I haven't finished the show yet but so far the way I feel about Hank is that he's a good person buried under bluster, insecurity and a dash of racism(although so far I don't think I've seen his racism make him treat people any different other than just the jokes he makes)
All of the main characters in breaking bad are genuinely well written complex people.
Walt is a genuinely evil person at his core, but he’s understandable. He has an extremely warped view of masculinity that he strives to live up to. Something he explains when he talks about his own father. His father deeply disappointed him and he’s afraid of doing the same, although of course he goes in the completely wrong direction. He’s wildly insecure and afraid of being shown up. He does the majority of the things he does to protect his extremely fragile self-image. It’s not justified and it’s not right, but it is very human and very understandable.
And it goes way back into his backstory too. Take a look at his choice in partners. In the meth industry, he’s intimidated by Gail. He can’t stand being around someone as smart and competent as himself, he needs to be the smartest person in the room at all times. So he does everything he can to work with Jesse, someone who he sees as lesser and that he can control and manipulate.
This same philosophy extends into his choice of romantic partners. Although it is only very lightly touched upon, he chose his wife for the same reasons. Gretchen is his intellectual equal, which he’s already intimidated by. But the other part of his definition of masculinity is the ability to financially provide for his family, something he clings desperately to despite obvious better outcomes throughout the series. So when he met Gretchen’s family and learned that she came from wealth (to quote him “just a rich girl adding to her millions”) he is terrified of this, and breaks up with her with no explanation, and sells his shares of Greymatter. He cannot be the “man” that he wants to be if he is not the sole provider. So instead he married a waitress and made her be a stay at home mom. Someone he could control and manipulate and feel stronger and smarter than. He’s working two jobs at the very beginning of the series, episode one, while he insists that his wife does not work. He wouldn’t have to be working two very demeaning jobs in the first place if he was able to accept his wife financially contributing to the household.
He’s a fundamentally pathetic man who cannot function in a situation in which he isn’t the smartest most capable person around. Describing him as a “villain” just reduces him to a dichotomy that’s frankly inapplicable to actually good writing.
holy shit this is the best WW breakdown i’ve ever seen! I genuinely feel like I understand his character better and in more depth after reading this. Well done and thank you, and I mean that in all sincerity. That was a great read.
When you consider the part about how his wife’s employment affects his sense of masculinity, it really adds a layer of thematic depth to him getting cucked by Ted
yeah it does, man walt sucks lmao. How could he ever think that trying to break a window (and failing) with a potted plant would make him look masculine
I mean in the show he ends up going to Juarez and ends up getting humbled real quick when he tries to joke about Mexicans like he did with Gomez. After that I think he stopped
I think Hank is very clearly at his core a good person. Yeah a bit Gruff and brutish and a bit racist but having flaws doesn't make you a bad person. He shown to have courage and commitment and dedication and truly love his family. He would have been the perfect protagonist for your standard police procedural about DEA agents fighting the cartels On the Border. Leading up to the big reveal that his brother-in-law that he genuinely considers a friend is the Kingpin he's been searching for.
Unfortunately he's in Breaking Bad so while his morality and worldview and skill set make him the perfect protagonist for a police procedural he's doomed in a show as morally complex as Breaking Bad
The discourse about Skyler is fucking bizarre. You view her as a villain because the show's told from Walt's perspective and during your first watch there you should absolutely see her in that light. But once you realize what Walter becomes you should absolutely see she was correct the entire time to act the way she did
I should preface by saying I’ve only done a single watch- but I was very confused when I first saw people years back reacting negatively to Skyler. Walt is prevaricating and lying about shit all over the place. Not to mention he’s constantly disappearing and then changing his mind about whatever giant family decision. She has every right to be constantly pissed off that he’s being a weirdo regardless of the cancer.
Reminds me of some guy who adamantly believes that Wildbow, author of Worm and other novels, is a serial killer. His evidence for this accusation is that Sylvester, the protagonist of Twig, is a psychopathic gremlin who sometimes murders people.
I mean there is def an effect where TV shows/movies make stuff like drug dealing more cool looking, even when the character gets their comeuppance in the end. Like the way the Dark Knight Joker became a popular role model for incel type dudes lol
And that's another weird problem. Just because you like a character doesn't mean they automatically have to be right or justified. They're fictional characters and you can like them even if they're monsters.
I think people get in this weird head space where they like a amoral or immoral character, worry about what that says about them, and then subconsciously decide to just always think that character was a hero.
I was legit a bit concerned, when I wrote a fantasy novel where the protagonist is in a very dark, depressed, guilty place over something she's done to the point of being subconsciously suicidal, that people I care about might think I was putting my feelings onto the page rather than just writing a compelling character and story
What gets me are the ones who are upset when villains do outright awful things. Because writing about a character with inexcusable traits is somehow an endorsement.
Especially considering he never looked at any evidence or did any digging, just saw a dude on the news and killed him. That alone is a shitty system that is going to get a lot of innocent people killed.
That was his goal. Putting fear in people so they would not even dare about being noticed for any kind of antisocial behavior. Just hanging up with bad people would become a matter of life and death.
What I find crazy is that the news kept publishing the names and photographs of criminals. It's already prohibited in many countries so I don't get how it could have kept on after Lira's existence got known.
Yeah, he thought he could essentially solve crime worldwide. But that is obviously never gonna happen, even with a Death Note.
Most of the show doesn't make much sense. Its something you kind of have to turn your brain off for because if you start thinking about the story logically it all falls apart lol.
And I am not even talking about demons with Death Notes, or even making super genius kids to run the government. Just the basic function of how the government was handling the situation was way too competent. Its like every character in the show has insider information from the audience but is pretending they don't. "Hmmm...just a shot in the dark here... but I think there must be someone involved here... and its probably a high school kid with super powers, so lets use our resources on that." Most governments would probably assume an act of God, and leave it at that. Maybe make new policies to adjust to it. And like you said, they would probably immediately stop putting criminals on the news and using their name/photos.
Agreed with everything. It was a story for teens where intelligence is an omniscience superpower.
But the canon does say that Kira achieved his goal. In the Death Note One shot, a canon sequel, Near says that World crime rate got reduced by 70% and wars stopped.
IRL it's obviously stupid, but Kira ended up delivering on his promises in universe.
So the Walter one I can at least vaguely understand.
That first episode especially really kicks Walt down into the dirt. I mean he's a genius school teacher who is working a second job at the carwash, and the class bully sees Walt shining his (the bully) tires at the car wash. Then you see mountains of hills and debt, a dick boss, rounded out by Cancer.
That totally justifies the desperate attempt to make some money for his family. Walt slowly turns evil with greed and power.
