omg i keep wanting to just post random thoughts about loveless but i talk myself out of it because nothing really matters anymore but i'm going to start trying to indulge anyway LIKE i'm already here at ritsukaaoyagi.tumblr.com... ANYWAY
i am generally amused by yun kouga's clear lack of interest in sourit as of late (like whenever she Does acknowledge loveless) and i don't mind it because i just personally don't ship them like that. omg i just hate the word of ship/shipping so much (shivers) but anyway this does also support the general idea around soubi's character and his relationship w/ ritsuka in that the point is that they literally aren't in any sort of romantic relationship blah blah blah ykwim but i think they are way more complex than relationship/no relationship. and the idea of "soubi never had actual romantic feelings for ritsuka" feels way too much like an oversimplification of their relationship to me even if it is currently "true"
but even that thought process is so interesting to me.......... i'm always hesitant to claim that sourit isn't an actual thing in loveless because it literally is HAHAHAHA even if it can now be considered dead. even if sourit not being a thing is the intention in loveless, they are a couple that yun once very obviously enjoyed as she enjoyed (enjoys imo) sexualizing ritsuka's character and all that.
and i'm only really thinking about this because even if i believe that loveless has great characters and portrays the cycle of abuse (generally speaking) in a decent way (my own feelings) it is also true that loveless is rife with shotacon and age-gap and incest fetishes etc etc. it can have both... very often media that surrounds abuse does involve both on purpose hahaha. no bad/good moral here just thinking. and don't even get me started on "yun said she doesn't consider loveless as a yaoi" as evidence of something
28 notes
·
View notes
Hey! I just wanted to let you know, while I think the moodboards you make are super cute and I do love them a lot, they're super disheartening to see.
All of them, are pretty much just stolen content? You don't bother crediting or sourcing anything on them, so they're basically all just photos/art that doesn't belong to you :(
The small artists who create the deco pacis, the plushies, the photography, deserve to be credited and not have their stuff stolen. Especially when they are products the artist is selling (deco pacis, crochet, handmade collars, etc.) they deserve that attention and credit.
/nm but I've just seen SO many people not caring to source their posts. I really encourage you to credit the posts you create.
Hello hello!! First off, I want to tell you that, for the most part, you're right! This is actually something I think about a lot, and I get where you're coming from. Most of the things I post are uncredited pictures, and I'm going to explain why in the best way I can. But ultimately, it's up to you whether this explanation satisfies you or not (if you have suggestions on how to fix it after reading this whole thing, let me know)!
For context, most of the stuff I post are pictures directly from Pinterest, a site that is notorious for being awful at crediting creators and making it difficult to find the original creators of things. I wish Pinterest was better at allowing people to trace the origins of images, and I would love it if I could find the original creators of every picture I use. Unfortunately, it is genuinely impossible to find the people who take most of the pictures on Pinterest a lot of the time (because Pinterest will show you the most recent saver of a picture rather than the poster, and if you do manage to find the poster, you never know if someone reposted a picture, so the person who you think is the creator actually is not). It's really not a matter of "I don't bother to"; it's that often I can't (this is why I try to avoid using art not made by companies because I'd drive myself crazy trying to find the artist)!
I also want to point out that none of the stuff I use is "stolen"! If you look at Pinterest's terms of service, every picture posted there is entirely free to use, sort of like a stock image, and I have to assume that the posters know that. (Legal talk and a simpler version pictured below)
Additionally, I do show products, but often not by small stores or creators. Most of them are literally product advertisements from large companies that will not take any financial hit from this at all. If you go onto Pinterest and look up something like "blanket," you'll find that it's almost completely large corporations! And that is almost entirely the selection of product pictures I use, especially for my petre boards, as I don't think I have any handmade collars in any of my boards, just commercially made ones!
The pictures that are from smaller creators, such as products, as you stated, can easily be traced back to the creators by downloading the picture and using the Pinterest or even google image search; sometimes, there's even a watermark to make things easier. And, if you ask me, I'll find the creator for you if it's possible!
As a small side note, I never take credit for pictures that aren't my own, and I don't make any money from this. I'm not receiving anything that the creators aren't, except maybe views. And, if people asked me to remove pictures they didn't want on other people's accounts shown on one of my moodboards, I would. I have never had that happen, however, and when people do recognize pictures that they made in one of my moodboards, they have only ever been happy to see them. Here are two examples (check the reblogs)!! Example 1 Example 2
Ultimately, this is a grey area for content, and Pinterest has no better alternative. This debate is also nothing new! People have been making moodboards long before my time and will continue to do so after I stop. And I'm not saying I'm perfect or that other moodboard creators take the same precautions as me, but I am doing my best to make moodboards in a conscionable manner! If you can't get behind it, that's okay!! I would also be happy to discuss this more with you if you want!
38 notes
·
View notes
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.
27 notes
·
View notes
I need to reread the comics again to have specific arguments/evidence for this, but like
I feel a bit like I could've been sympathetic to the way other Cybertronian colonies view Cybertron, if it weren't for the fact that at least several of them (as in, ones that get notable dialogue/screen time) are so low-key self-righteous?
Like, idk... there's a lot of criticism of Cybertronians because they're so "warlike" and how their obsession with violence and vengeance is just dragging the whole galaxy down with them, but uh. The Autobot-Decepticon war was basically a product of societal ills bubbling over for like 6 million years beforehand and then finally boiling over into a 4 million year war that lasted as long as it did because the people involved had immense social/psychological trauma from being "raised" in an oppressive society.
So when the colonists come in being all 'omg you people are so violent and uncivilized why don't you just like, stop fighting' it kind of pissed me off a little bit as a reader/person like. Idk the colonists really came into this society of people full of massive amounts of trauma where even before the war society was super oppressive and no one has any experience of living "normal" lives unaffected by violence and bigotry. And the colonists were like "ummm wow why don't you guys just??? stop fighting???." Like idk it wasn't EVERY SINGLE MOMENT, in fact I think that when it was played for laughs it's quite a funny "fridge horror" type element. It was just annoying because like.... IDK???? It's just really annoying to watch a bunch of people who lived relatively sheltered lives on their own planets come to a different planet full of traumatized people and be like "omg why are you people so fucked up" IDK BRO MAYBE BECAUSE THEIR SOCIETY WAS OPPRESSIVE AND THEY LIVED THROUGH A LIFELONG WAR???
It also doesn't help that the colonies were literally founded based on imperialism and conquest so like, it's fucking rich to hear colonists scolding Cybertronians for their violence ruining the whole galaxy while literally sitting on planets that their Primes colonized from others. The hypocrisy of this is briefly mentioned in Unicron (literally the FINAL STORY OF THE SERIES) but like, that's basically the only time Cybertronian characters are given a reprieve of sympathy from other characters in universe and it's so tiresome.
I've talked to other people who didn't like the colonists and thought they basically (narratively speaking) existed just to shit on the existing characters, and it's actually really easy for me to sympathize with/outright agree with that assessment of the story considering how much of exRID/OP seems to be preoccupied with "Cybertron/the Primes/Optimus sucks" with very few reprieves for anything positive happening and even fewer chances for characters to get to explain themselves and experience a little bit of justice? Like, as the audience, it's just very frustrating to see the characters you spent hundreds of issues keeping up with get shit on by a bunch of "literally-who"s and then not really get a chance to ever defend themselves, either by literally defending themselves in conversation or having some sort of narrative thing happening that vindicates them at least symbolically
30 notes
·
View notes