Redemption Arcs

[quillori]

I fear this post could be entitled In Which I Hopelessly Muddle Thorny Ethical Problems With Narrative Tropes. On the other hand, there are bullet points! They don't make anything clearer, but still.

I was reading a couple of posts on what could be done with the respective villains on two different shows, where the available options appeared to number two: he remains a villain (can be killed off if no further use for his brand of villainy) or he can be redeemed (and killed off). It struck me I truly do not like conventional redemption arcs. The character concerned suffers for a while and then, for the worse acts of villainy, can get the final points towards his redemption by dying in some suitable fashion. But in what sense does this actually redeem him? I suspect I just haven't internalised the right Judaeo-Christian worldview for this sort of thing to work for me. Without a heaven or hell, without a God to judge or forgive, without the status of sinner or saved, the supposed redemption seems to hover unsupported in the air.

I think maybe what I particularly don't like is suffering as a narrative necessity? For a start, it's predictable hence boring if you don't feel there's emotional truth to it. I'm very fond of inevitable unhappy endings where I accept the truth of them: I believe there are situations where no option is right, where there is a moral cost to whatever you do; that there is generally a price for every choice; that the standards you live by can leave you with no way to turn; that we all die in any case. So I am more than happy with Oedipus putting out his eyes in horror, with Achilles trading life for glory, with Ajax killing himself. I feel these stories make a fair, though terrible, point about the way things are. I don't feel the same way at all about suffering for redemption.

I don't believe that villains necessarily do suffer in real life, and I am not even sure that it's their duty to make themselves suffer, or to hand themselves over for punishment, even where someone else may have the right to demand it. This means that I'm not nodding along with the story, feeling that it's saying something true about the way things are, I'm just bored, thinking yes, wracked with guilt, check, lots of suffering, check, doubtless about to sacrifice his life, if I know what's going to happen why am I reading this? There is a difference between stories I accept as dealing with some inevitable truth, where I am interested in watching how the characters struggle against or accept their fate, and merely knowing what's going to happen because I recognise where the story is going.

So, here is your conventional redemption story

• The villain, realising he's been in the wrong, is wracked by guilt and longing to be redeemed, suffering both from this and from anything else the author throws at him. If he started off as a proper villain, he probably can't manage to be both fully redeemed and alive at the same time.

I am much happier with types of redemption that have a clear within story definition. There are all sorts of stories where, even if he ends up dead, the villain can potentially have achieved something defined: he can have lived up to his own moral standards, behaved honourably in his own or someone else's eyes. So you have

• The villain, realising he's been in the wrong, decides it's his responsibility to make amends to those he's injured.


• The villain, realising he's been in the wrong, tries to get back his own good opinion of himself.


• The villain, realising he's been in the wrong, tries to earn back the good opinion of someone he admires or of society, or to feel that he is worthy of someone else's good opinion.


• The villain, realising he's been in the wrong, feels he needs to live up to extra high standards in the future.

These are still stories that could be said to be about some sort of redemption, but unlike the first type I don't mind them at all, provided that they aren't really just stories of the first type with a half-hearted attempt to give the villain some motivation. In other words, the villain may or may not suffer, may or may not end up dead, but these things are determined solely by factors within the story, and not by an overall narrative shape that demands them as the price of redemption.

Then there are stories I also like, where I suspect I have parted company totally with those who like redemption arcs

• The villain, realising he's been in the wrong, just decides to do things differently from now on.


• The villain doesn't think he's been in the wrong, but does think circumstances have now changed, so he decides to do things differently from now on.


• The villain, realising he's been in the wrong, abandons his current concerns to go off and to become an ascetic recluse / be a wandering monk / think deeply on this dark life / become a philosophy professor (modern version for benefit of atheists).

I love the last version. Maybe he can show up later with wise advice and a shiny new understanding of metaphysics! I suspect this is where the people for whom a redemption arc works are saying ‘But … but he just walked away! How can he do that? He hasn't been punished at all.' And I shrug, because no, he hasn't, and unless one of his victims catches up to him, he probably won't be, but so what? In what sense would it be better if he were? (That's an actual question there. I would be interested to hear from those who think it would be better and can explain why. Bear in mind there are two potential questions here. One is a matter of general ethics, whether you are required to punish yourself. The other is a writing question about how stories should work. Answers to either or both welcome. As are any versions of the villain switching sides I've missed.)

