I ask because I was listening to Les Mis again last night. It struck me that in both the musical and the novel, young Eponine was not a very sympathetic character. In the book she actively tormented Cosette but it was downplayed in the musical.
WARNING: for those who have never seen or read this (there has to be people out there, right?) the next section will discuss what happens to one of the characters
So why do we all cry when Eponine dies? Is it because she "redeems" her prior action with her love for Marius and her willingness to do whatever makes him happy even though it is killing her? Or is it because she was so young that we forgive her for being mean to Cosette?
SPOILER OVER
This made me think can you take a "bad" character and build sympathy for him? In the Game of Thrones series some rehabilitation occurs with the Hound.
If you can redeem a character, what would it take to do so? Does the answer to the previous question depend on how "bad" that person was?
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited July 06, 2006).]
I think some of it has to do with background. I forgave Eponine a lot because I knew her background. She got so much of herself from her parents that I cheered when I saw her break away from that background through her sacrifice.
The same is true in other stories.
So, I think when it comes to redemption, the audience has to know why the character has been evil. I think that goes a long way towards establishing redemption, or even a certain amount of likeability.
And it always helps if you give your unlikeable/evil character intelligent dialogue.
It may not be wise to listen to me, though. I'm not a serious writer.
In Episode VI, did Lucas do enough to redeem Darth Vader/Anakin? I didn't think so. I never reached the point where I cared whether or not Vader lived or died. I think he had been "too bad" for me. (Either that, or the storytelling wasn't skilled enough to involve me on the right level.)
What it takes is a way to make the reader see the character's failings as human, and their bad actions, therefore, inevitable. This means the reader can reach a point where they think to themselves, "Well, I might have done the same thing, given the circumstances." (Does anyone agree that this is the entire plot of "Pride and Prejudice"?)
So, yes, it does depend on how bad the character was to begin with, as there is always a point beyond which the reader will say, "No matter the circumstances, I would NEVER do that." However, I think the point is different for different readers.
I thought of Star Wars, too, when I read this post. We forgive Atikin in the end, but why?
I think bad characters have to earn their redemption. They need to be sorry, there needs to be a moment when it "clicks" for them and the reader knows it clicks. Then the bad character needs to make an active, visible change.
Is the question about redeeming a character that is not likeable or evil? Just because a character is not likeable does not necessitate their redemption. I try not to make characters into something they are not. If they need redemption they will get it someway but I never try to force an audience to like a character that simply isn't likeable.
Good writing!
Bron, the MC in Triton. I don't think he had strong good or bad qualities to begin with, so I could imagine he had good ones --? Not sure.
Screwtape, in The Screwtape Letters. Of course we never like him, but he is interesting.
I think we can enjoy seeing a nasty character lose; and a character can be introduced as good and then we see the warts. Think of Joel Fleischmann in Northern Exposure.
In my opinion, the trick to unlikeable characters is to make them human. That is, don't make them purely evil or cold blooded. Give them a little warmth for comparison; that creates a stark contrast that enhances the character.
In Jayne's case, in one episode he receives a knitted hat made by his mother that looks stupid. But he likes to wear it because his mom made it. Or there was an episode where a selfish act of thievery accidently benefited the citizens of a town when he dropped the booty from a heist from an aircar because he couldn't get enough altitude with the weight of it. When he learns of their admiration for him, it touches him and he starts to think of "my people." It doesn't last long, but long enough to see another dimension to the character.
Overall, I think the trick is to present multi-faceted characters over one dimensional characters. Another example I can think of is Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow. There are lots of examples of "bad guys" who are fun to get to know.
I'll probably despise Covenant just as much as when I was sixteen, but I should go look just in case there's something there I missed before.
After reading a second PoV on the character, the first one just seemed whiney.
Edit: Interview With a Vampire paints Lestat as controlling and sadistic. Then when Lestat tells his own story we learn he's lonely and narcisistic. Still not perfect, but redeemed.
[This message has been edited by pantros (edited July 07, 2006).]
Looking at my three examples, I'm struck by the fact that the likable quality I attribute to each one has to do with personal honesty. None of them turn out to be total hypocritics. I think that's part of what touches us about a character who may be deeply flawed much of the time. Namely, such characters are often given a chance to really confront themselves.
When we get the feeling that others refuse to look at their own flaws, it's very hard to like them.
It paints a more realistic picture.
American Psycho, for example, where the main character is a cold, canabalistic serial killer is not only sorry for his crimes, but not even caught at the end, is one of my favorite novels.
In my experience, authors tend to skip over that nasty fact (or they don't know it) and attribute badness to someone stealing the villain's favorite toy on the playground to add depth to him, or to make him more accessible or interesting.
Back on topic, though: is it possible to redeem someone like that?
I suppose a better way of doing it would be as Dickens did in "A Tale of Two Cities." The character names elude me at the moment, but, as I recall (maybe faultily), the villain substitutes for the hero at the guillotine and delivers that "'tis a far far better thing..." speech. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this---it has been twenty-five or thirty years since I last read it.)
quote:
Most people who perpetrate horrors upon humanity are either clinical or subclinical psychopaths.
