jugaflugg

[jugaflugg]

The Shigaraki Problem*

A [long] essay on how Shigaraki could be saved.

I've had a lot of trouble reconciling various moral and practical issues in the desirable outcome for many of the "Villains" in My Hero Academia. Even the internal debate on labelling them Villains is a point of contention for me. I think being reflective on the issues that are represented in art can be good for personal development; to be challenged is to grow.

I mean, in this essay, to put real-world practicality aside and focus on the circumstances of the text. That is to say that the outcomes are not necessarily in-line with what I expect of real-world establishments, since the situations are markedly different. For example, I would personally advocate for prison abolition in an ideal world, but the constraints of the immediate situation in the story don't particularly enable this, in my opinion.

In any case, the issue can mostly be reduced to certain criteria requiring fulfilment, and the fact that they may seem contradictory to each other:

1. The Villains wish to be free and able to do as they please. 2. [Some] members of Hero society wish to "save" the Villains. 3. The criminal justice system wishes to incarcerate and/or punish the Villains. 4. Society, at large, must be safe for all to live in.

For now, let's use Mr. Compress as an example. At present, he is imprisoned for his criminal activity. He wishes to be free and, presumably, be with his friends (or found family, if you like). Any reform that is possible for him would rely on educating him on why his acts were harmful and empowering him to live a full life. Imprisonment, of course, impinges on that. However, for someone who has committed violent acts, how can one be sure that they will not commit violent acts again?

Therein lies the problem.

Shigaraki's case is similar: he wishes to be free and, at present, to kill practically everyone. Even if he could be convinced that this is not morally right, his dangerous history and capabilities make him a continued threat - at least, that is how incarceration of him would be justified in-universe.

So, how do we save Shigaraki? I have a few theories on what may happen next.

Theory One: It's All AFO's Fault

Shigaraki, at this stage in the story, must be aware of the control AFO had over his life. The resentment that he has expressed towards his former mentor, the man he even considered a father-figure at one point, has grown in recent chapters. With AFO's demise, there is little revenge Shigaraki can seek on him, except to destroy the legacy he intended to leave.

Many have suggested that AFO's role in Shigaraki's radicalisation took place earlier than we were led to believe: AFO gave Shigaraki his Decay quirk. This would, of course, suggest that he manipulated the young Tenko into believing that his quirk was intended for destruction, to meet his wish to destroy. Should this idea be shattered, perhaps Shigaraki may re-examine how he came to be as he is. Whilst I don't advocate self-destruction, any remorse Shigaraki may feel as a result of such a revelation might lead him down that path.

Theory Two: It's All AFO's Fault, Again

Much like the previous theory, this relies on the idea that AFO's involvement in Tenko's trauma runs deeper than depicted. In this theory, the idea of AFO giving him the Decay quirk is optional. However, what happened afterwards was all AFO.

Consider, for a moment, Camie's quirk, which allows her to create illusions. If AFO has any similar ability, or multiple similar abilities, he may have been able to convince Tenko of his abandonment whilst, in reality, he may have been able to seek help. The people who ignored Tenko on the street may have been illusions, may have been brainwashed. Radicalising a young child to that extent could be the product of meticulous planning, far more insidious and, most importantly, originating from AFO.

Self-destruction is not the only response to this, of course. Shigaraki may decide to give in, entirely. Perhaps he will give up his quirk and surrender to the current authorities. Or...

Theory Three: Merge

Perhaps all of the above is true. Perhaps none of it is. But here's the thing: Shigaraki doesn't necessarily want to die, and he doesn't necessarily want to spend the rest of his days in a jail cell. So here's what I'm thinking: he needs to abandon the corporeal realm.

That sounds dramatic, I know, but think about it like this: he doesn't want to live in that world, so what if he instead chose to live within the vestige realm?

Imagine AFO and OFA merge and Shigaraki ends up inside of OFA, forever, as a vestige. If the vestiges from OFA can end up inside of his copy of AFO, surely the opposite may be possible, too? I suppose it would mean he'd would be permanently inside of Izuku's mind, but perhaps one could think of it as paralleling Red Skull on Vormir in Avengers: Infinity War. If OFA ever moved beyond Izuku, Shigaraki would be the warden of the power.

Theories aside, the finale of this entire piece will be interesting to see. Any outcome that is both morally sound and beneficial to all characters is of interest to me, since I have struggled to put the pieces together in a way that satisfy the aforementioned criteria. I am left to wonder what it is that Izuku will do, or say, to end this. I can only hope that it will satisfy the curiosity of its many readers.

*I feel I must state, explicitly, that Shigaraki himself isn't the problem; I am looking for a solution to his situation. I suppose it's comparable to describing a complex equation as a "mathematical problem".

[jugaflugg]

Barbie Movie Review

You know the drill, below the line is spoiler-land!

Barbie is a fascinating film, and one that I think is a good start in educating people on modern feminist issues. Do I think it's without issue? Absolutely not. But it's a fun, feminine romp, and does well at putting forward some problems that have long-plagued women in the modern world. So, let's discuss.

We follow Barbie as she begins to experience more human issues, away from the idyllic utopia of Barbieland - these issues brought about by Gloria who, in the Real World, has been facing the struggles of motherhood.

Barbie travels to the Real World in an attempt to solve these issues, meeting Gloria and bringing her back to Barbieland in an attempt to release her from the stresses of modern womanhood. Gloria's relationship with her daughter, Sasha, is strained: Sasha doesn't understand her mother, rebuffing her attempts to connect.

