Over the years, the Hardy brothers have fought countless villains, most of which are murderous. The bad guys they fight would kill them, without a second thought, yet, the Hardys have always managed to defeat their opponents without killing them. They've always "played by the rules" and stayed on the right side of the law.
However, there's always the possibility (if this was real life, or at least not a children's series), that the bad guys might one day push them to far. Might trap them in a situation, where they have no other choice, or it, at least, appears they have no other choice. After all, considering the mentality of many of their enemy's and the weapons they use, the Hardys have a serious disadvantage.
Thinking about this, I started wondering which of the two brothers would be the quickest to kill. What do you think?
I think that, while Joe may kill someone in fit of rage, he would never kill someone if he had a lot of time to think it out. I don't think Joe would ever plan to kill someone, and if he ever did, it would have to be in the heat of battle.
Frank, on the other hand, I could see having the thought in the back of his mind that he might have to kill his enemy, one day. Frank can shut-off his emotions better then Joe, and might admit to himself that he might have to kill, to, for example, save his brother. Joe might know this, too, but I don't think he could ever bring himself to admit it, before hand.
My verdict: Frank is the most likely to kill. Joe might kill before thinking his actions through, but given more time to think about it, Frank would be quicker to kill.
With both boys, though, I, obviously, don't see the Hardys killing in cold blood. The only way I see it happening, is if lives depend on it, or in self-defense (but that's a bit different, becuase it could be by accident).
If one of the boys was killed, that might change things, though.
On a slightly different note, has Fenton ever killed? I'm thinking he must have in his long career of crime-fighting. Plus, in the Casefiles he served in the military.
I like this topic! And I agree with you. Frank is more methodical when it comes to planning ahead where as Joe acts more on impulse. I could see Fenton killing someone in his lifetime but probably out of self defense or necessity. That could even be why he has raised Joe and Frank NOT to use guns unless necessary. I don't think the real books will ever come out and say it. While lots of us are no longer kids, we do realize that the age group geared for Hardy Boys is a younger one.
My vote though is for Joe. While either one of them would kill someone to save the other, I think Joe would be the first to kill someone and it would be out of impulse. Yes, I agree that Frank could think it out...but I also think that the highest chance of one of them killing would be in the heat of a battle...leaving Joe the one that would do it. However, I also think it would be only in his defense, defending Frank, or someone else. He also would feel horrible about it. I do not think either Hardy would EVER kill someone out of hatred or revenge. In Dead on Target, didn't Joe save the bad guy Al-Rousasa?
The Hardys seek justice. In a real world situation, they wouldn't even be alive anymore. They have been broken and bruised too many times to be functionally properly anymore!
This is a tough question because I think either one could kill someone especially if the other was threatened. Good thing this is a hypothetical because the more I think about it, the more I'm on the fence.
I have read some fanfiction where Joe appears to kill someone but the person actually killed himself. I have also read one where Frank kills someone by throwing him off a balcony BUT it was also in self defense.
Perhaps why we love them so much is that they haven't been driven to kill someone even when Joe lost his girlfriend or they thought the other one was dead. Yes, they may have wanted a little revenge but murder was never in the equation. They are heroes faced with all kinds of enemies yet they still take the high road. Killing people would be too easy.
But even sometimes a hero has to do the unthinkable...
Quote from: hardygirl847 on December 18, 2009, 03:09:03 PM
I do not think either Hardy would EVER kill someone out of hatred or revenge. In Dead on Target, didn't Joe save the bad guy Al-Rousasa?
But what would Frank do if someone killed his girlfriend?
Quote from: hardygirl847 on December 18, 2009, 03:09:03 PM
The Hardys seek justice. In a real world situation, they wouldn't even be alive anymore. They have been broken and bruised too many times to be functionally properly anymore!
Yeah, considering how many times they've been hit on the head, they'd both be hopeless detectives by now! LOL
Quote from: SDLagent on December 18, 2009, 05:32:55 PM
But what would Frank do if someone killed his girlfriend?
Frank has the ability to plot revenge but I still don't think he would want to kill someone. He may get close to it, think about it, even plan it out...but I honestly do not think he would actually go through with it. He's a good guy and even pushed to the edge he's never said he would commit murder.
I believe Frank makes an out of character comment when avenging their dad in the Operation Phoenix trilogy. "These guys killed our father. This time their are no rules." However, that doesn't mean he's going to start blowing people away.
