Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-28898329-20160901162911/@comment-26173722-20200129004222

TypeLuo wrote: YellowBunny wrote: As someone who has debated the topic several times and have done an analyze on the subject (and planning to do another one), I could give a sleu of reasons against it.

I'm short on time right now so I'll just give the tl;dr version:

The theory requires jumps in conclusions based on very little evidence. It cherry-picked lines of narration that have to be interpreted in just the right way to mean anything which makes unbelievably convoluted. I doubt Toby Fox would hide that Chara was the narrator in a line like "The dog food bag is half empty" (because that's kind of asining and confusing way to show it's Chara).

Worse it ignores other narration that contradicts the theory. Like Chara speaks in full stop sentences and first person while the narrator doesn't. Which if anything shows that Toby indended to them be different (otherwise why give Chara a specific speech pattern).

Generally a lot of it relies on headcanon without explaining how they know that is the case. For one, Chara wouldn't know what Asriels attacks are. This is a new form and he's never taken it before. Yet this is explained away by saying this is a character he invented as a child, even though there's no indictation he ever did so (plus "god of hyper-death" is specific to this situation).

I'll expand upon this more later. I can debunk your entire theory with this one narration picture: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/568259211872567296/668555273966977054/059BG0K.png

No jumping to conclusions, no partial evidence. It literally says, it's me, Chara. I reject the theory that "Chara is always the narrator" in every route.

Chara starts taking over the narration during the genocide, that I accept. This line only appears in the genocide route, if they were always the narrator this line should appear in every route.