#either way... I'm excited | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

accirax · 12 days

Text

Danganronpa: Despair Time Chapter 2 Episode 12 Dissection

DANGANRONPA DESPAIR TIME IS BACK, BABY!!!

And in the vein of what many others have being doing since the episode came out, I will here be posting my thoughts on what this latest episode has brought to the table. This post will be a mixture of pointing out things I found fun/interesting and more serious theorizing about the murder and the events of the surrounding chapter. I also tried not to read too many other people's opinions or theories before writing my own post so that I hopefully wouldn't have my immediate opinions swayed, so I apologize if I've missed any critical easter eggs that others have pointed out or if I'm just beating a dead horse.

Let the episode commence!

SPOILERS for Danganronpa: Despair Time through Chapter 2, Episode 12!

Really important/long stuff will probably have a header-y title under it as well. I also might skip around in time a bit to put relevant pieces of evidence together? IDK, I'm kinda winging this for this first episode.

The Whole AM/PM Thing

Charles: The evidence against David-- in fact, our entire line of reasoning hinges on the fact that Arei must have been killed at around 7:30 PM last night. But the primary reason we believe the murder occurred at that time is because of the fish found at the crime scene. From that, Teruko concluded that since the killer accessed the relaxation room for water, the murder couldn't have occurred during night time. So, unless I'm missing some other piece of evidence that could explain it... Why couldn't the killer simply have taken the water during daytime and stored it for later use?

Well, by this point I think that pretty much everyone (on Tumblr, at least) was in agreement that Arei was killed in the morning rather than the evening, no matter who their personal choice of killer was. So, the murder happening in the morning isn't much of a surprise.

For all my talk of trying not to look at others' theories, I did talk with my sister @venus-is-thinking in person after we watched the episode, and she brought up a really good point that I'd like to reiterate here. Sorry for stealing something that you'll certainly bring up in your post as well! I just want as many people to be aware of it as possible.

During the investigation, Nico says that they fed the fish last night after they ate dinner, and didn't notice any fish missing at that time. To be fair, Teruko tries to press them for a specific time, and Nico responds that they don't remember at what hour exactly they fed the fish or ate dinner.

However (likely relevantly to the murder) we do have specific intel about last night's dinner to get a better sense of some timing. When Teruko is talking to Charles and Whit in the Computer Room, Whit remarks that it's "past dinner time," and Teruko's stomach growls. This is likely using Whit's internal clock and sense of when dinner time is as opposed to a MonoTV-mandated meal time, but given that no one else is in the Kitchen besides Teruko, Charles, Whit, and David when the former three enter, and we know that Nico must have had dinner before the Relaxation Room closed at 10 PM, we can probably assume that Nico also ate dinner around a regular "dinner time."

However x2, we also know that, after Teruko, Charles, and Whit go to the Kitchen, Whit sends David to the Relaxation Room, and Teruko mentions that she was planning to eat there as well. That means that we have three accounts of students believing that the Relaxation Room was open at that time, so we can assert that the terucharwhit dinner scene occurs before 10 PM.

So, what does this mean? Well, we'll start by assuming that Nico ate dinner at, like... 6:30? Hu says that she and Eden have a tradition of cleaning up after dinner together, starting at 7 PM. I'm ballparking that eating a meal might take about 30 minutes, so that would mean everyone is done at 7:00. Therefore, Nico probably fed the fish at around 7:00 as well.

We'll also set egg dinner (that's what I'm calling terucharwhit + David dinner now) at, like 9:30. Once again assuming that someone could eat dinner in about 30 minutes, that means either David or Teruko could comfortably eat their dinner before the Relaxation Room closed. It also gives the culprit basically the widest possible amount of time to steal the fish, and I like to be as all-inclusive as possible.

To return to the main point for a moment, Venus' argument was that, because Nico interacted with the fish at night and didn't notice any of them missing, the culprit still must have taken the fish at night (but before 10 PM), not just at any point of the day. Based on my time frame, that means that whoever killed Arei (or someone working with them) must have gotten the fish at some time between 7:00 and 9:30. Let's run through who that could possibly be:

Teruko: There's a small window of opportunity for her to have done it before meeting with Charles and Whit in the Computer Lab, but we didn't see her do that, so I'm gonna say no.

Xander: He was dead.

Charles: I'm pretty sure Charles and Whit have claimed to be together all day, and they were at least already together in the Computer Lab working together on something before Teruko entered. Assuming they weren't in on this together, I'm going to give him a tentative no.

