#igod i love bnha and horikoshi for creating such a realistic and complex world/characters

[ronanvespertine]

I think what gets people about Hawks is he’s a planner- and we’re so used to merely reacting heros. There’s always the chance when you strike first that you’ll strike wrong, but the alternative is waiting until it’s too late. And isn’t that one of the huge issues people have with heros? That they were too slow and didn’t save someone who needed it? Hawks is ruthless and it’s terrifying to be on the receiving end if that. But he’s been the hero a lot of people needed

Oh my god, this.....this is a really good interpretation of him. I really like how you think of Hawks! I’ve never really thought of it that way.

I’m gonna ramble about this ask for a while, so I’ll try to put a brief answer above the read more cut. I love how you pointed out what people need/expect from heroes in terms of how they respond. The consequences of a villain attack (property damage, casualties, displacement) are what gives fuel to criticism, and heroes can’t really excuse themselves from those results because those consequences are not to be taken lightly and heroes took on the responsibility of minimizing impact. 

It’s the whole thing about “thoughts and prayers”. Pretty words after a tragedy don’t matter because they change nothing. What really matters is action—preventative measures. And that’s how Hawks approaches hero work. Preventing matters and quick resolutions to minimize impact.

And yes, Hawks’ kind of heroism is what people need in a general sense. Meticulous hard work focused around preventing villain attacks or stopping them as fast as possible. But the intensity with which Hawks goes about it is really scary—you’re right to call it ruthless. And that’s normally a good thing until you call morality into question.

I don’t really want to delve into whether his actions are right or wrong, because.....well, it’s complicated. You can’t slap a label on it. And in the high-stakes world of heroism, morality is a pretty ironic thing to emphasize. Heroes act for the “greater good”, but does that really give them the right to kill? And vice versa—is it okay to risk millions of lives for the sake of adhering to a wishy-washy ideal of no dead?

Let’s go with this: morality is meaningless. Life isn’t dictated by black and white—society is. What life is about is choices and consequences—what you choose to do and what happens because of it. (More on morality under the cut)

I tried to keep it short, but it’s still a pretty lengthy answer. Sorry about that. Anyway, under the read more I’m gonna go ramble because anon just ignited the analytics in my head. Maybe check it out, ‘cause I talk a little more about what I think of Hawks under the cut.

The difference between heroes who react (Endeavor, Miruko, etc.) versus heroes who plan (Hawks, Nighteye, etc.) isn’t something I really thought too much on. But that’s a really good way to look at heroes! In Nighteye’s case, I’d say the guy waits too much and he could possible have past incidents that would fit what you’re talking about—waiting too long until it’s too late. All Might could be interpreted as a mix of both, depending on how you look at it, but his “planning” is more an abstract ideal—establishing a Symbol of Peace that discourages crime rates.

Hawks NEVER waits. And that’s the reason why the PLF raid occurred with the heroes taking the INITIATIVE, a big contrast in comparison with other incidents in the manga. In regards to the Kamino Nightmare, UA took precautions but they fell through and the heroes reacted quickly against the LoV to get Bakugo back once they had sufficient data and forces. But later, we see this decision is touched on a little by the HPSC president when she talks about Hawks not being available for Kamino, and how heroes have been trailing after villains’ actions because no one has been doing enough intelligence gathering in advance. 

Hero society isn’t doing enough to PREVENT villain attacks. And well, that’s a big bone to gnaw on. 

We can talk about the very basics—preventing villains from being born in the first place. But that’s too expansive a task, and heroes/government can’t foresee or prevent everything. Not to mention how complicated implementing those measures will get when you start tangling with law. (If you’re from a massive country with a complicated lawmaking system and polarizing political parties, you’ll know what I mean.) 

Then if we focus on something closer to immediate—say, intelligence gathering—that gets a little murky, too. Censorship, surveillance, regulatory laws—until where do we draw the line? When do we consider those preventative measures “oppression”? People will have different opinions of that, and that’ll result in debate and gridlock. 

There’s also cultural issues—how do you mass edit a society’s perception of certain things? 

We had the issue of “villanous quirks” brought up with Shinsou and Toga. Can you change everyone’s mindsets to regard quirks as a natural gene people can’t help but be born with? In contrast, at what point do you need to start considering the evil that could be done by a quirk on the basis of self-defense? (Think about it. If someone had a quirk that made you forget being under its influence, then how would you know when to change from trusting that person to questioning them for your own protection?) 

We also have the issue of quirklessness with Midoriya and Melissa, though I don’t think it’s that complicated. How do you equalize quirks and no-quirks? In contrast, when do you need to discriminate? (It’s the dilemma of equality. Physical requirements for men and women differ because of natural differences in their makeup. It’s fair, but it’s not equal. A minor thing to point out, but you get the idea, right? If you want to take it up a notch, consider the notion of “equal opportunity”. In America, there’s a whole debate about how to raise disadvantaged groups to equal standing without compromising the ones who are already there. Especially in education. There’s this thing about “quotas” in college admissions—colleges can’t set aside a specific number of spots for disadvantaged groups because it will take away opportunities for the rest, but they can include those questions in their applications for a “holistic” process. However, it’s not a full fix. There’s still a disproportionate ratio of minority groups because it doesn’t take into account the minority background: growing up in unsafe/unequipped communities, lacking academic resources or education to compete with those of advantageous groups, family backgrounds that influence the kid’s education because of extra responsibilities, poverty, uneducated parents, cultural stigma, etc. It’s a huge, complex web of a problem that a small rule like that can’t fully encompass.)

Oh god, I got political. But you get what I mean. There’s too big of a mess that heroes/government won’t be able to address every single one of them. So, what they’ll need to do is figure out what they can do and implement it, or figure out which aspect/measure to focus energy and resources on first.

In regards to morality, I answered a previous ask about Hawks and said this:

Sacrificing another person’s life isn’t okay, period, because you never had the right/power to determine another person’s worth in the first place.

I still stick by that, but there’s something I want to make clear about what I think about Hawks. Hawks is free to choose the “wrong” decision. I’m not condoning or condemning him for it. Hell, I’m not even judging him. The way I read My Hero Academia is by watching the characters make their decisions and trying to understand what led to them. I feel like that’s something everyone should try out: just watching the characters, not judging them, but just trying to understand.

Again, morality means nothing. It’s just choices and consequences.

The thing about choices is, you should understand everything about them. And that’s what I want Hawks to build on. If he’s going to make a decision—especially a “wrong” one—then I want him to fully understand the weight of that choice. I feel like Hawks could be desensitized to the weight of life, and that’s what I’m worried about. Then again, we don’t really know a lot about what Hawks feels aside from his expressions and double-meaning dialogue. I could be wrong—Hawks could have a solid grasp on what taking a life means and feel somber remorse over it. But who knows? (I’ll love him even more than I do now if he does understand. God, I love this asshole of a bird.)

Basically, this is what I want Hawks’ approach to Twice’s death to be: it’s wrong, and he’s okay with it. He’ll willingly carry the weight of his choice so he can achieve his dream of a society without an excessive dependence on heroes.

That’s basically Hawks’ whole character. What is he willing to carry in order to achieve his goals? How far will he corrupt himself to get peace for everyone else? (Honestly, the martyr complex is hard with this guy hahaha!) I just want to make sure he seriously understands what he’s “corrupting” himself with.

Anyway, rambling’s over! Hahahaha, I literally switched from my phone to my iPad to the computer to answer this ask lol. And anon, thanks for dropping by!