At What Point Does a Character Become Irredeemable

Ah the story is written. Kind of. It's in a bit of the middle section as all of the drama plays out in life. To then slow down into resolutions of some sort. Each character has a personal developing arch that is being followed along.

 

I'm not really seeing how that makes it any less irredeemable.

 

So do you have a critique partner or developmental editor? It sounds like a good dev. editor would help you to work out how to redeem your characters.

 

Oh more or less that I am not portraying her as a monster like most fiction portrays them as predatory psycho strangers.

Yes I do.

 

To be fair, anything can be redeemed given the right opportunity and motivations. That having been said, it is very hard to come up with those right moments and incentives. It all depends on the factors and situations involved.

 

But that's sort of my point. Acquaintances, relatives, and thought-to-be-friends can be predatory monsters. The "strangers" part isn't needed.

 

It depends partly on who you ask. For some, all that it takes to find redemption is to regret one's actions, while for others redemption requires righting a wrong which was committed. Some believe redemption just isn't possible at all for certain acts. Religious beliefs often play into what people believe constitutes redemption for a given deed. From a Christian perspective, we are all equally sinful as people because of our capacity to commit sinful deeds, regardless of the deeds we committed. If you envy someone's possessions, it's the same as theft. If you feel hate towards someone, it's the same as murder. Yet if one believes in Jesus's sacrifice and has the will to become a better person, that's all it takes to find redemption. I am not a religious man, though, so that's a perspective I cannot share.

The obvious question is what exactly is redemption? How can we discuss what it is when not everyone's on the same track with this topic? That's why I've cited the Oxford Dictionary definition of redemption, which is "the action of regaining or gaining possession of something in exchange for payment, or clearing a debt." So if we go by the definition as standardised in most dictionaries, redemption requires repaying a wrong deed with a virtuous deed of equal significance. If I stole one hundred dollars from someone, I should give that person two hundred dollars in return; the one hundred dollars I took, plus another one hundred dollars for all the trouble I caused them. If I graffitied someone's fence, I should paint over all the graffitied fences within my neighbourhood as an act of penitence. The greater the wrong, the greater the right should be to balance the karmic scales.

Petty crimes are easy to rectify, but would it be possible for a character to find redemption for committing rape or murder? How about if that character was responsible for genocide against thousands of people? There are just some wrongs that cannot possibly be made right, and that's where those actions are considered to be irredeemable. This character can regret those actions all they like, but regardless of how they feel about them, they are still going to live with those actions for the rest of your days.

 

Mmmm, BUT. Media portrays them as Strangers and Serial Killers or Murderers or Psychos.

The point is to portray it as none of those things. She's not even a predator. She takes something too far and pushes too far, and recognizes it and stops herself, but the damage might already be done.

 

As a writer, speaking about characters, I'd say 'redeemable' is tied in with genuine repentance and/or realisation and acceptance of the wrongs done. I suppose the notion of why the wrong deed was done in the first place must also come into it.

If a person orders the killing of thousands of people because the person GENUINELY believes this action will save millions of lives, it makes them more redeemable than somebody who orders the killing of thousands of people to make themselves look like a big hero and get them elected to high office, or will bring financial gain. The actions are superficially the same, but the motivation is not.

In other words, did our fearless leaders order the invasion of Iraq because they genuinely believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to unleash them on the world within a 45-minute window of time? Or did they simply tell people this was the reason, when in actual fact they knew damn fine there were no such weapons, and actually wanted to get greedy mitts on Iraqi oil?

The first instance would be a grave mistake, which the perpetrator needs to acknowledge and make what reparations are possible, in order to be a redeemable character. The second is an evil deed, which really can't be 'forgiven' in a story sense.

 

One of my favorite books/characters is told in a kind of reverse order. You see a character doing horrible things, but for the greater good (think DeNiro at the end of "The Mission"), but is clearly haunted by....

something.

Then, at the very end of the book, you learn what he's haunted by, and it's his own really fucking amazingly egregious act.

When he was young.

And you are left to decide whether or not he's redeemed himself.

 

Try watching Lifetime, or WE tv, or any other media aimed at women & run by women.

 

Yeah, totally not seeing how the non-stranger aspect makes the offense less bad. But discussing that in detail would probably be off track for the thread.

 

Say what you will about the budget for Lifetime to hire decent actors/writers in general, but the understanding that most violent predators are able to pass as normal people - the emphasis on the fact that this type of violence tends to be at the hands of somebody you trust - is something I believe Lifetime does a lot better than the mainstream.

 

Written by women, produced by women, delivered to women. It is the woman's perspective, instead of society's perspective. Lifetime movies tend to be more frightening deep down because they tap into that real fear we have that we will be hurt by the ones closest to us, and then shunned by those closest to us, as happens to many women. They really tap into a lot of primal fears we have, both as men and as women. The real primal fears, not the ones we have been told we have (by traditionally male dominated society).

 

I haven’t read the responses so far so I apologise if this has already been covered. I think somebody could be described as irredeemable if they are unwilling or unable to atone for their actions.

Somebody may be unwilling to atone if they feel no remorse, whether because they do not believe they need to be remorseful, or because they don’t care about the effects of their actions. It is possible for most people to feel remorse at a later date, so it would be difficult to describe anybody as irredeemable by these parameters, since we can’t predict how somebody will feel at a later date.

Perhaps it would be useful to consider therefore which actions cannot be atoned for. If somebody carried out such an action, then they would be irredeemable since it would be impossible for them to atone for their actions even if they felt remorse. Which actions qualify as impossible to atone for is a matter of opinion. Some things would seem objectively to fit these criteria though. I can’t help but think of Ian Watkins, who was in the news again recently. I do not believe there is anything he could do to atone for what he did, regardless of whether or not he felt remorse.

