I’ve been thinking about the whole discourse of “character X won’t/shouldn’t get redeemed because not every villain is Zuko!” vs “wtf why is Zuko the only villain allowed to have a redemption arc??”
—and I’ve finally realized what truly bothers me about it, far more than any wrangling over Just How Bad Was Zuko In Season One, or Does This Character Parallel Zuko.
Here’s the thing: Zuko’s redemption arc is justly held up as an example of really good writing. What makes it so amazing, though is not how Zuko started out. Yes, Season One does a good job of showing that Zuko has some good qualities and that he’s the legitimate victim of abuse. His reluctant rescue of Aang in “The Blue Spirit” suggests that he could be a good ally if he chose.
But while all that effectively invites the viewer to wish for for his redemption… Season One Zuko does nothing to “earn” a redemption arc. He’s not interested in being redeemed! He’s still totally devoted to his father and to Fire Nation ideology. He still has absolutely no concern about hurting people to get what he wants, so long as they aren’t Fire Nation citizens.
What makes Zuko’s arc amazing is the way it develops over the next two seasons. It’s the way he is shown slowly and plausibly learning to question the way he’s been raised, agonizing over his choices, making progress and then backtracking. When he finally resolves to defy his father and support Aang, the lengthy emotional journey that got him there makes that moment feel earned, and not just like “hey presto he’s good now.” And then his integration into the Gaang is also slow, and also earned. The heroes don’t all instantly forget what he’s done, or trust him, or like him. He has to do the work of proving that he’s changed and doing his best to make some recompense for what he’s done.
That is why Zuko’s redemption arc is so good. Not because of how it starts, but how it develops and concludes. And that’s why I get so frustrated when he’s hauled out as a talking point in redemption arc discourse. Because nine times out of ten, the argument isn’t about judging the quality of somebody’s completed redemption arc; it’s about whether somebody (whose story is still unfinished) can/should get one. And that’s….comparing eggs and a cup of flour to a fully-baked cake. You can say, “this character isn’t as well set-up for a future redemption as Zuko was in Season One,” and that may be true or false, but it’s a coherent line of literary analysis. But dismissing a character as unredeemable because they’re not yet in the same place that Zuko was in Season Three misses out on what made Zuko’s redemption arc so remarkable in the first place.
tl;dr not every villain is Zuko, including Zuko himself before he went through all the character development that redeemed him.
theartofmadeline
annaxmalina
dededos
snowghoul
kaledo-art