I think that Sasha's role in the story is overlooked - she is a representative of the young radical feminist, using harsh language to get across her anger. She looks at her mother as someone who has given into the patriarchal machine, and only at the end of the film, when her mother expresses just how acutely she feels the weight of society's misogyny, does she begin to understand how united in womanhood they are.

Barbie struggles, as any woman does, to understand her place in the world - especially in the real world, where she is looked on as ornamental, exactly as the Kens are in her world. I do not think that Barbieland is meant to be understood as the perfect answer to the Real World - rather, it is meant to demonstrate how the world would look if the roles of men and women were reversed. At the end of the movie, it is noted that the Kens will someday have as much representation in governmental institutions as women have in the Real World - that is to say, a minute amount.

Barbieland is a radical way of perceiving how women may be served justice after lifetimes of existing in a misogynist society - but it is evident through Ken's subplot just how damaging any society without equality can be.

I enjoyed Ken (that is, Ryan Gosling's Stereotypical Ken) the most out of any other character in the movie. At first, I was a little disappointed that this was the case, however I am able to recognise that despite him being my favourite, that does not mean that I did not understand, or did not accept, the feminist perspective of the film.

Ken's story indicates just how poorly a patriarchal society cares about all of its aspects, including men who live in it. Ken clings to the power that the patriarchy gives him, but ultimately it cannot fulfil him any more than it can fulfil the women subjugated by it.

I think that, with a film so ardent in its feminist viewpoint, and certainly one that has been propagated as "a feminist movie", people are under the impression that every movement, every action taken by the characters, is in aid of this theme. However, I believe it is integral to our understanding of the film that we remember that each of the characters is their own person, not necessarily a part-player in advancing the feminist perspective.

Barbie chooses to become a human at the end of the film, as is her prerogative as an character with independent thought. Her choice can be perceived as inherently feminist: it is the action taken by a woman for her own benefit and her own happiness. She is not without fault, nor is she without mistakes - recognising this rounded out her character, and the role she has in modern society.

I think that the film was lacking in a few areas, particularly in its representation of intersectional feminism. Despite the presence of lesbian actress Kate McKinnon, and transgender actress Hari Nef, the film adhered very much to the binary of gender representation, as well as barely touching on the struggle of queer women. This same criticism can be held for the film's representation of minorities in general. The homogeny of the feminine experience in the film is not beneficial to educating viewers on the breadth of experience - but then, I suppose we can only take one step at a time.

I would also like to comment on the commercialisation of the film - or rather, on Mattel's advertising power over it. Undoubtedly, the film also functions as a large advertisement for Mattel's flagship product, buying into the ever-present terror of capitalism. Capitalism has forever functioned as a way of benefiting the rich, and often excludes minorities, as well as being inherently patriarchal. There is a certain dissonance between these facts in the film's presentation of the product - one that feels barely touched upon by an otherwise self-aware script. When it was done so, however - for example, the Mattel boardroom being comprised of entirely by men - it did so well.

This film is a great starting point for the feminist conversation, and whilst it does not say anything new, it does speak about some of these age-old issues a lot louder than previously done so by prominent media. I'm interested to see what is next from Greta Gerwig, who is fast becoming one of the most celebrated female directors - and a personal favourite.

And remember: You are Kenough.

[jugaflugg]

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse Review

I'd like to unload the hundreds of thoughts I'm having following our viewing of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse - that is to say, this will contain a plethora of spoilers, so be warned! No safe harbour beyond this point!

Firstly, wow. What an incredible film! Everything was spectacular, and I wouldn't expect anything less. When I went to see Into the Spider-Verse back in 2018, I was blown away by the pure tenacity of the filmmakers, who really went above and beyond with the film. The technical make-up of this film is unlike any other - simply unparalleled in its quality, style, and performance. Each and every artist should be proud of themselves for their contribution to this film; they are at the forefront of art and of cinema itself. And that isn't hyperbole.

I want to talk about the plot first, specifically how Miles' story was told in this film. We have a fair amount of narration from Gwen and her perspective on the events, which I think added a really wonderful dimension to her (pun not intended), as well as letting us see Miles through the eyes of those he has had an impact on.

Miles Morales is different, even for a Spider-Man, and I think that the film really broadened our understanding of him: who is Miles Morales? The question is asked, in more or less those exact words, throughout the film. Miles didn't tell us the answer, but he sure as hell showed us.

Every new character introduced was phenomenal - I especially loved Hobie and Pavitr, who were so stylish and interesting. I'm looking forward to learning more about them in the sequel! Hobie in particular was of interest to me, with his anti-capitalist views and pro-anarchist perspective. It may sound as though he was played for laughs, but with the "Protect Trans Kids" pride flag in Gwen's room, the "#BLM" badge on Miles' bag, and the subtly anti-police undertones of the film itself, it is clear where the filmmakers stand.

The ending of the film was jaw-dropping to say the least. As soon as we were told Miles had ended up in the wrong universe, I knew where things were going. So, universe-42 Miles is Prowler? Interesting, to say the least. Only time will tell if he is truly a villain, or if he took up the mantle as a vigilante alternative to Spider-Man.

