Redemption Arc Syndrome, a fan problem

[infinitewhale]

Character does bad things --> Character is defeated by good guys --> Character reforms and comes/returns to the light --> We like Character now --> You know, Character had a point when they were evil --> And they weren't really that evil anyway, life isn't black and white --> It was totally good guy's fault all along --> Good guy was really the

Comments

[kikimay]

My literal first experience with the online Buffy fandom was all about how innocent and misunderstood was poor Spike and how Buffy, in the end, was responsible for all the evils in the series.

Literally. I can't forget this thing.

[sueworld2003]

I must have lived a sheltered life then, because when discussing the series I've never seen them say that. In certain fanfics, yes, but apart from that no.

[infinitewhale]

I have, though it usually includes the whole gang. If the Scoobs were just nicer, maybe Spike would have changed, yada, yada. Basically it's Harmony and Angel's argument in NFA.

Spike fans from my experience are better about it than most, though. Most at least accept Spike was evil. In most other cases, it literally boils down to main characters are the bad ones because they weren't good enough friends with Character.

[kikimay]

True. Spike's fans are, at least in my experience, more open to discuss their favorite character's flaws. (I've come to experience how ortodox are Bangel fans, especially, when you raise the doubt about their OTP)

The Italian fandom ... yeah. I mean, of course it changed from place to place, but the ficwriting process was incredibly focused on Angel and Spike, when I started following myself, and so they were the centre of attention and everything was from their POV, so to speak.

[rebcake]

Hmmm. I do sort of expect the good guys to hit a higher bar of behavior and fairness, but I don't think that missing that bar makes them bad guys, even if I am momentarily disappointed in them. It makes them real guys. (Guys here being gender non-specific.)

And Joss has said that the very best villains are the ones that are pretty much right, on some level. They should have a good reason for doing what they do, not just that their mustaches are shown to best advantage whilst being twirled. Because, again, that's real. Nobody thinks they are the bad guy.

But in the hands of less talented writers, this can go horribly wrong.

[infinitewhale]

On some shows, like Buffy, I think they do a good job of setting up idealogical differences. "Right" is a matter of perspective. Good bad guys always *think* they're right and from their end, they are. I'd disagree with Joss* that they're right on some level. They are, however, completely self-justified which is what makes them scary

[itsnotmymind]

Here from SU Herald.

In my experience this kind of attitude usually predates the bad character reforming. Faith was misunderstood according to fans back when she was strangling Xander, I don't know that S2 Spike was misunderstood according to fans, but certainly by the time he was tying Buffy up in Crush and threatening to kill her. But I guess both Spike and Faith were complex at that point in their arcs...so clearly that means the good guys are in the wrong for not forgiving all immediately.

But yes, I see that logic and I love it: things aren't black and white, therefore the good guys are in the wrong and the bad guys are in the right. I mean, I think BtVS could do with more shades of gray a lot of the time, but that doesn't mean that Buffy's self-righteousness is less forgivable than Spike and Faith killing people.

[infinitewhale]

I know what you mean, but from my experience it's usually in retrospect that they change their tune. I don't remember seeing it on first airing. Then after they reform, it's more common to take their side on rewatches.

but that doesn't mean that Buffy's self-righteousness is less forgivable than Spike and Faith killing people.

Well, that's the thing. Is being against murder self-righteous? It's not like any of the Scoobies are against defending yourself. None do the all-or-nothing thing where even stealing bread when starving is equal to stealing cars for fun. Lots of people seem to pretend they do, though, which again goes back to The Problem. The storylines get reconfigured to where Character was the victim the whole time.

It's a paradox, really. They love the character because of their redemption arc then go back and pretend they never actually had one.

[itsnotmymind]

Well, that's the thing. Is being against murder self-righteous?I get the impression that for most fans the issue is less that the Scoobies are against murder (although some fans are very good at forgetting their favorites committed murder), but that the Scoobies aren't prepared to forgive murderers at the first sign of remorse or desire to do good (and it is often a paradox because some fans will simultaneously argue that the good guys aren't forgiving enough...and then insist there is nothing to forgive). (This is always especially ironic towards me with Spike, because fans are on the Scoobies' case for not welcoming Spike with open arms in S5 and S6, and, well...they did. Back in S4, when they had absolutely no reason to, I know both Xander and Giles tried to reach out to Spike. And Spike rudely turned them down

[infinitewhale]

(This is always especially ironic towards me with Spike, because fans are on the Scoobies' case for not welcoming Spike with open arms in S5 and S6, and, well...they did. Back in S4, when they had absolutely no reason to, I know both Xander and Giles tried to reach out to Spike. And Spike rudely turned them down.)Faith is pretty much in the same pool as Spike. It's even commented on in the show. Buffy and Giles had their hand out to her as late as the body swap only to be kicked for it. This is pretty much what drives their resentment of both characters. Come to think of it, it's the difference much of the time. I remember Jane explicitly wrote to scene in FD as a commentary on how just about everyone one the group was a killer, but only Andrew has to atone, except Buffy doesn't make him atone. He does it himself

[itsnotmymind]

I actually do think Faith had a legitimate (never acknowledged by the show or any of the characters) grievance against Giles for not taking any responsibility for her when he was for all intents and purposes her watcher and she was living (while likely underage) in a crappy motel. But that doesn't make Faith killing people and making Buffy's life hell Giles' fault, nor does it mean that Giles has any less right to be angry about Faith's actions.

It's basically "You killed people!/Yeah, well, you didn't come to a complete stop at that sign!" level of back and forth.

Hah! I like that way or putting it, I'll have to remember that.

[infinitewhale]

I don't think Faith was underaged. It says she's 18 in the script and she refers to herself as a big sister to Buffy. It makes most sense she's older as it explains her not having to do the trial. Also it would feed her resentment at Buffy being seen as the #1.

But yeah, about the not providing for her. Then again, he didn't provide for Buffy, either. Even in S6, the money he gives is seen as her failing.

The Council was weird. On one hand, Kendra was taken very young to be trained and lived with her watcher, so we can presume there was money being spend on her care, yet they never send any Faith or Buffy's way (in Buffy's case, she quit in S3) but still. The evil, old people that don't care explanation, but at least in the case of Kendra it seems like there is a budget for Slayer expenditures.

[itsnotmymind]

The script describes her as 18-ish, which is ambiguous. Faith does refer to herself as "big sister", but in Faith, Hope, & Trick Buffy calls Faith "my bestest new little sister". I don't think that's supposed to say anything about their literal ages, except that they are close in age and competitive about who is the senior slayer

[infinitewhale]

I think 18-ish is less than ambiguous, but no, it's not concrete. Outside parties typically don't round ages up, so her being 18+ just makes the most sense to me. Obviously though it's just a note in a script that means: An actress that looks around this age. I tend to think Faith is seen as the younger because she was at/around the same age as her character whereas everyone else was at least 3 years older.

I can't argue too much about Giles not providing support for her other than a thin rationalization that he was never her official watcher. He was a placeholder. I suppose the financial support angle really comes from whether or not the Council provides it. If Watchers simply aren't given the money to do it, I guess it's forgivable. Council logic is nothing they really delved into. Their characterization changed as it went on from being disinterested in S1-S2 to outright hostile in S3+.