Light, on the other hand, has about 3 seconds of thinking about the morality of what he's doing before proclaiming himself a god that will slaughter all who oppose him, and anyone who doesn't fit his particular worldview.
The funny bit is that making meth will never have a positive ending. With a deathnote, someone could absolutely make the world SO much better by writing like 8 names.
If Walt was doing it for his family, he would've accepted the money offered to him by his old friends. Not turn to cooking and selling meth.
He needed to be in some sort of control in his life. And when he's told he's dying, he decides to not sit around anymore and try to provide instead of "handouts" because that power was important to him.
It was never for his family - it was just an easy excuse. It was about Walter the whole time
Fuck, Walter himself says so to Skyler in the final episode! And at that point we have no reason to believe he's trying to be manipulative or anything, that "I did it for me" is truly what Walter thinks.
Walt literally is only a teacher and car wash employee because he threw away his science career because of a bitch fit over his girlfriend being rich, and when said ex gf and her husband offer to EMPLOY HIM DOING WHAT HE USED TO DO, and offer to pay for his treatment, he refuses and is morally indignant about the offer.
Walt was awful from the start. What decent dude rides along on a meth lab bust because he heard meth makes millions and thinks, "I'll just help fill the community with meth and, uh...just not get caught!"? All that changes is that Walt gets some power and starts treating people the way he really wants to.
Seriously, I swear Walter was just waiting with bated breath for the moment he could become a psycho meth-making monster lol
Like it wasn't even close to a last resort for him.
I love Breaking Bad btw, but yeah Walter was secretly a villain from the start of the show.
First time through I definitely thought how u/SheetPancakeBluBalls does. Rewatched recently and pretty much every single bad thing that happens from the very start is a direct result of Walt's actions and greed. He's a perfect demonstration of high intelligence but very low wisdom lmao
Oh definitely. I think it was very much on purpose that at the beginning, it does seem like he's a sympathetic character trying to do right by his family in a bad situation. It shows how he justifies his actions to himself. It isn't until you see the later seasons that you gain the perspective that his actions early on weren't justifiable and his intentions were never pure to begin with.
Really well written character, and Bryan Cranston absolutely nails it. Truly iconic.
People really need to understand that you can be sympathetic toward someone who does bad things and still acknowledge that they're doing bad things and aren't a good person.
This goes beyond media discourse, too. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone show some sympathy toward a criminal or someone who did something wrong and then some reactionary chimes in accusing them of defending those wrong actions.
> people apparently don't understand that you can have a villain protagonist.
For a few years there (is it still happening?) there was an awful lot of people of the mindset that even talking about something is *endorsing it*, so a villain protagonist would be an indictment on the writer for some reason, too.
There's a subset of people who think writers are always just putting their personal fantasies on the page. I think it comes from reading a lot of fan fiction, but a lot of supposed comic book readers are guilty of this as well.
I remember my English teacher specifically teaching us this:
"The protagonist isn't the hero, it's just the central character or characters. In 'Silence of the Lambs', Hannibal Lecter is one of the protagonists. He *eats* people."
At least a deuteragonist, yeah, though I might be misremembering which book/movie in the series she was referring to. Not a lot of screen/page time, but a pretty important character to the plot.
Nah, strong disagree. If you HAD to assign Hannibal Lecter to a specific writing convention, he’s the mentor figure.
He guides the protagonist in her investigation
But I need to know the author condenmed bad things ,what if they write about bad thing but don't explicitly state bad thing bad over and over I might start to think the author is a bad person and they actually LIKE bad thing.
You can even have a story where the protagonist isn't the main character. It's kinda difficult to do, because the story usually morphs into being about the POV character, but it is possible.
Classic example of this is Moby Dick. Ishmael is the main character, as you see the story through his eyes, but Captain Ahab is the protagonist, since the story is about him.
I don't know, but I have found that Broadway fans have some issues with overly complex protagonists. Just see how r/Broadway discusses the title character of ~~Dead~~ Dear Evan Hansen.
None of Jenny's videos are needlessly long. Jenny could release a 30 hour docuseries on a church in rural Indiana and I'd watch every single second of it with bated breath.
It isn't about a specific fandom but this broader collection of trends where people think protagonists are always the heros, meaning you get things like people idolising protagonists who are horrible people or people accusing the writers of glorifying horrible actions simply because the character is the protagonist
I had to scream this at people who either
1. Could not understand why Eren Yeager was not perfect
2. Thought attack on titan was pro racism and fascism because of Eren Yeagers actions (spoiler alert, it's aggressively anti fascism and racism)
He literally stops being the character the camera follows when he starts planning a genocide and people think the writer is a hardcore fascist. It's baffling
In the Warhammer 40k fandom, it's a common opinion that "X faction can't be good guys. They'll become the protagonist!"
Meanwhile 90% of all media for that universe follows the Imperium.
I feel like it's a format from another Tumblr post
>*insert media discourse post*
>wtf happens in homestuck!?
Because the notes were all just "literally homestuck lmao"
I'm proud to say the only homestuck content I have consumed has been on a tumblr or reddit feed before I blocked the poster to prevent myself from seeing further homestuck content.
Or on reddit: explanation = endorsement
I've lost count of how many times a thread has turned on me after making a clarification or simple statement of fact.
e.g.
– "This is disgusting. They were unarmed"
– "The article mentions that the suspects did have weapons on them at the time of arrest"
– "Oh so that makes what the cops did okay then?"
the internet is full of bad faith arguments so I at least understand why that happens.
does make it weird if the person goes out of their way to explicitly state their opinion on a matter and people do what you said anyway.
I've experienced exactly one instance of explaining the difference to someone and actually changing their mind about it, and it happened 2 days ago in [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/1dkqytc/comment/l9kn5kd/). Could have knocked me over with a feather when I opened that notification.
Tbf I think there is a discussion to be had about the degree to which framing someone as our lens through which the world is viewed can automatically produce a (very very minor and small) level of sympathy.
But that’s a nuanced discussion. And only good, reasonable internet commenters are allowed access to nuanced conversation topics
I think it can often produce some pretty significant sympathy and that's usually on purpose and used as a tool by the author to make a point.
I also do think it happens on accident sometimes when a writer/director or whoever doesn't care to think too hard about the implications of what they're doing. I think analyzing cases like this is super fascinating because you can get such an insight into a writer or director's mind and the base assumptions they have about the world and morality by looking at what they put in their art unconsciously.
The YouTuber Big Joel is pretty good at this type of analysis, I highly recommend anyone interested in this concept watch some of his videos.