Comments

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Yes. That's how I feel too. I can enjoy stories with revenge in them 'You hurt me, now feel my wrath, ha ha', so I don't mind villains being killed and overthrown. Though I like it to be quick, not some prolonged cruelty.

And in stories and in real life it's good to see people making an effort to do good for a change. Both of those type of story can be highly satisfying actually. But I don't believe in becoming a better person through suffering. It just doesn't match anything I see in real life.

[quillori.livejournal.com]

It's a relief to know you feel the same way. It did occur to me after I hit post that perhaps I was presenting myself as some monster of immorality with no interest in right and wrong, which was not at all my intent. It is, as you say, the suffering that's the problem, both morally and as a storytelling choice. In fact, it often quite overpowers any attempt on the character's part to do good, because if the only way to be redeemed is to suffer, why bother with the good works? Which is a shame, because that part of the story is so much more interesting. Actually, I wonder if the pervasiveness of the redemption arc isn't discouraging people from telling stories about people making an effort to change and do good, because showing someone trying to do good could be seen as showing them in a positive light, and you can't do that until they've suffered their just punishment. I have certainly seen story lines criticised in just those terms.

Revenge is good too, anything from the dark 'Woe! I am become my enemy' type to the 'Revenge is a duty, not just a right' school. About the only type I don't like is the one that doesn't actually happen, where the victim's friends gather round to tell them at length that they aren't that sort of person and will regret stepping over that line for the rest of their lives. There I always wish that once, just once, the victim would say robustly that they're exactly that sort of person and will look back on it with great pleasure and satisfaction. Because, you know, there are all sorts of moral reasons to forgo revenge, but worrying it will damage your mental health by marking you out from your peers who have never had to face the issue is not one of them. (Even worse when the friends in question aren't, say, high school students, but rather people who in real life would almost certainly be exactly that sort of person themselves.)

[rahirah]

Yes. It's not like the suffering of the villain in the standard redemption story undoes the suffering that they previously caused their victims. In and of itself, it doesn't accomplish anything.

[quillori.livejournal.com]

That's it exactly.

[loqia.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I'm a huge fan of the, "Well, done that whole evil thing... time for something else now!" 'redeemed' villain. Mostly because -- like you -- I've never really bought into the morality of suffering. I think it's used inelegantly as a kind of 'moral equaliser' by attempting to teach the villain empathy by force, with the assumption being once s/he internalises suffering s/he will be less likely to inflict it on others. Or something. And it just doesn't work for me.

Pain doesn't equal redemption, but someone using their own free will to look back intellectually over their lives and think some variant on, "Well, that's not working, now is it?" as the catalyst for some great behavioural change? That's cool.

Plus, yanno, it really confuses heroes, and that's always fun for a story. ;)

[quillori.livejournal.com]

Plus, yanno, it really confuses heroes

*g*

attempting to teach the villain empathy by force

I hadn't thought of that one, but you're right, that probably is part of the motivation, as well as the punishment angle. But it still doesn't work.

I think there must be an element of punishment, though, because so many people seem to feel that just choosing to change isn't enough - if the villain comes to believe they were wrong, they must be wracked with the sort of remorse only alleviated by suffering or it somehow doesn't count.

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Having suffered yourself does NOT, as the real world clearly shows us, necessarily make you more empathetic. If anything, the tendency seems to be for persons or peoples who have been abused to take it out on third parties later.

[seriousfic.livejournal.com]

Well, I'll try to go in order here. Leaving aside the question of RL justice/vengeance (for there but for the grace of tl;dr go we)...

Audiences want to see villains die/go to jail/reap bloody karma because...

A. It ensures that the villain won't be causing any more trouble, thus making the ending a definitively happy one. How happy an ending would a superhero movie have if at the end the supervillain was still running around, waiting to fuck the hero's shit up?

B. For the climax of the story, we need the biggest, baddest conflict. The one that someone doesn't walk away from. To not show it would be anti-climactic.

