Thoughts on "Redemption" in Left-Leaning Fandom Discourse

[labingi]

Interesting video by Jessie Gender on the "redemption" of Syril Karn in Andor. It prompted some thinky thoughts I'd rather put here than throw at YouTube. (Andor S2 spoilers)

Watch on YouTube

I agree with Jessie's contention that white men are often treated with kid gloves when it comes to creating space for them to see the error of their ways, while marginalized people's lives are dismissed and errors castigated. Jessie cites the difference in fan discourse between sorrow that Syril died without a chance at redemption and near silence that Cinta (a queer woman of color) got summarily killed off. I'd add that this is partly because Syril is a better written character—but, then, white men have long been better written characters. That is evidence of her point.

But I'm frustrated by recent fandom's/leftwing YouTube's discourse on "redemption." I love a good redemption story; it's my favorite kind, but I think we need to dig deeper into the concept because, too often, it gets used without being explored.

"Redemption" is (at least primarily) a Christian concept. Traditionally, it refers to being saved from damnation, and this entails is a mix of personal responsibility and external acceptance. It requires personal responsibility in the form of actions like repentance of sins, penance, baptism, truly reformed behavior, etc. It requires external acceptance because ultimately it's God's to accept or withhold, and in many versions of Christianity, it cannot fully be attained without God's grace, that is, without that mystical quality of salvation that one cannot earn but is given.

When we use in secular discussions, as of characters like Syril Karn or DS9's Garak, or real people (Jessie mentions JK Rowling), we often end up with formulations like video commenter elanthys makes: "But not everyone deserves redemption, and not everyone who does gets it...." What does this actually mean? "Deserves" according to whom? "Gets" from whom? In the theological context, the answer is God. God can grant grace to someone who doesn't "deserve" it. (In traditional Calvinism, no one deserves it.) All redeemed people ultimately "get" it from God.

So who grants redemption in secular society? I think, by default, it usually translates to "us," the people having the conversation, the good people, the good leftists, the anti-fascists, etc. "We" judge that some do not deserve redemption. "We," sometimes in error, withhold it from those who may. What does it mean to be redeemed? In Christianity, it means heading to heaven. In the secular context, it means being socially forgiven, I guess? No longer cancelled, etc.? Slate wiped clean?

I do not trust myself to determine who metaphysically "deserves" anything. There are people I have not forgiven, but that says more about me than them. I do believe in accountability, which is, in essence, what Jessie is calling for. Accountability is a comparatively easy concept, if hard to achieve. If you've done harm, own it and take proportionally appropriate steps to repair it or—if it can't be repaired—do other, ideally related work to bring more good into the world.

Syril is never accountable for his actions. If he hadn't died and was to have a "redemption" arc, I think he would have had to spend the rest of his life trying to repair the damage or, more accurately, change the system so similar damage does not continue. But did he "deserve redemption"? I don't like the God-like insight that question presupposes.

Personally, I'm a Buddhist, and I prefer a Buddhist framework: that we are all on the path to awakening. We're just in different places, going at different rates, and taking different "side trails" to get there. The question of what we "deserve" is fairly meaningless. We are where we are; we carry the karma that we carry and work through it as best we can. And we can, to an extent, recognize that in each other and help each other through it.

Comments

[sovay]

In the secular context, it means being socially forgiven, I guess? No longer cancelled, etc.? Slate wiped clean?

I have no idea because while I find the concept of a redemption arc narratively useful to be able to refer to, I do not actually find it a very useful way to talk about people. (I am coming at this entire question from the direction of teshuvah, anyway, which is much more about repair.) What upsets me about Syril's death is the way it stops him just as the moment where it is possible to see the change in him: and he's snuffed out before we can see what it could become. Kyle Soller in interviews favors Syril wandering off to be a hermit and try to sort his head out, which seems like an entirely reasonable first step to me.

[labingi]

What upsets me about Syril's death is the way it stops him just as the moment where it is possible to see the change in him: and he's snuffed out before we can see what it could become.

I totally get that! In fact, something similar was the inspiration for my novel The Hour before Morning: wanting to give a character more chance to think about what they've done and what they can do next.

I think, in that respect, Syril is a victim of S2's compression of four years of content into one. If it had had four seasons, I think we would have seen a lot more development of all the characters, and Syril would likely have gotten more breathing room for his disillusion. (I totally get that they couldn't practically have done four seasons though. I probably would have voted for two seasons--S2, S3--as a compromise.)