Ace: So, assuming that Ace was telling the truth about overhearing David and Arei on the night of Day 7, he would have been in the Gym at ~9:30 on the night the fish were taken. That is to say, if he had just taken the fish (and potentially even hid them in the Gym fridge), he absolutely could have gone to the Gym afterwards. I don't remember him having any sort of alibi otherwise. Easy yes.

Arei: Given that, other than Ace (and David) claiming to have seen her at 9:30, no one is admitting to have seen Arei since lunchtime, Arei did have a window of opportunity to take the fish. Obviously, why she would (inadvertently or not) help her killer to kill her is still a huge question mark, but we're talking possibility, so it's a yes.

Rose: Rose has no alibi ever because she's asleep. Yes.

Hu: Hu and Eden claim to have a continuous alibi together between 7 and 10 PM. Again, unless they're in on it together, tentative no.

Eden: Same as Hu. Tentative no.

Levi: Levi was "doing his laundry," which even he admits is shaky at best. He's a yes.

Arturo: J says that Arturo was by her side from the entire time between 7:30 and 10 PM. Third time's the charm-- unless Arturo and J were in on it together, Arturo is a tentative no.

Min: She was dead.

David: David entered the Kitchen for egg dinner at ~9:30, but we don't know where he was before that. Similarly, we don't know what happened at the end of Ace's story, which leaves David a window of opportunity to have taken the fish just before the Relaxation Room closed. Either way, definite yes.

Veronika: Veronika was with Teruko at the end of the night, but we don't know where she was before that. She had an opportunity; yes.

J: Arturo's alibi goes both ways. Tentative no.

Whit: Same as Charles. Tentative no.

Nico: Nico both had ample opportunity to have taken the fish before 9:30, and could have been lying about the timing of the fish despite that. Another easy yes.

So, what does that tell us? Well, it likely means that either the killer has to be Ace, Arei, Rose, Levi, David, Veronika, Nico, or someone who has one of those seven as an accomplice, or I/the students have something wrong about the timing. Venus' other point was that it's weird that that hasn't come up at this point in the Trial, so don't be surprised if we come back to it later. Or we're wrong.

And those were my notes on... the first two minutes of the Trial! That whole ramble that probably could have been a whole theory post by itself! God, I need to pick up the pace...

Dang, what a cool detail that literally none of us picked up on (as far as I remember). Seriously, how did nobody even throw that out as an off-the-wall possibility? Anyways, if the body was still swinging, that means the murder-- or at least the hanging-- was recent recent. Sadly, given that no detail is given as to who arrives in the Motive Screening Room when, I don't think we have any further evidence to pin down who this might have been at the moment. Keep it in mind, though.

Okay, so I believe that J is right about "answering her own question" here, but that does therefore lead us to the conclusion that the body probably was drenched in water at some point. I do not know why. It'd be interesting if it was to clean blood off of Arei's body, although Artruro-not-being-the-killer pending there weren't any cuts or scrapes on her body. It could have also been a mistake, it's just weirder to have a mistake that covers the entire body in water. Or, it could be a failure in Arturo's alibi, which is obviously a major point of the episode.

I literally said exactly this while Ace was talking. Thank you Charles <3

First point that I feel people have commented on already: we now know that the DRDT cast believes that they are about 18! This makes sense, given that they believed that they were about to enter their first year of college, which, in the United States, happens at about 18.

Secondly...

Arturo: I started studying medicine when I was twelve. Twelve! All that amounts to is six years of medical training!

Arturo: I was only able to get this far in such a short amount of time because I specialized in plastic surgery, and nothing else. I neglected everything that wasn't immediately relevant to my goals.

Felicity is 3-4 years younger than Arturo. Therefore, she was 8-9 when Arturo started studying medicine. I don't think we have enough info at the moment to speculate as to when Arturo might have left home to pursue being a doctor, other than that 14 is generally the minimum possible age of employment in the US, while the legal age to live alone is 18. I'd love to dive into this more, but I don't think we've been given enough to complete a full timeline. Still, important to keep in mind.

A certified W for verturo shippers. "Adorable" is such a word choice.

Oh, so that's where that came from. Convenient that it doesn't seem to be relevant to this murder, because I have no explanation for it. I wonder if it'll be relevant in the future, though, or if it was just a funny gag that DRDTdev wanted to include.

As much as I've tried to refute Whit mastermind theory in the past, I have to admit that this moment was pretty suspicious for Whit. "Because it was funny" could easily be a coverup for "that's an executable offense but I'm programmed to not want to kill my mastermind so I let it go." It's still not concrete proof by any means, but I can tell that I'll be seeing this screenshot more in the future if I try to argue against Whit being the mastermind again.

