So this is what, the 3rd time Porter has been decked by a character because of his attitude? At minimum?

Under the cut for long and rambling character and literary analysis

We have the initial fight 4-5 years ago between Porter and Vincent

We have Lovely getting him during their "Switzerland" talk before the Summit

Now we have Asher at the Summit (part II electric boogaloo)

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if we're even supposed to like him as a character. Sure, he's charismatic. Porter got Treasure wrapped around his finger in less than an hour. But Mr. Redacted is usually pretty clear about delineating between who is intended to be the characters we're supposed to be supporting (with enough moral grayness to make them complex and interesting). So many of his characters are a great example of the difference between the narrative 'protagonist' and the narrative 'hero'. Going back to the more technical literary term, a protagonist* is the character the story is about, but they're not necessarily the same as the hero of the story. Yandere!Ivan was a great protagonist, but he's very obviously the villain of that plotline. If you want a classic example, Michael Corleone (The Godfather) is a villain protagonist.

*I'll point out that depending on what exact definition you're using for "protagonist" that you can argue that the listener character is supposed to be the main character. I don't think that fits because in many of Redacted's cases the listener falls into the "sexy lamp" trope, where by design they have few if any character traits of their own so we as listeners can project on them. To me, they're the point of view character, which though usually is not always the same as the protagonist. IMO, a protagonist should play a more active role in the story. Overall it's a fascinating way of capitalizing on the limitations of Mr. Redacted's chosen medium, and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this phenomenon.

Most characters fall into either the 'hero' or 'villain' category. Characters like David, Asher, Vincent, Elliott, Guy, Ollie, and Gavin are all clearly hero protagonists**. Their respective stories revolve around their interactions with the listener character, they're the good, upstanding citizens that we want to support. They've got flaws, sure, but for the most part they're meant to be appealing characters that we agree with. Characters like Marcus, Yandere!Ivan, and Regulus are clearly the villain protagonists; they're the "bad guys", we want them to fail in whatever terrible thing they're trying to do. (Which isn't to say you can't enjoy their particular brand of twisted. Dark characters and themes are important and have their place).

**with the caveat that different focal length of a particular story can change who is the technical 'protagonist' and 'antagonist'. Kody, in his Water Elemental videos, is a 'villain protagonist'; when you look at the DAMN series overall he's better classified an antagonist of season 1. The fact that there's so many perspective changes across Mr. Redacted's overall work means that a lot of these terms can get muddied depending on which specific set of videos you're referring to.

Which brings me to the 3rd type of protagonist, the anti-hero. The anti-hero is a protagonist that the reader/listener wants to succeed, but generally lacks the traditional/universal moral traits that usually define the classic hero protagonist. Examples of an anti-hero protagonist include: Deadpool, Walter White (Breaking Bad), Huckleberry Finn. In particular, the mark of a well-written antihero protagonist is the fact that it can be difficult to distinguish them from a villain protagonist. Vega is a good example of this; in the Sadism's Hold/DAMN S1 series he's an antagonist for Freelancer and Yandere!Ivan. He graduates to a villain protagonist in early Carpe Deus, and with his stated goal of preventing another Cacophony he's morphing into an anti-hero in the more recent videos. I'm sure you can get hyper-specific if you start going through all the TVTropes pages to find the perfect flavor for individual characters, but most major protagonists can be classified as one of those three groups (with eternal, ongoing debates on where specifically you draw those particular lines based on your particular morals).

Bringing it back to Porter, I'm not sure that he's meant to be an anti-hero. He's charming, intelligent, capable, and likeable (to those not biased by his history like Vincent and Sam). But I don't think we're supposed to support him as a character overall. We've had too many "hero" characters come to conflict with him; Vincent, Asher, and Lovely explicitly. Even without getting into the fine distinctions between a protagonist/supporting character/POV character that's an awful lot of animosity from some very well established people. We might not know all of his goals/motives yet because they haven't been revealed to us (Porter wants to support William, wants to gain 'power', but why? What history drives him? What is his specific end goal with that power?) but his manipulation of other people, ruthlessness, and his own acknowledged boot-licking to increase his own social power disqualify him from a traditional "hero protagonist" role. An anti-hero is one we still are intended by the author to want to support, a character we want to see succeed. But because Mr. Redacted keeps putting Porter into direct conflict with more traditional protagonists it sets him up to be an opposing force; by definition he is an antagonist to our established hero protagonists.