That may be true, but the vast majority of people who fit under the label of "criminal" are not perpetrating horrors on humanity, nor are they psychopaths. Most are simply people taking advantage of opportunity, calculating "what's in it for me", or affected by external influences (drugs, alcohol, poverty, childhood). There are more Kenneth Lay type "villains" in the world than there are BTKs.
It really requires the writer to know a little about the villain's background. Is he/she a petty thief? Or a deranged killer? My objection to villains in fiction is that so many authors present ONLY the one style of evil-doer, that of the deranged psychopath, and they do it so that the character has only one note. In my mind, it is FAR more interesting to give the villain a couple of redeemable qualities, simply because it makes him/her more unpredictable. You never know WHAT they might end up doing. The Evil Overlord character is, however, utterly and boringly predictable. Gonna try to take over the world and crush everyone's soul. *Yawn.*
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited July 08, 2006).]
Hey, I could pick anything else that's common in our society. But most of them would just make you all squint at me funny ("What's wrong with that?" you'd say).
Just to be fair (and unfair), I'll say that being against abortion strikes many people as being horrible in it's own right. Almost everyone here is therefore a horrible person by some standard of what is horrible.
Of course, even when we accept that almost all "normal" people are doing something "horrible" from the perspective of at least some other people, it's hard to accept this as being true of ourselves. Which is why anyone who does come to terms with this essential aspect of the human condition gains our respect.
Spoiler***, it's not that much of a spoiler and it happens in the first 30 pages of the book, Covenant rapes a girl.
I had a hard time enjoying the books because of that rape. Everyone forgives him, in their way. I guess I, as the reader, am supposed to forgive him, but I don't. You don't get to rape girls and be a good guy, and everyone seems to forgive him out of awe or respect for his power. They forgive him because they need him to save The Land.
I'm not sure what he could have done to earn my forgiveness. He was just so whiny and self-absorbed about the whole thing. It's like he was so preoccupied in attaining forgiveness or redemption, that he never became a person worthy of it.
[This message has been edited by Tanglier (edited July 09, 2006).]
I'm guessing that the narrative can't focus on the hero's quest for redemption, because as soon as the hero starts questing for it, the evil act becomes trivial. Hero can't ever let himself off of the hook, nor can he brood about it in a self-absorbed way.
[This message has been edited by Tanglier (edited July 09, 2006).]
(edited to correct a misspelling of "redemption")
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited July 09, 2006).]
Thus it is impossible for anyone to deserve redemption. If you look at the basic meanings of the two words involved, "deserve" and "redemption", it is fundamentally illogical to say that a person deserves redemption.
As long as you think that it is possible to deserve redemption, then you have a false idea of your own merits (which is probable) or a false idea of what redemption would entail (also very probable). If you have false ideas about either, it just isn't possible to desire and accept the kind of redemption you need.
So, why do we like him? Why is he one of the good guys in the show? You can ask the same question about Mal (Firefly's captain) for that matter.
Val Jean in Les Mis is a thief but Victor Hugo takes great pains to make you understand that although Val Jean is a thief, he only broke a window pane and stole a loaf of bread to keep his sister and nephew from starving to death. So, the crime is intentionally downplayed.
What makes us forgive a MC's really bad acts - murder, theft, rape - if anything? Do they need a compelling reason and a more minor crime, like Val Jean? A sort of "but for the grace of (unnamed deity) goes I" factor?
Or just some justification, even an internal one, like Mal and Jayne, and some better personal qualities?
edited for italics
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited July 10, 2006).]
Theft is easily forgivable but the character must make amends.
It is even possible to make amends for murder, but the price must be nigh eternal.
Rape is unforgivable. The only way to redeem a character who commits this atrocity is an honorable, martyring, death. Even so, it takes far more to redeem a rapist than a murderer. I cannot think of a rapist character that has been redeemed.
Well, Pier Antony did try in his Incarnations series on the incarnation of God. But, he blamed that on a woman suddenly having the body and the hormones of a man without the years of learning to deal with those hormones. I never read another Pier Anthony book after that.
There's also the whole Gone with the Wind scene where Rhett carries Scarlet up the stairs. Is his insistence "justified" by her contented smile the next scene/morning? It always struck me as odd that what most people consider one of the more romantic moments in movie history really comes close to a rape. But, still everyone likes Rhett and wants them to end up together.
Jayne: Good, honest bad guy. You know what he's about so you can watch out for his misdeeds, as Mal does.
Darth/Anakin: Sort of redeemed in the ghost scene where he's with Yoda and Obiwan and they're all smiling. I still find it hard to forgive him.
Interesting question, overall. How bad is TOO bad?
I was certainly dubious...though I am informed of circumstances where rape victims eventually came into friendly relationships (and more) with their rapists, I found that particular situation hard to swallow. (Not that it's the only thing hard to believe in a Heinlein novel, much as I like a lot of them.)
quote:
As long as you think that it is possible to deserve redemption, then you have a false idea of your own merits (which is probable) or a false idea of what redemption would entail (also very probable). If you have false ideas about either, it just isn't possible to desire and accept the kind of redemption you need.
