Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-32182236-20180324175357

Welcome again! As you'd know if you looked at my first mini-theory, these attempt to explain small details, but do so from the ground up, without having to reply on other theories. However, these theories can build off of earlier ones in the series.. Don't worry, though:I'll be linking to them if/when I use them as evidence. In this theory, we'll be proving that the narrator is a canon entity within the game, along with their identity.

First things first:The narrator is in fact a canon entity, and it's quite easy to prove.

When you check monsters, the narrator gives you information about them. In Npastablook's case, the narrator says Napstablook doesn't seem to have a senae of humour. Napstablook actually responds to the narrator, saying "oh, i'm REAL funny". The fact that Napstablook can respond to the narrator proves they must exist as a real, canon, entity.

But, then, who IS the narrator? WHAT is the narrator? Well, since we've proven that the narrator is a real entity, we can analyze the narrator as its own character, and see if it matches that of other known characters.

Now, we can rule out any monsters that aren't with us, and monsters that the narrator speaks to, as they aren't the same. This also rules out the annoying dog himself.. Because in his room, the narrator asks you if you want to fight the dog when you interact with the dog. The narrator can't be Frisk, because they say "it's me, Chara", and Frisk knows that isn't their name. It can't be the player, because of these quotes:

The first has the narrator directly talking to Frisk, though we were the ones who chose this action. Therefore, telling us to "look at what we've done" means this cannot be a representation of the player here. The second quote shows the narrator does not have full knolwedge of what Frisk does, nor what we choose to do. (I mean, we didn't choose to cry). We've already proven it can't be Frisk, so, then.. Who else could it be? It appears as though we've ruled out everyone. Well, everyone but one.

You see, as I proved last theory, [|Chara is with us.] Therefore, they serve as a candidate for the narrator. Not only that, the narrator uses "It's me, CHARA"-It could be the narrator referring to themselves. And, they fit the bill perfectly. Let's compare lines from the narrator to what we know about Chara, shall we?

(6th image)

Interesting to note that, narrator. But.. That quote is specifically about Chara's bed. The bed they died in. And they don't say that anywhere else in the game. Not to mention that the narration text turns rainbow when Asriel shows his true form... Indicative of a relationship between the narrator and Asriel? Between Chara and Asriel, which we already know at least appeared to be like siblings?

So, we've ruled out everyone but Chara, and the narrator fits the personality of Chara. Therefore, it's pretty clear that Chara is the narrator. (We already know they were with us.. So you'd probably expect them to say something, right..?)

So, what does this mean? Well, not much for right now, but this will be vital as we continue to progress deeper and deeper into the game's lore... Though, there is one thing it means. It pushes back the earliesr point that we could have met Chara from the end of the Ruins, to directly after Flowey's initial encounter. Near the very start of the game. This will also serve as important later on... 