C. It's punishment for all the bad things the villain has done.

And so on and so forth. Now, you argue that in real life a villain may get away with all his shit... well, in real life, women are raped and murdered all the time, yet we both probably know oceans who don't want that in their story. The story doesn't have to be real, it has to be true. Satisfying.

Redemption is already a dicey prospect, as it denies the audience bloodlust and usually soft-pedals the villain's villain-osity. They get an angsty backstory and hey, it's not their fault, all better! Suffering is a tool that TPTB can use to sell the villain's redemption to the audience.

Where does suffering come in? Well, I think here's where your problem with it comes in: It's used by people who don't understand why the villains suffer, just that they do because that's the trope. And so they use the trope without understanding the psychology motivating it.

For the record, the villain usually has to suffer for a lot of reasons. First, it acts as a "trial by fire" for their redemption (note that this can be replaced by any number of plots. It doesn't have to be "suffering," it can be "fighting at the hero's side" or anything). First rule of storytelling: Show, don't tell. How do we know the villain isn't just lying and about to stab the hero in the back at the first opportunity unless we see him suffer for his new beliefs? Obviously, there's a lot of other ways the villain's conviction can be shown, but suffering is dramatic and time-tested.

Second, and more cynically, seeing the villain suffer makes us sympathize for him (this is the same reason, no matter how heinous the villain is, he usually gets a quick death instead of being tortured by the hero. No one wants to root for a sadist). It's cheap and easy, like an angsty backstory, but it is undeniably effective.

Third, suffering provides some vicarious "take that!" for the audience. The heroes may have forgiven him and his crimes may have been pardoned, but there's still going to be some karmic balancing. Because, let's face it, him getting away scot-free isn't very satisfying. And we can't have the heroes hurting him after he's redeemed himself. So the plot does it for them. And once he's paid his pittance, he can be considered truly redeemed.

I'm writing a story where one of the villains goes through a redemption arc (having fallen in love with one of the heroes) and so put a little thought into this. I cheat a lot by not making her do anything too heinous as a villain, sorta like the honorable non-Nazi German in a WW2 movie, and by giving her some doubts about the side she's on. But even after she switches sides, the other heroes are asking whether it's because she loves a good guy or has she had a genuine change of heart. And that's where the other good guys, her victims, get to have their say and put her through a bit of a wringer (while trying to avoid the more melodramatic "WOE is ME!" stuff). And her answer is that, fuck, we were at war, you would've done the same to me. So she has very few anguished regrets on that account. It's fun to write (especially with her new BF trying to play referee).

[quillori.livejournal.com]

I quite agree with you that revenge is fine, and also that where the villain's place in the story is to represent the vicissitudes of life their final defeat stands for the audience's potential ability to overcome their own challenges, so if you want an upbeat, optimistic story, you have to have the defeat, whether it would be likely in real life or not.

How do we know the villain isn't just lying

I'm not sure about this one. I mean, I can see how that would work, but I feel decent characterisation should get across the villain's motives. Having to put characters through the wringer to prove they aren't lying is a bit clumsy. Though I guess it's easier to make the villain's change of heart clear in some POVs than others.

seeing the villain suffer makes us sympathize for him

Definitely, and I don't think I'm above using that one myself, however cheap and easy. I'm not sure, though, that this is quite what happens in a redemption arc. It's certainly what happens when the writer wants to reposition the villain as a good guy and wants to get the audience's sympathy, but it doesn't have that element of let's all gleefully watch the suffering because they deserve it. It's more, let's sympathise with this tragic backstory and then excuse all these subsequent failings.

And once he's paid his pittance, he can be considered truly redeemed

This is the one I don't really understand. For a start, you don't get to pay off your karmic debt at the time and place of your choosing, so that you have a clear credit history for your new job with the good guys. Or if you do, it's through efforts of your own, not because fate (or authorial fiat) helpfully supplies the right amount of suffering at the right time.

But the truth is, it may be a difference in attitude. I don't find someone getting away with something unsatisfying, and faced with the authorial imposition of suffering, I generally feel, as in my reply above, if the only way to be redeemed is to suffer, why bother with the good works? But then I tend to like my villains to be villainous under the impression they were doing the right thing, so perhaps the suggestion that anyone who thought they were in the right but changes their mind deserves to suffer makes me uncomfortable - we none of us can be sure we won't change our minds about what was right.