Miguel O'Hara made it clear that he believes universe-1610 Miles (our Miles) to be an anomaly. I've talked before with people about my perspective on time travel in films - there are multiple ways it can be done (I have a point here, I promise!). One way of representing time travel is to have a linear structure, with every "anomaly" creating an entirely new universe. Alternatively, there is (what I refer to as) looped time-travel, where the events that happen were always supposed to happen (a glass knocked over by someone time travelling was always meant to have been knocked over, for example).

Personally, I'm of the mind that Miles is not an anomaly, he was always meant to be. Nobody could have prevented universe-1610 Kingpin from creating the reactor, and if he hadn't done it, another universe's Kingpin would have (that's rather the point of infinite potential). Therefore, the continuum would always have been disrupted, and Miles would always have become Spider-Man. Sure, it's an incredibly small percentage chance, but it could happen, and it did happen.

In any case, I fully expect to see a resolution in which The Spot (voiced by one of my all-time favourites, Jason Schwartzman) is either put in a position where he feels he belongs or, alternatively, manages to wipe himself from existence by being everything and nothing. No doubt that, if he is not already, universe-42 Miles will become the protector of his realm, be it as Prowler or something else (Spider-Prowl? Prowler-Man?). And hopefully we'll see a resolution between Miles and Gwen!

In terms of the animation, as I already stated, it was beyond the limits of what I thought was possible. Admittedly, I'm not an animator, nor am I familiar with the technical complexities of it, but the mix of styles was surely enough to demonstrate the sheer willpower and talent of these animators.

This isn't even to mention the live-action elements, or the LEGO dimension. Slotting characters of different styles into universes that both compliment and contrast them was downright exciting to watch. The pacing left you with the breathing room to assimilate every new fight, whilst never letting you get bored - there was always something new on the horizon.

I am, simply put, astounded by this film. I was apprehensive to see if it could outdo the first one and - though I definitely need to watch it a few more times - I am fairly certain it is on a par with, if not better than Into the Spider-Verse. The true test will be whether they can stick the landing with Beyond the Spider-Verse, but honestly I have no doubts that it will be equally spectacular.

Knowing how much time, effort, and love went into this film is so apparent in every frame. The wit of the script, the technical effects, the voice acting (shout out to Daniel Kaluuya, voice of Hobie, for his excellent performance) were all sublime and well-worth every penny we paid for the seats.

Thank you, Spider-Verse, for pushing the boundaries of creativity and managing to wow me at every turn. I can't wait to see what is next for this cast of characters, and for those leading the way in artistic development.

[Note: Realised I forgot to mention the soundtrack, which was every bit as amazing as you'd expect! Daniel Pemberton is probably my favourite film score artist - Miguel's theme was perfection!]

[jugaflugg]

Responses to the Symbol of Peace

When we join the story of My Hero Academia, society is shaped by the constant presence of heroes, the most notable of which is the Symbol of Peace. All Might's place in their hero society is one that is positioned far above the rest - all rely on him, and his place as their most trusted saviour.

The unfortunate reality of this is that, despite All Might's genuine altruism, the purpose of the Symbol of Peace is interpreted vastly differently by different characters. It is these various interpretations that make up the key hurdles of our protagonists; all the central characters are defined by their interpretation of the Symbol of Peace.

At the height of his abilities, All Might set a standard of public service that would be impossible for anyone to maintain, even with the support he eschews, and the stoicism he insists upon. In doing so, he creates a role that cannot be filled by anyone else, and that he refuses to step down from until well beyond his limit. He has thus created two impossible tasks for himself: maintenance of the Symbol of Peace role, and succession of it.

This essay will explore the nature of the Symbol of Peace as a cultural phenomena, as well as its various interpretations among key characters, and how these interpretations have helped to shape the arcs for each of them.

Izuku Midoriya

Of all the central characters in the ensemble, Midoriya's interpretation of the Symbol of Peace is most closely aligned with All Might's: a limitless altruism provided at the expense of the self, no matter how damaging and unsustainable the approach may be to both the provider, and society.

In the third act of the story, we see Midoriya enduring the same stresses that caused All Might's eventual burnout. In the story's closing chapters, it will be Midoriya's hurdle to overcome the neuroses that are inherent to the role of the Symbol of Peace.

A by-product of Midoriya's individual interpretation, and his personal situation, was him dealing with many of the same issues that All Might faced during his hero career. These include an unhealthy work ethic, forgoing a support network, a willingness to provide at the cost of his own well-being, and his insistence on doing so alone.

At time of writing, the story has not yet concluded, so it falls to reader's interpretation as to whether Midoriya will overcome these neuroses by helping the idea of the Symbol of Peace to evolve by including a support structure, or if he will attempt to finally dispel it, which would align to popular theories regarding the destruction of his Quirk, One for All.

Given the popular tropes and themes that Shonen manga often operate on - the so-called "Power of Friendship" - it would be reasonable to project that the story would conclude with the Symbol of Peace, as All Might established it, being heavily revised or dissolved in its entirety.

Katsuki Bakugo

Bakugo's interpretation of the Symbol of Peace is the diametrically opposed to Midoriya's. Where Midoriya idolised All Might, the Saviour, Bakugo idolised All Might, the Champion. As such, he covets quantifiable martial success over rescue and support.

Over time, and alongside other factors such as Quirk discrimination, this perspective was warped into a harmful one, resulting in a favouring of violence instead of peaceful resolution. Through this, he developed a confrontational personality which led to issues among his peers.

