|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Nov 5, 2007 2:40:44 GMT -5
It was not supposed to look like a normal bed-it's an examination table.
|
|
|
Post by cmwilso3 on Nov 6, 2007 22:09:41 GMT -5
But how many examination tables in a pediatrician's office have gynecological stirrups?
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Nov 8, 2007 4:38:41 GMT -5
That's not what they are.-.-;
|
|
|
Post by lastgunslinger on Nov 8, 2007 12:37:42 GMT -5
They could possibly be small lamps directly above where the head would be.
However, I do not think that there is any evidence to disprove the idea of Clara being molested, or even having a secret consensual affair with Hoffman. Because this game contains a lot of meaningful nuance, I would lean more towards this theory. Hoffman's abrupt departure from the orphanage bespeaks some secret shame from which he is trying to escape. Clara's behaviour in the sickroom is incredibly nervous. Thematically, the tie between his inappropriate touching if Diana in the Mermaid Princess chapter, and Diana's obsession with being beautiful and grown-up, and Clara's figurative casting as the mermaid that is gutted and hollowed out and full of revulsion, is a very strong indicator that such an event occurred.
We already know that the game's events are exaggerations of things that Jennifer experienced. To say that some of the major plot points are complete misinterpretations of something innocent is either a bad analysis or bad storytelling.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Nov 8, 2007 14:18:09 GMT -5
Clara's appearance as a mermaid is explained in the unused dialogue, and there have been many other theories as to why she takes that form.
There is nothing bad about that analysis, since it is fact. The whole game is full of innocent things turned wicked and wicked things turned innocent. Even Jennifer herself states this.
|
|
|
Post by cmwilso3 on Nov 8, 2007 19:40:36 GMT -5
How can it be fact? If the dialogue is unused, can we truly consider it to be canon?
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Nov 9, 2007 5:55:43 GMT -5
You are getting mixed up. No one said the dialogue was canon, only that it offered an explanation.
The fact was that there was nothing wrong with people saying Jennifer's mind darkened innocent incidents, since that does happen in the game frequently.
|
|
|
Post by lastgunslinger on Nov 9, 2007 17:15:37 GMT -5
Because much of the story is gleaned indirectly from clues and subtext, though, it's difficult to say which events were innocent.
With a work such as this, it is designed so that the story is made for the viewer to extrapolate; it's not simply told to you. While it makes the work more challenging intellectually, it also severely limits what we can call a fact and a falsehood. Theories are proposed so that all of the story's details fit together in a sensible manner, and you have to judge it from several different aspects.
One aspect is the literal flow of events that are hinted at in the story; which events are possible to have occurred, and which of those are more probable than others.
Another aspect is the symbolism proposed by details in game, and which events follow the established symbolism. A theory can make sense literally, but if it contradicts the symbolic structure presented to us, then as a whole the story does not come together well.
Yet another level of analysis is thematic: what is the story presented to us trying to say, and does a theory fit with that theme?
To me, a major theme in the game is how a community can spin out of control and lead to certain members abusing others for personal gain. Hoffman taking liberties with the girls at the orphanage fits into that theme for me, and the symbols presented in-game line up with that idea.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Nov 9, 2007 17:28:23 GMT -5
That has nothing to do with what we are discussing, nor why you chose to insult those who think Jennifer was exagerating an innocent scene.
|
|
|
Post by lastgunslinger on Nov 10, 2007 18:14:37 GMT -5
It was not my intention to insult anyone. I was just pointing out some guidelines one could consider when making a theory about this detail of the story, in that a strong theory supports the entire story's symbolism and thematic structure. To me, it makes sense that Clara would have had sexual contact with Hoffman, and that whatever was in the drawer could have something to do with that; in the context of the sickroom, it would not be out of the question to say that an abortion or similar operation had taken place.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Nov 12, 2007 2:26:24 GMT -5
Yes, it would, for reasons stated throughout this entire thread.
|
|
|
Post by pinkoracle on May 7, 2008 8:14:12 GMT -5
lol at the abortion theory. The idea that Hoffman, a simple teacher could perform any open surgery is unrealistic. The idea that a Hoffman could single-handedly, with no specialised equipment, perform such an invasive operation is unrealistic. The idea that Clara would not haemorrhage to death or die from infection is unrealistic. Come on, it’s a theory too far.
I’m positive Hoffman took advantage of Clara in the sense that he gave her too many adult responsibilities and relied on her in much the same way a man relies on a wife. And that is where the misconstruction in Jennifer’s mind started. Then it was helped along by rumours of molestation. And yet I wouldn’t entirely rule it out, there was a lot of strong evidence for it. And maybe the unmarried mermaid connection to Clara was about her actually developing a desire to be Hoffman’s wife, and then being deeply hurt when he left her. But I wouldn’t offer that up for anything other then exploration.
As for Diana, well that whole rubbing scene could be said to be symbolic of Hoffman refusing her adulthood. She made a mistake and instead of holding her accountable like you would a grown up he coddles her like a child. Diana would find that disgusting.
Oh...and the draw. I think it’s something to keep us guessing, like how we are here. I don’t think it was something they abandoned mid game, it was always intended to get people thinking.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on May 7, 2008 11:55:18 GMT -5
Diana actually didn't do it, though. Maybe he thought she had, but it was Meg and Eleanor who took and killed his fish and tore up her doll to attach it to.
There is some unused dialogue on the disc, where the unmarried mermaids speak about how Hoffman used to tell her a story about them. It was related to ladies being adopted, but it's been awhile.
|
|
|
Post by pinkoracle on May 7, 2008 13:51:04 GMT -5
It was a failure in Hoffman’s eyes either way though, he left Diana in charge and his fish got axed. It was his initial reaction to reprimand her for it, but then decided she was only a child and the task had been beyond her. That’s just one way of interpreting Jennifer’s convoluted memories though.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on May 7, 2008 16:14:29 GMT -5
I know, I was just telling you that she actually was innocent.^^ I actually really like your theory.
|
|