 

Just saw this:

One of my lead protagonists was raped when she was 15, and I have spent over a year a) studying internet articles on how to portray the effects of rape correctly, and b) asking actual trauma survivors if they would be willing to go through my notes and tell me what I'm missing (needing to be even more careful because she grows up to be a serial killer).

One of the worst things that a writer can possibly do is have one character rape another for the effect that it would have on the rapist's character development rather than on the survivor's.

 

These are 2 great points. To @mashers point- I have been on a 20 year journey with this very thing. I feel no remore for what I did to people. I feel no remorse for what their families went through. Yet I am trying to find my place in a society I preyed on for a long time. It is difficult knowing you have wronged society and don't care but still want to be part of it, while still carrying your views and feelings that do not match society in general.

 

The worst thing a writer can do—in my eyes—is writing anything just for shock value, without respect.

@Simpson17866 : Thank you for doing what you did.

 

... Wow.

Thank you for sharing.

Gladly. It was never easy to read about - it's not supposed to be: if it was easy for me to read, there'd have to be something wrong with me - but for as long as I've known about rape, I've been hearing garbage about how it allegedly works, and if I'm going to write something that shows how this garbage is wrong, then I need to make absolutely certain that I get as much context as possible so that debunking one myth doesn't accidentally introduce another one.

I'm always looking for feedback on my notes about the character so that I can do my books about her right. I don't suppose you'd be interested in taking a look?

 

I don't think it's as simple as drawing a line and saying "This far! No further!" That's too simplistic.

Look at The Color Purple:

The character of Albert (a.k.a., Mister) would seem to be a pretty irredeemable person. Celie leaves the hell that is her "father's" home only to enter into a different hell with Mister. He doesn't even treat her as a person. Like, literally. She's his property for all intents and purposes. Celie becomes dismantled by what happens to her; or she dismantles herself in order to survive.*

In the end, when Celie manages to coalesce and reform herself**, Albert is redeemed, not because he deserves it. Albert is redeemed because Celie needs this in order for her final and complete healing to take effect. It's for Celie, not Albert.

But... if I hadn't read the book uncounted times (I love it) or seen the film even more times (omg, if you love to cry this film is for you), and you described Albert to me, all the things he does and puts Celie through, out of context, without knowing or understanding his purpose in the story, I would tell you he is completely irredeemable.

* I have a pet theory that all the women in The Color Purple are actually all symbolic facets of Celie. This is why Nettie isn't just taken away, she is whisked off to a place that to Celie is a fantasy realm, Africa, which Nettie describes so beautifully and poetically to Celie. Nettie is the idealized version of Celie. She is beautiful and bright and alive. She is Celie's happiness.

** As much as Spielberg changed the story for the film version, I think he understood my above theory very well. At the end of the film, just before Nettie, Adam, Olivia, and Tashi arrive, all the main characters in Celie's life are all at her house enjoying a bucolic afternoon, all dressed elegantly, having lemonade there in Celie's yard and on her porch. They represent Celie having gathered the pieces of herself back together and she's almost at peace, but notice that Celie is inside the house while everyone else is outside. There's still a final separation to heal, and that's when you see them, like angels in jewel toned splendor at the end of the driveway. Her family, her happiness returned to her. It's both literal and deeply symbolic. She is whole again.

 

Thank you. And while I agree it was simplistic, I simplified the argument down because I don't really know how to bring up the subject without triggering anyone. With your comments, I will give more context to the character in terms of redeemability

In context the character I am talking about, she was born with a silver spoon in her hand, her parents rarely enforce law mainly because they are rarely around to do so. Right now Carmen is seeking to fill and emotional void and she doesn't really know how to do so. Her character is unraveling at the seams because she doesn't know what she's missing. The character she is going to hurt is probably the only time she has had a genuine emotion towards someone beyond not wanting to be alone and filling in where she feels emptiness. She's actually a lot more upset that he left her and won't forgive her over one action than she lets off. Originally its just about getting back at him. She just wanted to tease him. In no way were her intentions to go as far as she does or as extreme as the actions she does. But she does. And its her action that gets her to realize she needs help. But she's already burned her bridges with her friends because of previous actions and now this one, that even if she recognized it, they are too burned to actually believe she sees it now. Which ends up making her spiral downwards even further because it widens open that emotional void she filled with bullshit rather than genuineness to her only wants and desires. She then has to figure out herself and be able to recognize what she is missing that makes her the person she has become.

In the context of the scene it's more or less some forced kissing and light groping, she stops herself when she realizes that she's gone too far.

 

And how do you plan to emphasize the effect that her assaulting him has on him?

 

Most of the time I believe this is true, but the MCs of From Blood to Roses have close enough moral codes as to be identical, which is a conscious authorial decision I made. For the very specific circumstances of my story, I wanted to create two characters who would kill anyone - not almost anyone, but anyone - for the right price with no moral dilemma. In the first draft, one of my MC's Kelan describes killing a near to term pregnant woman, and neither he or the other MC find this morally objectionable. They would both kill anyone in the list above and go along their merry way without a shred of guilt. The method of killing is entirely based on the best one to get the job done, not personal preference or any type of ethics. When they meet, every facet of their lives revolves around being the best hitman, and whatever needs to get done they do without compunction. The challenge for me was to get readers to care about these two guys falling in love when they're both incredibly unsympathetic characters, but according to my publisher and editor I've managed to swing it. I guess we'll see when it's released and the reviews start coming in.

But like I said, FBTR is written around a very specific, unusual type of situation. In everything else I've ever written and probably will write, my character's moral codes vary based on their life experiences.

 

I often feel like the nameless character wandering a wasteland looking for that one thing that will set him free. The pennance I have given myself is to care for an elderly woman and protect her from her predatory family.

Interseting. I hope it does well for you.