love when characters have to have a domestication arc before you can even consider giving them a redemption arc
okay i usually ignore all the incorrect takes on this post, simply because's it's gotten way too big and honestly i can't be bothered most of this time. and right now for some reason i *can* be bothered. @thebisexualwreckoning i'm sorry to call you out specifically for bad media analysis crimes that hundreds of other people have also done but this simply cannot stand
okay let's break this down. first off, my original post was specifically about when you need a domestication arc *before* you can even *consider* whether a redemption arc is necessary. it may not be! sometimes a character genuinely doesn't understand their actions are wrong, or was in a state that did not lend itself to coherent thought, but will bounce back quickly upon domestication. the fun bit is when a character is so feral that you can't even *tell* if they need redemption or not. (and of course redemption is a bullshit concept anyway but we're using the meme-ified tongue-in-cheek definitions of redemption and domestication here anyway so whatever.)
here's the thing. zuko *somewhat* applies here, but only in season 2 while working at the tea shop. many people have correctly specified this, and good on those who did. because domestication, in this context, is about adapting- or being forcibly adapted- to a set of societal rules that you do not comprehend or were previously rendered incapable of understanding. but zuko was raised as a prince. he's perfectly well-educated. even in exile, he's accustomed to being a leader figure. he knows how to play the role of prince, and any season 1 feral behavior was far more the actions of a desperate, traumatized, teenage prince than someone truly lacking domestication. in the tea shop arc he had to adjust to customer service, poverty, and treating others as equals, which was so alien to him i would, indeed, qualify that as a domestication arc, albeit a brief one. and of course his redemption arc is the stuff of legends and i can say nothing about it that hasn't been said.
but. i'm sorry, azula? no. absolutely not. azula needed redemption, but if anything her problem was that she was *too* domesticated. she molded herself into the perfect heir for her father. she could even slip into other roles, in a way zuko never could, as long as they contributed toward her ultimate goals. if she wasn't working toward those goals, she could be a bit awkward as seen in the beach episode, but that's not so much lack of domestication as lack of drive. so on the list of characters that this concept applies to, azula is very near the bottom. a mental breakdown is not indicative of a pattern of feral behavior.
okay while i'm here. y'all. stop fucking tagging this catra. catra is *willfully* undomesticated. she's like that on purpose! she knows the rules, she just doesn't care. she needs redemption, and therapy, but doesn't need domestication. meanwhile *adora* needs domestication, but not redemption. adora has no fucking idea how to be anything other than a soldier. this girl literally destroyed her bedding on the first night in a new environment, classic uncomfortable animal behavior. she doesn't need redemption, but she sure as hell *does* need domestication, and she does get it, more or less.
hmm, who else gets tagged on this post a lot. vegeta? acceptable, but in my opinion it was mostly the other way around, he allowed himself to be domesticated as part of his redemption arc. bakugo? yeah, that's valid, even if i think toga is a much better fit. stitch? correct, no notes. peridot? also correct, though i think lapis is even more correct. spike? i never watched buffy so i can't comment. xue yang? i don't know who that is. enkidu? correct and also the funniest possible response to this post. vanitas? correct, and in fact, a certain fic version of him is what inspired the post.
again, the key here is that the character must entirely and genuinely misunderstand the rules of the society they are interacting with and how to apply those rules to communicate their feelings in acceptable and comprehensible ways. they can be willfully ignorant, but they can't be knowingly refusing to comply. and above all else, there has to be a grey area where you can't tell yet if it's reasonable to hold the character truly accountable for their actions, due to either a lack of effective communication, them never having been presented with the option to be anything other than what they are, an inbuilt or induced limitation that prevents them from following normal rules, or a combination of the three.
okay that's it. rant over. i don't expect anyone to actually respond to this and i know this post has long since escaped any kind of containment but the media analyst in me can't help but weep at some of the incorrect takes i have been forced to see over the years
