My favourite thing about Hawks (MHA) x Helena (Orphan Black) as a ship is that there is enough similarities to make them understand and relate to one another, enough shared qualities to get along, and yet the differences help them grow alongside each other.
Spoilers for both shows & the manga ahead!
Helena provides Hawks with a different perspective and vice versa. There is a vulnerability deep within both of them that is well hidden though better hidden with Hawks than Helena. Her desire for a place to belong, for safety, kindness and understanding is rooted in the lack of love she never received and a yearning to be appreciated and accepted. ‘I am the light’ is a lie she’s been told and yet it’s true. Beneath the violence is a helpless, feral little girl, a broken compassionate woman, who just wants to do and be good. There is a light in her, the same as in Hawks. A desire within them both buried somewhere fundamental to be useful and (as aforementioned) good, helpful, a hero.
In Hawks it is much more prominent and overt, in Helena it is more subtle; you only see it if you touch her life in some way, if you cross paths in the right circumstances, if you remind her of herself like a ripple or echo both long forgotten and ever-present. It differs from Hawks’ flashy shows of heroism and quiet determination to be the only one with bloodied hands and a tarnished soul, but it still exists nevertheless. Her ability to extend a kind hand in the form of absolute mercy or sheer brutality. Her mentality of; ‘I will kill to keep you safe, I will fight for your freedom because I know what it means to be caged. I will protect those who cannot defend themselves because once I was defenceless and the scars stay with you. I was moulded into a monster but now I choose my own path.’
She cannot outrun her past or what she has been forced to become but she can chose to use the tools given to her to create a better world; a mindset that both Tomas and Maggie originally twisted during their indoctrination process whilst instilling in her a desire to kill off the ‘copies’ (only in the AU I have in mind the clones do not exist as clones but as people not born out of experiments, for the most part). I believe she always had a desire to help, it just got tangled up in their murderous, religious extremism. Likewise, Hawks’ ideals were also twisted and warped into what the commission wanted them to be. Both lost their innocence and their spark in the name of controlled ‘heroism’. Unlike Helena, Hawks kills purely out of duty and as a last resort. He’ll hold back and hold off if other options present themselves, but he won’t forsake a mission that could cost the lives of thousands for the sake of his own sentimentality; such is his moral compass. (Even if it was twisted by the commission to suit their means despite his near constant disobedience) he’ll run on fumes and willpower alone if he has to, to get the job done, see it through and utilise his mission or his goal, but he won’t endanger the lives of innocents along the way if he can help it, and more often than not he can because he refuses not to.
In contrast, there is a vital part of Helena, maybe due to her strict, abusive upbringing in the convent, maybe because of the helplessness she experiences repeatedly in her life, particularly her youth, or perhaps because the practice of killing is forbidden and taboo and therefore exciting (I reckon it’s a case of all three) which craves the violence, basks in the blood of her enemies and the glory of death. It’s a task complete, a job well done when her target is no longer standing. It will get her recognition, appreciation, fondness and kindness from the only ‘family’ she’s ever known, a sense of peace in the knowledge that the world is ‘safer’ and that God is ‘proud’ of her due to the actions of taking a life.
And yet, I believe that with each life she takes there is a piece of her missing, bit by bit, little by little. Because she did not choose this life, a child has no comprehension of killing and whilst it is second nature to her, it is a duty based on illusion. An act forcibly complied with at times to garner safety as much as devotion. It is all she has and all she knows how to be because no one ever taught her any different, and yet it is not all she is. Despite her comfort with gore and brutality, the softer sides of Helena coupled with the fact she never mindlessly kills nor targets anyone outside of a threat to her own personal safety, her family’s or those most vulnerable in society tells me she picks the knife up less when she has control over whether to pick it up at all.
This comfortability with death and torture provides a key difference to Hawks’ stricter moral code and yet the kindness embedded within her compels him to see her as human, capable of change and deserving of a better life. As with Twice and Endeavour. He views her merely as a product of her circumstances. Which is interesting given that he too, is also a product of his. If you were to ask Helena if she were a victim of circumstance she would say yes, to a degree. Ask Hawks if he was and he’ll probably disagree. Does he hate the commissions control over his life and the degree they’ll go to maintain that control not just in regards to him but society as a whole? Yes. Does he view himself as a victim? Not necessarily. In his mind he was saved. And so others too can be saved, all he has to do is show them a different path, offer a helping hand, give them a chance, and if they don’t take it there’s nothing more he can do, but should they choose to accept then they are indeed deserving of a better life and a place within society (after paying their dues for their crimes).
Inside the Winged Hero is that same little boy who just wanted to be a shining light; a dream that the Commission stamped out as best they could, and inside Helena is a little girl desperately believing people will love and want her if she is useful, and clinging to the belief that maybe, hopefully, possibly, she can be good.
So, on paper, Helena would take up Hawks’ offer in a heartbeat, except she has learnt to be mistrustful. She would have (and has in my AU for multiple reasons) about as much faith in Hawks and hero’s as she would / does for the police force, and Arthur had to earn her trust. His job wasn’t in the spotlight as much as Hawks and he didn’t have to uphold a façade personality wise. So given the many layers of Hawks and the innate unwillingness to take people at face value lest they strike her first, Helena would view him as an enemy. Maybe she’d warm to him a little or a lot more if experience had not taught her to be wary even of those who offer you food should it be a poisoned. Maybe my AU is just super angsty and without the added tragedies I gave her, she’d be more willing to believe the best in him. But whilst Hawks’ desire for freedom is true and would strike a chord in her, his overt, goofy, over-confident and flashy (first layer) personality combined with the ‘knowledge’ that he a hero - who people rely on to save and who the younger population especially has such faith in - is really working with those that civilians fear most would leave a bad taste in her mouth at best and make her want to gorge his eyes out at worst (if he were lucky).
If Helena hid her kinder aspects, Hawks would only see a criminal that needed stopping and locking away. His methods are more logic based than her emotional ones, albeit both are emotionally driven and have been raised to complete a task as efficiently as possible without emotion getting in the way. The approaches used though different, are one and the same in terms of instilling the necessary beliefs into the easily manipulated minds of children to become the weapons they were meant to be. Helena has been raised with a more severe iron rod and had her animalistic instincts utilised in ways that Hawks’ clinical, contained, ruthless and rigours training differs from, but they are two sides of the same coin and I love them for it.
Helena would save Hawks from his cage in a heartbeat if she knew the extent of his life and past, as Hawks would save her from hers. The layers of distrust, respect, resentment, pity, understanding, forgiveness and unity these two would have would be outstanding. Their complexity makes me want to squeal with excitement because there is so very much to explore, and that’s before you even get into the involvement of quirks. Helena’s would be cannibalistic in nature and I know just how to utilise it. So yeah, it’s late, 1:26am to be exact. But I needed to ramble nonsensically a little (I could write essays about these two) because there is so much to discuss and explore and I love them so very dearly.
The problem becomes can I write them well enough? Would they really work or have I just convinced myself of something that in actuality doesn’t make sense? Can I do them both justice? Are their characterisations off? Will anyone else actually care about this ship or am I doomed to watch it set sail alone? (I’m writing this baby even if it’s just me that reads it. The amount of AUs and oneshots I have planned for this ship alone is ridiculous). Soaring Crimson is my favourite thing on earth currently, I will fight anyone who says crossovers are not a valid ship because even if it doesn’t work out or will never in any way, shape or form be canon it’s fun and that’s what ships are supposed to be; fun, adventurous ways we can honour and explore our favourite characters.