I've talked a lot about the different types of protagonists and some of the minute distinctions between the different types of protagonists. Antagonists can be even more variable; you have your classic Devil, Sauron, and Darth Vader trying to kill your protagonist heroes. Technically speaking, antagonists don't necessarily have to be characters, either, they can be forces or concepts. An antagonist is just someone or something that opposes the protagonist. I won't divert into the different types of conflict in a story, but I'll point out how much more variety there is for your villains than your heroes based on their particular blend of moral alignment and narrative framing. (It's a lot easier to make things go wrong than it is to make things go well). You can also have sympathetic antagonists, where the villain has acceptable motives even if their methods are objectionable and cement their status as villains. Think the Wicked Witch of the West; Dorothy killed her sister, revenge is an entirely reasonable motive even if we're not supposed to be on her side. Adam and Quinn are the clearest unsympathetic antagonist villain characters in Redacted-verse. Blake is a sympathetic antagonist, vacillating between a villain and an anti-hero depending on whether we're looking at him from Sunshine or Bestie's POV.

As far as my initial claim that we're not supposed to like Porter, we have to consider which lens we're looking at him through. From Vincent's perspective he's an unredeemable asshole. William, however, clearly sees something in him. Other characters we trust that don't have that skewed perspective because of baggage, like Asher, don't like him either. While Porter is the protagonist of his own videos (you are the main character inside your own head) he's not being cast as a classical hero. Morality wise, even in his own story he's an anti-hero at best (he wasn't honestly trying to warn Treasure off, he was luring them in to SkySide). He's got the potential to be sympathetic (at least, according to Sam and William) but he's outnumbered in the narrative of protagonists (at the very least, by Vincent, Lovely, Asher, and there's evidence for Milo and David because of what he put Sweetheart up to) who consider him an antagonist, causing them problems or otherwise being obstructive. Considering the weight of numbers and length of existence in the overall story Mr Redacted is telling, Porter so far is generally being portrayed as an antagonist to our hero protagonists but not necessarily as a villain (like Vincent wants him to be) of Close Knit's caliber. So, this leaves him in a very interesting position on the morality/perspective spectrum. Essentially:

[Photo ID: a graph running from Villain to Hero along the horizontal axis and Protagonist to Antagonist along the vertical axis. Gavin, Lasko, Guy, Ollie, Caelum, David, Asher, Milo, Vincent (post-Adam) are in the Hero-Protagonist Corner. Regulus, Yandere!Ivan, Kody, Vega (DAMN S1) are in the Villain-Antagonist Corner. Vega (early) is in the Villain Protagonist Corner. Vincent (early) and Vega (later) are in the Protagonist Antihero area. Porter is in the Antagonist Antihero area. /end ID]

Because of these mostly negative relationships to our established characters I don't think he's meant to be "supportable". There's too many reasons someone could write him off as unredeemable, based off of his history, his current actions, and his morals. Mr Redacted obviously intended us to be pitted against certain characters like Adam, Kody, and Yandere!Ivan in the same way the author intends us to like and support wholesome characters like David, Huxley, and Guy. I think Porter was written in such a way that we're supposed to disapprove of him despite his likeability in the same way we're "supposed to" disapprove of most of the Imperium characters or Alexis. There's a glimmer of "redemption" deep down for how good they could be if the universe was a little kinder towards them and they didn't have to resort to morally questionable (at best) actions and perspectives, but harsh circumstances left them protecting themselves with sharp edges designed to make anyone who gets too close bleed. Character complexity is attractive, but that's not the same thing as being sympathetic.

After all of this I have to say, death of the author is 100% valid as a concept. At least half of a story is determined by the reader themselves, and this in particular is just my interpretation of these particular facts and classifications. Depending on how you want to weight certain factors and perspectives you can come to a completely different conclusion. By trying to define a particular character the act of applying a definition means you have to be reductive; making a decision on which box to put them in flattens out their complexities. You don't have to APPROVE of a character to LIKE them. There's also a difference between a morally GOOD character and a COMPELLING character. Not every character has to be redeemed, it's not a prerequisite for finding them interesting. Just because Mr Redacted wants us to hate certain characters doesn't mean everyone is obligated to; you're entitled to your own opinion.

Wait, did you put a photo of Vil and Neige as kids in Eric’s office??

oh good, I was afraid that wasn't going to read properly and people would just be like "what is this supposed to be". :') but yeah! I like to think Eric was pretty fond of Neige as a kid! single dad sees orphan child approximately the same age as his own son and goes "hmm. okay, you guys are going to be friends now." (this did not go as well as he'd hoped.)