FWIW, though, in your story it seems quite reasonable that the hero's friends don't welcome her with open arms. Actions have consequences, and I certainly don't feel writers should gloss over them. I guess from my point of view the question would be whether you're showing the character of the friends, that this is how they would react, and her character in how she responds, or just putting on a circus display where the audience gets to applaud their stand-ins being cruel to someone who 'deserves it'.

[seriousfic.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about this one. I mean, I can see how that would work, but I feel decent characterisation should get across the villain's motives. Having to put characters through the wringer to prove they aren't lying is a bit clumsy. Though I guess it's easier to make the villain's change of heart clear in some POVs than others.

Well, it depends on the villain. If it's someone who has a reputation for being deceptive, pure evil, totally unremorseful, etc... why should the audience believe they've redeemed? Even if they're sincere, maybe they're fooling themselves and could have a "relapse". Maybe, even though they're fighting for the side of good, they still use methods that are horrendous to their allies. And so on and so forth.

For a start, you don't get to pay off your karmic debt at the time and place of your choosing, so that you have a clear credit history for your new job with the good guys.

Well, as you said, most redemption arcs terminate in the good-baddie dying noblely, so there's not room for it later. I think there have been a few cases of characters suffering for their sins after putting in some time on the side of angels, but I think that falls under "suffering to get the audience on their side." Look, they've paid for their crimes, they're doing good deeds, why should they have to suffer for what they did before now that they have a sooooooooooul? So it takes place before their redeemed phase for the same reason a horse comes before a carriage.

anyone who thought they were in the right but changes their mind deserves to suffer makes me uncomfortable

But it's a point in most modern fiction that the ends don't justify the means. Our heroes won't stoop to the level of their enemies. So even though the bad guys thought they were doing the right thing, they went about it in a horrible way.

I guess from my point of view the question would be whether you're showing the character of the friends, that this is how they would react, and her character in how she responds, or just putting on a circus display where the audience gets to applaud their stand-ins being cruel to someone who 'deserves it'.

Well, since the story is told from the POV (mostly) of the guy who's in love with her, who was himself a former baddie, I think this would fall under "suffering to get the audience's sympathies" if it went any further than some frosty "we don't trust you, go die in a fire" sentiments. Of the other two heroes, the guy who most vocally disapproves of her is a jerkass anti-hero, and the other one decides to forgive her after being genuinely concerned with whether she's truly reformed or just going to break his friend's heart at a later date.

There's suffering that comes after that, but it's more of the general plotty variety: She's a part of the team by then. But like I said, I stacked the deck in her favor. If she had started out as a proper mustache-twirling, puppy-kicking villain, I might've/probably would've penciled in some more serious consequences for her more serious actions.

[quillori.livejournal.com]

why should the audience believe they've redeemed

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I guess my problem is that I don't care enough whether they've been redeemed to feel I need proof; I am quite happy for characters to do sometimes this, sometimes that, so long as it seems in character. I don't worry that they may switch sides again later because I wouldn't mind if they did. I don't have any problem empathising with someone who may end up overall a bud guy; quite the contrary, I am always pleased when a story can make me see things from a point of view quite different from my own.

But it's a point in most modern fiction that the ends don't justify the means. Our heroes won't stoop to the level of their enemies.

Perhaps you have a higher opinion of heroes than I do :) I see being good as difficult, not just in sticking to what you know to be good, but also in identifying it at all. Any moral position comprehensive enough to guide our actions is hard won, provisional and always subject to challenge, which doesn't necessarily put the heroes much above the villains. The difference between a terrorist and freedom fighter may be where you're standing (or when - the winners always turn out to have been freedom fighters). As for ends and means, they are a false dichotomy: we are quite clearly responsible for both, and no more get to dismiss a horrible long term outcome because of our immediate niceness than we do horrible means because we have an admirable long term goal.

[seriousfic.livejournal.com]

I guess my problem is that I don't care enough whether they've been redeemed

I think the point of the redemption arc is to get you rooting for the ex-villain, and thus hoping that his redemption sticks. So if the writing works, it'll make you care.