There is a clear parallel drawn between the pairing of Endeavor and Bakugo, just as there is between All Might and Midoriya, with each sharing one particular definition of the success of hero work: one practical, but callous, and the other idealistic, yet unsustainable. In essence, Bakugo and Endeavor's ideology is focused on defeating villains and personal glory, whereas Midoriya and All Might's is based on saving others at a detriment to themselves.

Endeavor

Prior to both of their character developments, Endeavor was the hero archetype that Bakugo was moving towards: a career hero, contributing to society more as a by-product of his individual ambition than due to any innate desire to help others.

Endeavor is defined by his inability to understand what the Symbol of Peace achieved for society and, relatedly, fails to comprehend why his hero persona is not congruent with the demands of the Symbol of Peace. As such, we observe a situation in which Endeavor is unable to have the same reassuring effect as All Might, despite committing similarly impressive deeds.

Stain

Stain exhibits an over-reliance on the Symbol of Peace in his hero ideology - that is to say, he insists upon heroes who act entirely selflessly, saving others for no personal gain, demanding an inhuman hero archetype. His reverence of this archetype is cult-like in its approach: focusing on an idea (of a person), rather than acknowledging the human limits that are present.

Stain also represents another issue in the concept of the Symbol of Peace, in that no matter All Might's intention, the response comes down to interpretation. All Might's idea of the Symbol of Peace was one that is warped by Stain, being used as the motivation, or possibly the excuse, for Stain's actions.

Moreover, Stain's ideology does not tackle the inherent issue of having heroes. In order to deconstruct and deal with societal issues, one needs to consider the problem of heroes, placed as they are above the common citizenry, and their dichotomous relationship with "villains", who are labelled and outcast for their actions and views - an approach which exacerbates the issue of difference.

All for One

All for One's approach to achieving his goal is based on his realisation and acknowledgement of the reliance on the Symbol of Peace. His plan, in the first half of the story, focuses on the degradation of the Symbol of Peace, which in turn causes the degradation of society itself.

All for One becomes a Symbol of Chaos and Disruption, an opposing force to the Symbol of Peace. As he perceives the way in which the Symbol of Peace is essentially the Jenga block that must be removed for his plan to succeed, his focus is on destroying the public perception of All Might as their saviour. The public's response to All Might's retirement is the equivalent of political disgruntlement; here we see that the public does not perceive All Might as a person who has done them a service.

Ochaco Uraraka

As a member of class 1A that does not have an explicit interaction with the Symbol of Peace (in terms of ideology/motivation), Uraraka is an example of forging ahead in hero work despite societal expectations.

At the end of the Paranormal Liberation War arc, we see her acknowledging, and becoming disheartened by, heroes who are giving up on their work as they see the threat as too strong. However, she continues to strive towards her goal after this, saving many civilians and effectively continuing with her hero work, despite the lack of presence of a societally-recognised Symbol of Peace.

This makes clear that a world in which a Symbol of Peace does not exist is viable - good in people will exist and make itself known despite it.

Conclusion

While All Might was well-intentioned, he eroded the shared public morality and responsibility that staves off wrong-doing. Understanding that society perceives heroes in an unproductive way is one of the first steps that must be made before effective change can occur; this is also paralleled in how society perceives "villains", which must also be altered to improve their treatment going forward.

[jugaflugg]

Let's talk about that panel.

One could say, if they were interpreting it incredibly literally, that Ochaco was chasing after Toga. I believe there's a bit more to it than that.

Toga has always represented many things in the story, especially for Ochaco's development, but one thing that stands out from the rest is her ability to wear her heart on her sleeve. Toga's emotions have driven her actions, and her feelings towards others are often open and clear.

Ochaco hasn't been so lucky. She has kept her feelings hidden in order to become a better Hero, but this has been to the detriment of her capabilities. Had she been able to accept her emotions, perhaps things may have been different.

So, that panel. In my opinion, it represents two things: First, that Ochaco is chasing after that ability to come to terms with and express her emotions, as represented by Toga. And second, that she is ready to use that to her advantage - in this case, finding common ground with which to make an appeal to Toga.

[jugaflugg]

Bakugo's Fate

I have a feeling that we won't be finding anything out about Bakugo's fate for a while - presumably, at this point in the series (at time of writing, ch. 363 is the most recent chapter), we will move on to another focus to keep the readership guessing for a little while.

One could argue that Jeanist's assertion that Bakugo had no pulse means that is the end of Dynamight for the long-term - and perhaps they're right - but I am of the opinion that there is more to his story yet.

Countless revival strategies have been up on offer from the fandom; a popular theory regarding Jeanist's Quirk evolving to fix muscle fibres has been floated within the community to an array of responses. This essay, however, is not intended to remark or expand upon such theories.

Instead, I wish to focus on why, narratively, I am of the opinion that Bakugo's permanent death would be a poor use of his character and a poor ending to his arc.

There are many reasons for which one might argue this to be the case, but I shall try to keep my reasoning concise:

In terms of Izuku

Throughout every essay, every discussion, I've ever had on Deku learning his true potential, I've always resolved it down to two issues:

He learns how to control his emotions

He learns that he needs to work with others

The latter part of the "Dark Deku" arc (have we a commonly used term for this yet?) was dedicated to him realising this second point; most notably, working alongside Bakugo in order to win.

Their hero ideologies work in conjunction with each other - the famous "win to save, save to win" dichotomy - therefore, as representatives of these ideologies, they must also work together.

