[I wrote a whole-ass essay with citations here Iām sorry]
[Also, if anyone has better/other examples (or any other input!) I very much welcome discussion and contribution. Ā Iām working from an extremely limited point of view myself, here, and Iām very aware of that.]
There are potentially infinite ways to write a narrative arc that takes a character from antagonist to protagonist, just as there are potentially infinite ways a religion or culture can align its values.Ā And I am way too long-winded to be allowed to just keep talking indefinitely.Ā So Iām going to limit myself to two topics:
Option 1: get rid ofĀ āsin is in the heart, not in the deedā
āNo matter how clean we are on the outside, if the inside, the nature, the heart, remains unchangedā¦Ā we will return to what we came from and once more be filthy both inside and out.ā -Ā 2 Peter 2:20-22
āI say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.ā - Matthew 5:27-30
This is a general Christian concept: an evil thought is as bad, and as tainting, as an evil action.Ā A Christian-based antagonist-to-protagonist arc, then, will typically focus far less on good actions than on good thoughts.Ā But this isnāt true for all cultures - and is frankly a minority view!
Letās look at, hmmā¦ Loki.Ā A huge portion of myths with Loki in them follow a very specific arc: Loki does something dodgy; it causes problems; Loki fixes the problems, not only saving the day but leaving everyone far better off than they were at the beginning of the story.Ā Did Loki have a change of heart?Ā Nope!Ā Theyāll be the exact same trickster bastard in the next myth.Ā But at the beginning, they were the one causing problems (antagonist/villain).Ā Ā And at the end, they were the one actively improving things and saving the dayĀ (hero).
Lokiās a particularly useful example, because a) this is a very standard arc for a trickster deity, which exists in darn near every polytheistic religion and b) we can specifically see what happens when Christians interact with this sort of narrative.Ā They recast Loki - who normally ends up helping people, and in some myths is just straight-up benevolent beginning to end - as theirĀ āSatanā equivalent.
For a pop culture example ofĀ āwas doing bad deeds, now doing good deedsā as an antagonist-to-protagonist arc, I suggest Spike, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.Ā [Weāre going to ignore the end of season 6 and all of season 7, because things went off the rails there.]Ā Spikeās arc was: super evil villain; villain who helps the heroes a couple times for selfish reasons; villain? who is physically prevented from villainous actions; villain?? who starts doing heroic actions purely as an outlet for violence; villain??? who protects specific innocents because he cares about them as individuals; villain???? who does heroic things because he doesnāt want people he loves to hate him/ be disappointed; hero whoās willing to sacrifice his own life to save others because, darn it, heās in the habit now.
He didnāt have a ācome-to-jesus momentā where he regretted the centuries of torture and murder and then mope about in self-flagellation and do metaphorical Hail-Marys to pay for his crimes.Ā He did go from the primary villain of the series at his introduction, to a primary hero by the end, over a period of several years with intricate and engaging character development all the way through.
Option 2: Rehabilitation, not Retribution
āGodly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation.ā - 2 Corinthians 7:10
āWhen the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, āBrothers, what shall we do?āĀ Ā Peter replied, āRepent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.ā ā - Acts 2:37-38
āIf we donāt feel some sort of immediate guilt, then our hearts are not sensitive to what God desires from us. If we just move on with no second thought then it is likely that we are seeing grace as a license to sin.ā - pursuegod.org
āI will speak of that second region, where the human spirit is purged, and becomes fit to climb to Heaven.ā - Danteās Purgatorio, Canto I
āThe biblical approach of equivalence (lex talionis) and nineteenth-century British theories of intolerable wrongs, deterrence, and retribution (vergeltung) form the dominant theories of punishment in Canadian society.Ā They try to ensure that certain individuals physically suffer for their human weaknesses, conduct, and mistakesā¦ Most Aboriginal peoples have never understood the exotic passion of Eurocentric society for labeling people as criminals and then making them suffer.ā - Justice As Healing: Indigenous Ways, which looks like a spectacular book
The character suffering is a primary feature of theĀ āredemption arcā as characterized in my original post.Ā They should be absolutely miserable from the inside out -Ā ācut to the heart;ā full ofĀ āgodly sorrowā.Ā And then they should suffer from the outside in, as payment for their crimes.
