The other question that tends to get glossed over in regards to most modern redemption attempts, at least one that kinda runs through my mind is: "Why is the writer so determined to have us/the hero empathize with a villain over their victims?" It's one thing if the villain's worst trait is being a massive nuisance at worst (Peridot), or if the villain did commit a terrible act, but realized on their own they were wrong and did their best to fix it at their own risk, but other than that...
This is the core of my issue. It’s not redemptions themselves, it’s the sheer obsession with them that sees every single villain met with demands from the fanbase for redemptions, essays about how “killing the bad guys is the most heinous evil” and that doing anything else isn’t “humanizing the character enough.”
All the time. Every time. We can seemingly never let villains just be villains, there’s always someone baying at the moon for them to get a redemption, and an overwhelming fixation on the villain over the protagonist out of some misguided idea that heroes are boring.
Remember: Kyle Ron did not get a ham-fisted redemption because of the story. He got it because a bunch of racist, straight women have fucking AWFUL taste in men.
It’s no surprise the “redemption” story people so frequently cite as the best (Zuko) wasn’t actually a “redemption” but an abuse victim getting closure and moving on with their lives. Because that’s an actually good story.