Mechanisms, you say? 👀

I have been thinking so much about what the fuck this line means ever since Whit said it. Did they actually spend the night together, and Whit is just framing it in a subversively funny way? Is he saying that he's so sure that Charles doesn't have any friends other than him that there's no possibility that Charles could have been with anyone else other than him? Is he secretly the mastermind, and knows that Charles was alone through watching a security camera? Was he just saying that to be random and banking on being correct? Sir, I do not understand you. You're the best <3

Are J, David, and Veronika Telling the Truth?

Given how popular of an option J being the killer is (and to a lesser extent, David as well), I'm sure there are plenty of people out there right now wondering if this alibi, which seemingly clears J, David, and Veronika of being the blackened, could possibly be untrue. That's what we're going to attempt to examine right now.

For starters, I'm going to eliminate the possibility that all three of them are co-conspirators in Arei's death. Like, yeah, it's possible-- I guess-- but I don't understand what any of their motivations would be, or even if they did all have corresponding motivations, why any of them would have shared them with each other prior to the Trial. It also seems like a mess narratively, with three largely unconnected characters coming together to pull off an unsupported major stunt. So, I don't think this was a planned lie to conceal their teamwork.

All of them do also have plausible enough reasons for being out early in the morning. J shared hers with the Class-- she was hoping to have an Arturo-free breakfast. David makes lots of sense, as he was probably looking around hoping that there would be a body so that the secrets wouldn't be revealed. Veronika might have been awake for the same reasons; looking around for a body in hopes of having another exciting Class Trial. Or, maybe she was just so excited about seeing all the motives that she couldn't sleep. Either way, it doesn't seem too unbelievable to think that any of them would be awake in the morning, so I'm not inclined to believe it's a lie.

The only way I think you could get out of this disqualifying these three is if you say that all three of them, but especially J, are exceptionally quick on their feet.

For this to work, J has to realize ahead of time that David was trying to draw votes to himself in order to purposefully fail the Trial, bank on the fact that this is true, and throw this fake alibi out to him, hoping that he'll accept. If J could win the Class Trial as a blackened, this would also end the killing game early, which is David's stated goal. Veronika is an easier get, given that she might agree to a chaotic lie if she found it interesting enough, but it's still a gamble.

However, this situation is incredibly niche, and still really only works if J specifically is the killer. I think we can pretty officially take David and Veronika out of the running with this. Personally, trying to see things from DRDTdev's point of view, I think he just wanted a clean sweep to remove David from killer contention, and added J and Veronika as collateral as two people who aren't the killer.

I would personally take this alibi as concrete proof that J isn't the killer, but I understand if anyone still thinks there are enough holes in its suddenness to keep J in contention. My deepest condolences to J!culprit truthers-- I'm sure that alibi must've stung. (/gen)

"Harm yourself for fun" secret go brrrrrrr.

I'm making this my new tumblr header.

Yeah, seems in accordance with his actions to me.

Oh my god another "good person" name drop AAAAAAAAAA--

Being good corresponding to sacrificing something is super interesting. Whether he's a culprit or an accomplice or what, I can't help but feel like this theme might apply to Levi in the near future.

But also, David is saying that the sacrifice is being seen as a good person, not that you have to sacrifice being seen as a good person to do good things. That part seems like it relates to David's career. He doesn't seem to like being around people very much, but he's seen as a paragon of motivational speaking because he thinks that those speeches, will, overall, do some good. David would rather be a nobody, but he'll sacrifice himself to do some good for others. Or, at least, that's the charitable reading.

And, the other "good person" jumpscare. This brings our "good people" counter up to 6, including Teruko, Eden, Arei, David, Levi, and Xander.

What the Fuck is David Talking About?

David: After all, it's still unbelievable to me... That I'm the only person here who remembered him. Even if you all lost a year of memories for this killing game, there's no reason you shouldn't have recognized who he was.

Alright. So! This was one of the biggest reveals of the episode. Probably unrelated to the Trial at hand, but very intriguing for the story overall.

I went back to rewatch some of the most prominent David/Xander scenes. From David's introduction, here's everything he says before Xander runs off to grab the pen and paper for the autograph. All of these are said directly to Xander.

David: Woah! (chime sound) Sir, is everything alright? You gave me quite the scare.

David: Yes, that's me, although I don't believe we've met before.

David: Ahaha, you flatter me. But yes, it is my goal to inspire others. I wish to make everyone realize that their aspirations are within grasp; all they have to do is find the motivation within their hearts to inspire them.

