FoxBoom!

It goes without saying this post has a few Portal spoilers, but I just want to put to rest some misconceptions about the demise of your Companion Cube.

“All Aperture technologies remain safely operational up to 4000 degrees Kelvin.” [GlaDOS]

Okay, we all know GlaDOS tells a few fibs, but we have to at least assume that the Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device can survive that heat. I’m happy to assume that if Aperture Labs can (and have good reason to) build a portal gun capable of withstanding 4000 kelvin then it’s no great stretch of the imagination to see a storage cube surviving the same.

But this raises the question, why the pretence of euthanising the Companion Cube if it’s known by the test’s designers that the cube will survive? I think it’s clear that the experiment is testing Chell just as much as the portal gun itself, and I believe the forced perception of incineration of the Companion Cube is to invoke an emotional reaction in order to influence the upcoming tests (i.e. to change Chell’s perception of the experiment’s handlers, to invoke feelings of revenge or determination, or potentially depression). Following on, I believe it’s possible that the Companion Cube’s re-appearance at the end of the testing could be a helpful component of the test subject’s counselling.

“I’m not even angry,
I’m being so sincere right now,
Even though you broke my heart and killed me,
And tore me to pieces,
And threw every piece into a fire,
As they burned it hurt because I was so happy for you!” [GlaDOS]

But we know those euthanising fires aren’t totally harmless to all Aperture Labs technology. GlaDOS herself admits she died when you threw her components in the fire, but if she’s “still alive” then how can this be?

We already know that GlaDOS tried to kill the human inhabitants of the lab, but rather than dismantle her, it was decided to keep her alive and working, but to also fit a “morality core” to stop it happening again. GlaDOS proved herself to be a dangerous machine, but for one reason or another, it was worth keeping her alive.

It seems to me to be perfectly plausible that, beyond that “morality core”, a simple fallback method of destroying her would also have been implemented. And given her total control over all the computer systems in the lab, I’d expect that termination procedure to be entirely physical… say, the physical removal and destruction of her core components? Say, by making the core components easy to remove and fitting a euthanising tube in the room? And not one of the “fake” tubes used for emotional and psychological testing… one hot enough to even destroy Aperture Labs materials? And isn’t it possible that GlaDOS could become aware of this contingency, and personally arrange for some backups to be kept in a quiet little storage room somewhere…?

“There was even going to be a party for you. A big party that all your friends were invited to. I invited your best friend the Companion Cube. Of course, he couldn’t come because you murdered him.” [GlaDOS]

But of course, there was a party! And there was a companion cube there… but was it your Companion Cube? I say yes!

Let’s assume your Companion Cube survived the fire. He sits and waits, and is plucked out by a robotic transporter, like the ones seen placing turrets… and the one at your party, with your Companion Cube?

As I said earlier, I believe it was the designers’ intention to rescue the Companion Cube and re-unite you with him. The mechanisms for retrieval (i.e. survival capability and transport devices) are present.

Companion Cube is still alive.