with his situation, and yet his actions are still inexcusable.

I especially like the parallels between him and Sieun. At the end of the show, when Sieun has him in his grip and is about to punch him, they have a short but important dialogue where Beomseok tells Sieun that he should know how he feels (as in, he should know how it feels to be an easy target/victim of bullying). Sieun replies, "yes, I do understand, which is why you'll understand why I'm going to do what I'm about to do..." Sieun is referring to him about to punch Beomseok as retribution for everything he did, basically. But in the end, Sieun couldn't bring himself to punch him.

And this highlights exactly the difference between Sieun's and Beomseok's responses to the same situation: they were both (weaker, easily targeted) victims of bullying at school, and both had difficult home lives (of course you could argue Beomseok's was worse as he was facing actual physical abuse, but the weight of straight up neglectful parenting can't be discounted either on Sieun's side). However, Sieun could never bring himself to betray his friends as a result of any pressure, stress, or insecurity he might've been carrying. In the end, Sieun still considered Beomseok a friend and couldn't even bring himself to punch him, even though Beomseok's actions basically shattered Sieun's world -- he destroyed his only friend group and left one of his best and only friends in a coma.

So basically, there obviously was an alternative way to handle the situation -- Beomseok could've gone down Sieun's path and tried to fight back (and therefore gain some confidence, as insecurity is Beomseok's biggest weakness), he could've asked Suho if he could also stay with him and Young-i and get a job at the restaurant in order to escape his home life (and also therefore wedge himself more securely into the friend group, as being left out was one of his biggest insecurities), etc. He basically could've turned to his newfound friends for help, rather than turning his back on them and betraying them due to his own insecurities. In other words, again, though we feel bad Beomseok and understand how terrible of a situation he was in, we simply cannot justify or excuse his actions in any way. It doesn't mean he's an outright evil person -- but his actions are inexcusable. Nuance and complexity.

The show is giving us two characters that represent two different responses to a similar situation, and because a main theme of the show is the importance of friendship, it clearly shows that the path that moves towards strengthening and protecting friendship is the better path; the path that destroys and betrays friendships leads to terrible outcomes.

I'll likely be making another short ramble about Weak Hero Class 2 and what it has to say about the importance of friendship as well.