so many people talk about redemption arcs of fictional characters and say "you can't say someone doesn't deserve redemption, it constitutes of actions to redeem mistakes and it isn't earned. you can't stop a character from growing to become a better person." and it's funny because baby these characters aren't real, they are written. it's all narrative. the character isn't atoning, the author wants to put this abuser into a lighter light so they can be sympathised with. because hey, now they're doing better right? and not that abusers can't regret and try to make for their mistakes but the notion of redemption brings the discussion about forgiveness and, more often than not, it is expected of the victims to forgive and acknowledge the atonement (if not by the abuser then by the narrative and even the audience). and the characters often forgive. and then, it is always said that they're allowed to forgive and want to move on and deal with their personal feelings. but baby, it's all narrative. but remorse is human? sure. but are depictions of remorse often present to make abusers palatable? yes, and it works too. forgiveness is often seen as a person's absolution from their actions and guilt. atonement often begs for forgiveness, more or less. it depends heavily on how narrative carries out an atonement arc. but does a character deserve to be given atonement arc or not? still a valid question. because the narrative gives the character atonement. they're not atoning on their own. some mistakes and actions can beg for change and forgiveness. some do not deserve to. and a more important question to ask is: why does the narrative want to redeem this character?
germansingergirl
snowghoul
discoholicmusic
