Thinking about redemption vs. atonement in fiction: how maybe redemption narratives appeal more to folks who've faced persecution or want to be proven right, while atonement narratives appeal to ppl who know the feel of fucking up and want to feel like there's a way forward.

Because redemption is external right? About other people SEEING you. Whatever happened, whoever's fault it is, in the end people realize: you're okay. Atonement is about...maybe it can be okay or maybe not, but the focus is on how you gotta put the work in.

I'm not throwing shade on people who want redemption narratives. There can be a lot of comfort to that, esp. for folks who maybe weren't the ones who did wrong to begin with. Because it's external, and maybe the judgement to be redeemed was about what you ARE.

Or maybe it is about what you did, but what you did was a matter of context and your hand was forced. It's comforting to think of that being forgiven so you can find or resume your place.

With atonement though, it was definitely you, and the focus is on that. Whether your hand was forced or not, you with your own free will made a choice that caused harm, and you're taking responsibility and trying to do better. Whether you can mend the transgression or not.

Often you can't mend the transgression. Lives were lost. Harm was done that can't be undone. It happens all the time. And those of us who've been there seek the comfort of narratives that understand we can't always fix it, but that trying to be better is worth something.

I think about the resistance/backlash from some fans against redemption narratives for villains and antiheroes. And I wonder if the reason is because this is the kind of thing you tend to learn by standing in those shoes, and they're blessed not to have been there yet?