Normally, of course, a villain should end the storyĀ āin hellā.Ā (Dead, imprisoned, fate-worse-than-death - somehow punished.)Ā So in order for that to not happen, our aspiring ex-villain must go instead through Purgatory.Ā Iāll use the visual from Dante: his Purgatory is an near-infinitely-tall mountain up which a sinner must climb.Ā The sinnerās labor and suffering as he climbs cleanse his soul, leaving him worthy to enter heaven.
Likewise, in the Christian-basedĀ āredemption arcā, the ex-villain needs to not only want to do good things now, and not only regret having done bad things in the past, but to pay for having done bad things in the past.Ā The priority is not so much that there are good people doing good things; it is that people who have done bad things get punished.Ā (This is of course manifested in many ways IRL.Ā For example, the most statistically-proven-effective way to reduce the number of drug-related offenses isnāt to put addicts in prison, itās to put them in rehab; but thatās not a punishment.Ā The most statistically-proven-effective way to reduce the number of abortions isnāt outlawing abortion, itās comprehensive sex ed; but that doesnāt punish the sin of promiscuity.)
The point being, if you take out the need for Godly Sorrow followed by Purgatory in order to achieve Salvation from your narrative: you open the option for narrative arcs where the focus isnāt on people being punished for the bad they did before, but the good they do now.
Letās say we bring back theĀ āchange of heartā that we largely dropped in the previous option.Ā Now we have space for an arc that is about why they choose to change.Ā What causes them to realize what they did before was wrong?Ā What causes them to want to do something different?Ā And then what keeps them compassionate, when not caring hurts so much less?Ā What keeps them from lashing out again, when lashing out relieves their anger and hurt?
Or - what if we made our arc about healing?Ā Remember that bit about putting addicts in rehab - focusing not on punishing them, but on helping them recover from the pain and illness that caused them to do illegal things?Ā What if we do that?Ā Fictional villainy tends to come from pain; so what if, instead of causing them more pain, we help them heal from it?
The majority of indigenous cultures take this approach IRL: justice is focused around healing.Ā The goal is to heal both the person who acted out of pain or foolishness or simple human frailty, and the society or victim which that person has harmed.Ā Ā
Honestly, in terms of accessible Western media?Ā A lot of the best examples of this are in fanfic.Ā In terms of published media, though - with less of a focus on healing, superhero media do get a lot ofĀ āvillain changes heart and becomes hero, focus is that they are now doing good things and another person doing good things is good, not that they should be hurt for having been badā storylines.Ā Itās most common with team-based stories.Ā The X-Men, for instance, swap sides pretty regularly, but the important thing when theyāre saving the world is that theyāre saving the world now.Ā Not what role they played in last yearās crossover event.
For a movie example, though not a great one, see Magneto at the end of X-Men Apocalypse.Ā He realizes that continuing to do evil will result in the deaths of the only two people he still loves; has a change of heart; assists in saving the world; and then is brought home to help rebuild.Ā No retribution necessary.Ā His former partner/recent enemy is mostly just really delighted that Erikās back, and that heās happier now.Ā In Dark Phoenix, we learn Magnetoās spent the intervening time building a safe haven for persecuted mutants, complete with recycled building materials and community gardens.
It may sound like what Iām doing here is just a lot ofĀ ātake that outā.Ā If you just take out half the elements of aĀ āredemption arcā, doesnāt that automatically make it less complex and interesting and, yāknow, good?
But what Iām saying is not to take out elements.Ā Itās to ponder the necessity of requirements.Ā Give yourself - and others - more room for narrative freedom.Ā If you donāt have to fit the extremely restrictive godly sorrow-repentance-purgatory-salvation formula, imagine what other aspects of the character and the narrative you can get a chance to explore!