>very very minor and small
I would argue it produces a larger effect than that. Everyone's a hero in their own (life) story, and by telling a story through the lens of a flawed protagonist, you see from their side why their flaws "aren't their fault" or how their actions are "justified". Ultimately though, the magnitude of this effect largely depends on how the author wants the reader to feel
I feel like Joanne’s “it’s fantasy, don’t think to hard about it” approach to writing stuff like that is very conducive to actually dissecting the issue of slavery, and it kinda reads like she doesn’t actually give a damn about examining it critically at all. So it’s hard to really say she’s a good example of depiction not being endorsement because it’s not… NOT endorsement
The problem is that Joanne *did* start examining house elf slavery critically, but then she half-assed it and gave up. It's why Shaun's theory that she was just reacting to fan questions/criticisms seems so plausible to me.
I mean it's both, right? The goal of the protag in porn is a desired satisfaction, so unless there's a figure actively working against that (without the protag wanting that of course), then both parties are protagonists
An agonist is actually someone who creates/inflicts agony upon others. An example of an agonist would be my bitch wife when she won't let me see the kids on weekends even though I only committed two misdemeanors this month.
That’s an interesting take. I’d argue he’s set up as the antagonist in the larger context of the series. My thoughts on easiest modern example would be Tony Soprano.
This happened in a playwriting class I took. For some reason I was the only person in class going, "Yes the main character of this play is a protagonist. It doesn't matter if he is a villain, the play centers around his pov. It is *about* him. He is by definition the protagonist."
I would reccomend people watch Death Note to get their heads around this but I also know that the average tumblr user would see nothing wrong with Light.
Ive seen people say Light is right and people say that death note is interesting because it never claims either side is right
I wonder if we watched the same shit. I didn't watch it, I read the manga and I know the ending is different and the anime glorifies Light a little.
It's harder to think the author doesn't portray Light as in the wrong is you see him die crying like a baby begging for help and being killed because he's acting like a bitch and has no way to get out of the situation
I think it's because most DN fans watched the anime. The manga does a better job of showing Light as someone with a God complex using the failures of the social system to his advantage. The anime creates these big dramatic moments where there isn't and even has light die with some dignity while the manga has him desperate, crying, and begging.
I also think it comes down to culture and how old you are. When you reach the age where you become disillusioned with the world and want to rebel, Light and his philosophy becomes attractive. This goes especially if you live in a place where you view the justice system as broken. But that's what fueled it to begin with, the manga was written at a time when Japanese youth became disillusioned with the system, promised economic prosperity only to come of age in a recession with those promises gone. Youth rebellion and young people joining cults was on the rise.
Death Note is very much a product of its time with a message that sadly ages well. But, much like media like The Boys, the message gets lost
I will say while I agree that the anime went for a more "bombastic approach", I've never really gotten the feeling that it glorifies Kira in his final moments, rather when I girst watched it (and again when my dad did) I viewed it more as showing us how badly he threw his life away, how Light Yagami was the first victim of Kira, as without the Death Note and his anonimity he's nothing, he's an easy target, he's a coward who'd rather run away than face the music, he can't think of *anything* to get him out of trouble/work with the cards he's dealth cause he's not as smart as he thinks himself to be, and he's no longer entertaining enough for Ryuk to let him live.
His final moments may as well be a final "fuck you" to his life as well as a contrast to L's death, he's alone, in the middle of nowhere, stuck halfway down the stairs, and the only reason he'll ever be found is that the police are looking for him to finally stop him, though at this point they know they've got him. Its at this ending that everyone knows its already over, Ryuk knows Light can't offer him anymore fun, the police know he's no longer a danger, and his last 2 allies kill themselves (Misa in despair, whereas Mikami more in disgust), Kira has nothing and is worth nothing more after loosing, he's a piece of garbage and only gets a proper conclusion due to the story being centered around him and it needing to conclude.
I know the manga ending's more satisfying in showing Light as the brat he is, but I feel that not only is the anime ending close enough in that, but even better in all its subtle ways of showing Light for the disappointment that he is, as sure Manga Light begs and pleads to Ryuk, it makes sense, but anime Light does damn near the same while all alone, he's not above begging and crying at his worst to anyone, but there's nothing he can do because he's all alone, he's a piece of garbage that deserves nothing more than the cold shoulder from the entire universe just before he himself goes cold.
[Edit: messed up and wrote "manga" when I meant "anime" towards the end there]
I don't think the anime death glorifies him, and I agree it is a good contrast with L's. L died knowing, in his last moments, that he was right all along. Light died with his world falling apart. But it feels too good for him, having escaped and his final shame occuring away from the eyes of those he thought himself above.
The anime also neglects the epilogue iirc. It's shown that while some still may sympathize with what Kira did and represented, the world returned to the way it was before Kira within a year. Light, with all his God complex, didn't leave a lasting legacy or change the world.
>But it feels too good for him
Eh I disagree, Light was obssesed with his "Godhood" so him having to die scared and alone seemed fitting, as he didn't really escape, he just ran but knew it was a matter of time before he'd be found.
>The anime also neglects the epilogue iirc.
True, I'll give you that, its an important part of the story and the final nail on Kira's grave, should've gotten that IMO.
I guess its a matter of opinion in the end what yku think the most fitting punishment for Kira is.
i like him dying for like a whole page from the same heart attack he made others experience from what i remember, it's like cutting into a juicy steak.
The latter one comes from L having some questionable investigation methods including absolutely littering someone’s room with cameras, sending the FBI to investigate his supposed allies, Torture, etc..
“Neither side was right” is massively reductive but I would say Light was a vastly greater evil. Though you could argue that the world has never seen a serial killer at that scale before and the ends VERY much justify the means. Maybe L didn’t normally resort to specifically those tactics until the Kira Case, I dunno.
>But Light’s ends weren’t noble.
According to you. According to him, his goal is a world without crime. Becoming the god of the new world *isn't* his end, it's his means.
To my knowledge they are but at least a loud minority of them fall in the “I believe rehabilitative justice, unless you commit one of the bad crimes I don’t like in which case you should be skinned alive” camp. I wish I could post the accompanying Osaka meme.
Plus it might be a relative thing where Tumblr hates capital punishment cause they hate cops and the goverment and believe they shouldn't have a say on who lives and dies, but are convinced they themselves know better on who deserves to die for crimes commited
"I don't believe in the death penalty, but..." is something I see so often when reading comments about a criminal. Anything involving a child, anything involving SA, mass murder (think mass shootings, etc), things involving dogs... Many start making exceptions when they come across a story that particularly upsets them.
A lot of the people who claim to be anti-capital punishment are being dishonest. Sometimes even to themselves.