For Deku to return to the battlefield and find his childhood friend and rival dead, and unable to revive him, would prove to him that working solo was correct all along - this is counterintuitive to the development of his character.

In terms of Winning

In chapter 362, before attempting to land a final blow on Shigaraki, Bakugo asks "So, Izuku, can I still catch up to you?" - a representative thought to encapsulate his character. His inferiority complex has remained with him since a young age - afraid to be perceived as anything less than the best.

Given that, moments after this thought passes through his mind, he appears to shuffle off the mortal coil, his dying thought would be one of inferiority - a realisation that he was unable to match up to his rival and their enemy in strength.

This is a deeply dissatisfying end to his story. One might argue that, in his final moments, he instead realised that he did not need to catch up with Izuku and accepted his inferiority in strength - this is an idea I reject wholeheartedly. Bakugo's arc need not end with him rejecting his entire ideology in order to die at peace. His determination to fulfil his goals is one that should be given appropriate attention, not pushed aside as though another's ideology is more relevant or "correct".

In terms of Reasoning

I have yet to come across any answer to the narrative question of "Why should Bakugo die?" in the context that we are given within the story. His final blow to Shigaraki did not sufficiently slow him down - if Bakugo had died after significantly weakening Shigaraki, I would be more open to this idea; Bakugo dying in order to win the battle would be both in character, and at least somewhat more reasonable.

One of the "reasons" I have been given is that his death demonstrates the stakes of the story, and specifically of how dangerous Shigaraki is. I, for one, was under no impression that Shigaraki wasn't dangerous, nor do I believe Bakugo's whole character arc to be an appropriate sacrifice in order to prove this. This latter point also acts as a response to the idea that his death demonstrates the casualties of war.

Raising the stakes of the story by killing characters is, in any case, weak writing - and not a strategy I would attribute to Horikoshi. In the story thus far, I am a firm believer that each act of violence or death of a character has been purposeful, either narratively or thematically.

Conclusion

There are, doubtless, other ways in which Bakugo's death could be argued as a general negative for the story, but I believe these three reasons cover the issue most aptly.

Whilst I am unsure of where the story is progressing and have little interest in debating the many ways in which Bakugo could be revived logically, I have faith that this is not yet the end of his story. There is, after all, a battle to be won - and who better to aid in that struggle than the Symbol of Victory himself?

[jugaflugg]

I think that's a really important distinction! I'm still of the mind that her support of that connection is a huge part of her hero ideology - but definitely: recognising the issue, but also being cognizant that you (in this case, Ochaco) are not necessarily the answer to it is something we've seen requiring attention from the very start of the series.

Ochaco's determination to be that bridge of communication between the civilians and Deku was very inspiring! She was able to recognise the issue (that a hero, Deku, needed help) and attempted to find a solution by appealing to the citizens, using her emotions and expressing her passion in doing so - I appreciate her character deeply for this.

About Ochaco

Perhaps I have felt the need lately, through my own interactions with the fandom, to defend my favourite characters more vehemently than I once did. I think this has its roots in the increasing amount of poor criticism I have seen regarding characters, in general - no doubt this is a by-product of the series ending, and tensions rising as a result.

I think one of the characters that is so frequently misunderstood, and also happens to be one of my favourites, is Ochaco. This long-standing issue is related to her place in the story as the female protagonist of the piece - an inherently controversial role due to the rampant sexism within the anime community (or, even, just the world at large).

My specific issue is the misinterpretation of her character that tends to rise out of her relationship with Deku. It's an inevitability, given that he is the protagonist, that every character will interact with him in different ways. For example, his relationship with All Might is one of teacher and student, whilst is relationship with Bakugo is one of rivalry and, to a degree, friendship.

However, Ochaco's relationship with Deku has become more complex since the revelation of her affections towards him. I think, for many people, this was considered an inevitability of her character and role in the story; for others, they may feel that it ruined her characterisation.

I take issue with the pseudo-feminism behind claims that a woman should reject stereotypical institutions such as marriage and family. A true feminist stance is one that encourages women to take the path that best suits them - including one in which they fall in love, get married, and have children.

In Ochaco's case, her emotional connection to Deku becomes one that influences her perspective on hero work. Given the story is, in some ways, an exploration of these different hero ideologies, and specifically how Deku influences, or is influenced by, these ideologies, this is a logical step for her character.

Moreover, her wanting to become like Deku falls in line with how her foil, Toga, perceives others - particularly those she admires. Whilst Toga wishes to become those that she has affectionate feelings for, Ochaco's path in the story is one that enables her to retain her identity, whilst also being inspired by Deku and the other heroes around her. The ability to be yourself is one that takes strength and courage.

Nonetheless, I would like to add: Toga's emotional attachment is a valid one - how she perceives love is different to others, but the inherent lack of identity that comes with it is a detriment. She needs time to come to terms with who she is before she can enter a relationship with anyone at all.

It does still need to be noted though, that Ochaco needs to come to terms with her emotions to effectively close out her arc. The criticism of her emotions that I have seen from fans of the series tends to reduce her to merely a love interest, which does not accurately portray every aspect of her character.

Moreover, for one to have a crush, or to be in love, is something that is not a detriment to their capabilities in achieving their goals.

Ochaco's resolve to understand her emotions properly, and accept them for her benefit, is what her story is about. Furthermore, this falls in line with Deku's parallel storyline of being able to control his own emotions for the benefit of his hero work, and his personal mental stability.

