|
Post by The Cardington Police on May 11, 2007 23:49:49 GMT -5
true
it seems to me as if this is a topic in the game that wouldn't be so ambiguous however...Clara is already barely touched upon as a character as it is and it would appear that this metaphor should be taken as face value...i hate to think that the writers would implement such symbolism only to revoke and turn them into "false memories"
i do agree that alot of her visions/memories are skewed, but why would Atlus give us a bit of a metaphorical statement that could shed light on other ambiguities about her, (the drawer could have some sort of sexual implementation) It seems as if the evidence against Hoffman is pretty well grounded. He seems as if he has major issues with sexual child abuse as basically every single time you seem him he is depicted as a dirty old man. (the scene with Diana - laden with sexual overtone, and lest we forget the peephole viewing of obvious sexual reference, Clara wasn't just "cleaning"...thats what Martha is for!)
I understand that you are going with the idea that they are gross misrepresentations of a childs mind, but i highly doubt that Jennifer even had sexual notions at that age in which she could create such visions....wouldn't it be the other way around anyway? children see things initially from an innocent point of view rather than a tainted or sexual view...even the most disgusting things can seem innocent or not understood by children
|
|
|
Post by The Cardington Police on May 11, 2007 23:54:19 GMT -5
In addition, this innocence is exemplified by the fact that to Jennifer, her and Wendy are just playing a game, it doesn't appear to be any sort of sexual or homosexual romanticism...to her it is just a fun game to play Prince and Princess......why would she get such sexual ideas in her head in such a short time??
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on May 12, 2007 0:12:52 GMT -5
Who knows what Jennifer was learning about in that orphanage. You have to remember, Jennifer was only a little girl, so she can very easilly get things confused. For example, the imps. They were not real, but as she was only a child when she heard of them, she thought they were. Thus, in her "dream", they ARE real.
Take this alternative scenario into account. You are a small child cleaning a room. A timid girl you know is heard crying out. She enters the room hurt, followed by the scary, strict male teacher, who ushers you out. Even though you did not SEE what happened, as a child, you may be quick to assume that the scary teacher hurt the timid girl, when she might have just fallen in reality.
Jennifer knew Clara as timid and thought she acted scary(grown-up) when around the adults(like Hoffman). She knew Mr. Hoffman as strict and frightening. And suppose Diana, being the type of girl she is, lied to the others and told them something had happened that had not, to get attention. This might all lead to Jennifer witnessing something completely innocent and twisting it into something terrifying.
|
|
|
Post by The Cardington Police on May 12, 2007 0:23:54 GMT -5
However, it is made implicitly clear that Meg, Eleanor and Jennifer are all eavesdropping on Diana/Hoffman, so they all saw it happen, not just Jennifer....Also, if you look at the expressions of Meg/Eleanor, they are just as astonished...
What about Diana proceeding to tackle Jennifer onto the bed?
Who could Jennifer be "learning" from if they are all roughly the same age? I doubt little girls isolated from the outside world know about those things.... Besides, Diana seems to be the only one who would talk about sexuality and we saw her reaction to the advances of Hoffman, shame and then anger....i don't see her wanting to speak about such things!
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on May 12, 2007 0:38:47 GMT -5
Meg and Eleanor may very well have been watching-or did they just tell Jennifer that they witnessed Hoffman doing something? Perhaps to get revenge on Diana. And they don't look shocked-they look devilishly amused.
What about Diana tackling Jennifer onto the bed? It was just there. She would have tackled her to the floor if she had to-she just wanted to stick that rag in her face.
Who knows? We don't know the circumstances that left them in the care of the orphanage. One of them could have been going through something, she could have read it in the library, or they may even have taught the orphans it as a reason not to talk to strangers. Things at that orphanage were hardly ordinary.
|
|
|
Post by The Cardington Police on May 12, 2007 13:46:17 GMT -5
hmm, i just disagree
i think the story is supposed to be Freudian (repressed/hidden memories) rather than Jungian (the changing of these memories)
But now we're just getting into a whole new topic completely! I still say that Hoffman was indeed a sexual deviant and the vomit was another symbolization of this interpretation...anyone elses thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on May 12, 2007 15:11:30 GMT -5
But the whole story support the idea of twisted memories. Aside from the imps, there is also the Princess of the Red Rose, who is represented by Jennifer's old doll instead of the person she is because of her jumbled memories. Or all the contradicting dates. The toy bird becoming a real one. Hoffman's leaving replaced with a boss battle and death were he is swept away by the imps, which is what the orphans probably thought happened to him.
|
|