Talk:Rachel/@comment-27933088-20190918010345/@comment-45922392-20200527182842

Exactly, I don't think people who are defending her understand the literaray issues here with the character. She crossed some particulary moral event horizons early on as you put it and it solidified her in the minds of most fans as "The Irredeemable Villain." I don't think most of her White Knights can really see this due to their own blind defense of her with statements that "there are subtle clues and justifications for her actions." That may very well be so, but in reality if a person broke in your house, shot you and all your family, you survived and find out they have "reasons" for doing so, for inflicting such heinous acts against you, are you somehow going to stop seeing it as an egregious act? No, you may waver a bit in your animosity towards said person, but you will still see the act for what it is. You may have context, but the act is still one of evil.

I've seen people cite the panel in the flashback that shows her being dragged by the hair, without context, and I'm currently on chapter 130ish, I don't see that as a viable argument. Still, even if the author shoehorns in some justifications for Rachel in later chapters, it's as you said, she crossed a line far to early on and she never got any comeuppance. I think this is the problem with long running stories in which their's an extended villain that an author favors.

Take Naruto for instance, the author had a planned redemption for Sasuke, so Sasuke never officially crossed too many moral areas. Take Star Wars the Sequel Trilogy for another example, Kilo Ren crossed a moral line when he killed his father. (No I don't think this is a spoiler, the movie's been out long enough). So when he got his redemption arc in TROS, no one other than the Reylo fans wanted to see it. He had already killed a beloved character and crossed that moral line for readers in fans.

I just don't think Rachel defenders understand this.