Removing those emotions entirely is counterproductive.

In fact, it suggests that a hero should not live with passion or emotion for others, as though being dispassionate in one's own life increases their capabilities as a hero. It does not. Ochaco's whole arc is about recognising this.

I feel a strong sense of connection to Ochaco, as a character. Her hero ideology - Who saves the heroes? - is inherently selfless and deeply personal to me. Reducing her character to a stereotype does her a disservice, and does not aid in our understanding of her story, or Deku's. If anything, it denies her value as a female protagonist, perpetuating the issues of sexism and misogyny within the anime and manga community.

[jugaflugg]

About Ochaco

Perhaps I have felt the need lately, through my own interactions with the fandom, to defend my favourite characters more vehemently than I once did. I think this has its roots in the increasing amount of poor criticism I have seen regarding characters, in general - no doubt this is a by-product of the series ending, and tensions rising as a result.

I think one of the characters that is so frequently misunderstood, and also happens to be one of my favourites, is Ochaco. This long-standing issue is related to her place in the story as the female protagonist of the piece - an inherently controversial role due to the rampant sexism within the anime community (or, even, just the world at large).

My specific issue is the misinterpretation of her character that tends to rise out of her relationship with Deku. It's an inevitability, given that he is the protagonist, that every character will interact with him in different ways. For example, his relationship with All Might is one of teacher and student, whilst is relationship with Bakugo is one of rivalry and, to a degree, friendship.

However, Ochaco's relationship with Deku has become more complex since the revelation of her affections towards him. I think, for many people, this was considered an inevitability of her character and role in the story; for others, they may feel that it ruined her characterisation.

I take issue with the pseudo-feminism behind claims that a woman should reject stereotypical institutions such as marriage and family. A true feminist stance is one that encourages women to take the path that best suits them - including one in which they fall in love, get married, and have children.

In Ochaco's case, her emotional connection to Deku becomes one that influences her perspective on hero work. Given the story is, in some ways, an exploration of these different hero ideologies, and specifically how Deku influences, or is influenced by, these ideologies, this is a logical step for her character.

Moreover, her wanting to become like Deku falls in line with how her foil, Toga, perceives others - particularly those she admires. Whilst Toga wishes to become those that she has affectionate feelings for, Ochaco's path in the story is one that enables her to retain her identity, whilst also being inspired by Deku and the other heroes around her. The ability to be yourself is one that takes strength and courage.

Nonetheless, I would like to add: Toga's emotional attachment is a valid one - how she perceives love is different to others, but the inherent lack of identity that comes with it is a detriment. She needs time to come to terms with who she is before she can enter a relationship with anyone at all.

It does still need to be noted though, that Ochaco needs to come to terms with her emotions to effectively close out her arc. The criticism of her emotions that I have seen from fans of the series tends to reduce her to merely a love interest, which does not accurately portray every aspect of her character.

Moreover, for one to have a crush, or to be in love, is something that is not a detriment to their capabilities in achieving their goals.

Ochaco's resolve to understand her emotions properly, and accept them for her benefit, is what her story is about. Furthermore, this falls in line with Deku's parallel storyline of being able to control his own emotions for the benefit of his hero work, and his personal mental stability.

Removing those emotions entirely is counterproductive.

In fact, it suggests that a hero should not live with passion or emotion for others, as though being dispassionate in one's own life increases their capabilities as a hero. It does not. Ochaco's whole arc is about recognising this.

I feel a strong sense of connection to Ochaco, as a character. Her hero ideology - Who saves the heroes? - is inherently selfless and deeply personal to me. Reducing her character to a stereotype does her a disservice, and does not aid in our understanding of her story, or Deku's. If anything, it denies her value as a female protagonist, perpetuating the issues of sexism and misogyny within the anime and manga community.

[jugaflugg]

In Defence of Mirio Togata

Recently, amongst discussions, I've come across those who argue against Mirio's importance to the plot. As a staunch advocate for the character, it's hard to ignore what I consider to be a massive oversight in one's understanding of the plot.

With this essay, I intend to explore three points in favour of Mirio's nature as a plot-integral character. To give a brief overview, here are the points in summary form:

His relevance to Deku's growth and understanding of what it means to have One for All.

His importance in the Shie Hassaikai arc, as well as Eri's character.

His character as an exploration of what it means to be a hero.

Initial Successor It cannot be denied, when discussing the relationship between All Might and Deku, that Mirio's entrance to the story had a large impact. Previous to his introduction, we had been under the assumption that All Might's power was to be passed on at his will, rather than due to any prior plans.

There had been a lack of discussion, up to this point, on how One for All had been passed on prior to this point: whether through planned successors, or through last-minute decisions in each user's final moments. Mirio's arrival in the plot opens this discussion, and gives us reason to consider why All Might chose to pass the power on to Deku, rather than another candidate.

It's important to note, here, that the "planned successor" could have been no one other than Mirio. His position as a contender for the Number 1 Pro Hero makes him the seemingly perfect candidate - yet Deku's personal passion and alignment with All Might's hero ideology are what sealed him as the appropriate successor.

By distinguishing the differences between Mirio and Deku's personalities, style of hero work, and circumstances, we can fully recognise why it is vital One for All was passed to Deku, both in an ideological, and narrative sense.