David: O-oh, wow. I'm incredibly honored, I suppose? Sorry, I don't really know how to respond.

Interestingly, there isn't actually anything to directly contradict the idea that David remembered Xander at this point, if you get a bit creative with it. Just because David "doesn't think they've met before" doesn't mean that he doesn't know who Xander is, and being "genuinely honored" could have been more genuine than most people interpreted.

There are only two points of contention, the first of which being that David calls Xander "sir." That does read more as David not knowing who he is-- he doesn't call Xander "Xander" even though Teruko already said Xander's name. However, depending on how highly David thought of Xander in the past-- because he certainly seems to think highly of Xander in the present-- David might have wanted to call him "sir" at first as a sign of formality and respect, before getting Xander's permission to be on a first name basis. Even if Xander still calls him Mr. David.

(Goddamn I typed Xander so many times in that paragraph)

The other weird point is when David says "anything for a fan" in response to Xander asking for an autograph, but that's far more excusable. Like, Xander is a massive fan of his, so calling Xander a fan is reasonable. David might have been happy that such a cool guy as Xander was a fan of his, and was stressing that fact out of delight. Or, this is after Teruko caught him slipping, so he could have also reverted into default customer service mode and said that in a more scripted mindset.

Meanwhile, in the scene where David approaches Teruko and Xander after Nico flees the lunch table...

... I CAN'T BELIEVE WE FUCKING MISSED THIS.

Do you see that? Do you see where David says "in person"? That strongly implies that David knew Xander not in person prior to the killing game. Good god, it's been there all along.

Other than that, the scene is full of David being embarrassed at Xander speaking highly of him, David speaking highly of Xander, and, of course, the mutual "you're my idol" moment. Dude, I thought that David was just gaslight gatekeep girlbossing here. You're telling me that everything he was saying about thinking that Xander was the coolest guy on earth was legit? Unreal.

Anyways, I don't have the time to rewatch, like, the entire first Trial to check up on every little comment David makes, but I find that comment about knowing Xander in person definite enough to conclude that David knew who Xander was since the very start of the killing game, not that he remembered something about Xander along the way.

How exactly David knew about Xander is still up in the air. I know that Microphony has a theory that David remembered Xander from their time together at Hope's Peak, and while it's a great theory and I don't doubt that the two did go to Hope's Peak together, I have a bit of a hard time believing that. My only holdup is that I feel like letting David remember Hope's Peak would be too powerful, and having him remember being with Xander at Hope's Peak while remembering nothing else about his time there is too... like, specific? Nit-picky? I don't have the word, but I hope you understand what I mean.

Instead, I think that David might remember what Xander did in response to the North C and Chariton incident that presumably earned him the title of Ultimate Rebel. That makes more sense to me as something that would make David idolize Xander in the same way that Xander idolized him-- if David just remembers their time at school, he would probably remember Xander on more friendly terms. It would also be super convenient to have David still be alive with memories of, say, Richard Spurling, to share with the class in future chapters, now that Xander is too dead to say anything more on the subject.

Sadly, I don't remember if there's any information in Literature Girl Insane to point theories in either direction. I'm gonna have to rewatch FF's video again sometime fr.

Is David Telling the Truth?

David: We're... in a television show, after all. That's... what MonoTV said, right? "Entertainment" is an ongoing show. If Min successfully got away with the very first murder and escaped while we all died, then isn't that way less interesting for a TV show? What's the point of roping 14 other people into one murder, only to kill them all off immediately? The killer is supposed to fail and be executed. We're all supposed to catch the killer, again and again, and participate in trial after trial. You're supposed to try to survive. All of you who are trying to survive these class trials to continue living on are playing straight into MonoTV's hands. As if I'll accept that. I don't care how low I'll sink, or how despicable I'll have to become. I'll do anything to carry on Xander's ideals by ending this killing game, even if it means that I have to dirty my hands.

Firstly, I'm so glad that we're returning to the fact that this is a televised killing game! It seems like it has to be really important to whatever the lore is, so I'm glad that the students haven't artificially forgotten that fact until Chapter 6.

Secondly, I phrased this part as "is David telling the truth" because, initially, I thought that David had a different reason for lying about killing Arei. My thought was that he thought that pathetically advocating for himself would only make himself look more guilty, so he switched up tactics by making it look like so easy of a victory that people like Teruko would wind up proving his innocence themselves. Because that seemed plausible, I wanted to examine if David could have come up with this explanation on the fly. He's known for lying and should be socially savvy, so it's possible that this argument was just a red herring to conceal his true intentions.