Yeah, considering how many times they've been hit on the head, they'd both be hopeless detectives by now! LOL
Yeah definitely!!! Poor guys never catch a break! There are some people (including myself) that do even worse in fanfiction!
But yet they still prevail and normally their own personalities don't change because of what happens to them, each other, or their family and friends. Again, why they are still the good guys.
Um I don't think I used the quote function properly in the above post. Oops. And I don't know how to edit it. Hope it still makes sense! :)
Quote from: SDLagent on December 18, 2009, 05:32:55 PM
But what would Frank do if someone killed his girlfriend?
Well the Assassins did set up that scenario in
Dead Of Night where they had a fake Callie sliced in half.
Now then I don't recall the story entirely, but I do know that in
Disaster For Hire Fenton Hardy was accussed of murder.
Poor Frank thinking Callie was split in half! And yeah Fenton's gotten a bad rap once in awhile but of course it's proven false.
i'd have to say frank. joe reminds me more of justin carraway from the double whatever (sorry, i've forgotten :-[ ) trilogy. he may get angry really fast but i don't think he can hold it in him. it passes over in a flash. the same thing happens to me, even if i try to stay angry, it passes.
See...I just read Dead of Night and thought Frank handled it all too well. He may have wanted revenge for Callie being killed and he was hurting sure. BUT he never ever says he would kill someone or even implies it. When it comes to Joe or his parents, his reaction may be different. His longtime love gets whacked and he holds it together fairly well considering where as Joe's personality changed after Iola and he goes off the deep end when it happens to Vanessa. I realize that he was tormented mentally and even drugged making it worse but he was affected without any chemicals when Iola died for real.
I know this is a hypothetical question about fictional characters but I love Frank. He could come close, maybe, but since he is so strong and pragmatic...I don't think he would ever go through with it. So I continue to defend him. ;)
I love Joe too but he is more impulsive and hot headed which leads me to still sway towards him being a bigger candidate.
However, I do not believe either one would ever kill anyone else in cold blood...by complete accident...maybe...but NEVER murder.
IMO, since Frank is more of a thinker and analytical, he would probably just try to think of the best way to greatly injure or get the person unconscious. But if his emotions take over, it may be hard to think - but maybe he could work well under pressure, and rely on his instinct where his brain thinks fast for him subconciously...I don't know. I'm starting not to make sense lol.
They both have it in them, obviously, if they were in a desperate situation.
Quote from: Olivia on April 25, 2010, 03:26:34 PM
IMO, since Frank is more of a thinker and analytical, he would probably just try to think of the best way to greatly injure or get the person unconscious. But if his emotions take over, it may be hard to think - but maybe he could work well under pressure, and rely on his instinct where his brain thinks fast for him subconciously...I don't know. I'm starting not to make sense lol.
Well when you think back to
No Mercy and the opening scene in that book where Joe flew off the handle, Joe later commented on how surprised he was at Frank not holding him back and Frank's response a really "I don't care"
Rules? There are no rules this time! answer.
Quote from: Olivia on April 25, 2010, 03:26:34 PM
IMO, since Frank is more of a thinker and analytical, he would probably just try to think of the best way to greatly injure or get the person unconscious. But if his emotions take over, it may be hard to think - but maybe he could work well under pressure, and rely on his instinct where his brain thinks fast for him subconciously...I don't know. I'm starting not to make sense lol.
They both have it in them, obviously, if they were in a desperate situation.
Agreed. Frank definitely could think of a better way to apprehend or subdue someone without actually killing them. But I also agree that both boys have it in them if the situation was life or death (for themselves or each other).
Quote from: tomswift2002 on April 25, 2010, 04:55:56 PM
Well when you think back to No Mercy and the opening scene in that book where Joe flew off the handle, Joe later commented on how surprised he was at Frank not holding him back and Frank's response a really "I don't care" Rules? There are no rules this time! answer.
This is the one where they think Fenton is dead though, right? Either way, certain situations or whatever would change your perspective for the time being...but not necessarily change all of your beliefs forever. Joe did change a lot after Iola was murdered BUT he still tried to save the Assassin at the end.
Has anyone mentioned the scene from "The Lazarus Plot" where Frank is ready to torture The Gray Man for information? Both he and Joe hate it but Frank is the one to go forward with it because he's deduced it to be the logical course of action- even if it goes against what he believes in. (Of course, he does actually relent and this act in itself also winds up convincing The Gray Man of their authenticity.)