Shie Hassaikai and Eri One might wonder whether Eri could have been saved without Mirio's intervention - the answer to which is, of course, no. From a narrative perspective, Deku had to be the one to finish the fight with Overhaul - he is our protagonist, after all. However, saving Eri was something that could not be accomplished alone.

When Mirio and Deku are first introduced to Eri, we see their reactions to the situation, which aids in our understanding of the differences between them: Mirio acts nonchalantly, aware that Eri may be in danger, but concerned of the repercussions if they were to step in at that point; Deku reacts emotionally, as we have seen him do before, wanting to save Eri from the danger at that moment.

We have seen, time and time again, that Deku's emotions have impeded his judgement and capabilities as a hero. This is not to say that his passion is to be ill-regarded - on the contrary, Deku's emotions set him apart from the rest. However, as Daigoro Banjo later tells him (ch. 213) "what really matters is controlling your heart" - a lesson Deku must continue to learn.

Mirio, here, shows his maturity in comparison to Deku - following orders from Nighteye and able to control his own emotions despite his concerns. Eri's safety is a priority for him, but he is aware that confronting Chisaki at this time may endanger her further.

Mirio becomes a major player in the race to save Eri, rushing ahead of the group in order to get to her faster (ch. 139), ultimately saving her from the Quirk-erasing bullet (ch. 152), and taking care of her in the aftermath. Without this, Eri would not have been saved, acting against the core theme of the story.

What Does it Mean to Be a Hero? It is arguable, through the aforementioned core theme that one may consider a hero to be this: someone who saves another. At his heart, Deku embodies this - wishing to save even the villains who many believe are 'too far gone'. Mirio's approach to this is somewhat more pragmatic, wishing to save one million people.

However, the number of people one saves is not the sole indicator of the quality of a hero, nor of their ideology. Mirio demonstrates a complete determination in saving Eri, continuing to fight well past his limit, and after the removal of his Quirk.

To continue to fight, despite the odds being stacked against you, with the firm resolve to save those in need, is just one way in which Mirio's hero ideology makes itself known. By exploring this set of principles, Horikoshi is able to exhibit the many ways in which one can be a hero, beyond a cape and a super-power.

"A Fine Hero" Mirio's importance to the story is undeniable: his presence is a major factor in Deku's journey, and aids in our understanding of hero society within the story.

I think it's common practice these days to overlook character relevancy as they may seem to have less to do within the story than, say, the protagonist. However, there is still salience in their contribution to the narrative, or to the message the author is attempting to convey. Exploring the facets of this contribution helps us to understand the story in a much more complete way, as it is ever-important to do.

[jugaflugg]

A Short Essay in the 2nd User's Quirk

People have been, quite understandably, theorising about the 2nd One for All user's Quirk for a long time now - the build up to it has been immense and we can be fairly certain that it will play a large role in the series' finale.

One thing I have noticed, amongst all the discussion, is how people have been latching on to the limited amount of evidence we have on what it could be. Let's take a look at that evidence, first:

The 2nd user describes it as a Meta Ability - this is the older term for Quirks - which, in itself, doesn't provide much information on what it is - though we can assume that since this was pre-Hero era, it might not have been Quirk suited for Hero work.

The 2nd user also describes it as a "last resort" - meaning that it must be incredibly powerful and only used when Deku is in his final fight.

He also describes it as a "unique power" - this hints that it might not be something we have seen before (i.e. not elemental, for example).

The 2nd user mentions that it is "not something that can be wielded the usual way" - suggesting that it has mutated beyond its original purpose or design, thanks to the powers of One for All.

We also know that Deku tried to activate it when crossing the ocean, on his way back to the mainland to fight Shigaraki.

The 2nd user is seen wearing gauntlets of a sort, which many people have attributed to being related to his Quirk.

The last two pieces of information above have led people to two assumptions:

That the Quirk is speed-related, in order to help Deku cross the ocean quicker.

That the Quirk is related to the gauntlets, akin to Bakugo's gauntlets.

It's really important to note here that these are assumptions and not necessarily conclusively related to his Quirk.

Take, for example, the possibility of an "undo" or "re-do" Quirk - similar to Eri's, but more general and time-travel related. I'm, personally, averse to the idea of time-travel being used within the story, but - for discussion purposes - let's imagine it for now.

If Deku tried to activate said "undo" Quirk, he could go back to before Toga caught him, this time avoiding that mistake. This would allow him to be in the Shigaraki fight from the start, meaning that the Quirk would not have to be speed-related.

Furthermore, this particular Quirk wouldn't enhance the 2nd user's fighting ability - therefore he would need to have a support item in order to be effective in battle. This is similar to Aizawa's capturing weapon, which he uses for battle, whilst his Quirk is used to support him.

[For those considering how this hypothetical 2nd user's Quirk has mutated through power increase: say, originally, the 2nd user could only "undo" so much, possibly through a time limit - the mutation has increased the length of the "undo".]

I think it's really important, when considering the 2nd user's Quirk, that we don't rule out any options; being as open-minded as possible about the final Quirk that Deku will use is a priority.

[jugaflugg]

For want of a better thought...

I find myself struggling, of late, to keep a certain idea regarding the coming events of My Hero Academia out of my mind. In truth, this theory could stand to be considered fanfiction, which is the reason as to why I am posting it here, as opposed to a Twitter thread.

[Editor's note: I would like to clarify that this isn't so much a prediction as a thought I just wanted to write down? Don't put stock into it, anyway - I don't!]