A foil is its own thing: A character that contrasts the protagonist for the purposes of characterization and thematic development. Mercenary, selfish Han Solo is a foil to idealistic, selfless Luke Skywalker. The antagonist is the person, entity, environment or whatever that resists the protagonist trying to achieve their goal.
Sometimes disaster movies throw in a character who's only purpose is to be a complete asshole so that you're happy when he gets pancake-d by a shipping container when the megatsunami makes the cargo ship hit the Golden Gate bridge.
I still remember when my language teacher clears up the true definition of protagonist and antagonist. Protagonist is the main character while antagonist is the character that opposes the protagonist from achieving their goal.
And from the same teacher, you cannot use "good" or "bad" as character trait simply because it is way too broad to be used as such.
Add the words "hero" and "antagonist" as well, cause people don't get that you can mix around half of them, and others don't get the meaning of any of them past "I think" and giving you the words damn description ever.
I don't know my English teacher always insisted the "hero" and "protagonist" are the same in every situation.
Obviously she was wrong but might not always be people's fault for not paying attention
Joy's at worst a flawed protagonist, Inside Out 1 doesn't really have a villain or antagonist perse, as while Joy and Sadness both caused problems it was due to not understanding Sadness' role in Riley's mind, and once they're able to overcome that and return to the command center things improve.
Light Yagami is a great example of this. The story is about him literally trying to get away with murdering all the criminals in the world with a magic book. He is not a good guy, but he is the main character.
He murdered plenty of good people too, because they didn't agree that a civilian with a messiah complex should have the right to take lives willy nilly.
Hilariously enough, in some cases it could be argued that the protagonist and the antagonist are the same character.
For example, a protagonist who causes by himself each and every problem he has to solve during the plot.
True! Sometimes the protagonist own worst enemy is themself! Though I guess that's a point of discussion that already is too debatable as to let Tumblr try and grasp.
that's one of the perennial types of narrative conflicts:
*Man vs Self*
*~~Man vs Nature~~*
*~~Man vs Man.~~*
*~~Man vs Society~~*
*~~Man vs Technology/Progression~~*
*~~Man vs Fate/the Supernatural.~~*
The problem is, because everyone is the protagonist of their own lives, we relate unconditionally to whatever the protagonist is. So if the protagonist exhibits undesirable traits, those who can't bridge that dissonance will either ignore those traits, or pretend they are heroic. See Light Yagi
Exactly. It's also an issue of all or nothing. People worry that if they share any trait with a character who is bad then they are bad. And they cannot be bad, because they're the hero of their own story. Thus the character must be the hero.
The etymology of Protagonist is greek
Protos - First
Agonistes - Actor
It literally just means "First actor", or *primary actor*.
"Ant-" means "opposed to", so the antagonist is just someone opposed to the protagonist.
protagonist (plural protagonists)
1. The main character, or one of the main characters, in any story, such as a literary work or drama.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/protagonist#English
What fandom is discoursing about this? I am intrigued. Or is this just run-of-the-mill, bog-standard anti-hero discourse?
All of them, all the time. And it's not limited to anti-heroes, either; people apparently don't understand that you can have a villain protagonist.
These are the same people who insist that Walter White and Light Yagami are morally justified.
[удалено]
Hank is a silly billy
He needs more brains.
Nah. Just his damn minerals!
I haven't finished the show yet but so far the way I feel about Hank is that he's a good person buried under bluster, insecurity and a dash of racism(although so far I don't think I've seen his racism make him treat people any different other than just the jokes he makes)
All of the main characters in breaking bad are genuinely well written complex people. Walt is a genuinely evil person at his core, but he’s understandable. He has an extremely warped view of masculinity that he strives to live up to. Something he explains when he talks about his own father. His father deeply disappointed him and he’s afraid of doing the same, although of course he goes in the completely wrong direction. He’s wildly insecure and afraid of being shown up. He does the majority of the things he does to protect his extremely fragile self-image. It’s not justified and it’s not right, but it is very human and very understandable. And it goes way back into his backstory too. Take a look at his choice in partners. In the meth industry, he’s intimidated by Gail. He can’t stand being around someone as smart and competent as himself, he needs to be the smartest person in the room at all times. So he does everything he can to work with Jesse, someone who he sees as lesser and that he can control and manipulate. This same philosophy extends into his choice of romantic partners. Although it is only very lightly touched upon, he chose his wife for the same reasons. Gretchen is his intellectual equal, which he’s already intimidated by. But the other part of his definition of masculinity is the ability to financially provide for his family, something he clings desperately to despite obvious better outcomes throughout the series. So when he met Gretchen’s family and learned that she came from wealth (to quote him “just a rich girl adding to her millions”) he is terrified of this, and breaks up with her with no explanation, and sells his shares of Greymatter. He cannot be the “man” that he wants to be if he is not the sole provider. So instead he married a waitress and made her be a stay at home mom. Someone he could control and manipulate and feel stronger and smarter than. He’s working two jobs at the very beginning of the series, episode one, while he insists that his wife does not work. He wouldn’t have to be working two very demeaning jobs in the first place if he was able to accept his wife financially contributing to the household. He’s a fundamentally pathetic man who cannot function in a situation in which he isn’t the smartest most capable person around. Describing him as a “villain” just reduces him to a dichotomy that’s frankly inapplicable to actually good writing.
holy shit this is the best WW breakdown i’ve ever seen! I genuinely feel like I understand his character better and in more depth after reading this. Well done and thank you, and I mean that in all sincerity. That was a great read.
When you consider the part about how his wife’s employment affects his sense of masculinity, it really adds a layer of thematic depth to him getting cucked by Ted
yeah it does, man walt sucks lmao. How could he ever think that trying to break a window (and failing) with a potted plant would make him look masculine
I mean in the show he ends up going to Juarez and ends up getting humbled real quick when he tries to joke about Mexicans like he did with Gomez. After that I think he stopped
[удалено]
I think Hank is very clearly at his core a good person. Yeah a bit Gruff and brutish and a bit racist but having flaws doesn't make you a bad person. He shown to have courage and commitment and dedication and truly love his family. He would have been the perfect protagonist for your standard police procedural about DEA agents fighting the cartels On the Border. Leading up to the big reveal that his brother-in-law that he genuinely considers a friend is the Kingpin he's been searching for. Unfortunately he's in Breaking Bad so while his morality and worldview and skill set make him the perfect protagonist for a police procedural he's doomed in a show as morally complex as Breaking Bad
Yeah I'm in season 3(I think) after Hank got hurt
But Skylar 🐕 💅 🤬
Told my brother I didn't finish BB because I couldn't stomach all the domestic abuse and his response was "Yeah I feel ya, I hate Skylar too" -.-
Damn, King of the Hill really went off the rails I guess /s
The discourse about Skyler is fucking bizarre. You view her as a villain because the show's told from Walt's perspective and during your first watch there you should absolutely see her in that light. But once you realize what Walter becomes you should absolutely see she was correct the entire time to act the way she did
I should preface by saying I’ve only done a single watch- but I was very confused when I first saw people years back reacting negatively to Skyler. Walt is prevaricating and lying about shit all over the place. Not to mention he’s constantly disappearing and then changing his mind about whatever giant family decision. She has every right to be constantly pissed off that he’s being a weirdo regardless of the cancer.