(also I do love how it's kind of a running joke that everyone loves Neige except for Vil, who's standing over in the corner and just seething with furious irrational hatred. someday maybe he'll find someone who doesn't think Neige is the best thing since cinnamon rolls.)

hey leader!!!

Someone on Twitter mentioned that this was the only time that Vash was able to wear his coat with both of his flesh and blood arms

And while that's sad enough... it probably doesn't bother Vash, he probably even thinks he deserves it if it occurs to him. But you know who it probably kills? The man who realized he fucked up and was an idiot and ruined this boy's life, punching the doorframe in grief as Luida ran after Vash, and then designing an intricate lost tech arm for the poor kid to try and make up for it. (At least Brad realized he fucked up, no?)

the idea of hannibal as loustat's marriage counselor is soooo funny bc on the surface he would have to agree with lestat's attempts to corrupt louis's nature and have him embrace murder and killing and consumption but on the other hand I strongly believe that hannibal would find lestat's general personality and shallow theatrics in incredibly poor taste and would feel obligated to kill and eat him despite agreeing with him completely

by far the best reaction to john lennon's death was george getting all irritated with him like "idiot should've been more prepared to die. good luck putting your spirit at rest now🙄🙄". and the reason its so funny is because, given the numerous ghost encounters even just between the three remaining beatles, by all accounts george was right

Not to be That Guy but like.

Am I the only one that can't stop thinking about how Tianlang-Jun says about Luo Binghe that he pretends to be cold-hearted like his mother. The hint of fondness there, the heartache in that utterance.

Like it drives me absolutely insane. Imagining her putting on a front of strength, cold and driven and unrelenting. Why does TLJ say that about her. Did she secretly look for solutions that meant reconciling with demons instead of hurting them when her sect wasn't looking? (I wonder this because I feel like his weird fondness for SQQ would lowkey track if it's connected to the woman he once loved.) Did he mean that she was tasked with basically assassinating him and she fell in love with him instead (re: failed step one)? Did he mean that she was fond and doting in her own way (e.g. conceding he was attractive, paying for his exploits and humoring him)? Did he mean that, like LBH, she thought that power would be the thing to protect her--and that it was disguising a person who was deeply and privately wounded? All four????? I don't need sleep I need a n s w e r s

Did she know about the Huanhua Palace Master's skeevy ass intentions before she met TLJ? Or did those only come to significant light after she fell in love with TLJ? Is that why she never anticipated that level of betrayal, because initially she had no intention of being with anyone romantically? And HHPM just assumed she would be under his thumb forever?? Was she furious at her own indiscretion or did she try to use the pregnancy as a bargaining chip, a way to try to stop the immortals of Cang Qiong Mountain from attacking TLJ (plus the bonus of marriage entrapment no takesies backsies this is where LBH gets it from)? Did she try to use that claim on her to dissuade HHPM from his covetous advances, framing herself as tainted so that she could finally escape? Did she dream of a life by TLJ's side, far away from Cang Qiong Mountain?

Like. Literally every single permutation of what this could mean guts me to hell. Do you ever just cry about tianxi because I--[loud bawling noises]

Kingdom Hearts 3

There's something about the idea that every adult that spends more than ten minutes alone with Steve Harrington is instantly enamored with him 

The King Steve era house parties don't get broken up by the cops anymore. Steve is too far from his nearest neighbors for a noise complaint and the cops who would do it like Steve. They know they don't have to worry about any underage drinking and driving incidents after a Steve Harrington party because anyone who doesn't have a DD just crashes at the Harrington place, it's not like they have to worry about getting out of there before his parents get home.

His teachers can't help but let certain things slide. Excusing a middle school Steve's tardiness, the Harrington house is such a long bike ride away from the school and the bus route doesn't reach the grounds of Loch Nora. High School Steve's grades are average at best and his attention drifts, but his questions if poorly worded are insightful at heart and if you catch him away from the friends he tries too hard to keep he's polite and willing to spend time discussing his school work. By senior year they're excusing his tardiness again, they all know he has to swing by the middle school on his way over; and his forgetfulness too, two concussions in as many years it's a wonder he's not worse.

