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

[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.