I don't know if I agree with the logic which took you here, but I do think that the above statement is true.
IT seems that because of the nature of the world, there is no act one can do to atone for a previous transgression. And if that's true, you can never deserve to be let off the hook.
So I guess it's not a matter of forgiving characters as much as it's a matter of liking character in spite of their various deeds or inclinations.
Take Jack Sparrow. The man does awful things and is untrustworthy, but he goes at it with so much brazen style, that we forget about his awfulness because in the name of taking the good with the bad.
Thinking about how large audiences have come to root for these characters, whose actions (and often even motivations) are despicable, has led me to think that maybe "likeability" is the wrong word to use when we think about writing characters about whom readers will care.
I've been trying to find some common element to the more famous "unlikeable" characters that readers nonetheless like or identify with. The common element I see is virtue. Each likeable-unlikeable character posseses, despite their flaws, undeniable virtue. There seems to be a hierarchy of virtues--the possession of some is mandatory, while the lack of others we are willing to forgive.
Loyalty and courage seem to be at the top. Jaime Lancaster would not be at all "likeable" if he wasn't utterly loyal in and completely self-sacrificing in his bravery. We (perhaps grudgingly) tolerate his abhorrent sins (incest, child-murder) in light of his exceptional virtue. We would never, however, forgive him (or any other character) for betrayal or cowardice.
Other virtues seem far more negotiable.
Bottom line: Here is my theory--any character that possesses exceptional loyalty and at least occassional courage can be "likeable" no matter how horribly they behave. No character that commits treason or is always a coward can be "likeable."
I disagree. If we believe the character betrays a person or cause we don't like, we easily like them. For example, Sayid in Lost.
Season One Spoiler:
By freeing the woman he loved, he committed treason against his country. If he had followed orders and been loyal and faithful, we would have liked him less.
quote:
kings_falcon, you only remember reading one romance novel that justified rape? I must have run across a dozen, for awhile it seemed like the centerpiece of the historical romance plot. Unfortunately.
It may have a lot to do with the fact that I'm not a big fan of romance novels in general and generally consider them beach reading. It also may be that I remembered this one example because I was wrestling with the a similar issue for my Karsh/Mordent character. He does some pretty horrid things for a very good reason. The issue I was having was despite all of the bad acts would the reader still want him to effectively get the girl (and the kingdom and save his kingdom) in the end?
My resolution of the issue was making sure he didn't cross certain lines that many people would find unforgivable (rape and the murder of a child) and that he acted consistently with a code of ethics.
I think that is part of what the comments about Jamie Lannister points out. Jamie changes after he loses his hand and reevaluates what he has been loyal to.
Euan in the Call of the Mountain series is the same type of unlikely "hero." He's acting in his nation't best interest which requires him to use and betray the POV MC and attempt to assassinate the rival kingdom's Emperor and hier. But we have no sympathy for his co-conspirator, Gothard, because he is acting out of jealously and the desire for revenge.
Maybe it's the code of ethics that matters. Thoughts?
I like to define rape more like pedophilia. Being a pedophile isn't about the exact age of the victim, but is more a matter of desiring a sexually immature partner. Rape isn't about "power" per se(normal seduction is far more about power), it's about inflicting pain as a means of sexual gratification. So I would include consensual SM type activity (i.e. "simulated" rape) as being rape.
I don't approve of forceful seduction, and I think that non-consensual sex should be legally actionable, but I don't think that they indicate the kind of sickness that means somebody needs to be locked up or executed. If you're semi-passed out drunk and some guy decides to fornicate with you, I'll grant that you weren't guilty of fornication and that you have the right to collect civil damages against the guy. He's a fornicator and a thief, but that doesn't add up to rape in my book, even combined. If a guy "just takes" you and you're too overwhelmed or whatever to bite and kick, I'll upgrade him to sexual predator (and you don't get a say in that, whether or not you liked it after the fact doesn't matter), but that also doesn't qualify as rape.
Rape is when you resist forcefully, and really attempt to inflict injury, and have physical (not merely emotional) injury inflicted in return, and he enjoys that. And I don't care whether you both agreed ahead of time to do it that way, that just makes you a party to the crime. It's sick and wrong.
Unless, you know, you're a shark or something like that. But for humans, it's sick and wrong.
quote:
Rape isn't about "power" per se(normal seduction is far more about power), it's about inflicting pain as a means of sexual gratification. So I would include consensual SM type activity (i.e. "simulated" rape) as being rape.
Actually, rape is all about power and NOT about sexual gratification. Read the studies on it. The sexual gratification is one of the payoffs but it is the power high that is the principal motivation. That power high is the reason why you can sterlize a sexual predator (so no further sexual gratification from the act) and he will still be a sexual predator. It is suprising that you would add consensual SM activities into the catagory of "rape" as the main difference there is, well, the consent.
But, I REALLY don't want this shifting into a rape/seduction discussion. Been there, survived it, don't want to dwell on the topic.
So, everyone has a line that they don't want crossed or conduct that they find is unforgivable. Assuming the character doesn't stray over the line, are we willing to like her anyway if she does things we consider "bad" but does so consitently with a code of conduct or higher duty?
