A question to the fandom: why couldn't Adam be an anti villain?
It's often said that the RWDE wanted Adam to be like Vergil or Magneto.
Personally, I don't know much about Vergil, so we'll focus on Magneto.
Why couldn't Adam be an anti-villain like him? I'm not talking about an anti-hero, but a morally ambiguous villain.
The fandom offers several arguments to this effect.
Adam was never intended to be a morally ambiguous character.
Well, just because he wasn't conceived that way doesn't mean he shouldn't have been. There are various arguments that support why Adam should have been an anti-villain. You know, why that was the best decision for the plot.
But I'll elaborate on that later.
2.-Adam was always established as irredeemable.
Well… not entirely. It's only in the fall of Beacon that he's shown as an irredeemable person. We can say that's when the character truly becomes a character, but he'd been around for a while.
Adam tried to blow up the SDC train. But it's not like there weren't morally ambiguous characters who would be willing to do that.
I mean, it's pretty much implied that those were humans from the SDC.
It's evil, but again, it's something the Yaegerists would do.
It's mentioned that Adam's world (his ideal vision) wouldn't be perfect for everyone.
"But of course, his idea of a perfect future turned out to be not perfect for everyone."
Well, that means that vision would be good for SOME. (Although, of course, not for everyone).
Blake also talks about how Adam became radicalized:
"It wasn't in an instant, it was gradual - little choices that began to pile up. He told me not to worry. At first, they were accidents, then it was self-defense. Before long, even I began to think he was right."
Which, well, as I pointed out, simply means that Adam's actions were becoming increasingly radical.
And really, again, Adam is a villain. But it's not as if there aren't villains who commit radical acts and are still morally gray.
3.-Adam is the representation of the abuse victim turned perpetrator.
Yes… And he could have been that, for humanity. Why did he necessarily have to be an abuser with Blake?
I mean, he could have been obsessed with hurting humanity.
The White Fang plot is about racism and terrorism.
Why divert attention to other issues? Why use Adam to push those kinds of plots?
Adam is the leader of a terrorist faction of the White Fang. Doesn't it make sense for him to remain focused on that and for that to be the main focus of his character?
In fact, the most skillful decision would be to make Adam's obsession Weiss, not Blake.
4.- Adam's main character trait is being Blake's toxic ex-boyfriend. You can't simply remove that from his character.
Let's see. During the first two volumes, Adam is more conceived as an important leader of the White Fang. In the fall of Beacon, he's there to torture Blake, yes, but also to cause the academy's downfall.
In volumes 4 and 5, he's more of a threat because he's a leader of the White Fang. It's only in volume 6 that the confrontation with Blake is entirely due to him being Blake's ex-boyfriend.
And well, that's a decision the writers made. They weren't obligated to do things that way.
5.-Removing Adam's abusive side diminishes Blake's character. It's empowering to see Blake defeat her abuser.
Okay, this is getting a bit personal, but: Was Adam's subplot as an abuser really handled well? I mean, we barely get any dialogue from Blake:
"He used to get in my head, make me feel small. But now I see he just wanted to pull me down to his size."
And the scene where Adam is manipulative and plays the victim is in Adam's character short.
We hardly saw Adam being abusive towards Blake. I'm not saying there weren't any scenes, but they were very few and far between.
NOTE: I'M REFERRING TO "DURING THEIR RELATIONSHIP."
Adam, as a toxic ex-boyfriend, continued to be abusive, but that's more like an ex-boyfriend seeking revenge. I'm talking about Adam as a boyfriend, that is, while they were in a relationship.
And anyway, if we remove Blake's subplot as a victim of abuse, we can focus on her as Adam's ideological rival.
Couldn't we just use another character as Blake's abuser? I mean, that way we avoid having to use Adam for that.
What's the problem with Adam being an abuser?
Besides the details I already mentioned, the issue is that it has problematic implications.
After all, the Faunus subplot is based on the 1950s African American movement.
Some people have stated that they see it as a "racist caricature" of the Black Panther Party.
Ultimately, it's not just Adam; it's his entire faction that takes control of the organization and follows him in his campaign of terror. And well, Adam is the face of the White Fang.
This is my own question: Why couldn't Adam be a morally gray villain?
I ask the community to explain this to us.
Note: Again, I was talking about the details of their relationship when they were a couple. We have almost no details about that. We mostly see how things were after the breakup.
