Heroism & Superpowers

Although we are used to calling the protagonist of a story as the hero, someone can only be called that if he performs heroic deeds. The strict definition of heroism is fairly similar to that of selflessness, caring more about others than about yourself. The distinction between heroism and charity or humanitarianism, has to do with endangering yourself in order to save others. This is why it is mostly associated with the army and is considered to be the result of soldiers placing courage, duty, and honor above their personal well-being.

When heroism is used straightforwardly in fiction, it results to some very boring characters. If all they care about is courage, duty, and honor, then they don’t allow their personality to define them, and end up being simple representations of ideals. That’s what selflessness is all about and makes it very hard for the audience to care if there is nothing humane to identify with. As strange as it sounds, we are inspired by someone’s strengths only if we are first made to sympathize with him through his weaknesses. The reason we consider the Gary Stu and Mary Stu archetype so boring, is because they are picture perfect to the point of not feeling real. It’s egoism that makes someone interesting, not heroism.

Although these two are seemingly polar opposites, it becomes very easy to have an egoist hero being likable through the actions of his enemies. The protagonist has his own dark side, with the bad guys being the more extreme selfish versions of him. Same weaknesses but a hundred times bigger, making the hero a good guy by comparison. It also helps when it’s the bad guys who initiate the story by causing a conflict and having the hero reacting to what they do, trying to fix the harm they caused.

Down to it, nobody can become a hero if there is no social conflict, caused by specific individuals. If you simply set out to become rich and famous, you are no hero, you are just a greedy and power hungry opportunist. You are perceived as a hero only by others if you save lives and fight against someone who mistreats them.

This is also why the same person can be a freedom fighter for some and a terrorist for others. He is a hero in the eyes of those he supports, against someone they hate, and a villain in the eyes of those he fights against, and anyone they like. Meaning, you can never please everybody.

This is constantly oversimplified in fiction, where we never see the hero harming a portion of the people, or the villain aiding a different portion. No sir, the hero is helping out everybody, while the villain is harming everybody. This is why we end up calling heroes a lot of characters who are pretty selfish if they are not fighting against someone.

There are some series who are sort of trying to flavor that by having the hero willingly taking all the blame for something he doesn’t deserve. It’s not because of propaganda caused by a villain, it’s the result of the people he helps not appreciating what he does for them. He is willingly becoming a Byronic Hero, who is wrongfully accused by his society but doesn’t defend himself because this way the ones he aids are not going to be fighting each other. As nice as that sounds, it’s not real heroism, it’s Machiavellian manipulation.

Although the audience may know the truth, it is only done on a diegetic level. We are told it is so, and not because it perceived in story. Remember, a hero is someone who inspires only if he is first sympathetic. If he is not sympathetic to the people in-story, he is not inspiring them either, and thus is not a hero for them. What he is on a meta-level is completely irrelevant.

Playing the victim card willingly does not make someone a better character. Just like you do not choose to be a hero without a villain to fight, you also do not become a Byronic Hero by willingly making others blame you for what you do. Good deeds are not meant to be punished. If you try to be the victim for doing the right thing, you are essentially telling the rest of the people to not be like you, meaning to do the opposite things of what you do, resulting to causing more of what you are fighting against. The willing victim card is a stupid plot device, used by amateur authors who do not know how to keep the hero interesting without making him a glutton for punishment. Self-deprecation on a heroic level is just forced drama of heroic levels, and should not be accepted as good writing.

We learn in the third episode of Hero Academia that Almight wasn’t born with a superpower, he got it from someone else. Aside from how this is destroying the theme established in the previous two episodes, the protagonist trying to become a superhero without having superpowers, it is also bringing up an interesting question. What is the point of separating people into normal and supernatural, when everybody can get a superpower?

The concept of racism does not stand if they are the same as money or weapons. You can get a lot, or they can be stolen, they become just another type of resource. The concepts of invasion or survival horror also don’t count as we see them in Attack or Titan and Kabaneri. It’s not average people trying to fight against supernatural powers, it’s superpowers versus other superpowers, like there is absolutely no other way to have a compelling story without teenagers firing lasers from their eyes.

Then it’s the whole ideology of superpowers. What does it mean when you have one? The simplest answer is the amount of things you can do compared to those who don’t have one. It’s a privilege, an advantage, a boost. It makes life easier, like technology does in developed countries. It also makes destruction and death easier for the same reason. So as the motto goes it increases responsibilities. You cannot fool around if you are a living missile launcher.

Which is exactly what annoys me in Hero Academia. They keep saying it’s about heroism when in reality it’s about ambition. There is a chick who became a hero just so she can be popular by letting people take photos of her butt. There is a school bully who openly states that he is better than everybody else and that he does it all for glory. What does any of that have anything to do with heroism? This is villainy material 101. When I was in junior high, the very first thing they told us in history class is that you cannot become a hero while you are still alive. It’s a title you gain post mortem. Same thing in Christian religious classes. You become a saint only after you pass away.

We throw around the word hero way too easily. It’s as if role models replaced heroes and are dictated by popularity instead of the morality behind their actions. Any idol in sports or movies or music can be dubbed a hero simply because they are successful and not because they are just. How many rich and famous got where they are without being merciless or whoring themselves? And I am not even mentioning military propaganda where you are a hero if you kill anyone we tell you and promote the agenda of the faction you belong to.

So back in Hero Academia, why is the school bully even allowed in participating for the hero academy? He thinks like a villain, he should be rejected after a simple interview. He is instead allowed because he had good marks in school. And he can pass if he simply gathers enough points in a videogame battle. The way to determine your heroism is reduced down to a high score. Look at me, I killed more monsters, I am a better hero than you.

The Hero Academy is not about heroes in the same way the Hero Association in One Punch Man is not about heroes. Entering because you have superpowers does not make you special because almost everybody has one and the rest can just get one. It is not creating role models either since many are in just for fame and glory, things totally unheroic. It is closer to promoting the might is right type of mentality. If you are the strongest, you can be whatever the hell you want to be. Steal a little, you are a thief. Steal a lot, you are a king. Ambition is a powerful thing that drives us forward but, come on, isn’t heroism all about selfless acts? What is selfless when you get to be a hero by playing videogames and doing it all for fame?

There is no denying that Naruto is shit but remember how much better the Chuunin exam was compared to the hero exam. You didn’t pass by gathering points but by using tactics and being a team player. And the teachers were constantly making it clear that it’s all done for maintaining the peace amongst the nations instead of making you rich and famous. Now that is heroic.

What ruined Naruto was dropping that and turning into a convoluted mess of superpowers where you can steal a power or copy a power, or gain a power. There was no longer a concept behind being born with a superpower and training how to be selfless. It became a shitfest of broken powers and convoluted plot twists. That’s why I began disliking Naruto after Sasuke left the village and why I dislike Hero Academia right away. They go against the very themes they establish. They are also brainwashing children to think heroism is something completely different. How dare they?