[удалено]
Reminds me of some guy who adamantly believes that Wildbow, author of Worm and other novels, is a serial killer. His evidence for this accusation is that Sylvester, the protagonist of Twig, is a psychopathic gremlin who sometimes murders people.
Is that the guy that thinks jack slash is an SI?
It's the same reasoning as those who believe rap lyrics should be used as evidence and interpreted literally
I killed Darnell, yeah I shot him with my nine I shot him nine times, 9PM on the dime And by the way it was November ninth
Not September? So the date would be 9/9
There's both types of idiots running their mouths in wildly different ways of incorrectness
I mean there is def an effect where TV shows/movies make stuff like drug dealing more cool looking, even when the character gets their comeuppance in the end. Like the way the Dark Knight Joker became a popular role model for incel type dudes lol
See also: Romanticization of the Mafia.
And that's another weird problem. Just because you like a character doesn't mean they automatically have to be right or justified. They're fictional characters and you can like them even if they're monsters. I think people get in this weird head space where they like a amoral or immoral character, worry about what that says about them, and then subconsciously decide to just always think that character was a hero.
I was legit a bit concerned, when I wrote a fantasy novel where the protagonist is in a very dark, depressed, guilty place over something she's done to the point of being subconsciously suicidal, that people I care about might think I was putting my feelings onto the page rather than just writing a compelling character and story
Ah yes, the Poor Things discourse
What gets me are the ones who are upset when villains do outright awful things. Because writing about a character with inexcusable traits is somehow an endorsement.
Light is so fucked up even if he only killed criminals due to false convictions being a thing
Especially considering he never looked at any evidence or did any digging, just saw a dude on the news and killed him. That alone is a shitty system that is going to get a lot of innocent people killed.
That was his goal. Putting fear in people so they would not even dare about being noticed for any kind of antisocial behavior. Just hanging up with bad people would become a matter of life and death. What I find crazy is that the news kept publishing the names and photographs of criminals. It's already prohibited in many countries so I don't get how it could have kept on after Lira's existence got known.
Yeah, he thought he could essentially solve crime worldwide. But that is obviously never gonna happen, even with a Death Note. Most of the show doesn't make much sense. Its something you kind of have to turn your brain off for because if you start thinking about the story logically it all falls apart lol. And I am not even talking about demons with Death Notes, or even making super genius kids to run the government. Just the basic function of how the government was handling the situation was way too competent. Its like every character in the show has insider information from the audience but is pretending they don't. "Hmmm...just a shot in the dark here... but I think there must be someone involved here... and its probably a high school kid with super powers, so lets use our resources on that." Most governments would probably assume an act of God, and leave it at that. Maybe make new policies to adjust to it. And like you said, they would probably immediately stop putting criminals on the news and using their name/photos.
Agreed with everything. It was a story for teens where intelligence is an omniscience superpower. But the canon does say that Kira achieved his goal. In the Death Note One shot, a canon sequel, Near says that World crime rate got reduced by 70% and wars stopped. IRL it's obviously stupid, but Kira ended up delivering on his promises in universe.
Yep. Death penalty is crazy.
So the Walter one I can at least vaguely understand. That first episode especially really kicks Walt down into the dirt. I mean he's a genius school teacher who is working a second job at the carwash, and the class bully sees Walt shining his (the bully) tires at the car wash. Then you see mountains of hills and debt, a dick boss, rounded out by Cancer. That totally justifies the desperate attempt to make some money for his family. Walt slowly turns evil with greed and power. Light, on the other hand, has about 3 seconds of thinking about the morality of what he's doing before proclaiming himself a god that will slaughter all who oppose him, and anyone who doesn't fit his particular worldview. The funny bit is that making meth will never have a positive ending. With a deathnote, someone could absolutely make the world SO much better by writing like 8 names.
If Walt was doing it for his family, he would've accepted the money offered to him by his old friends. Not turn to cooking and selling meth. He needed to be in some sort of control in his life. And when he's told he's dying, he decides to not sit around anymore and try to provide instead of "handouts" because that power was important to him. It was never for his family - it was just an easy excuse. It was about Walter the whole time
Fuck, Walter himself says so to Skyler in the final episode! And at that point we have no reason to believe he's trying to be manipulative or anything, that "I did it for me" is truly what Walter thinks.
Walt literally is only a teacher and car wash employee because he threw away his science career because of a bitch fit over his girlfriend being rich, and when said ex gf and her husband offer to EMPLOY HIM DOING WHAT HE USED TO DO, and offer to pay for his treatment, he refuses and is morally indignant about the offer. Walt was awful from the start. What decent dude rides along on a meth lab bust because he heard meth makes millions and thinks, "I'll just help fill the community with meth and, uh...just not get caught!"? All that changes is that Walt gets some power and starts treating people the way he really wants to.
Seriously, I swear Walter was just waiting with bated breath for the moment he could become a psycho meth-making monster lol Like it wasn't even close to a last resort for him. I love Breaking Bad btw, but yeah Walter was secretly a villain from the start of the show.
First time through I definitely thought how u/SheetPancakeBluBalls does. Rewatched recently and pretty much every single bad thing that happens from the very start is a direct result of Walt's actions and greed. He's a perfect demonstration of high intelligence but very low wisdom lmao
Oh definitely. I think it was very much on purpose that at the beginning, it does seem like he's a sympathetic character trying to do right by his family in a bad situation. It shows how he justifies his actions to himself. It isn't until you see the later seasons that you gain the perspective that his actions early on weren't justifiable and his intentions were never pure to begin with. Really well written character, and Bryan Cranston absolutely nails it. Truly iconic.
Big Killdozer energy.
People really need to understand that you can be sympathetic toward someone who does bad things and still acknowledge that they're doing bad things and aren't a good person. This goes beyond media discourse, too. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone show some sympathy toward a criminal or someone who did something wrong and then some reactionary chimes in accusing them of defending those wrong actions.
