Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27907368-20160428221757/@comment-27701762-20160502231537

GetYourFix wrote:

Why am I using caps? Asriel does this in his boss battle - and this is the only time determination is in all uppercase. This is because this is the only time it is a part of the SOUL and not the body. All of our STATS are in uppercase and determination is not (until this battle).

The determination that lies in the body creates the ability to manipulate time (to SAVE, reset). It is mentioned in lower case and (sometimes) scare quotes (The DT Extraction machine yielded what Alphys called "Determination"... this primal goop can serve either the SOUL or the body, as is showcased by the creation of the amalgamates and Flowey from it):

Frisk provides DETERMINATION. The player provides determination. As a player that wants the pacifist ending for our monster friends, we use our determination to guide the protagonist. Our goal is this one Last Dream - we won't reset again, we'll let them have their lives. This is our last dream (of all time!) before we let go of Frisk and let the world move on. This dream becomes possible because of Frisk's DETERMINATION.

To keep down on huge quotes, I'm going to break down your post into three sections and focus on the important parts.

For this section, you raise an interesting point about the differentation between capitalized and non-capitalized determination. There could very well be some difference. But I'm not sure it's the difference you point to. The instances of capitalized determination are:

* The Last Dream text that you note.

* Check text on Undyne the Undying.

* During the "Bergentruckung" sequence before Asgore's fight.

* In one of Flowey's speeches in New Home, specifically when he refers to losing the power to load to his SAVE file, and how your determination was greater than his.

* The line from Asriel that you note.

* Another line during the Asriel fight before the SAVE sequence.

So to note, the first instance of it would actually be from the Asgore fight (#3), not the Asriel fight.

But given line #4, there's a problem with saying that non-capitalized determination refers to the body and is tied to the ability to SAVE, since Flowey's line has to do with capitalized determination, which would (A) seem to refer to the body (maybe), and (B) be tied to the power to SAVE.

As for the final part, of what the player versus Frisk provide, this is begging the question: you will necessarily read the lines about capitalized versus non-capitalized determination in light of the theory, but in doing so you cannot use those readings as evidence for the theory. So I am presuming that if I were to refer to the lines about "your determination" (non-capitalized), you will say that those refer to the player's determination, not Frisk's. But in order for that response to work, you would first need to find other evidence to prove the theory you are proposing.

And....

"Chara" recognizes that we don't have a soul in the game, so they ask for something of value: Frisk's SOUL. Why is it Frisk's? They're the one that turns into Chara in their endings. This dialogue is almost full acknowledgement that we stole someone's SOUL and played a game with it. ^^' Note that "your" implies possesion, NOT ownership. This, accompanied with Flowey's "Leave Frisk alone!" line is more than enough proof for me.

These lines have confused me for a while. I certainly see why you take the reading you do. But once again, let me offer a competing theory from a narrative perspective.

As we complete the Neutral and True Pacifist runs, we start to learn about this character called "[Name]" (which we refer to as "Chara" for the sake of convenience). We learn that Chara is a rather cruel and sadistic individual who may hide beneath their rather cute exterior a desire to kill (though they also sacrifice themself for the sake of the monsters, which seems odd, but I think I've worked through a possible reading of why Chara takes this path). So once we start on the Genocide route, we may have a desire to distance ourselves from the actions we take: "we" aren't the ones killing all of these helpless monsters, we're just roleplaying as Chara, or as a version of Frisk that is possessed by Chara. But Chara comes forth to break those notions: it was not "me" who did all of this, but "you." The line is meant to reiterate that it was ultimately our choice to carry out these actions, and we cannot use some other character as a rationalization. Likewise, Chara's dialogue shows how similar we are to them: that desire to go that extra step, to increase all of those numbers, is that same desire that drives Chara, is Chara as the little devil on our shoulder speaking into our ear and urging us on.

From an epistemological standpoint, the lines basically make no sense, and we have to jump through various hoops to get anything out of them. Which is what you attempt to do. But what I offer is that from a narrative standpoint, especially one that is clearly in line with some of the broader points raised by the game (should we just treat these characters in the game as lines of code; what is our relationship as player to the world we are playing through), the lines make complete sense, while allowing for the simpler explanation of the relationship between the characters (and the player).

<p style="font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica,Arial,HiraKakuPro-W3,HiraginoKakuGothicProW3,HiraginoKakuGothicPro,ヒラギノ角ゴProW3,メイリオ,Meiryo,游ゴシック,YuGothic,MSPゴシック,MSPGothic,MSゴシック,MSGothic,sans,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">Sorry to go 180 on you. ^^' I adore philosophy, but you're right in that there's no absolute proof he used it for a base. I'll use it as a lens, not a story guide.

I wouldn't consider it a 180. I love philosophy as well, but it is best to maintain these categorizations and distinctions, lest they get confused and confusing. I have no qualms with using themes, philosophies, and narratives as a lens for reconceptualizing the story and discussing those projects. I just wanted to make sure that we keep such mapping, as I refer to it, separate and distinct from the theorizing that you have already undertaken. So your decision to not pursue such a line of questioning in this thread is ultimately a wise decision.