#fantine and choice and her choosing the love for her daughter over her own survival

[squidproquoclarice]

Would you be able to explain your thoughts on not liking characters dying for redemption more? Like other people have said, you make things easy to understand.

All right, gather round the campfire, kids, and we’ll sing a round of Jack O’ Diamonds or Ring Dang Doo and let’s talk about the trope of “This character has done bad things, and deliberately choosing to sacrifice themselves for the survival of other people, in dying, finds their ‘redemption’.”Which can be powerful and eloquent.  The issue is when it becomes the only acceptable ending for a character with problematic actions, where it becomes an equation of “redemption=death”.  Establishing the notion that there is no redemption possible in life, that this character has done things that render them unworthy of surviving, of living, of happiness.  And that’s…kind of an issue.There’s a conflict between the viewpoints of retributive and restorative justice.  Retribution, which is more the Western legal system, and has become largely our cultural view, tends to take the notion that you can’t escape your past.  You can’t erase it.  Your sins will catch up to you, and you will pay the price for them in some kind of suffering.  Eye for an eye.  Action, consequence.  Crime, punishment.Restorative justice looks more at the balance of things.  You’ve done wrong.  What can you do to fix that specific sin to your victim, or if not, how can you make the world around you better and pay for your wrong in that way?Look, this is a moral conflict that Victor Hugo explored in detail in “Les Miserables” (and you can bet your ass that’s a very pertinent novel Arthur will be reading during his TB convalescence).  Jean Valjean is an escaped convict.  Javert is very much the retributive justice POV: you still need to pay your punishment to society.  Others, like the Bishop of Digne, tell Jean that the best way to pay for his sins is to look at the world around him, to do good, and to make it better.  Can Jean make up for being a dick to Fantine in her hour of need and helping cause her suffering and death by becoming an amazing adoptive father to her daughter?  Can he make up for his criminal past by it?  Debate at 11!This is why I love RDR, to be honest.  You have two very different men and situations, and the notion of “redemption” is handled in interesting ways for both of them.I love John Marston.  We see him now in 3 different eras, and the evolution between 1899, 1907, and 1911.  And he’s a fascinating character presenting that dilemma of an ex-criminal living a quiet life. He’s made up for his mistakes as a husband and father, but has he truly earned a peaceful life?  As of 1907, he’s still fucking up, getting into fights, taking Abigail and Jack for granted, pursuing revenge for Arthur which is the last thing the man would want.  As of 1911, I’d say “no”, he hasn’t quite earned absolution.  He’s not hurting anyone any more, and he’s a fantastic husband and dad, but he’s running from his past.  He’s not adding to the red in the ledger, but he’s not really putting any black to offset it either.  He still seems to have left the gang mostly because of it breaking apart and Dutch’s betraying him, rather than genuine soul-searching and contrition.  He goes after Bill and Javier and Dutch because he’s forced to, not because they’re hurting people.  Though I’d say by the end of RDR1, he is becoming more the man who deserves the peace he seeks.  He’s making more honorable choices to make the world around him better, helping strangers rather than looking out for only his own family.  Unfortunately, it’s too little, too late, as he’s caught in Ross’ snare and is killed to tie up loose ends.  John is a great character who can’t quite leave his past behind, or come to terms with it, and it catches up with him before he can complete that evolution.  (And man, that really sucks for Arthur, because John’s becoming a good man living a good life is what he hoped for so much.)Arthur?  Gaaaah, much as I loved John, R* found a new level of storytelling with this boah.  By the end of RDR2, yes, from a restorative justice POV, I think he’s earned that chance at a happy life.  He’s squarely faced who he is and what he’s done in the past, sincerely regrets it, recognizes he can’t directly fix many of his past actions (though damn, does he try where he can, in cases like the Downes family) but he’s actively chosen to do good.  To spread kindness and mercy, to make the world better where he can.  And I have to believe given another 30 years of life, he’d continue taking on that role of fighting for the downtrodden where he can, because this is a man who now genuinely believes.  But from a retributive justice standpoint, he still deserves to die for the things he’s done.  So therein lies the dilemma: which justice system wins?  Restorative, and the good he can do for so many, or retributive, and “making him pay”?  While I respect the tragic poetry of his sacrifice for John, I choose to believe that Arthur surviving the TB, finding a way to challenge himself to continue to be better, and doing so, and finding peace with himself, is a really profoundly meaningful ending.  Like Sister Calderon says, we’ve all lived bad lives, but to choose to love others, and to selflessly help them, makes a big difference.  So yeah, flipping over to Timeless, the notion as per the writer of the Christmas special that Garcia Flynn has “done too many bad things” and doesn’t “deserve” a happy ending so he should randomly go sacrifice himself for the happiness of Lucy and Wyatt is kinda BS-y.  He acknowledges his sins.  He fights for others, fights to try to become a good man again, without hope of personal gain for himself at this point.  He’s saved a hell of a lot of lives.  Compared to Wyatt, who’s been equally violent, hurt many people, and genuinely seems to believe his needs always take precedence, and yet “deserves” happiness including Babies Ever After, that’s really kind of a shitty reductive claim compared against the thoughtful complexity R* put into the “death via redemption” trope.In conclusion, use retributive justice where appropriate, but c’mon, let’s stop hitting the lazy button and see more restorative justice storylines for characters with “bad” pasts who are desperately trying to be better.Thank you for coming to my RED Talk.