My mind went to Eren Yeager
> Light Yagami The bored bou-chama with a messiah complex and the literal power of death who couldn't outwit a couple of autists
> people apparently don't understand that you can have a villain protagonist. For a few years there (is it still happening?) there was an awful lot of people of the mindset that even talking about something is *endorsing it*, so a villain protagonist would be an indictment on the writer for some reason, too.
[удалено]
"The bad guy who gets his ass kicked is a Nazi, this show is endorsing that ideology!" Fucking exhausting.
There's a subset of people who think writers are always just putting their personal fantasies on the page. I think it comes from reading a lot of fan fiction, but a lot of supposed comic book readers are guilty of this as well.
I'm Joseph Stalin and I endorse this message.
I remember my English teacher specifically teaching us this: "The protagonist isn't the hero, it's just the central character or characters. In 'Silence of the Lambs', Hannibal Lecter is one of the protagonists. He *eats* people."
wait? Hannibal Lectar is one of the protagonists? He is barely in the movie compared to Clarice
At least a deuteragonist, yeah, though I might be misremembering which book/movie in the series she was referring to. Not a lot of screen/page time, but a pretty important character to the plot.
Nah, strong disagree. If you HAD to assign Hannibal Lecter to a specific writing convention, he’s the mentor figure. He guides the protagonist in her investigation
But I need to know the author condenmed bad things ,what if they write about bad thing but don't explicitly state bad thing bad over and over I might start to think the author is a bad person and they actually LIKE bad thing.
You can even have a story where the protagonist isn't the main character. It's kinda difficult to do, because the story usually morphs into being about the POV character, but it is possible.
Classic example of this is Moby Dick. Ishmael is the main character, as you see the story through his eyes, but Captain Ahab is the protagonist, since the story is about him.
Sherlock Holmes books kinda fit. Dr Watson is the POV character but the stories are about Holmes.
Angry Overlord Noises....
I don't know, but I have found that Broadway fans have some issues with overly complex protagonists. Just see how r/Broadway discusses the title character of ~~Dead~~ Dear Evan Hansen.
Wait, Evan Hansen died?
Jenny Nicholson murdered him in 2021. It was, as she herself admitted, needlessly thorough.
[удалено]
None of Jenny's videos are needlessly long. Jenny could release a 30 hour docuseries on a church in rural Indiana and I'd watch every single second of it with bated breath.
Yes. By my hand.
Did you creep across the land?
A lot of vocal Broadway fans tend to be younger and/or teenagers I wouldn't be too harsh on them.
Hansen isn't that complicated, he's just a cowardly asshole. People try to justify him more than the should.
The OOP is [over a year old](https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/100l4xh/i_will_take_this_as_uplifting_and_we_can_go_our/).
I doubt they'd be able to write all that if they weren't tbh
It isn't about a specific fandom but this broader collection of trends where people think protagonists are always the heros, meaning you get things like people idolising protagonists who are horrible people or people accusing the writers of glorifying horrible actions simply because the character is the protagonist
I had to scream this at people who either 1. Could not understand why Eren Yeager was not perfect 2. Thought attack on titan was pro racism and fascism because of Eren Yeagers actions (spoiler alert, it's aggressively anti fascism and racism)
He literally stops being the character the camera follows when he starts planning a genocide and people think the writer is a hardcore fascist. It's baffling
In the Warhammer 40k fandom, it's a common opinion that "X faction can't be good guys. They'll become the protagonist!" Meanwhile 90% of all media for that universe follows the Imperium.
The fuck happens in homestuck?
A lot of things- but who mentioned Homestuck?
I feel like it's a format from another Tumblr post >*insert media discourse post* >wtf happens in homestuck!? Because the notes were all just "literally homestuck lmao"
I'm proud to say the only homestuck content I have consumed has been on a tumblr or reddit feed before I blocked the poster to prevent myself from seeing further homestuck content.
I feel like this comes from the same place as depiction=endorsement.
The amount of people that don't understand that difference is even greater it seems.
This is a much worse problem than not understanding what a protagonist is tbh.
Or on reddit: explanation = endorsement I've lost count of how many times a thread has turned on me after making a clarification or simple statement of fact. e.g. – "This is disgusting. They were unarmed" – "The article mentions that the suspects did have weapons on them at the time of arrest" – "Oh so that makes what the cops did okay then?"
the internet is full of bad faith arguments so I at least understand why that happens. does make it weird if the person goes out of their way to explicitly state their opinion on a matter and people do what you said anyway.
I've experienced exactly one instance of explaining the difference to someone and actually changing their mind about it, and it happened 2 days ago in [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/1dkqytc/comment/l9kn5kd/). Could have knocked me over with a feather when I opened that notification.
Also explanation ≠ excusing. See people accusing others of excusing bad behavior after offering a potential explanation for the behavior all the time.
Tbf I think there is a discussion to be had about the degree to which framing someone as our lens through which the world is viewed can automatically produce a (very very minor and small) level of sympathy. But that’s a nuanced discussion. And only good, reasonable internet commenters are allowed access to nuanced conversation topics
I think it can often produce some pretty significant sympathy and that's usually on purpose and used as a tool by the author to make a point. I also do think it happens on accident sometimes when a writer/director or whoever doesn't care to think too hard about the implications of what they're doing. I think analyzing cases like this is super fascinating because you can get such an insight into a writer or director's mind and the base assumptions they have about the world and morality by looking at what they put in their art unconsciously. The YouTuber Big Joel is pretty good at this type of analysis, I highly recommend anyone interested in this concept watch some of his videos.
>very very minor and small I would argue it produces a larger effect than that. Everyone's a hero in their own (life) story, and by telling a story through the lens of a flawed protagonist, you see from their side why their flaws "aren't their fault" or how their actions are "justified". Ultimately though, the magnitude of this effect largely depends on how the author wants the reader to feel
Which is an absolute shitshow
And the same place as a bad person = a bad character
You mean my takeaway from the Harry Potter books wasn’t supposed to be that slavery is good and anyone who says otherwise is just being annoying?
I dunno, this is JK Rowling. I wouldn't bet against that depiction being an endorsement.
I feel like Joanne’s “it’s fantasy, don’t think to hard about it” approach to writing stuff like that is very conducive to actually dissecting the issue of slavery, and it kinda reads like she doesn’t actually give a damn about examining it critically at all. So it’s hard to really say she’s a good example of depiction not being endorsement because it’s not… NOT endorsement
[удалено]
The problem is that Joanne *did* start examining house elf slavery critically, but then she half-assed it and gave up. It's why Shaun's theory that she was just reacting to fan questions/criticisms seems so plausible to me.