IMO, we can put up with a lot of badness, if we are laughing and entertained. The comedy takes the sting out of the "sin." In a way, it takes the reality out of the story altogether, and lets the audience/reader be engaged through sheer entertainment. In exaggerating their actions/motivations to the point of caricature, they become a cartoon. We no longer hold them to the same standard we would apply to an acquaintance or fellow member of our community, or even a more realistic character.
So I'm not sure you can compare a Jack Sparrow or Jayne Cobb to any characters in more literary or dramatic roles. Although Riddick...he's an excellent example of the mercenary "good guy"...where does his character fit into the definition of redemption?
A scenario where the character has conflicting loyalties and is left with no choice but to betray one or the other is not the same as a voluntary treason from the standpoint of the "likeability" of the character. In a conflicting loyalties case (like the one you describe), the character cannot choose not to betray--he can only choose whom to betray. And, even by "betraying," the character displays exceptional loyalty to the party to whom he was loyal. I'm referring to uncoerced, unmitigated betrayal, where the character had a meaningful choice between fidelity and treason and chose treason, and there was no countervailing loyalty to justify the choice.
Riddick is another good example of my theory. In both movies featuring the character, his only redeeming traits are courage and, in the end, loyalty.
Why is there such a dearth of literary (as opposed to film) characters in this discussion?
[This message has been edited by J (edited July 12, 2006).]
quote:
Why is there such a dearth of literary (as opposed to film) characters in this discussion?
We all haven't read the same books.
I brought up Thomas Covenant, but we could also talk about Caleb Trask from East of Eden, or any of the characters from Hart's Hope besides Orem. Or Paris from the Illiad, but if we rip characters from movies, there is a higher chance that the other posters will know what we are talking about.
[This message has been edited by Tanglier (edited July 12, 2006).]
People are more likely to have commonly seen a given pop-film than read even a best selling novel.
Some references to books that most of you have read.
In Robert Jordan's books, Matrim. - despisable for his loose morals and greed. redemable by his loyalty and by falling in love.
Harry Potter books characters are never redeemed. If they do something bad, they are the bad guys. Occasionally they never did anything bad but there was a misunderstanding and we thought they did.
Shakespeare occasionally used Pity as a way to make a bad character redeemeable. But I'm having trouble remembering a character who redeemed through loyalty or heroics.
The "likeability" factor does play a role. When a character is "redeemed", we forgive that character freely. The character doesn't pay back the full weight of sin. That wouldn't be redemption, but atonement.
For me, rapist rapists, people who indulges in rape (consensual or not) aren't going to be good candidates for redemption. The fact that they get a sexual kick out of inflicting pain is going to be a big barrier. On the other hand, the kind of guy that chases boozed up freshman coeds and doesn't let anything short of a good hard smack on the face pass for "no"...I might actually like him. I think that he ought to be in jail, sure, but that doesn't mean I find it impossible to like the fellow.
So I would be inclined to demand at least some atonement of the one guy before I'll forgive him. It doesn't matter what other good qualities he demonstrates. The other guy I'll freely forgive if he's fun enough (not that I'll trust him with my [hypothetical] daughter or anything).
Does that make any sense? I mean, it's not very logical. That's just how I feel about it.
That's the way redemption should be. It shouldn't have to make sense. If it made sense, then it wouldn't be redemption, right?
Spoiler Possibilities throughout the post
So, I'm watching the BBC series Robin Hood and they've been doing an interesting thing with the Guy Gizborn character. In the interviews they air during the show, the creators said they wanted Guy to be someone who could have been Robin but for events in his life that prevented him from growing that way. In the two seasons it's been on, Guy has gone from a total wretch to someone I almost want to get the girl and keep the castle in the end.
He's done bad things - he's killed innocents, he's torched Marian's house and he helps the Sheriff.
So the question is why am I starting to like him?
I THINK it's because of his love for Marian and the fact that love is beginning to change him.
Spoiler for recent episode
In a recent episode, Nottingham was about to be razed. He could escape with his life and asks her to marry him so she'll be allowed to leave as well. She stays. They show him at the front line of the army about to leave. Guy realizes that without her his "life is ash" and he returns to protect Nottingham.
end Spoilers
So, have you ever changed your mind about a "villan" and why?
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited July 23, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited July 23, 2008).]
I find the subject of Jaime interesting. With me, Martin hasn't succeeded. I haven't forgiven him.
I wonder if there might be a gender difference here. The attempted child murder put me off so badly, I'm having a hard time seeing him as redeemed from the loss of his hand. I know Martin INTENDS him to be redeemed. And I am annoyed at Martin at the same time for his fairly blatant sexism in the treatment of his characters. Jaime who was the unapologetic child murderer is forgivable but Queen Cersei, who was if anything the less guilty of the two, is totally unforgivable. However, I think he probably correctly judges how most people would react as well. The worst thing she did was kill her thoroughly obnoxious drunken whoring husband. Plenty of women would have been at least tempted, but readers don't tend to forgive women particularly if they're represented as she is as sexually promiscuous.
