![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In general, I am not a fan of redemption arcs.
They are often superficial in the extreme, driven by convenience or plot devices or "hot (white) dude can do no wrong." I am so sick of "but it wasn't really bad because nobody the audience cares about got killed!" I am so sick of the false equivalence of "but Character X did [very minor bad thing], so they're the real villain, and if you try to hold [huge evil thing] against Character Y you're just a hypocrite!"
Redemption in real life doesn't mean the bad thing never happened. It doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that hot white dudes get a pass for doing evil. It doesn't mean that you just chuck all moral judgments out the window. It's not a plot device, or convenience. It's about someone recognizing they have done wrong, accepting the just consequences of their actions, and making amends for them. It's not something that you can do over the course of a single event. Which means that if you're doing it as part of a TV show, you have to have it as a long arc not just popping up where convenient, but driving the action for that character. Or you have to have them die.
So, much as I love Black Lightning, when Khalil Payne went bad, I did not want them to do a redemption arc for him, because it is so seldom done well. Despite how incredibly awesome the show is, I did not trust them to do a redemption arc. (I was wrong, and I should have known better. If you're not watching Black Lightning, you should be.) And then they did a redemption arc for Khalil, and it hit every point I ever wanted in a redemption arc. Man, was I rooting for him.
And then they killed him.
I am still mad about that. It works, it was well done, don't get me wrong. But if every pouty whiny mediocre white villain can have their crimes swept under the rug and then live happy ever after, why can't Khalil make genuine amends for the harm he did, work to undo it, and then get on with his life? Why did he have to die?
They are often superficial in the extreme, driven by convenience or plot devices or "hot (white) dude can do no wrong." I am so sick of "but it wasn't really bad because nobody the audience cares about got killed!" I am so sick of the false equivalence of "but Character X did [very minor bad thing], so they're the real villain, and if you try to hold [huge evil thing] against Character Y you're just a hypocrite!"
Redemption in real life doesn't mean the bad thing never happened. It doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that hot white dudes get a pass for doing evil. It doesn't mean that you just chuck all moral judgments out the window. It's not a plot device, or convenience. It's about someone recognizing they have done wrong, accepting the just consequences of their actions, and making amends for them. It's not something that you can do over the course of a single event. Which means that if you're doing it as part of a TV show, you have to have it as a long arc not just popping up where convenient, but driving the action for that character. Or you have to have them die.
So, much as I love Black Lightning, when Khalil Payne went bad, I did not want them to do a redemption arc for him, because it is so seldom done well. Despite how incredibly awesome the show is, I did not trust them to do a redemption arc. (I was wrong, and I should have known better. If you're not watching Black Lightning, you should be.) And then they did a redemption arc for Khalil, and it hit every point I ever wanted in a redemption arc. Man, was I rooting for him.
And then they killed him.
I am still mad about that. It works, it was well done, don't get me wrong. But if every pouty whiny mediocre white villain can have their crimes swept under the rug and then live happy ever after, why can't Khalil make genuine amends for the harm he did, work to undo it, and then get on with his life? Why did he have to die?