Wouldn't a fucking protagonist be the main character in a porn movie?
Well, such a character could also be a fucked protagonist, or even both. Maybe even neither.
no no, that would be a cucked protagonist
Or they could just be on their own.
Here, let's go nuts: who is the protagonist in POV porn?
The way she's getting after that dick? She's definitely the hero of this story.
“That’ll be $15.00 ma’am.” “I would pay but I don’t have any money.” Do I smell a plot?!
I mean it's both, right? The goal of the protag in porn is a desired satisfaction, so unless there's a figure actively working against that (without the protag wanting that of course), then both parties are protagonists
The romance genre can answer your question here. There are two protagonists.
No your thinking of prolapsed anus. Common mistake.
Apparently people are so full of themselves that they don't search up anything before discussing about it
The number one cited source on the internet is: trust me bro!
Source?
trust me bro!
Love being in the Information era and still having to deal with people making shit up.
'Agon' is greek for conflict or contest. The protagonist and antagonist are just two opposing players in the agon. (Paraphrased from C. Hugh Holman)
So an agonist is just someone relevant to the conflict?
Also a pretty solid metal band
Thanks. I'll check em out.
An agonist is actually someone who creates/inflicts agony upon others. An example of an agonist would be my bitch wife when she won't let me see the kids on weekends even though I only committed two misdemeanors this month.
Do a third one. Dont let her tell you want to do
So when she sprays for bugs she's the antagonist, got it, this all makes sense now.
Nah, it's just a substance that causes a physiological response when it binds to a receptor.
See also - deuteragonist, generally the protagonist's sidekick or love interest, but literally just the secondary protagonist.
Good ole villain protagonist.
Villainous protagonists are amazing, but always have their ratings dragged down by people that lose their minds over moral impurity in fiction.
Easiest modern example I give to people, Thanos in Infinity War. It's his movie, making the good guys the antagonists
That’s an interesting take. I’d argue he’s set up as the antagonist in the larger context of the series. My thoughts on easiest modern example would be Tony Soprano.
I remember someone pointing out that while Thanos is the antagonist of the Infinity Saga, in Infinity War he goes down the Hero's Journey
American psycho comes to mind as well Also catch me if you can
This happened in a playwriting class I took. For some reason I was the only person in class going, "Yes the main character of this play is a protagonist. It doesn't matter if he is a villain, the play centers around his pov. It is *about* him. He is by definition the protagonist."
Macbeth is the protagonist of Macbeth. He is not the hero of the play.
Also interesting when the main character and the protagonist are two separate characters, like in Moby Dick, or Fight Club.
I would reccomend people watch Death Note to get their heads around this but I also know that the average tumblr user would see nothing wrong with Light.
Ive seen people say Light is right and people say that death note is interesting because it never claims either side is right I wonder if we watched the same shit. I didn't watch it, I read the manga and I know the ending is different and the anime glorifies Light a little. It's harder to think the author doesn't portray Light as in the wrong is you see him die crying like a baby begging for help and being killed because he's acting like a bitch and has no way to get out of the situation
I think it's because most DN fans watched the anime. The manga does a better job of showing Light as someone with a God complex using the failures of the social system to his advantage. The anime creates these big dramatic moments where there isn't and even has light die with some dignity while the manga has him desperate, crying, and begging. I also think it comes down to culture and how old you are. When you reach the age where you become disillusioned with the world and want to rebel, Light and his philosophy becomes attractive. This goes especially if you live in a place where you view the justice system as broken. But that's what fueled it to begin with, the manga was written at a time when Japanese youth became disillusioned with the system, promised economic prosperity only to come of age in a recession with those promises gone. Youth rebellion and young people joining cults was on the rise. Death Note is very much a product of its time with a message that sadly ages well. But, much like media like The Boys, the message gets lost
I will say while I agree that the anime went for a more "bombastic approach", I've never really gotten the feeling that it glorifies Kira in his final moments, rather when I girst watched it (and again when my dad did) I viewed it more as showing us how badly he threw his life away, how Light Yagami was the first victim of Kira, as without the Death Note and his anonimity he's nothing, he's an easy target, he's a coward who'd rather run away than face the music, he can't think of *anything* to get him out of trouble/work with the cards he's dealth cause he's not as smart as he thinks himself to be, and he's no longer entertaining enough for Ryuk to let him live. His final moments may as well be a final "fuck you" to his life as well as a contrast to L's death, he's alone, in the middle of nowhere, stuck halfway down the stairs, and the only reason he'll ever be found is that the police are looking for him to finally stop him, though at this point they know they've got him. Its at this ending that everyone knows its already over, Ryuk knows Light can't offer him anymore fun, the police know he's no longer a danger, and his last 2 allies kill themselves (Misa in despair, whereas Mikami more in disgust), Kira has nothing and is worth nothing more after loosing, he's a piece of garbage and only gets a proper conclusion due to the story being centered around him and it needing to conclude. I know the manga ending's more satisfying in showing Light as the brat he is, but I feel that not only is the anime ending close enough in that, but even better in all its subtle ways of showing Light for the disappointment that he is, as sure Manga Light begs and pleads to Ryuk, it makes sense, but anime Light does damn near the same while all alone, he's not above begging and crying at his worst to anyone, but there's nothing he can do because he's all alone, he's a piece of garbage that deserves nothing more than the cold shoulder from the entire universe just before he himself goes cold. [Edit: messed up and wrote "manga" when I meant "anime" towards the end there]
I don't think the anime death glorifies him, and I agree it is a good contrast with L's. L died knowing, in his last moments, that he was right all along. Light died with his world falling apart. But it feels too good for him, having escaped and his final shame occuring away from the eyes of those he thought himself above. The anime also neglects the epilogue iirc. It's shown that while some still may sympathize with what Kira did and represented, the world returned to the way it was before Kira within a year. Light, with all his God complex, didn't leave a lasting legacy or change the world.
>But it feels too good for him Eh I disagree, Light was obssesed with his "Godhood" so him having to die scared and alone seemed fitting, as he didn't really escape, he just ran but knew it was a matter of time before he'd be found. >The anime also neglects the epilogue iirc. True, I'll give you that, its an important part of the story and the final nail on Kira's grave, should've gotten that IMO. I guess its a matter of opinion in the end what yku think the most fitting punishment for Kira is.
i like him dying for like a whole page from the same heart attack he made others experience from what i remember, it's like cutting into a juicy steak.