I do wonder how many people feel that Jaime has redeemed himself. I don't follow the forums to see what people think about it. I just don't forgive him myself.
On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to forgive Tyrion for murdering his father, as well as being a bit of a drunk and whoring a lot. (Hard to avoid that word when you're discussing Martin's novels. lol) He would never rape and he has been put-upon and suffered about as much as it is possible to, so it's hard not to sympathize with him even when he's being awful.
And unlike Jaime, he has no great loyalty--remember, he murdered his father. I don't mind that at all.
I don't think loyalty is really the big divide. It seems to me that suffering is a big part of reader sympathy. A character who has suffered a lot may be forgiven a lot. And a character has to have SOME good qualities that we like them for while they're doing awful things. I think it helps if we can see that they are justifying themselves in their own minds as well. Tyrion's murder of his father was pretty understandable to the reader even though it was also totally cold-blooded. (And no one liked the father anyway)
To the world at large, what traits will make you consider whether or not you're willing to revise your opinion of an antagonist?
In my Robin Hood example - it's his love for Marian and his growth because of it.
In Les Mis - the concensus seemed to be it was Epoine's age when she was a mean spirited brat and that she wasn't that person as an adult. I still would pin it on her love for Marius and how it changes her outlook.
In Firefly - Jayne is an honest bad guy. And he's loyal to a point to Mal.
In Martin's book - for me, Jamie became less of a "villian" although not redeemed when he starts falling in love with someone other than Cersei and starts looking beyond blind loyalty.
I also find it interesting that I initially raised the Hound, but no one else has referred to him.
For me (it seems to be a theme so, I'll go with it), the fact that the villian can love and is changed by it will start to reform my opinion.
Loyalty is also something that came up in the old discussion.
Any other traits/emotions you can think of.
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited July 23, 2008).]
One is how much the character has suffered. Few characters have actually suffered more than Tyrion--consider his physical suffering and the way he was treated at the hands of his family. You mentioned the Hound who was severely tortured and maimed at the hands of his psychopathic brother. I don't think he was redeemable, but there was still a spark of humanity somewhere inside him. And you knew that he was made into what he was by what was done to him. So at the end I had a little sympathy with him--but not much.
To some degree, loyalty helps but it can be a two-edged sword. I don't think Jaime's loyalty to his family was seen as a good thing by most of readers. It in fact lead to his behavior. At the same time the fact that Tyrion is loyal to one person, Jaime, shows that he is capable of loyalty even though he doesn't usually show it much. He doesn't have much reason to.
But where I draw a line is a willingness to hurt the helpless. Tyrion isn't. Jaime and the Hound both are. I think in my mind that makes both of them unredeemable. I may have a little more sympathy with them, but redeemed? No.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 23, 2008).]
Some distaste might've lingered with me, though---after the first trilogy, I never bothered to pick up and read anything more by this particular writer.
quote:
I find the subject of Jaime interesting. With me, Martin hasn't succeeded. I haven't forgiven him.I wonder if there might be a gender difference here. The attempted child murder put me off so badly, I'm having a hard time seeing him as redeemed from the loss of his hand. I know Martin INTENDS him to be redeemed.
On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to forgive Tyrion for murdering his father...
And unlike Jaime, he has no great loyalty...
Jaime is atoned not through the loss of his hand, although that helps, but through his loyalty (and attitude toward Tyrion), and through Brienne.
Tyrion's loyalty is to Jaime.
quote:
And I am annoyed at Martin at the same time for his fairly blatant sexism in the treatment of his characters.The worst thing she did was kill her thoroughly obnoxious drunken whoring husband.
The truth is often ugly, and Martin has researched the subject well. He is no blatant sexist (have you forgotten that he scripted TV's Beauty and the Beast? Linda Hamilton was the bold and strong character, Vincent was the sensitive one) the times were. He depicts the despicabilitiy of the medieval times well. That it disturbs you is a testiment to how well. Nothing in his narrative voice says that he approves. And Cersei's treatment of Sansa (which she should have felt akin to her position, being under her father's thumb) showed her true persona.
As to the question of the post, yes, people can be bad, and still have carry enough sympathy to be a protagonist:
Riddick
Conan
Hellboy
Marv or any lead from Sin City (Frank Miller makes a living doing that to characters, look what he did to "goody-two-shoes" Batman while turning him into The Dark Knight)
Richard Sharpe
The entire crew of Firefly are criminals, except Inara.
Han Solo
Simon Templar
Davy (from the book and movie Jumper is a thief)
Hell, even Darth Vader is redeemed by betraying Emperor Palpatine--and he mass murdered and tortured, though interestingly enough, he didn't rape...
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited July 24, 2008).]
It's winter for years at a time, men wear armor and use weapons with NO resemblance to what was actually used and no one blinks but it would strain credibility to use a little imagination in the women? Oh, please. And it is the reader who is led to condemn Cersei which is different that her being condemned by other characters which would fit in with what you're saying. However, that's a different subject.
And when did Jaime show some mercy to someone who was vulnerable? When he tossed Bran out a tower window?
