Last TADC discourse post, I promise! Though it is a very long and rambly one, about redemption archs and accountability and other such things. Jax-centric.
There's this conversation happening where some people will say "Jax was never held accountable. She should have faced more consequences for her abuse of the other characters" and other people will say, "She abstracted, which is basically death. What more consequence do you want?"
I think there is a disconnect here as to what is meant by "consequence" or "accountability." Consequence is not synonymous with "suffering," and from a narrative standpoint, death is not necessarily a consequence. It can be, but it really depends on context.
For instance, if you have a story about a parent who is emotionally abusive to their adult children and then the parent gets a terminal illness and dies a slow and painful death, this isn't really accountability or consequence, because the illness had nothing to do with the abuse. It's just the blind cruelty of the universe. If anything, it makes the abusive character more sympathetic because they're now suffering even more than the people they hurt. That's not to say that telling a story like this is inherently bad; there'd be plenty of stuff to explore there in terms of the confusing emotions the children would feel in this situation. Succession does stuff with a premise like this in terms of Logan Roy's increasingly poor health throughout the series, while he continues to fuck with his kids' heads. Logan suffers a lot as a result of his stroke. But this is not what people mean when they say "X should have faced consequences for their actions."
What many people wanted with Jax was, I think, a scene like the one we got with Caine, with all the characters venting to his face about how much harm his actions have caused. What we got instead was Jax abstracting off-screen, which is not cathartic or satisfying in the same way. Which, again, is not to say that it was the wrong decision from a writing standpoint. I think it would've been repetitive to have two such confrontations. But for the people who specifically wanted to get that moment with Jax, I get why they are dissatisfied...especially since Jax's cruelty was a lot more pointed and deliberate than Caine's.
I've tried to avoid getting too in-the-weeds with discussing the reveal of Jax as trans in the finale and how it intersects with this conversation about "accountability," but I do find this particular intersection of discourse to be very frustrating. I've said before that I think the reveal was done well and tactfully, and I still think that. It also doesn't fundamentally change much about the character. We already knew, pre ep9, that Jax had some kind of secret pain or struggle which was shaping their behavior. The finale filled in the blank on what it was, but the secret could have been something else, or remained completely unrevealed, and the character's arch would have been fundamentally the same: it is an arch about self-isolation and nihilism and using cruel humor as a mask and a coping device, and any number of secret pains could serve as the grain of sand for forming this sort of toxic pearl. But the reveal of Jax as a woman (or at least some form of transfem) has brought a gender-politics charge to the whole discussion around her, which is unavoidable but (I think) is also kind of a tiresome red herring.
And I want to reiterate here that I do not think this is "bad rep" or that it should be taboo to portray queer characters as abusive or as bad people. Queer characters should be allowed to showcase the entire range of human experiences. Women can be abusers too, while still being complex people with reasons for being that way, even if that doesn't absolve them, etc. If anything I find it refreshing to find a nuanced portrayal of a female abuser.
But responding to "Jax should have been held accountable and faced more consequences" with, "You just hate trans people," or, "You just hate women" is intellectually dishonest. It's a cope. Yes, there are people out there who will simp for a problematic male character while not granting the same leniency to a problematic female character, but the thing here is, most of the people who hate the character also hated the character pre-reveal, when they still believed that Jax was a man. Because egg representation is kinda rare in general and because "problematic" eggs are especially rare in fiction, this is a particular, unique case...which is, honestly, what makes it interesting, but which also breeds a lot of moon logic discourse like "you just hate this character because she's a woman even though you thought she was a man until two seconds ago."
Tldr: "I wish this abuser had apologized for her actions instead of dying anticlimactically off-screen" is not bigotry. It's not a case of "death is too good for her." It's like the abusive parent dying of cancer before the kids get a chance to confront them and ask for an acknowledgment of all the harm that they caused. It's the denial of that validation and the frustration that it brings.
I don't exactly "like" Jax but I'm not claiming any moral high ground over people who do. I've liked plenty of "bad" or morally gray characters. Jax's crimes are small potatoes next to some of my blorbos and their massive body counts. My type is "has an anti tag." I mean, Caine is really more my type than Jax but Jax has a way of stealing the spotlight (in the show and in fandom), so here I am talking about her, Again. All this to say: you can like Jax while acknowledging that the bulk of the fan hatred toward Jax is a result of Jax's actions and choices, not her identity.