[ SECRET POST #3292 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3292 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________

































06. [SPOILERS for Hunger Games]





__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for The Force Awakens]





__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for The Force Awakens]





__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for eating disorders]





__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for rape]





__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for rape]







































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #470.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[feotakahari]

On the one hand, I think some settings lend themselves naturally to redemption. It feels a little silly to me when My Little Pony fans bitch about fics that redeem villains--what else do you expect from a show this idealistic? But on the other hand, fandom in general is pretty bad about making excuses for why villains just couldn't help themselves. I haven't seen many fics where the villain takes full responsibility for his or her actions.

[(Anonymous)]

Bingo: taking full responsibility for one's actions is what redemption is all about, and from my standpoint, there's no redemption without it. Otherwise, you're just making excuses for the character.

Demonstrating that he didn't really commit the bad action isn't redeeming him, it's exonerating him.

Explaining why his actions weren't wrong isn't redeeming him either; it's vindicating or justifying him.

Demonstrating that he acted under extreme provocation or duress is offering extenuating circumstances.

Showing that other characters did things that are equally bad, if not worse, is just muddying the waters, especially if it involves a lot of implausible back-story, or character-bashing, or both.

Making him an object of pity by exploring the past sufferings that have shaped his character may be appropriate under the circumstances, but it isn’t redemption.

It’s not that these things have no place in a redemption fic, but redeeming a character involves acknowledging that they've acted wrongly and sometimes vilely, and then having them earn either the trust and regard of those around them, or else some measure of self-respect and integrity on their own terms. It’s not invariably necessary for the character to frame the matter to himself in this way—in fact, it’s often better if he doesn’t--but the author should.

[(Anonymous)]

I also think there's some difference between villains who are clearly sympathetic/tragic or have sympathetic qualities (Winter Soldier) and characters where redemption is never discussed as a possibility and are clearly irredeemable (Sauron, Hannibal, the Joker).

The anti-woobification people don't always draw distinctions between these two, and the difference is important.

[(Anonymous)]

TBH, I don't think any character is absolutely irredeemable, but redemption has to be sought and willed, and if the character's ego is inextricably bound up with whatever makes him a villain, redemption just isn't going to happen.

Thinking of another fandom: this is why Javert commits suicide. Schoenberg and Boubil give him exactly the same music that Valjean has, after the Bishop of Digne has vouched for him and given him the silver, to emphasize that the moment is the same for each of them; they've been given a revelation, and each can choose what Eastern Orthodoxy calls metanoia, a turning away from their old self, or keep on the same path. But the kind of massive hubris that says "I am the Law and the Law is not mocked!" can't make the turn, and that leaves nowhere else for Javert to go but into the river. Similarly, some villains just will never make the turn. They could be redeemed, potentially, if they would, but you know they never will.

[(Anonymous)]

Also (forgot to put this in my reply to you, above), whether the villain has sympathetic qualities or not, ignoring whatever they did to become a villain and expecting the other characters to ignore it too, because their backstory is so tragic, is not redemption in my book. Also, if a villain is going to become one of the good guys, they need to earn the trust of their would-be allies. They don't get to just waltz in and demand it--even if they've been forgiven. Forgiveness and trust are two different fish.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree - characters should be held accountable, by other characters and themselves, and they should have to work to earn the trust of the other characters.

But there's a difference between "redemption should be hard and painful and worked for", which I agree with, and "this character is completely irredeemable". I've seen the latter a lot, even for sympathetic and/or comparatively low-level villains or in relatively idealistic settings.

[(Anonymous)]

There are also situations where fans say that characters whose ultimate fate is still up in the air, or there is narrative evidence pointing either way, can't be redeemed.