Obviously, you find him redeemed. I don't. It's an interesting point that apparently this is working with some readers. I do wonder how many are buying it.
quote:
Tyrion's loyalty is to Jaime.
Yes, that's what I said. It is his ONLY loyalty. Your point being?
In fact, I see little loyalty to Tyrion from Jaime. While Jaime is loyal to him, the other seems weak at best--he isn't quite as mean to him as everyone else. I suppose Jaime had some feeling for Brienne but that's pretty waffled on as well. (Notice he presents the only strong woman in the story as virtually a physical monster?)
Edit: And you're missing (or seem to be) that we've gone from IS it possible to what makes it possible.
I wouldn't find Darth Vader redeemed, for instance, if he didn't die.
Nothing Jaime has done has redeemed him in my eyes. Being nice at times to Brienne didn't cut it. Considering the monsterous things he had done, it would take a lot more than that.
IB and I are arguing again. All's right with the world. *breaths a sigh of relief*
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 24, 2008).]
quote:
Yes, that's what I said. It is his ONLY loyalty. Your point being?
That's not what you said, you said: Unlike Jaime, he has no great loyalty.
So my point was that he has a great loyalty.
quote:
Obviously, you find him redeemed.
Not necessarily, but I was pointing out that more than his hand was offered for atonement (not redemption).
quote:
And when did Jaime show some mercy to someone who was vulnerable?
Uh...Tyrion.
quote:
IB, he wasn't writing about the REAL middle ages so making it the way he did was his choice, not something he had to do.
Yes, he made a choice to use the grittier, uglier parts of medieval times--points that have been consistently smoothed over--to breathe life into a fantasy realm. So what? I'm sure he intended to show human nature. And there is a lot more accurate in Martin's novels than you seem to be aware of. As for the armor and fantasy weaponry, that doesn't matter as far as the people that use it. That's what he's more true to.
quote:
And it is the reader who is led to condemn Cersei which is different that her being condemned by other characters which would fit in with what you're saying.
What? She's condemned by other characters. That's part of how "the reader" is "led" to condemn her. (I think it's funny that you could redeem Cersei, simply because she's a woman, and you feel the author--not the story--has dealt her unjustly.)
quote:
IB and I are arguing again. All's right with the world. *breaths a sigh of relief*
Yes, there is balance again.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited July 24, 2008).]
OF COURSE, there is more to his books than that. I never said otherwise. He happens to be a marvellous writer.
We are discussing one particular part of his (and other) books--are evil or unlikeable characters also redeemable--and if so, how and when?
If you think that's all there is to SoIaF, I happen to disagree there too. LOL
You might go back through my posts and notice the number of times I mention that I consider him the best and the most influential fantasy writer since Tolkien. What? And I dare say I think there are things he might have done differently? Yes. Yes, I do dare.
Edit: And I did not say Tyrion had no loyalty. Here, I'll quote myself:
quote:
At the same time the fact that Tyrion is loyal to one person, Jaime, shows that he is capable of loyalty even though he doesn't usually show it much. He doesn't have much reason to.
The one and only loyalty that Tyrion has is to Jaime. I'm not sure that it is that much returned, though.
By the way, I never saw that Jaime offered Tyrion any mercy. He didnt ABUSE him the way the rest did. But did he keep others from it? Did you do anything to make his lot more sufferable other than not making it even worse? Not that I saw. In fact, I always thought Tyrion's loyalty was somewhat misplaced, but could you blame him since Jaime was one of two people in his entire life who hadn't treated him with scorn and cruelty?
(I love those books and have a certain fondness even for the parts I don't much like. I'll do the same thing with LotR. I can tell you the parts that I think Tolkien might have done differently--actual characters as women instea of cardboard cutouts? Believable steeds? Not putting in reams of bad poetry? But that doesn't keep me from reading and loving the thing.)
Further edit: I am, you must realize, one of those annoying people who will with great enthusiasm argue both sides of any argument. *grins*
Well, almost any argument anyway.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 24, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 24, 2008).]
quote:
It's four books, IB, not three.
LMAO. I set you up with that. I knew that you couldn't resist.
I hope you don't think I'm taking this argument too seriously. I've read the books, too--and have great respect for Martin.
quote:
I never saw that Jaime offered Tyrion any mercy. He didnt ABUSE him the way the rest did. But did he keep others from it?
Yes. Clash of Kings, where it begins to get deeper into Tyrion, it shows why Tyrion is so faithful to Jaime.
As far as quoting:
quote:
On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to forgive Tyrion for murdering his father, as well as being a bit of a drunk and whoring a lot. (Hard to avoid that word when you're discussing Martin's novels. lol) He would never rape and he has been put-upon and suffered about as much as it is possible to, so it's hard not to sympathize with him even when he's being awful.And unlike Jaime, he has no great loyalty--remember, he murdered his father. I don't mind that at all.
