Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-28777918-20160618024323/@comment-27701762-20160618041505

Whoa, that's a lot. Like...a lot a lot...

If I could make an overarching recommendation about the presentation, it would be useful to break the whole thing down into sections, and give us a brief overview on how each section contributes to the conclusion. It might also be nice to separate the sections by dropdowns, so that we don't have to scroll all the way through everything.

So the conclusion you want to reach is that Sans is (or perhaps more properly, was) human. I'll try to represent your argument by dividing into what seem to be the particular sections, although I won't be able to cover every single point you raise:

1. The "red stuff" that oozes from Sans

I don't quite follow what the idea is here. I suppose to some extent you're trying to differentiate your theory from other theories. But insofar as we're dealing with the conclusion at hand, it doesn't quite seem to contribute to any conclusion: we're just left with uncertainty about whether it's blood or ketchup, or something else. In a sense, it almost feels like you're saying it can't be anything, which leaves us even more at a loss.

However, it may not be necessary to prove the red stuff is blood to prove that Sans is human. This section, then, may not be necessary.

2. Sans feels, while Papyrus doesn't.

You bring up various points, but the evidence here is occasionally misrepresented. For instance, the conclusion that Papyrus doesn't eat doesn't quite seem right. When you encounter the first switch puzzle in Snowdin, Papyrus asks if you left any spaghetti for him, which would seem odd if he doesn't eat. You also say that the fridge specifically says that it is half full of "uneaten" spaghetti, but looking through a text dump the word "uneaten" doesn't happen. Now admittedly Papyrus does present it as an "artshow," but this still doesn't quite get us to the conclusion that Papyrus never eats.

Or we could respond in a different way: given the way that monster food operates, maybe monsters in general, or at least Sans and Papyrus, never actually need to eat, except in particular circumstances. Perhaps monsters, or just the skeleton brothers, eat only for pleasure. In which case, that Sans eats and Papyrus doesn't wouldn't be odd.

3. Sans has special knowledge

A) "We call that the sun..."

So many people use this as some indication that Sans has a special awareness, but there are two major problems. First, the use of "we" in such a circumstance is perfectly normal in everyday English, even when it isn't meant to refer to some specific group that the speaker identifies with. It is usually used in a sarcastic manner to illustrate the ignorance of the other party. So saying "we call that the sun" isn't some admission that Sans is actually human, but a little jab at the fact that Papyrus doesn't know what the big glowing ball is. The same is true of the phrase "my friend," even though Papyrus and Sans are brothers.

The second problem is that you say humans came up with the name, but monsters and humans ruled the Surface before monsters were banished to the Underground. So "the sun" would not be specifically a "human" term. If we were to use this line of logic, then all denizens of the Underground would actually be humans by virtue of the fact that they all speak English, a human language.

B) Sans remembers the timelines

I've had this argument some time before, so I'll skip to the conclusion: Sans doesn't remember timelines the same way that Flowey does. Flowey knows exactly what happens because he retains his experiences across the various resets (barring a True Reset, of course). Meanwhile, all monsters experience a sort of deja vu when the timeline shifts. What makes Sans unique is that he knows that this deja vu is important, and he knows that there is some entity manipulating time. Yet that doesn't mean he has the same knowledge Flowey does. He still needs to rely on the various things (like how the protagonist acts/reacts to what he does) as a way of making sure that the protagonist in fact able to manipulate the timeline. Hence looking to the expression on your face, or using the time traveler passwords. If he had the knowledge that Flowey does, these would be completely unnecessary.

A lot of the other stuff is digression, built upon the previous assumptions, or is too much to go into, and there's a lot of question begging going on. I should note, though, that your "humans made monsters" theory is A) not actually given any foundation, B) has no basis in the game's narrative, and C) is completely unnecessary for your argument (since if Sans is human and humans at one point could wield magic, it doesn't matter whether monsters were created or originally existed).

Minor points worth bringing up, though:


 * You make a lot of hay about Sans's sparing dialogue, and yet the point of the dialogue is to lull you into a false sense of security so he can trick you. Not unlike what a Genocide player who doesn't yet know about the proper way to defeat Sans might try. Given that fact, using his dialogue as proof is highly problematic in the best of cases.


 * If Sans can both not only slow down time but stop it, then the fight makes no sense: he could just stop time, launch all the attacks he wanted against the human, and be done with it. He certainly would never have to get hit. And if he can save and reset, then he should be doing that whenever he loses.


 * If Sans is human and Papyrus is not, it makes no sense for them to be treated as brothers, or for Sans to be so incredibly defensive of Papyrus, since they aren't related in any way.


 * Sans's response to the Toriel isn't awkward. He makes the "uh" pause, but not to say "yeah," but rather "same," as in returning the same thing that Toriel had just said, which is "So nice to meet you." And if the "uh" pause marks awkwardness, then Sans does indeed have similar awkward pauses.