Any moral position comprehensive enough to guide our actions is hard won, provisional and always subject to challenge

Yes, but any moral position in a mainstream sci-fi series will generally be audience-palatable. It's when the heroes' actions go into shades of gray (and a lot more often when the show portrays this as "shades of white" instead of them actually being in the wrong/toeing the line) that fandom tends to react negatively. Take a look at the "colonialism" in Stargate Atlantis, for instance.

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I like all of those. Although I haven't seen the last done anywhere yet.

[quillori.livejournal.com]

I've seen versions of the hermit / monk thing sometimes in Chinese and also IIRC Indian stories. I must admit I've never seen the doctorate in philosophy one, but I live in hope...

[(Anonymous)]

Not exactly what you want, but close: The Schopenhauer Cure (http://www.amazon.com/Schopenhauer-Cure-Novel-P-S/dp/0060938102/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208888102&sr=1-1).

Here via metafandom

[veleda-k.livejournal.com]

Thinking about it, yes, I do want the redeemed villain to suffer a bit. I want any villain to suffer, and doing good things doesn't erase what you've already done. Why do I want the suffering? I think it comes from the fact that I have a very strong sense of justice and fairness, most similar to the Wiccan three-fold law (whatever you do, good or bad, comes back to three-times over) and the Buddhist concept of karma (or at least what my largely uneducated Western mind understands karma to be). I think that if you cause suffering, it's only right that you also endure suffering. That's what's fair.

Of course, the real world doesn't work this way. Lots of horrible monsters escape scot free. But if I wanted nothing but realism, I'd watch the news 24/7 instead of enjoying fiction.

While the example you gave a villain going off and finding spiritual enlightenment is certainly interesting, to me, it's deeply unsatisfying. Plus, if the villain did come back to spread his wisdom, I know that my reaction would be big old "Fuck you. What right do you have to lecture me?"

I couldn't tell you why I find this justice so important, beyond the fact that it's simply part of my root morals.

Now, the next question is "How should the villain suffer?" The first option is suffering delivered by the universe. I find this to be the least satisfying. There's no real cause and effect, I feel. The villain isn't suffering because of the cruelty that she inflicted, she's just suffering. It does make sense from a narrative point of view, but I tend to get more involved in the story than that.

The second option is suffering inflicted by the villains victims, in other words, revenge. I have mixed feelings on revenge. On one hand, it's a truly deserved type of suffering. To use an example from one of my fandoms, once you've tortured, raped, and murdered someone, any desire they have for revenge is going to seem pretty damn reasonable. On the other hand, causing suffering is bad, no matter why you're doing it, even if the person really, really deserves it. This concern is more out of a worry for the character taking revenge than anything else. There's also the "it's not as if it fixes anything" approach, but I'm not sure that I can make that argument, given what I've said earlier.

The third suffering option, and my favorite, is when the villain makes himself suffer. I would argue that there's no redemption until there's true regret. Without regret, the villain isn't a better person, she's just doing something different. (Which is fine as a narrative trope and plot point, it's just not redemption.) And though this may be my overdeveloped guilt complex speaking, I believe that guilt should come with that regret. More than suffering itself, guilt and regret show to me a desire to change.

None of this means that I don't believe that the villain has to do good works. I think they're vital. Good works and regret are, to me, the requirements for redemption. Suffering alone doesn't prove anything. Any asshole can suffer. To change, you need to work at it.

Does this mean that I would have no interest in a redeemed villain who decided that guilt was worthless, she'd done what she'd done, and the only thing worth doing was making things better? No, not at all. If done well, such a character could be very interesting. It would just be a bit more work to sell her to me.

Re: Here via metafandom

[quillori.livejournal.com]

I meant it about wanting to hear from people who liked the suffering, so thank you.