...I did quote you--in point of fact.
quote:
If you think that's all there is to SoIaF, I happen to disagree there too. LOL
I'm not saying you don't like Martin. I'm saying that what disturbs you is meant to, and it doesn't keep you from reading the next book (as I illustrated by misnumbering them).
quote:
Further edit: I am, you must realize, one of those annoying people who will with great enthusiasm argue both sides of any argument. *grins*
And you are easily excitable, too.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited July 24, 2008).]
quote:
And, you do realize that HBO bought the film right, don't you?
And you realize, of course, that all that means is Martin gets a nice chunk of cash. Lots of film rights for lots of books are bought all the time without films ever actually being made.
However, it looks like it could be more.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited July 24, 2008).]
)I still say that Tyrion's loyalty is very limited. The only thing or person he is really loyal to is Jaime. This I stand behind my statement that if you like Tyrion, it isn't because of his vast loyalty.
I think it is because of his refusal to hurt those who are vulernable. He could have hurt any number of people--could have done awful things to Sansa and considering what a whiner she is, I would have been seriously tempted just to shut her up.
You also like him because you have to sympathize with his suffering.
So when he does bad things, as he frequently does, you forgive him. Which was what we were discussing, not whether or not I like or respect Martin (which I do).
And I have read the portions that supposedly go into the reasons for Tyrion's loyalty to Jaime, obviously. Jaime betrayed him in the matter of his marriage--lied to him about his wife being a whore. He lied to him their entire lives about that. I'd say Tyrion's loyalty is very much misplaced.
Edit: I rather doubt that he made more than if he had sold them for regular movies. Considering their best-seller status, that was pretty inevitable in my view. I have some hope that HBO may do a better job with them than a regular movie company though.
Edit: Of course, you're not taking the debate seriously, IB. Neither am I. It's fun arguing these things. This is strictly for the fun of it. 
One more edit: It's a lot of comfort to me to read With Morning Comes Mistfall which he published about 30 years ago (nominated for Hugo I think) and see how much he's improved over the years. Because reading his writing in SoIaF makes me whimper with jealousy.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 24, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 24, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited July 24, 2008).]
quote:
I have some hope that HBO may do a better job with them than a regular movie company though.
Did you check out the links? Martin's writing the scripts. Apparently, it's going to be like Rome, which waswell done, and A Game of Thrones will be season one. Martin is also co producing, so I have more confidence that it will be awesome than I would if Hollywood hacked...I mean, got hold of it. I might actually have to get HBO if that's the case (and start watching TV).
For that I'll get HBO.
So, I think there is a general concensus that someone we thought was an antagonist can be shifted to a protagonist. Some of the traits that came up to do this are loyalty and love. Anything else that has helped moved your thinking and why? With what characters did the attempted reinventing fail with you for and why? What makes us want the "bad guy" to win?
IB - the original Dark Knight comics were very dark. He wasn't the Adam West goody goody Batman. I actually like that the movies are moving closer to the original Dark Knight model, but haven't seen the newest yet.
quote:
Annepin, what's the difference in your mind?
Between redemption and sympathy? For me, redemption means the negative action or quality of the character has been canceled out. He or she is now the hero, not just in literary terms, but in the sort of good vs. evil terms. Sympathy simply means that I like the character more despite his flaws because I understand where he or she is coming from.
The traits that would attract me are loyalty, a strict code of ethics, even if it's not necessarily the ethics of the rest of the culture, compassion toward animals and/ or kids (yes, I'm a sucker), intelligence, a willingness to learn and adapt based on new information they have. One of the classic redemptions seems to be a character who is out to get money or whatever, but quickly realizes they actually do care about other things. This model fits Han Solo and Mal.
Jaime for me isn't redeemed, just more sympathetic because I see him changing, but not necessarily changing enough. Through Brienne he's beginning to feel compassion etc. but he has a long way to go. The loss of his hand, in my mind, just gives him an excuse to whine and feel sorry for himself, though in a way it's that which provides the inciting incident for him to reassess himself, simply because the things he took pride in he could no longer do. Admittedly, I'm a bit fuzzy on the events of the third book.
The Annikin character for me was a failed redemption, if that were Lucas's goal. Partly because the movies were just so awful. But even knowing where he comes from we see only how he choose the dark side.
I don't know about the original Batman series, but I know the Dark Knight movies are based on Frank Miller's series, which is excellent, and I think an interesting look at the issue of redemption. In The Dark Knight Returns, Wayne is by no means a purely heroic, sympathetic character. He's driven to kill the baddies by a psychosis almost as strong as that which drives the baddies to kill innocents. Miller pushes the borders of ambiguity all the time. Yet Wayne continues to be a sympathetic character because he's so driven, he does have such strong ethics of his own.
Jayne in my mind isn't redeemed, just rendered more sympathetic. But he was also the funnest character of the lot, I always thought.
I'm coming up short on book examples of redemption...
Irredeemable events:
Rape, torture, killing children, killing for its own sake.
It's like Tim Vigil's Faust, but he's far more insane. That's the premise, a delusional psychotic (our hero) is in a mental institution, and two doctors work with him. One he falls in love with, the other tries to murder him. he breaks free, and starts to see any thug-like criminal, the murderous doctor or and authorities that try to restrain him as demons. We are in his PoV, so it is illustrated for us. Reality and psychosis blur, and by the end, we don't know if the devil he's fighting is real or imagined. Theough are hero cuts his way through his enemies, we still root for him (again he's exceedingly mistreated).