I don't like to think that either Frank or Joe would kill- but certainly they could if pushed to the limit. (Though it would be self-defense and not murder.) However, I think they would exhaust all other options first, much like Superman would in a similar situation.
Oh that's right MacGyver! I forgot about that part of The Lazarus Plot (one of my faves). Like you said though, he only thought about it because it was the logical thing to do and after much contemplation. I don't remember if they actually get around to torturing him or not. Gosh I need to start taking notes on these! :) I also don't think Hardy torture would be the same as terrorist or Assassin torture. In my mind they would be less vicious and do just enough to get the job done.
I think we all can agree that the Hardys don't have a murderous bone in their bodies. However, they ARE human....well fictional but human characters. Therefore, like all humans, they are tested on this once in awhile. I honestly believe they would still choose not to kill someone even if a finger was ready to pull the trigger. Self defense is different. We are talking about killing someone in cold blood. That, is just not them.
In See No Evil (Casefiles #8), someone offers to take the guns from the goons. Frank says that it is fine with him because that they don't handle guns unless they have to. Interestingly enough, the same character later tells Joe that they couldn't actually pull the trigger. Joe tells them not to worry and it was understandable. The other person responds with "I guess you're right....But I'll bet you would have."
Joe doesn't even confirm or deny this but brushes past it. Interesting to me. Still...no one in Hardy land is really a cold blooded killer type...except maybe the Assassins. They are bad guys...so naturally they would have murderous tendencies.
**I can't say who the other character is because it would give away my trivia question! lol
Quote from: MacGyver on April 26, 2010, 12:23:25 PM
Has anyone mentioned the scene from "The Lazarus Plot" where Frank is ready to torture The Gray Man for information? Both he and Joe hate it but Frank is the one to go forward with it because he's deduced it to be the logical course of action- even if it goes against what he believes in. (Of course, he does actually relent and this act in itself also winds up convincing The Gray Man of their authenticity.)
I don't like to think that either Frank or Joe would kill- but certainly they could if pushed to the limit. (Though it would be self-defense and not murder.) However, I think they would exhaust all other options first, much like Superman would in a similar situation.
Yeah, this is the point I was trying to make. While Frank might not actually murder someone, he can be a bit more ruthless than Joe at times. Mainly, I think, because he can turn off his emotions better then Joe.
exactly what i meant. while iola's death really disturbed Joe, it's not like everything he dead was affected by that. he still jokes and flirts with other girls and so on and so forth. but i think frank is more capable of holding a grudge. it may not make sense but sometimes the most sensible people (when it all boils down) are the most insensible.
I'm enjoying everyone's responses. I'm starting to look at it a bit differently.
My stance for now (remember, just my opinion):
Joe is more likely/has a better chance of killing someone because I believe his emotions would cloud his thinking, and he wouldn't think about how much strength he is using on someone. He would act "in the moment".
Frank would generally have an easier time killing because he could turn off his emotions*. But when it comes down to it, he would push Joe out of the way to do it himself so Joe wouldn't have to go through it or live with it (that is, if they were in a situation where both of are there and one or the other has to do something).
*Full credit to SDLagent - thanks for putting it this way, as I never thought of it in those terms
Very interesting....I agree that Joe would be more likely to be impulsive but Frank would find it easier. If my life was in danger (and I was a HB character) there is no doubt that either one of them would help me, fight for me, or even kill someone for me*. However, if I asked them to whack someone off that I didn't like...there's no chance that would happen. They would turn me into the police. Frank and Joe are too upstanding to do that. BUT we are going on the hypothetical what if scenario...and I agree what a lot that has been said.
*Whether I was a stranger, a friend, or family member...I think this would hold true. If there was more emotional investment, I'm sure it would be to another degree. Either way, they defend and protect...not kill and destroy.
In Thick as Thieves (Casefile #29), Joe thinks Frank is dead so goes after the person who shot him. He has the flare gun aimed at him ready to shoot. That is page 102. On page 103....
"What am I doing?" Joe thought with a jolt just before he pulled the trigger. He was about to kill a man, and killing wasn't his style. He wanted to bring Chavo to justice, real justice. That's what Frank would have wanted, he told himself.
In the originals-no way.
In the Casefiles it's split. Joe is impulsive whereas Frank is methodical. It could go either way depending on the situation, but it has to be no other choice for either to really go off in that direction.