We're clearly in agreement on the suffering delivered by the universe. Even where it serves some purpose in the story, it risks looking like lazy storytelling. As for revenge, I too have mixed feelings. On the one hand, wanting revenge is, as you say, quite reasonable. On the other, I don't tend to feel increasing the amount of suffering in the world is a good thing (which is also relevant to my views on guilt, below). Of course, the situation is complicated by so much of the right to vengeance and the governance of interpersonal relationships having been devolved on society. (Is it still proper to take revenge yourself if there is a judicial system to do it for you? Can the personal right to vengeance be ceded to the community at large, or must the judicial system justify its powers in some other way? etc.) At any rate I don't have any objection to characters within a story seeking vengeance: I mean, I might on a case by case basis, but no in principle objection.

The third option is clearly the one we come at from different angles. There have certainly been occasions where I have approved of someone's remorse, or felt people should feel bad about they way they behaved. On the other hand, as I said about revenge, increasing the amount of suffering in the world is not a good thing and I don't see why it becomes one just because you're inflicting it on yourself. So I am never sure which way to go on this one. Apparently I manage to believe simultaneously that remorse is both a good and a bad thing. There is, however, a particular problem with fictional villains: their crimes are often so extensive I don't think it would be possible for them to feel a commensurate degree of remorseful guilt without it being so all consuming as to leave them pretty much unable to function, which rather gets in the way of the good works aspect. I suspect this is why they tend to be killed off; there is just no realistic way of showing them suffering enough.

Which is fine as a narrative trope and plot point, it's just not redemption

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. I am not sure I truly believe in redemption, or at any rate I don't understand how it works. I can see how you make up for something against a given measure, e.g. you redeem yourself in your own eyes, in the eyes of the person you wronged, in my eyes, and in each case you would have to meet a different standard. I just don't really see redemption as a binary state - redeemed or not redeemed - with an objective standard that allows you to say if you do this and that you will switch states absolutely, without needing to define who is being the judge.

a redeemed villain who decided that guilt was worthless, she'd done what she'd done, and the only thing worth doing was making things better

While I would very much like to read (well written) examples of this, I certainly don't feel that's the only way for the story to go. I think what I want most is to feel that this approach would be possible. That makes feeling remorse or trying to make amends or however the story actually goes a deliberate choice, rather than it just being that anything else was unthinkable.

here via metafandom

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

*raises hand tentatively* Because I like it when characters get beat up real good?

There can be a great deal of appeal for many writers in scenarios that feed one's surefire h/c kinks, and for a significant subset of h/c fans (like me) for whom the "hurt" part of the equation is just as important as the "comfort," a character's suffering can be deeply satisfying on some weird level that most non-h/c fans just can't grok ("but you like Sawyer/Snape/Spike/[insert antagonist name starting with s here]! Why would you want him to be in pain?"). There also a certain appeal in characters suffering "punishments disproportionate to their crimes," to paraphrase Captain Barbossa. Suffering that the character has brought upon themselves in some way is often more satisfying than random misery inflicted by the universe - this is why characters getting injured in the course of an action plot generally makes for better h/c than characters randomly getting cancer or something (there's a reason for Dean Winchester to get thrown into a wall by a ghost he's trying to destroy, whereas Sam getting a random brain tumor just smacks of authorial cruelty).

Plus, as seriousfic pointed out, the suffering can both act as a test of the newly-redeemed character's good intentions and proof to himself/the reader/the other characters that he's changed (ex: character A previously sold character B out to the bad guys in exchange for cash/goods/services/because he was being blackmailed; can he keep from revealing character C's location/secret identity/plans to the major villain under torture, when he's betrayed comerades before with far less compelling reasons?).

More important than either of these, though, is the fact (also pointed out by seriousfic) that significant amounts of suffering are a quick route to reader sympathy. This can either be used cleverly, to make readers or another character sympathize with the suffering character against their initial inclinations (only to be followed by yet another questionable/sleazy/ruthless act by the character, that will have them kicking themself for letting themselves be fooled) or it can be used as a shortcut in place of actually providing any reason for or evidence of the character's change or heart (if I had a dollar for every "poor, abused Draco's daddy was mean to him, and therefore he's good after all" fic I've seen, I would be able to buy myself a new laptop).

[black-eyedgirl.livejournal.com]

Can I agree with you in part?