But someone above mentioned murdering children and ... that gave me very profound chills. It is hard for me to stand by my ideal in the face of such a powerful counter example. Children represent something so ... pure to me, and seeing them ruined in any way drives me to insane levels of berserker rage.
But suppose he lived on, and through the course of his life he changed, and it cripples him to think of what they did, and he devotes the rest of his life to serving others as a fraction of his penance. Perhaps he can never be fully redeemed because he can never fully take back his actions, but he can become a good person again, can't he?
Anyway, the worse the "crime" the harder the redemption.
There was a Xena Warrior Princess where one of her freinds/former lovers was just as cold blooded and ruthless as she was before she realized what she was doing was wrong. He only made the decision to redeem himself in the last act (sacrificing himself to save an innocent) and wasn't allowed to move on to the Elysian Fields because he hadn't done enough good to offset the prior evil.
Spoiler - Final Xena Episode
Actually, she's a good example. The series starts after she's reformed and trying to do good BUT she was a very evil person for a very long time. When she was a warlord, she was trying to rule the world. She slaughtered innocents, and villages because she could.
Despite this, we liked her in the series because she's trying to reform, she's formed real friendships and cares about others.
In the last episode, learn that her carelessness, hatred and grief destroyed an entire city. Without her final death, the souls that were lost by her actions could never sleep.To redeem that act, she refuses to be resurrected.
end Spoiler
Dracula could be redeemed if he saw what he did as wrong and wanted forgiveness. He'd have to pay a HUGE price for it, but, I think it's possible.
As a culture, we agree that some acts can only be repaid or redeemed by death.
The premise is: if you originally believe a person is the antagonist or they are just plain "unlikeable" can your view of them be shifted by what they do, suffer or experience?
I do think that you put your finger on one of the problems with Jaime's "redemption." I don't think he ever is shown as having learned that what he has done is wrong.
Is there not, in the moment of her death, just the slightest twang of the heartstrings for the pathetic nature of Snow White's wicked queen? Sure she gets what's coming to her, but a life wasted is a sad thing.
Also, on the topic of sympathetic characters:
A sympathetic character is not necessarily one we feel sorry for or 'sympathize' with. A sympathetic character is one we can 'relate to' on some level.
Any good villain is one that the reader can relate to, and any villain we can relate to is one we can redeem in our minds, one we can cry for when he gets his comeuppance. Just as no well-structured hero is all good, no well-structured villain is all bad, or a cardboard cutout evil figure with no redeeming qualities. That kind of antagonist is for original fairy tales that lack characterization basics such as character motivation.
So, yes, we can cry for Eponine because we can relate to her, even the dark side of her, because we know her. She is in us on some level. She makes choices that we might make given the same set of circumstances.
I have to disagree specifically and generally. I wrote an essay about this here: http://www.theonlyorthodoxy.com/2008/05/04/dracula-a-treatise-on-chastity/
There is a special class of characters that are unredeemable because they are more than mere story actors--they are symbols. They cannot be redeemed, because the acts and attitude necessary for redemption would destroy their symbolic, and thus their actual, literary existence. Dracula is a foremost member of this special class of character. He is a literary symbol of completely unrestrained desire. The moment Dracula would desire redemption, he would no longer be Dracula, and the novel would lose the bulk of its symbolic and thematic value.
But in terms of real life, suppose Dracula was a real person and not some kind of literary symbol. And suppose he made efforts to "repent" to change his ways and seek to undo all his evils as best he can. And feels absolute remorse for his wickedness. Is he still forever unredeemable?
I will continue to kick myself over the word "redeeming" in the title to this post. Also note, I said "unlikable" not evil. Anyway . . .
Zero -
I don't think Dracula'd be forever unredeemable based on your "facts." The novel wouldn't be the novel we know if he was seeking redemption but, that's a different issue.
Dracula has a reason for accepting the bargain to become a vampire. That reason is, to me, a potential pathway to redemption. J sees Dracula as a symbol of unrestrained desire. I tend to see him as a symbol of the lenghts people will go for love. Maybe the two views aren't that far apart. Either way, and not to provoke the symbolism discussion here, if his motives and reactions were more fleshed out, couldn't he become the protagonist?
Snape, from Harry Potter, might be a good example. He was unlikeable. He was an antagonist in most of the books. There were times you wondered if he was evil. But, in the end, did you like him? Was he a protagonist by the end of the series? Did you want him to finish the series in some sort of truce/peace with Harry? Did you want him to get the girl? Any girl? Did you buy the attempts to recast him from the first book through the last? Why or why not?
Your essay can be no longer than 20 pages, and mind 70% of your grade is dependant in your essay.
KF, Snape was actually my favorite character throughout the entire series, because I identified early on that he was "good inside" but playing the fence out of dangerous necessity. It's a real crime that his death was so stupid and meaningless. He should have died, certainly, but in a more meaningful way. What a waste of what was perhaps her best character.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited July 30, 2008).]