I’m often not one to stick to any particular set of predictions - only Horikoshi will be the decider of what will happen in the plot, thus putting all of your eggs in one basket would, in my opinion, be a bad idea.

Nonetheless, one thought continually returns to my mind regarding Toga’s eventual circumstances at the end of the current war arc.

I will preface this with an alternative theory - one in which Toga escapes using another's face to aid her. If, at the end of her battle with Ochaco, she is convinced that doing harm to others is inherently wrong - and, assuming she makes it out of the altercation alive and free - escape is truly the only option. Continuing to live among the crowd, attempting to accept who she is without causing harm to others.

This is possible, I'd argue, but it is (perhaps unfortunately) not the set of thoughts that spring to mind as I consider her arc. [Going to set here a brief warning of discussion of character death, which could be disturbing to some].

Now, the theory: My idea is predicated on the assumption that Toga will try to escape the situation again. Of course, there are limited ways off of the island, as has been proved by Deku's return to the mainland, but there is always the possibility of warping (through AFO's warp quirk, should he require back-up - as far as I am aware, his version of the quirk would be able to do this). Thus, her escape is still viable.

Now, assuming that she wouldn't want to be immediately caught during this escape, she would want to take on the form of another person. Assuming that she uses Twice's blood, and performs Sad Man's Parade, arguably the real Toga could be lost in the crowd, allowing her to transform into another person (assuming her version of Twice's quirk doesn't prevent this - i.e. the clones remain there despite her transforming again).

We have seen in chapter 348 that she cut/stabbed Ochaco with her knife, meaning that she now has Ochaco's blood and the capacity to transform into her, if only for a little while. If she were to return to the mainland, she may do so as Ochaco.

The villains (perhaps even AFO) would see her as the enemy, meaning there is a possibility of her being attacked accidentally (perhaps the lesson therein being that wanting to become someone else is dangerous, for more reasons than one). Should the attack be fatal, the others (both villain and hero) would see the scene as Ochaco dying (despite the fact that it is, in reality, Toga).

Now, such grounds are these for more drama to ensue. Should Deku see these events, I would imagine quite a rage would be set forth (akin to his anger upon seeing Bakugo hurt so severely in the first war arc). It is possible, also, that this whole set of events could be done to invoke audience response - we, the audience, believe it to be Ochaco when, in reality, it is Toga (something that would be revealed after a cliff-hanger, I expect).

In any case, that's the concept that constantly returns to my mind of late. Arguably, it could set the stage for some sort of confession (particularly from Deku's side), if you wish to take the shipping route - but one could omit that entirely and the theory would remain.

[jugaflugg]

Fandom Transmutation

The Death of the Author was a seminal piece of work, published in 1967 by Roland Barthes. Barthes proposed that the intentions of the author, as well as their history and background, should have no bearing on the readers’ interpretation of the created text.

Barthes’ article frequents a space in my mind as I ponder the events of My Hero Academia, nearing the end of its run. HIs essay asserts that the author’s intentions in writing the text should not impact any given readers’ understanding of the text. This was to emphasise the issue of subjectivity: the author’s individual circumstances and interpretation of their own text will be quite different to any given reader’s.

And yet, it seems, to disregard authorial intent has become the primary technique of textual reading among fans of My Hero Academia. However, this has evolved beyond simply disregarding the author’s objective, and into a disregard for the canonical elements of the story.

Granted, there is basis within the content of the text. Names, faces, general ideas of the characters, they are retained throughout. But, generally, all else is neglected. In particular, the relationships are evolved into something else: something beyond the canon - a fanon that has warped textual reading.

A distinction needs to be made here: this is no longer an interpretation of the text - the text, in large part, has not been retained - this is a transmutation of the text.

Fan-created content will, generally, disregard canon evidence in some regard. Whether this is through artistic boundaries (representing a character with a different shade, a different shape of eye), or through genuine misinterpretation - perhaps, in some cases, purposeful misinterpretation - the canon must be disregarded as a side-effect of the author and the reader’s understanding being intrinsically different.

It isn’t, therefore, inherently bad to read characters beyond the text: to transmute their characterisation is a part of being a fan. However, due to the nature of online communities, and fandoms in general, hostilities arise when two or more interpretations (or transmutations) do not align.

Adapting characters to suit one’s own needs is very much in line with fan treatment of the author’s work; in other words, fanfiction is far from new - even Shakespeare’s most famous works were often adaptations of other works. 

A question arises, nonetheless, as to whether transmutation is a healthy way of interpreting the text, specifically when discussing it with others. We, as a group of readers, often regard Twitter as a hotbed for discussion lacking nuance - this is due to the mass of incompatible transmutations congregating in one area. Not to mention the way in which online discourse is never truly discourse - often, people wish to share their perspective, or transmutation, without criticism or debate.

It appears, over time, that transmutation has become the central focus of fan discussion. With Alternative Universe (AU) fanfiction becoming more and more prominent, and the adoption of the highly controversial “fanon” (or fan-created canon), to interpret the text within its initial boundaries is falling from favour.

My ponderances then lay on this: Is this new wave of fan interaction sustainable? Evidently, transmuting characters and events is far from new, but will disregarding canonicity become the dominant technique in years to come; will it encroach upon the long-held academic standards?

I, for one, am fascinated by this phenomena. Whilst my loyalty will ever remain with the story as it is written, this contemporary and unfamiliar approach is one I will be watching with keen interest.