On the one hand, to the "why do redeemed villains have to die in the end?" - my God, yes, exactly! I was reading an interview with a show creator recently where he said (re the team member who had betrayed his leader, and then died nobly to save him), that there was no other end to his arc. Well, really, why not? Why shouldn't he fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the guy he betrayed and risk their lives together? Why shouldn't it be complicated and difficult for a long time? Dying is just a really easy end to a redemption arc - everyone gets to feel sad, and noone has to deal with the real consequences of what happened. Also, killing your villains, redeemed or not, is a simple way to up the body count and prove the danger without any real cost.

On the other hand, on the side of the "well apparently I absorbed more Juedo-Christian worldview than I thought", I get the need for suffering.

He hasn't been punished at all.' And I shrug, because no, he hasn't, and unless one of his victims catches up to him, he probably won't be, but so what? In what sense would it be better if he were?
For me, it kind of feeds into the redemption. Which makes me way more of a sadist than I realised. It doesn't have to be suffering, but it's as good a proof as any? Guilt would be another, but it's easier to fake. It doesn't actually, really, need to be suffering in the tortured and abused sense. Suffering for a purpose, in a "taking the hard/dangerous/better way because I'm a different person now", tends to be a part of my redemption arcs. But then I'm an atheist who's also a lapsed Presbyterian - we're big believers in salvation through suffering!

(Maybe it's just that the good path is normally the hard one? I think generally it's easier not to be good, so when the villain's redeemed, as readers, we need some proof of that? If they're redeemed without that, it seems like the authorial standpoint is that they could have been good all along if they'd just bothered, rather than it being a positive, difficult choice?) Okay, that's enough babbling all over your journal...

[handful-ofdust.livejournal.com]

One of the most interesting versions of this to me (though the show itself wasn't always interesting) was Xena: Warrior Princess, mainly because here was an example of a character introduced as a villain (in Hercules), then given an entire show devoted to the idea of her struggles with/against "redemption". Intermittently, there'd be people who showed up who remembered her from her villain days--people who hated her, loved her, were created by her--and we'd have flashbacks to her villain days (giving us a chance to see her fierce, free and unrehabilitated). What I liked best about Xena when they were working her right is that none of her villainous qualities ever really went away--she was still nasty, wry, prone to want to solve things by force and/or charm, more than occasionally driven by her crotch, etc. But she retained a vague sense that there were other ways to live, and emulated them mainly because she had someone else right next to her (Gabrielle) to whom living like that came naturally, which it never did for her.

[black-eyedgirl.livejournal.com]

See, now I've always thought I should investigate Xena if only for the pretty, and you're not really discouraging me here.

But she retained a vague sense that there were other ways to live, and emulated them mainly because she had someone else right next to her (Gabrielle) to whom living like that came naturally, which it never did for her.
One of the reasons I (mostly) prefered Spike's redemption arc in middle-series Buffy was because of this. He's mostly being good for her, and because he runs out of other options, and it kind of turns into a habit. Which I, personally, found more interesting than the light-at-Damascus never-gonna-want-to-do-the-bad-thing-ever-again. So that sounds really interesting now! Conflict, I guess, is nice - if all the leads believed the same thing, TV would be really dull...

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

Dying is just a really easy end to a redemption arc - everyone gets to feel sad, and noone has to deal with the real consequences of what happened.

I've been working on a story where the former-villain sacrifices his life to save everyone else, and his daughter recognizes it as him not being willing to face the music--which she is, for the not-so-legal things she does. It really is an easy way out--I don't mind it now and then, and I think for some stories it is necessary (Star Wars, for example, follows a mythic pattern, so Vader living and things being messy would clash with that), but it's way overused.

[black-eyedgirl.livejournal.com]

*g* True, I have no issues with Vader dying. But, like you say, that's a myth-arc, so it kind of needs to go that way.

his daughter recognizes it as him not being willing to face the music--which she is, for the not-so-legal things she does.
And that's the interesting part! The grown-up thing, to take responsibility for what you did, and either defend it, or make amends, and deal with what comes next. That sounds like a really good plotline - that conflict between the easy way out and facing the music :)

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

I hope it's a good plotline!

[quillori.livejournal.com]

Why shouldn't he fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the guy he betrayed and risk their lives together?

Oh, that sounds so much better and more interesting than 'and then he died'.

