Board Thread:Fun and Games/@comment-27524978-20160317154321/@comment-28182542-20160412183108

Don't link me to the freaking Flowey Fan Club to try to convince me. That person is ridiculously full of themself, and they're a bully to boot. I've read their posts. They start with a hypothesis, then redefine the standards for any evidence that doesn't quite fit until it does. Then they directly insult people who don't agree with them.

Aside from that, even if they did make compelling arguments, you're misunderstanding the concept of canonicity. I'm going to explain using Chara as an example. Essentially, there are four types of information we can get from Undertale (or any work of art):


 * Tier 1: Things that are explicitly stated by the narrative: These are canon. Chara laughed when Asgore got poisoned. You can argue about the exact reasons why they laughed, but the fact that they did is canon. (Things explicitly stated by the author are also usually considered canon, but with Undertale, Toby doesn't seem to like to do this.)


 * Tier 2: Things that are not explicitly stated by the narrative, but are so heavily implied that no other interpretation is valid: These are also canon. Chara committed suicide via buttercup poisoning, intending for Asriel to absorb their soul and pass the barrier. This is never outright stated by anyone in the story, but the evidence for it is so highly stacked that thinking of any other interpretation is an exercise in absurdity. Lest you think NarraChara falls under this, bear in mind that this is an extremely tall order. If your theory requires pages and pages of writing about why you think the way you do, and even after reading it there is still significant debate, then it doesn't belong on this tier.


 * Tier 3: Things that are heavily implied by the narrative, but not so heavily implied that it rules out any other theory: These are not canon, but are supported by canon or probably true. The idea that Chara was suicidal before climbing Mt. Ebott is very heavily implied by the game, but not so heavily implied that any other interpretation is automatically invalid.


 * Tier 4: Everything else is not canon. Things that are not canon could be true, false, or open to interpretation. Truth depends on authorial intent (which we are unlikely to get in this game), while false can be proven by contradictory information in Tier 1 or Tier 2. Given Toby's past statements, he wants a lot of Undertale's narrative to be open to interpretation. The idea that the true reason Chara came up with the buttercup plan was to free the monsters is not canon. But that doesn't mean it's false. It is very deliberately left open to interpretation.

Narrator Chara falls under Tier 3 at best, and I personally don't find the evidence compelling enough to place it even there. Yes, there are a lot of posts on it, but humans are really good at seeing patterns that don't necessarily exist. There's plenty of scientific research that confirms this. Toby himself has said that there are extremely interesting, in depth theories about the game that he had never intended, using vast swaths of information to make compelling arguments. He didn't name names, but that should give you pause for at least a moment.

Chara fans love to insist that their pet theory is canon, which quite frankly is obnoxious and goes against the spirit of the game. I don't mind the existance of this theory at all, and I even kind of like it. I think it adds an interesting twist to the narrative. But it's not canon, no matter how strongly certain people assert that it is. And being rude to people who choose to interpret it a different way isn't cool. Remember, Chara is a character who is supposed to have some sort of personal connection to the player, so interpretations of this character are going to vary far more wildly than anyone else in the game. Putting forth your interpretation of them is fine. Just refrain from calling it canon. ;)