crosspost: Vader and redemption

[anghraine]

Vader’s death is not the inherent moral price of his redemption.

There are … a lot of the problems with that idea, both in this specific case and with regard to redemption arcs in general. But the most basic problem is the failure to distinguish between in-story morality and the reality of stories as artificial constructions. While “they’re not real” is important, the thing I really want to emphasize is constructions.

There is an extremely well-documented reason that Vader had to die, and that is this:

George Lucas was burned-out by the time ROTJ was in the works, personally and professionally. Instead of his original idea of an open-ended universe that would carry the story on indefinitely, he decided to wrap up the Rebellion storylines in one movie. This entailed resolving arcs that were initially intended to develop over much longer periods of time.

e.g.:

Luke’s mysterious sister had been envisioned as a completely new character, raised as a Jedi on the other end of the galaxy. That was way too much material to introduce, develop, and resolve in a single film (that already had a lot on the narrative plate). The character was cut and Luke’s sister became Leia, an already-established character who wouldn’t have to be worked into the Skywalker narrative (and, frustratingly, wasn’t).

Something similar happened with Vader’s arc. The earlier idea was that Vader would come to a state of repentance, his antagonism to the Emperor shifting from a desire to take over/improve on his role, to a desire to work against the evil he now recognized and had contributed to. This time, he’d seek Luke out to get his help on this sort of atonement journey. 

Buuuut there was no time for an extended redemption arc, so instead his redemption became the climax of the film. And when a character’s arc ends in redemption, yeah, redemption = death is the simplest way to resolve all the attendant issues. In-story, nobody has to deal with the complications of a living Vader—someone who has committed any number of crimes, someone not really on anyone’s side but Luke’s at that point. Navigating all that would require far more than the limited space at the end of ROTJ to be remotely satisfying. Killing him off eliminates all that.

Vader has to die because he is a fictional character in a constructed narrative that ran into a time crunch. It’s typical with any narrative that makes the redemption an end-of-the-show climax, for the same reason as Vader. Redemptions placed earlier, or extended past the end, are much more able and likely to deal with the “what now?” of a redeemed villain.

Tl;dr—the Redemption = Death trope is a convenience for writers, not an imperative.

Comments

[kungfunurse]

<3

[redrikki]

Vader's death only works as a redemption if you use the oldest definition of the word. It once meant to buy back, as in to redeem a slave. Vader buys his freedom back. He sold it in the name of protecting a family member and he buys it back doing the same. It's not a moral redemption at all. It's a reclamation of his own freedom.

[anghraine]

I don't see it that way at all, honestly. I mean, I do think it functions in the ancient sense, but I also think it's an entirely conventional and unsubtle redemption narrative—indeed, one of the most iconic ones in modern culture. I don't see redemption the way that a lot of fandom these days does, though.

[redrikki]

There is a distressing tendency to think of redemption as a one and done rather than as a process of changing behavior and making amends. Vader may be a classic, but the best redemption arc ever goes to Zuko in Avatar the Last Airbender. That boy out in the work!

[anghraine]

Then I'm definitely participating in that distressing tendency, and I'm pretty sure that George Lucas meant to as well. An unsatisfactory redemption arc is still a redemption arc.

Personally, I think of redemption purely in terms of the internal uplifting of an individual from a state of moral degeneracy, regardless of whether they manage to do anything about it (i.e., as opposed to atonement). I think that's a reasonably common view of redemption? Like, when we say someone has no redeeming qualities, we don't mean that they don't have enough good qualities to counterbalance their misdeeds; we mean that they don't have any good in them at all. Redemption is Step 1 on the evil detox plan and a redemption arc is about getting them at least that far. Usually it doesn't go much further, though it's cool when it does. Meanwhile, atonement is ... like, Step 10.

Zuko has a top-tier redemption arc that incorporates atonement. Not many can compare to that.

[redrikki]

That is a very Christian view. In the Jewish tradition, you can't be redeemed without taking action. No atonement, no redemption.

[anghraine]

Okay, but ... uh, I don't mean to be rude, but this is my blog. I'm going to use terms as I understand them and typically hear them used. I'm particularly going to do so when that usage is also the creator's. I'm not sure what you're after.

[redrikki]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as an argument or to say that you're wrong. I'm just trying to explain the source of our difference of opinion. We're coming from two very different cultural contexts. Christians can find Jesus on their death beds and be redeemed. Jews have to make amends to the living before they can get right with God. I agree that George was also coming from a Christian perspective. It's just a concept I struggle with because, to me, redemption equals death often feels like a truncated arc.

[anghraine]

Ah, I see. We're good, then. :)

I actually do agree that redemption = death is frustrating as a trope. Narratively speaking, it's the easy way out, since the redemptee escapes consequences for their previous behaviour and the others don't have to deal with the problem of ... what do you do with Darth Vader now? That original idea of Anakin becoming an atoning figure with Luke's help is much more appealing than what we actually got (though what we got is still very powerful imo). But most creators don't make space for that sort of thing.

[meridian_rose]

I hadn't really thought of it that way but it makes sense. I've come to hate the redemption=death trope because honestly, what's the point? Where's the benefit in someone wanting to redeem themselves if they have to die in the process? Not much a redemption, really, not much encouragement for someone to change! It really is a convenience as you say, and kind of lazy!