It doesn't have to be suffering, but it's as good a proof as any

One thing I've found interesting is people saying they want proof. That never occurred to me as something the audience might be looking for, and now I'm wondering why not. I think perhaps I don't categorise characters as good or bad per se. I can recognise they are filling the narrative role of hero or villain or whatever, and of course I form views of their actions and character as I would of real people, with good points and bad points and maybe a provisional overall judgement, but I don't have a sort of mental ledger with the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other. For that matter, it isn't exactly unusual for me to start thinking that the designated villain has a point, or that the hero is not perhaps living up to the highest possible moral standard, without it spoiling the story for me. I think I just don't assume that the moral worth of the characters has to match their role in the story. Hence I don't need proof that someone has moved from one side to the other. Also, I generally assume people really could have been good all along (maybe not saintly virtuous, but just run of the mill good) if they'd either done a better job of resisting some temptation or they hadn't been mistaken as to the nature of the good.

[neshel.livejournal.com]

hmmm, ya, standard Redemption Stories do get old.

I am curious if your discussion included a certain Heroes villain, who I adore. I hope for some sort of redemption for him, in the sense that I want his character to not have to be killed off in the possibly near future.

Except, I don't want him to suddenly go "oh I have seen the light! I am so evil, must make up for it!" because, with this character especially, it just doesn't make any sense. *really needs to find a way onto the Heroes writing team*

Anywho...

Lets keep this in general terms.

Sacrificing him/herself as an act of redemption can be done well, but mostly only if you don't see it coming. Pre-planned, over-dramatic self-sacrifice-as-redemption can really suck ass.

Now, I'm gonna add here that it *can* be done well. Take Darth Vader, for example? Forgetting his final words which I could go either way on, you've got a villain who doesn't so much intend to sacrifice himself, as he turns on his master for the sake of his son. I never appreciated his character as much before the prequels though (which, while contained some major suckage, still do a lot for understanding Anakin/Vader). The way he goes full circle is more poetic than cliched, to me.

I'd like to now cite an example that didn't work, but I think I've done my best to purge said things from my memories.

I personally would lean towards your last three examples. Actually, I have a fic in the works that is leaning towards an interesting variant of "The villain doesn't think he's been in the wrong, but does think circumstances have now changed, so he decides to do things differently from now on." Except the "from now on" is more "until circumstances change again" though one can hope that over time the change in attitude will become permanent... XD

A neat and packaged happy ending, with vengeance enacted or "true redemption" just doesn't usually work for me.

EDIT: haha, I just realized Vader's already been mentioned. Oh well..

[quillori.livejournal.com]

Sacrificing him/herself as an act of redemption can be done well, but mostly only if you don't see it coming.

I hadn't thought of that, but you're quite right. It's the pre-planned bit that's the problem. If I don't see it coming because it isn't the only way the story can go, I am more likely to find it properly moving.

I must keep an eye out for your fic; it sounds just the sort of thing I like. And you are quite right in the identity of one of my villains. He is definitely a case where the standard redemption arc is, quite apart from anything else, likely to be wildly OOC. Besides, it's quite clear that by now he could only earn enough redemption points by dying, and if he's going to die anyway, I'd prefer it to be in character. For myself, I think he could be the poster boy for 'circumstances change'; after all, the great thing about giving characters reasons for their actions is that when you need different actions you can just supply new reasons, rather than having to pull off a sudden and unconvincing jump from stereotypical bad guy to stereotypical good guy.

[liliaeth]

I personally would lean towards your last three examples. Actually, I have a fic in the works that is leaning towards an interesting variant of "The villain doesn't think he's been in the wrong, but does think circumstances have now changed, so he decides to do things differently from now on." Except the "from now on" is more "until circumstances change again" though one can hope that over time the change in attitude will become permanent...


That's a bit like Methos in Highlander. Times changed, he was different and he just adapted with the times. When times were barbaric he was barbaric, when times got more civilised, so did he... And as time grew on, aka thousands of years, he just became a different person.

A lot of fanfic writers like to write him as if he was forced into being a Horseman, or that he had some horrifying childhood leading him into it. But I prefer him as just seeing it as something he did, that felt right then, but doesn't anymore.