Joyce Byers, who by all accounts should hate this boy who fought her son and belittled her family, already has a snag in her armor thinking about a little boy who used to bike to Melvalds all alone for more milk and the sugar dusted cereal his mother didn't like him to have. Has her walls damaged by Jonathan coming home with a Christmas present they both know Nancy Wheeler even in her middle class glory couldn't afford. Has the adoption papers ready to be notarized when that same little boy, just a little bit bigger, offers to cart her Will around town since he knows she and Jon are busy and he has nothing better to do; really, and Will is the only one that ever says please or thank you.

Hopper, who largely left the everyday police work to the other officers, didn't interact with Steve much until the Upside Down business started. He's ready to add Harrington to the list of kids he'd die to protect the second the bloodstained boy cracks open a bleary eye from the Byers' sofa. Concussed and happy for it since it meant the youngest ones were safe.

Claudia Henderson has decided that the law has little to do with family. She's seen too many young men in the hospital grieving loved ones they can't see while parents who don't care make decisions for the dying. Steve Harrington is hers now has been since he did her Dusty's hair. The Sinclairs only let Erica roam the mall on her own on days they know Steve is working. They know no matter what Erica and Lucas promise the two of them aren't staying together. There's something rotten in Hawkins, and the kids don't whisper as quietly as they think they do. They know there's something they are missing, but they don't need to know everything to know they can trust the boy who put himself bodily in front of their child to protect him. Karen still occasionally mourns the loss of Steve as a son-in-law but the fact that he still drives Mike around even on his surliest days, she couldn't ask for more.

Wayne Munson lasted the longest. A product of night shifts and a powerful wariness around anyone whose tax bracket exceeds his by more than one jump. But he knows the kind of skittish that Steve is, remembers an eight year old boy with eyes he hadn't grown into who used to skitter away from a sharp tongue or raised hand just the same. Even then all it takes is sitting next to Steve on a rare night off, the game fuzzing in and out on the TV, listening to him softly explain the rules of it all to his boy relating it back to the ones of that dragon game Eddie likes so much and he's gone. Steve's a hard worker, a wage slave as much as Wayne these days, seems wrong to begrudge him just cause the house he's kept at is a little bigger than theirs. There are worse boys to have as future in-laws, even if he is a Cubs fan.

The only person who doesn't seem to get the memo is Richard Harrington. So rarely around his own son he isn't swept up in the charm. Richard and Stephanie Harrington make their way back to Hawkins, unannounced on a Tuesday. The sleepy morning hours are still lingering when they make their way into the house, through the foyer, and onto the kitchen; following the sounds of crooning oldies. Richard has long thought his son a disappointment, too lazy to get into college and too spoiled to leave home, catching him dancing around the kitchen like a fairy with some trailer trash punk is really the last straw. He lets the wife he wishes he didn't have make some asinine comment to this freak that's in his kitchen, and turns to the child he never wanted to say, "I want you out, I won't have a queer living under my roof."

Stephanie and that long haired bastard both rear back like they've been slapped. While Richard is forced to watch as the son he's neglected straightens up, every ounce the man every other adult on Hawkins has watched him become, look him in the eye and say, "It's not your house, it never was. Grandpa Otis left it to me. So if you've got a problem with me or my fucking boyfriend, you can get out of my house. Looks like you're already packed."

That empty house gets emptier as Richard, alone, takes the furniture he paid for and the clothes that lingered in the closet; but it's quickly filled with the hand-me-downs of everyone who has ever fallen for that Harrington charm. They're all too happy to help Steve fill what's his.

since heartslabyul has a courtroom, i wonder if any of the students ever have danganronpa-style debates in there. stealing riddle's tart is tantamount to homicide (pre-overblot), so now it's the most convoluted debate ever just to prove your guilt/innocence. T_T

the things that come back

Brothers in Blood will trick you into thinking it’s just a silly crack scenario brought to life and Jason just concocted this plan for shits and giggles. Then you get a single page like this:

Nightwing (1996-) #121

that reveals he wanted/desperately needed shreds of acceptance even if it was coated in layers of resentment irritation and doubt after going through this:

Batman (1940-) #650

And it had to be from someone who isn’t Bruce

By the Sundering... The parasite allows us to influence others.

Who spills first?

does anybody else think about how all of the darkling’s survival techniques were taught to him by a woman experienced at surviving in a man’s world?

"I think this is the most inhuman; and human, that I've ever felt.." MUCH CAN HAPPEN IN A YEAR. IN FIVE YEARS. A DECADE. imagine how much can happen in a century. just ONE (1). How will you grow? what phases do you find? even in 5 years, you will find patterns.