Today i learned how to spell coyote
pssst. while forgiveness is an option that the survivor can make for their own sake, the way it’s written in bnha is not a good handling of a forgiveness narrative. this is because all of the arcs dealing with forgiveness have so far been narrated through an abuser’s thoughts, prioritizing his hopes and unfulfilled desires (desires that are unfulfilled because of his abuse), rather than the emotional journey of his victims. shouto started softening his stance not when the story explored shouto’s thoughts, but when the story began exploring the thoughts of his abuser. as a result, what happens on the page is the abuser stops abusing and starts to feel bad, and therefore shouto begins to have a more positive relationship with him. rather than forgiveness resulting from a survivor coming to terms with his abuse and making the decision to forgive for his own peace of mind, the forgiveness is primarily framed as the abuser doing and feeling things, and therefore forgiveness happens. shouto does not make a decision to start forgiving; his abuser makes a decision and gets forgiveness in return.
forgiveness can be an empowering decision when made by a survivor with their full agency. its portrayal in fiction is not always empowering, especially when the narrative focuses on the feelings and thoughts of the abuser over the survivor. that is propaganda, plain and simple, particularly when we as a society already vastly overestimate the importance of an abuser’s feelings both in general, and in relation to stopping their abuse. in a social climate that already promotes forgiveness—not for the sake of the survivor but for the abuser—it’s difficult to write about forgiveness in a way that won’t be taken as modeling the behavior of “good” victims. we cannot treat characters like independent human beings, who all make “valid” decisions in response to their abuse. how are their decisions framed? who are we being told to sympathize with? who is being prioritized narratively? we can’t engage in discussions about representations in fiction without considering these kinds of questions.
This is probably a weird note to end my time with MHA's run on; but I find it so strange how I still see people calling Tomura out on just being a destruction-hungry villain with supposedly no plan or follow up...as though he is unique for that simplicity. Especially after the ending we got. Like, Deku and All Might never really had a plan when they were reshaping society by beating up the enemy and everything worked out fine for them, but does anyone call them out for just using violence to mindlessly solve everything with no further plan? (Well, yes. Me. Right now.)
Because like, really thinking about it; how different was All Might's plan from the start of his career to take down AFO and become a symbol, and Deku's plan to end the villains and bring everything back, from Shigaraki's plan to end hero society and bring about a world accommodating to the League? It all seemed to boil down to the same basic premise of Step 1) Beat everyone & everything making things worse, Step 2) ...it all just kind of works out from there. (I guess All Might planned on being inspiring and uplifting, but then we could also count Tomura's plan to be imposing and...uplifting but for different people. Deku was winging it every step of the way though.) Everyone's getting on Tomura's case for doing nothing but destroying; but all evidence from when the heroes do it suggests violence & destruction works. And it just never fails to bug me when people call Tomura out for stuff that's fine when heroes do it.
Which, yeah, let's touch on how it did just work out for Deku that way for no logical reason, least of all anything he planned. He punched out the big bad just like All Might and now things are like a hundred times better than they were under All Might with no more Tenkos abandoned in the street. If stuff like that just happens if you punch out your enemies hard enough, then why couldn't that happen for Tomura? Maybe if he had destroyed the government & hero society it would've, idk, been so fear/awe-inspiring that all the villains would've been nice and cooperative under the PLF and everything would've been fine. Or something. No more contrived than what we saw with the old lady plot line, MHA is just a series where that stuff works out. Heck, one time it actually did just work out that way for Tomura:
Again, violence and destruction works in MHA. I mean; duh, it's a shonen manga.
Plus all this is ignoring the fact that, unlike those two, Tomura did have a follow up to the violence. He did have a step two, or at least one & a half, after "beat down all the bad guys in the country." Rather than just going "and everything will work out from there," he had his guys plan for the future so he could say "and Spinner, Toga, and RD et. all will make sure everything works out from there." (Admittedly, not much; but also, not hopes and dreams.) He did have a plan, it was just the plan from the Overahul arc, where he was last asked to have a plan: leave it to his allies.
And hey, that means it's actually better than what we saw from genius All Might and brainiac Deku. So why are we still, even after everything was over, acting like there's some expectation as a villain he didn't meet? I guess it's just in the nature of a 'tantrum-having man-child who wants nothing but destruction' to put more forethought into the future he wants to build than the society-uplifting greatest heroes.
That or maybe everyone had really detailed follow-ups for when they won that Hori never went much into, but that'd render this post a bit pointless so shhh.