[sovay]

I totally get that they couldn't practically have done four seasons though. I probably would have voted for two seasons--S2, S3--as a compromise.)

spatch and I would have liked two seasons to let especially the Ghorman plot breathe. Syril's moment of disillusion is not actually the problem for me: it's clear even in compressed form that it's not a flipped switch, it's the unsustainable weight of all of his sunk cost fallacies hitting at once and it's incredibly effective as such, especially since it's possible to see where some of his assumptions and loyalties had already begun to shift and he had not allowed himself to acknowledge it until the consequences kicked him in the head. All the le Carré ironies that lead up to that moment are so thorny and so crunchy that telescoping the plot into the time-jumps leaves it missing visible connective tissue. The second season has some incredible emotional punches, but I don't understand why it was praised for its pacing. The first couple of three-episode arcs work fine and then it just gets away from itself.

[labingi]

Excuse a late reply.

The second season has some incredible emotional punches, but I don't understand why it was praised for its pacing.

Me neither. I can only think some folks prefer fast, plotty pacing. S1 was criticized for slow pacing. I found it almost perfect. I was on the edge of my seat every minute of every episode.

[sovay]

Excuse a late reply.

I never mind late replies!

Me neither. I can only think some folks prefer fast, plotty pacing.

Or were just so blown away by the emotional impact that they extended their positive feelings to the structure, but I couldn't not notice!

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I agree with Jessie's contention that white men are often treated with kid gloves when it comes to creating space for them to see the error of their ways, while marginalized people's lives are dismissed and errors castigated. <<

True. As a writer, I'm always looking for things that other people don't write. Are you going to eat that? No? Then I'm having it. So, I just see that as an opportunity to write about marginalized people learning from their mistakes while white men get summarily munched. *ponder* Which is a lot of the plot from Lovecraft Country, come to think of it. The black characters are messy and complex and fumbling through relationships; almost all the white characters are just ... targets.

>> I love a good redemption story; it's my favorite kind, but I think we need to dig deeper into the concept because, too often, it gets used without being explored.<<

I think of it as a complex character, who has sound reasons for being messed up, and decides they don't like how their life is going so they try to make some changes.

>> "Redemption" is (at least primarily) a Christian concept. Traditionally, it refers to being saved from damnation, and this entails is a mix of personal responsibility and external acceptance.<<

If you're talking about sin, that's Christian, and appears primarily in inspirational entertainment. But it's not usually how the term is used in literary or film analysis. That's about a flawed character making mistakes and then trying to fix them -- which is not quite a universal human experience but pretty close. Everyone makes mistakes, and good people try to fix theirs. It's not rare to make really ghastly mistakes, even, so we need ways to deal with that.

>> "But not everyone deserves redemption, and not everyone who does gets it...." What does this actually mean? "Deserves" according to whom? <<

If someone honestly regrets their mistakes, and makes a heartfelt and concrete effort to clean up their own mess, then they will make progress toward self-improvement. That can be seen as redemption. The people they harmed may or may not forgive them, depending how big a mess it was. In character terms, I consider them deserving if their regret is sincere and they make clear efforts at restitution. But a lot of people just go through the motions, and I don't consider that deserving of redemption.

>> "Gets" from whom? <<

In their own life, from the people in their social circle. In entertainment, from the other characters in the narrative, but can also include the audience.

>> In the secular context, it means being socially forgiven, I guess? No longer cancelled, etc.? Slate wiped clean? <<

Generally it means being allowed to participate in society again. It doesn't necessarily means that people will forget what happened, but at least some of them will be willing to work past it.

>> Personally, I'm a Buddhist, and I prefer a Buddhist framework: that we are all on the path to awakening. We're just in different places, going at different rates, and taking different "side trails" to get there. The question of what we "deserve" is fairly meaningless. <<

Aaaaand that's a big reason why Eastern literature is so different from Western literature. Star Wars is a great example of what happens when you bash those two systems together. A lot of characters get ground to hamburger. But it can be entertaining to watch.

Re: Thoughts

[labingi]

I think of it as a complex character, who has sound reasons for being messed up, and decides they don't like how their life is going so they try to make some changes.

Yes! This is also what I think of when I think of "a good redemption story."

But it's not usually how the term is used in literary or film analysis.

