Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-33310970-20171117184418/@comment-32182236-20171127205212

"In summary, Frisk is human and Chara is the non-human (also possibly not even IN Frisk). We do not hear what Frisk says because Chara sees no need to narrate what Frisk says to Frisk.

In meta, the player has been several different people at different times, Flowey first, then Frisk/us(?), then Asriel for a bit in mercy, or Chara in genocide. This is by using the definition of player as the person with the ability to SAVE and LOAD and remember RESETs."

That basically sums it up, except for one element, which clears up the confusion you have regarding "us" being Frisk. You already gave the definition of "player" that I use in the meta. But, when I said Frisk is us, I meant it literally within canon-We don't exist as our own separate entity in Undertale, we exist as Frisk. It's important to understand that "the player"(The one with the most determination, ability to SAVE) is not the same thing as what many people like to call "the player" (us). Maybe you have a better name to call the one with this power, but I'm using "the player", because it's the best I have, and is eerily similar to "us"-In fact, in all non-meta games, "the player" and "us" are synomynous-But not here in Undertale. After all, Flowey was once "the player", but Flowey was never US-We were never Flowey. It's important not to get the two definitions mixed up-I usually just say "Frisk" to signify us, since, at least according to my theory, the two are synonymous canonically-Though I might switch over to "the protagonist". When we play the game, Frisk is usually the player, except for a few very specific situations (Omega Flowey, and the end of the Genocide Route)-We don't actually play through the time when Flowey's the player. We play as Frisk, when they fall. Here's an example that might make it make more sense intuitively. Imagine a theoretical game where you cannot SAVE and LOAD-It autosaves when you close the game.. You also can't play anymore if you die. Within the game, is a special entity, controlled by A.I, that can save, load, reset, respawn, ect.. In this theoretical game, "the player" is actually the A.I with these abilities, not you, the protagonist. And it would probably be either a massive flop or a massive hit for being innovative, but that's not important. Now do you understand?

As for the specifics of NarraChara, I actually have two models, neither of which are completely accurate, and have their flaws-I switch between the two depending on the situation-Sort of like with relativity and quantum mechanics. They both start with what you said, Frisk can't understand the monsters themselves, so Chara narrates for them, but where the two models differ is the how and why. In the first, the monsters simply speak a foreign language, hence why they can't be understood, and thus, Chara translates it into English. But, there is a hole in this model.. How did Chara understand the monsters themselves? One could either say the humans or the monsters changed their languages between Chara's death and Frisk falling, but as proven by Chara's Genocide Speech, Frisk falling is the earliest point Chara could have reawakened. (NarraChara further narrows it down, with the latest being directly after the original "battle" with Flowey-The one Toriel saves you from.) So... How did Chara learn this new language? If the humans changed their languages, how does Chara understand us? If the monsters changed their language, how does Chara understand them? It also has a HUGE implication-If Frisk can't understand the monster lanuages, they can't be the one actually speaking to them-That means Chara would be speaking THROUGH Frisk. This WOULD explain why you have a limited number of options on what to say, you're telling Chara what you want THEM to say.

My second model theorizes that Frisk simply can't hear at all, and Frisk READS the flavor text-Just like we do. Considering the "Reading this doesn't seem like the best use of your time" in the Sans battle, this seems like it's a lot closer to canon. It also resolves the issue of Chara understanding both languages-There's only one, Chara just needs to transcribe their verbal words into written ones. It also makes more intuitive sense, if you consider the theory that "us" and "Frisk" are synonymous canonically according to my theory-We read the flavor text, so it would logically follow that so can Frisk. But, this also creates a DIFFERENT issue. Speciically, why does Chara narrate Asriel's words in the VHS tapes, but not their own? Even if Chara was somehow coincidentally always inaudible in the tapes, they should be able to remember what they themselves said. If Frisk is deaf, they would have just a hard time interpreting what Chara said in the tapes as they would with Asriel.

My take of Chara is quite complex, I'll probably put that into a separate post, and it changes quite a lot, due to seemingly conflicting evidence. Once I've worked it out enough to be understandable, and without any contradictions that I'm aware of, I'll share them.

Yeah, I will continue the conversation. If it turns out my theory’s wrong, I’d rather know that, so I can change it to be more accurate, than stay ignorant. The purpose of these discussions is (or at least SHOULD be) to advance our knowledge of the canon storyline, not just to defend a theory, ignoring the very real possibility that it might be wrong. And, in certain scenarios, it’s like what you said-Exploring the many possibilities.

(Side-note:H.U.D stands for Heads-Up Display.)