Somewhere I read Adam was a 'monster' because he tried to make the world pay for what happened in his childhood, instead of being a selfless hero. But do you think that's a reason to trash his character? If we try to put ourselves in the shoes of a deeply traumatized and abused orphan, we could understand how much potential he has as a character. Yeah, he was a villain, but he wasn't born as one.
The idea that because Adam's actions stem from a place of vengeance sourced from his own personal trauma his actions are therefore Immoral and Bad is...certainly one that's out there, yeah.
tl;dr you can bash Adam for not expressing his trauma the “right” way or engaging in the “right” kind of activism the same way you can bash him for his fashion sense. It’s fundamentally a matter of opinion, as sensitive as the subject matter may be, and unless everyone involved is going in with the mindset that it’s okay to disagree on some fundamental questions, whatever discussion that follows is probably going to get very unpleasant very quickly.
Some people see characters that fall into this archetype (angry at personal injustice inflicted by societal ills and lashing out violently) and, though they can sympathize with their anger, cannot sympathize with it enough to justify the actions that follow. If a character's backstory doesn't connect with you, you're going to be more put off by the morally dubious things that character does than someone who does connect with that backstory. It's not necessarily a failing on the part of the story or on the audience; it's just a thing that is.
Whether or not someone thinks Adam's trauma precludes trashing his character comes down to a) their opinions on Adam in general and b) (with the very important caveat that opinions on fiction ≠ opinions on real people and events) their beliefs on morality. I, personally, vibe heavy with characters who lash out after being put through terrible injustice by some greater power. I find it very cathartic and just as entertaining, and I don't need some grand sob story to have a character's back.
To better explain what I’m getting at, let's pull away from Adam and RWBY as a whole to look at a different case: John Wick. Spoilers for the first movie in the next three paragraphs.
So anyway, Wick is attacked and his dog (his dead wife's final gift to him) is brutally killed. The crime that warranted this attack? Owning a car that a criminal boss's son happened to want and filling up that car at a gas station that son also happened to be at. So, the body count is: Wick's dog. Plus the emotional pain of that dog's connection to his dearly departed wife. And the stolen car.
What does Wick do to balance the scales? He murders dozens upon dozens of people in a one-man crusade to exact vengeance on the son. Dozens upon dozens of lives, many killed in horrific ways, for a dead wife's dog. It is an awe-inspiring display of violence. Now step back for a second and think: what if, as you're watching Wick rip and tear his way through these goons, your only thought is: "Is this really necessary?" Sure, you can understand that the guy's upset at losing the dog, and you can tell that he loved his wife with once-in-a-lifetime passion, but come on. It's not worth this. Killing just a few people to send a message or putting out a hit on the son or any of a dozen other methods would've saved a lot of trouble and lives. This isn’t balancing the scales; this is tipping them wildly in the other direction.
Now think about the opposite side of the coin personified as, say, a person sitting next to you in the theater who cheers at every murder because that asshole killed Wick's wife's dog, how dare he? Furthermore, that person, rather than being put off by all the murder and mayhem, came to the theater for those things and thus is far more willing to accept that reasoning behind Wick's rampage because it gets them to where they want to be. So you might say, "John Wick is a terrible character because he killed dozens of people over a dog." That's fine. What's also fine is what your seatmate might say: "John Wick is a great character because he killed dozens of people to avenge his dog, and he looked great doing it."
John Wick is far from a direct parallel to Adam Taurus - the horrific thing done to Wick was not based on systemic discrimination and Wick's vendetta is entirely personal - but it's an illustrative example for how character motivations can hit different people with different levels of efficacy and how someone's reasons for engaging with a character (in Wick's case, the entertainment of his violent expertise at work) further color their views of that character.
That's why, when fans and critics alike of Adam "put ourselves in the shoes of a deeply traumatized and abused orphan," we get different results. Keep in mind too that we didn’t have any knowledge of Adam’s trauma until minutes before he died. People watching the show as it aired knew him as an asshole abuser terrorist ex-boyfriend for a lot longer than they knew him as someone with the SDC logo seared into his skin.
So knowing Adam’s history, knowing that different people are okay with different levels of justification for a character’s violent actions...if a person is not on his side, which is valid, there’s this question: how much would Adam have to suffer for him to be sympathetic? By the same token, how much violence can a traumatized character commit/condone before they’re no longer sympathetic?
No one likes to interrogate themselves over what they would personally consider "enough" suffering to justify retaliatory violence. It's a deeply uncomfortable question, particularly for people who aren't part of a minority group looking at characters who are. Furthermore, fictional stories (like RWBY, with its focus on action and grand save-the-world plots over day-to-day injustices) don't often demand that level of introspection. Adam, with all of his horrible qualities, invites dismissal rather than engagement with his roots.
Plus I strongly dislike the idea that a character doing any action for selfish reasons makes that action negative. Why is a character trying to improve the world for selfless reasons inherently better than another doing it to help themselves?
To finally bring this back to your main question: Adam's history motivating his actions is a reason to trash his character just like his edgy tryhard aesthetic is one too. However. When people argue about Adam being justified or not, the argument often isn’t about that, not really. It’s arguing about one of the unnecessarily deep questions I brought up here. Recognizing that can save everyone involved a lot of time.
To top all of this off, his backstory has never even been confirmed; iirc, one of the writers tossed out a half-assed “he got in an argument and there just happened to be a warmed-up brand nearby” before later walking that back. Any point you bring up (orphan, traumatized, abused) can be argued into oblivion by a bad-faith dissenter.
People get prickly about morality, minorities, and godawful depictions of those two intersecting in media. Best not to engage with strangers online about it.
11 notes
·
View notes