I know. The point was reaching for is that cultural concepts carry that baggage of their origins, as secular redemption--at least as I've often seen it used--carries that baggage of the idea that a sweeping judgment about a person from on high is justifiable and right.

In character terms, I consider them deserving if their regret is sincere and they make clear efforts at restitution. But a lot of people just go through the motions, and I don't consider that deserving of redemption.

I personally feel quite similarly. I think the slippage I often see in fandom is between "This is how I personally read this, feel about this" and "This is what is/should be the objectively true answer," as if there were one higher authority invested with making "correct" judgments.

Star Wars is, indeed, an interesting mashup of East and West, for me, especially the original trilogy.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>The point was reaching for is that cultural concepts carry that baggage of their origins, as secular redemption--at least as I've often seen it used--carries that baggage of the idea that a sweeping judgment about a person from on high is justifiable and right.<<

Well, we could look for a different term. Recovery, restitution, reparation, expiation, amends. Atonement and asbolution have religious connotations, so not those.

The trope name is "Heel-Face Turn," which is useful because tropes are so common in entertainment. It only refers to changing from bad to good, though, it doesn't say anything about the mechanism of it or making up for past mistakes.

My supervillains talk about Step 9 1/2, when you can't make amends to your original victim, so instead you look for others similar to them and do something for those people instead. Sometimes they go for general humanitarian stuff instead, if they can't find an easy match. There's a whole hospital ship called the Restitution. And criminals who complete the process of paying their debt to society, which is more often some form of restitution than just jail time, have their record cleared instead of sealed or expunged -- specifically declaring that they mended their relationship with society.

The Orville had an episode involving an "apology tour" which was pretty appalling, but another example of different terminology.

>>I think the slippage I often see in fandom is between "This is how I personally read this, feel about this" and "This is what is/should be the objectively true answer," as if there were one higher authority invested with making "correct" judgments.<<

I see fandom in particular and people in general making that mistake a lot more often nowadays than they used to. With some things, it's just an opinion, and it's no big deal. But when it comes to ghastly errors that harm people, society needs a way -- preferably a consistent and effective way -- of handling that. "Forgive and forget" opens people to abuse. Badgering victims to forgive the abuser is even worse. It is the culprit's responsibility to recognize that they fucked up, decide to do better. state their regret to the victim(s), and either ask for or figure out some way to clean up the mess as best they can and make up for what they've done. If entertainment presents a heel-face turn without at least most of the steps of a proper apology, then it doesn't just ring false and make a bad episode -- it actively teaches people bad habits. A complete apology shows how that messy process is supposed to work.

However, I will allow that shortened forms work in some cases. Among the most popular is having a villain with a change of heart who simply sacrifices himself to save someone else. By my standards, the magnitude of the restitution is enough to compensate for missing steps.

>>Star Wars is, indeed, an interesting mashup of East and West, for me, especially the original trilogy.<<

Obi-Wan Kenobi is a pretty good effort at an Eastern hero, and Luke Skywalker is definitely a Western hero. If you don't actually know that, it can look a bit odd, because once you mix things together like that, it doesn't fit either tradition precisely. And I think a lot of the mistakes the Jedi Order made came out of that mishmash.

... walk in middle of road, get squished like grape.

[isis]

I'm not going to watch the video (I don't watch videos) but I note that Syril was in 17 episodes (and in every episode in S2 up to his death except the first) and Cinta in only 10 (and only 2 episodes in S2, with her first appearance very brief at the end of E3, and then she's killed stupidly in E6). I think viewer engagement is higher with characters that have more screen time, and with characters that have more recent screen time.

(This does not argue against your "better written characters tend to be white men" point, it's just what to me is a logical reason why viewers would care more about Syril.)

[labingi]

Yes, I agree. Cinta had the potential to be a really interesting character. In S1, she was an intriguing mix of sympathetic and very scary. S2 just got so rushed, and she got killed off so quickly, that nothing in particular came of that setup for her.

[sovay]

and Cinta in only 10 (and only 2 episodes in S2, with her first appearance very brief at the end of E3, and then she's killed stupidly in E6).

I suspect that very brief cameo problem is also part of the reason she feels like a buried gay instead of the regular attrition of the Rebellion. Syril is a shock because he's been essentially a co-protagonist. Cinta feels like she turns up again just to die, which is less shocking and more annoying.

[isis]

Cinta feels like she turns up again just to die, which is less shocking and more annoying.

Yes, EXACTLY!