The issue with this whole argument is that it's completely subjective. What one person is going to see as morally reprehensible isn't necessarily going to be shared all across the board. At most, we might be able to agree on some really basic conclusions like "genocide is bad" or "warmongering is bad" or "being a reprehensible douchebag is bad". But you can't exactly get a good discussion out of those. And they certainly aren't appropriate for judging villainous characters that do have some kind of moral ambiguity going on.
Going back a bit, there are cases where villains are almost so morally bankrupt that it's obvious to anyone that they shouldn't be redeemed. Fire Lord Ozai. Emperor Palpatine. Patrick Bateman. Red Skull. Sauron. Albert Wesker. Makuta Teridax. Judge Claude Frollo. These are characters who genuinely ARE evil and monstrous. But nobody is arguing that they should be redeemed because of that. They're so bereft of positive qualities that often the discussion is less redemption and more how in the hell they got screwed in the first place. In their case, the discussion simply doesn't exist.
No, the question is always asked of Azula or other characters that exhibit some kind of behavior that makes writing them off as inherently questionable. You can't write Azula off as irredeemably evil without ignoring her circumstances growing up and the awful position she was in as Princess of the Fire Nation. The "some villains should remain villains" argument, by its nature, is killing that question of redeemability. It's not really an answer that you can put some thought into. It's essentially a "shut up". The statement itself is flawed because it works as an absolute. Azula shouldn't be redeemed because she shouldn't. There's no wiggle room, and it only works as long as everyone agrees with it, when they so obviously don't.
People are going to have different values and ideas of what makes a person redeemable or not. For example, I agree with bellatrixobsessed that Azula is redeemable. At the same time, I don't agree with her that Kuvira should remain a villain. There. That's my stance. I differ from her because of my personal experiences. I might agree with her on some things and concede a few points, but I doubt my position is going to radically alter. By that same token, there are plenty of characters who have gone through redemption arcs in some way or form that I feel isn't earned or completely disrespect the people they hurt (Orochimaru and Kabuto from Naruto, Dimitri from Fire Emblem: Three Houses, arguably Zuko himself a bit). My tolerances are built on agency, how much of a symptom they are to the ills of society, and how responsible they are for the world state they are in. But that is only me talking. I am not expecting anyone to agree with me on that. Which makes an absolute such as "some villains should remain villains" virtually unreasonable since it denotes one side as being right with everyone else being irrational. Again, that's not the case since one could make an argument with any of these characters.
It gets messier when the writing is just bad and you feel the "villain" is a victim of bad writing. Bellatrix, I, and a lot of Azula's fans, believe that the attempts at demonizing her in the comics are juvenile at best, ableist at worst. And that it comes from bad writing rather than the author raising any particular question. So her "karma" comes disproportionate to what she does and makes the heroes look like assholes since they should be more responsible. In a similar vein, Chloe from Miraculous Ladybug, while certainly not pleasant, is another victim of bad writing where you feel sympathy for her when it wasn't intended at all. So it's not necessarily fan interpretation alone. It can often be objectively bad writing that affects the whole story. After all, my rule of thumb is that if people are this torn up about a character or plotline, either they are approaching the material wrong, or the material itself is flawed.
ATLA is flawed. It's a good series, no doubt and deserves some of the accolades. But it's also flawed. We can still enjoy it while not ignoring the issues. It's just for me, those issues are simply too big to ignore. And trying to lay down some absolute in regards to Azula feels less like a genuine discussion and more shutting people up and making the fandom all the more toxic. We should strive to allow some room for a wide variety of opinions to coexist, not just shut down those you personally don't agree with.
For me, I believe Azula remaining a villain is both damaging to her character and the series as a whole. The ending promises a new era of peace and understanding, with hopeful reform for the Fire Nation. In that regard, we need more redemption arcs. We need more Fire Nation characters seeing that they were ground up by the system and thus healing. Azula got hurt extremely badly, so she's the one who needs a redemption arc both on a thematical level and on a personal level. There needs to be new villains that represent the problems the Gaang are going to face, and Azula doesn't represent any of them without seeming ableist or overly cynical.
But that is just my opinion. I'm certainly willing to defend it, or concede a few points, but it's still my opinion. It's not intended to lay some absolute or disregard anyone else. If it does, I apologize, and I'm willing to discuss things in a civil manner. Like all things that warrant discussing.
romaincrisis
prguitarman
kianamaiart
germansingergirl
baratheonpilled
izzy806