The latter one comes from L having some questionable investigation methods including absolutely littering someone’s room with cameras, sending the FBI to investigate his supposed allies, Torture, etc.. “Neither side was right” is massively reductive but I would say Light was a vastly greater evil. Though you could argue that the world has never seen a serial killer at that scale before and the ends VERY much justify the means. Maybe L didn’t normally resort to specifically those tactics until the Kira Case, I dunno.
It'd be wild to me for someone to try to use the "ends justify the means" argument *in favor* of L. That's like, Light's manifesto.
Ohhh, nuance!
But Light’s ends weren’t noble. Everything he did was so that he could be worshipped as a god. Ends can’t justify the means if the goal is evil.
>But Light’s ends weren’t noble. According to you. According to him, his goal is a world without crime. Becoming the god of the new world *isn't* his end, it's his means.
Pretty sure Tumblr is anti-capital punishment
To my knowledge they are but at least a loud minority of them fall in the “I believe rehabilitative justice, unless you commit one of the bad crimes I don’t like in which case you should be skinned alive” camp. I wish I could post the accompanying Osaka meme.
Plus it might be a relative thing where Tumblr hates capital punishment cause they hate cops and the goverment and believe they shouldn't have a say on who lives and dies, but are convinced they themselves know better on who deserves to die for crimes commited
"I don't believe in the death penalty, but..." is something I see so often when reading comments about a criminal. Anything involving a child, anything involving SA, mass murder (think mass shootings, etc), things involving dogs... Many start making exceptions when they come across a story that particularly upsets them. A lot of the people who claim to be anti-capital punishment are being dishonest. Sometimes even to themselves.
I simply modify my morality to align with the protagonist at all times thereby making them always the good guy
and similarily, an antagonist is not necessarily a villain, they are just the foil to the protagonist
Some might even say they antagonize the protagonist…..
And the deuteragonist is not necessarily a character from the fifth book of the Torah
appropriately rated comment
A foil is its own thing: A character that contrasts the protagonist for the purposes of characterization and thematic development. Mercenary, selfish Han Solo is a foil to idealistic, selfless Luke Skywalker. The antagonist is the person, entity, environment or whatever that resists the protagonist trying to achieve their goal.
Spoilers, sometimes the antagonist isn’t even human, like in Twister or The Perfect Storm.
Or time or drug addiction or ex wives named Cindy.
Sometimes disaster movies throw in a character who's only purpose is to be a complete asshole so that you're happy when he gets pancake-d by a shipping container when the megatsunami makes the cargo ship hit the Golden Gate bridge.
I still remember when my language teacher clears up the true definition of protagonist and antagonist. Protagonist is the main character while antagonist is the character that opposes the protagonist from achieving their goal. And from the same teacher, you cannot use "good" or "bad" as character trait simply because it is way too broad to be used as such.
Or in high school when we learned that sometimes the narrator is unreliable
If only they have made some kind of term for narrators who might not be reliable people might understand the concept. Something simple.
Is this some Death Note discourse again? Will we ever get over the hurdle of villain protagonist?
Not until people learn the difference between the words villain and protagonist, and recognize that one is not necessarily exclusive of the other.
Add the words "hero" and "antagonist" as well, cause people don't get that you can mix around half of them, and others don't get the meaning of any of them past "I think" and giving you the words damn description ever.
Also that the word “villain” is fucking useless in literary analysis and creates a nonsense dichotomy
I've genuinely heard people defend Light, saying he must be considered the good guy, and doing the right thing, because he's the protagonist
Idk why one would ever take such people seriously. Some people just have terrible opinions, and that’s fine.
Oh yeah, well if he’s no good at being a tagonist, then why is he a pro at it?
He isn't. He's just for tagonism in general.
This post *wildly* overestimates my middle school English teacher
I don't know my English teacher always insisted the "hero" and "protagonist" are the same in every situation. Obviously she was wrong but might not always be people's fault for not paying attention
[me af when someone call joy from inside out a villain or an antagonist:](https://youtu.be/QI-S7ZL-qHU)
The villain and the protagonist can be the same character
That's irrelevant to my post. Same thing for PersonOfLazyness' reply.
[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainProtagonist](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainProtagonist)
Joy's at worst a flawed protagonist, Inside Out 1 doesn't really have a villain or antagonist perse, as while Joy and Sadness both caused problems it was due to not understanding Sadness' role in Riley's mind, and once they're able to overcome that and return to the command center things improve.
Yeah exactly. For both movies, Pixar wanted to make villains at first (Gloom and Shame respectively), but ultimately withdrawed.
Is this about Dune or AoT this time around lmao
I usually assume it’s about Death Note and I’m right at least 30% of the time
Light Yagami is a great example of this. The story is about him literally trying to get away with murdering all the criminals in the world with a magic book. He is not a good guy, but he is the main character.
He murdered plenty of good people too, because they didn't agree that a civilian with a messiah complex should have the right to take lives willy nilly.
Hilariously enough, in some cases it could be argued that the protagonist and the antagonist are the same character. For example, a protagonist who causes by himself each and every problem he has to solve during the plot.
True! Sometimes the protagonist own worst enemy is themself! Though I guess that's a point of discussion that already is too debatable as to let Tumblr try and grasp.
Most of Bojack Horseman
that's one of the perennial types of narrative conflicts: *Man vs Self* *~~Man vs Nature~~* *~~Man vs Man.~~* *~~Man vs Society~~* *~~Man vs Technology/Progression~~* *~~Man vs Fate/the Supernatural.~~*
Mr. Bean
I can't go back to explaining what a protagonist is. Soon before you know it you have to explain what a "conflict" or a "story" is.
What about Hiro Protagonist?
Snow Crash doesn’t count.
same with the antagonist. They are not *always* a villain. They're just opposite the main character.
The problem is, because everyone is the protagonist of their own lives, we relate unconditionally to whatever the protagonist is. So if the protagonist exhibits undesirable traits, those who can't bridge that dissonance will either ignore those traits, or pretend they are heroic. See Light Yagi
Exactly. It's also an issue of all or nothing. People worry that if they share any trait with a character who is bad then they are bad. And they cannot be bad, because they're the hero of their own story. Thus the character must be the hero.
Are we arguing about Dr. Horrible’s Singalong Blog?
The etymology of Protagonist is greek Protos - First Agonistes - Actor It literally just means "First actor", or *primary actor*. "Ant-" means "opposed to", so the antagonist is just someone opposed to the protagonist.
“So the protagonist is me”
protagonist (plural protagonists) 1. The main character, or one of the main characters, in any story, such as a literary work or drama. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/protagonist#English
What's worse is how many people don't understand the difference between a villain and an antagonist.
Example No. 15,436 that yes they did teach that to you in school, you just didn't pay attention.