However, given the prior section in which I argued that it really does seem like David knew and admired Xander prior to the killing game, I'm more inclined to believe that this was the true reason. Furthermore, this was a really interesting scene, and it'd be a shame to introduce such a fascinating character idea to toss it away for an "actually, he was just trying to lie about this Chapter 2 Trial."

There's also the good ol' Literature Girl Insane, for real this time. This plan reminded me so much of the "tallying votes" scene that I had to check it out for myself.

[12] “Majority rule” is known to be the fairest method of making decisions for a group. That's why murderers never complained when we voted for them to die.

The voting results definitely sound like David's plan. If he successfully made himself the killer, everyone would be executed, and while he would have "victory" over the killing game, it would certainly be a hollow one.

The 16 vote tally is still a bit more confusing, but I think you could relate it to David's plan as well. If you assume that David is the one getting all of the votes, you could say that his plan to end the killing game no matter the cost (throwing away his career, being hated by everyone, possibly even killing someone himself) might make him guilty of a crime/worthy of being voted for, whether he literally kills someone or not. Therefore, if the majority hates him and he achieves the closest thing to "victory" that he can, there's no reason for him to complain if it means he has to die. It could be his justification for why he has to fill out his mission, even if, in his heart, he doesn't want to.

I don't know if that's the explanation of footnote 12 or just an explanation with the new scenes given, but I think it's a possibility. There's also certainly far more to dive into regarding both David's worldview and the motivations behind the killing game, but if I started looking into that now, I wouldn't publish this post until way later. I'll have to leave that analysis for another time and/or another person.

Love Hu for this. At least for someone like me, who finds David's mindset sort of relatable at times, it's important to have someone around to point out the flaws of compulsive martyrdom and give a reality check that doing something wrong in the pursuit of what you think is right is still (sometimes) an utterly fucked up thing to do. They're both such good characters, and they work off each other so well.

Furthering the above point, even if David is doing it for what he believes to be "good" reasons, he's still ultimately manipulating people! You know, like his secret said!!! You don't have to believe that everyone is stupid to believe that you're smarter than them and you know what's best. But there's also the delicious irony that, despite Hu being the one to say this to David, she's also the one talking over Nico.

I am so sorry to all the whitvid shippers in the crowd. Unless this is the dynamic you crave, idk.

I wish that this line was voice acted just so that I could hear Ace's "uhh umm" Nico impression.

Are Hu and Nico Lying?

We're back at it again.

Needless to say, this is way more suspicious than J, Veronika, and David's alibi. First of all, Hu and Nico are only two people, which makes it far more believable that they could conspire on the murder together. Second, unlike the former random group of characters, this latter pair are very intertwined. And third, this supposed breakfast occurred in a private location that only Hu and Nico could have possibly seen, as opposed to J, who said she was in a public location. If Ace or whoever had been in the public Dining Room at 7:30 AM, he could have called J out for lying, whereas no one can contradict the idea of Nico and Hu being in Nico's room.

However, for Hu to be lying and for Nico to not oppose her (despite pointing out the fact that they were interrupted) would strongly imply that they'd have to be in on the plan to murder Arei together. The easiest way to get there would be to assume that they were also in on the plan to murder Ace together. Understandable enough; I'm sure we're all aware at this point that Nico and what appears to be Hu's wire were both found at the scene of the Gym crime. They could've tried to murder Ace, got caught, and then switched targets to a different bully because Ace was too on guard? Nico would have been able to grab the fish, so there's no issue there.

I'm inclined to believe that Nico and Hu are telling the truth just because I personally don't believe either of them to be Arei's blackened, and I don't understand what either of their motivations to be an accomplice specifically would be in this situation. It would be pretty hypocritical of Hu to go off on David for trying to control whether everyone else lives or dies if she was currently the blackened trying to get everyone else to die so she could live. Or, even worse, if she was an accomplice trying to get everyone else to die so that Nico could live. That'd basically be what David was trying to do with a different coat of paint!

However, this could easily be a lie, especially given how suspiciously late it was compared to what J said. We had a whole David monologue in the middle. Those things last for ages.

WHAT THE FUCK!!!

Okay, so, obviously, I could try to go over the implications of this, but with the next episode only a week away (I cry tears of joy), I think it's in my best interest to leave whatever I'll have to say about what Levi is doing until we have more information about his mindset. What a cliffhanger, though. Levi accomplice nation, it's currently looking... iffy.

Anyways, that was a fantastic episode! I loved getting a chance to learn more about Arturo, David, Xander, and the rest of the gang, with promise of more interesting things to come in the near future. I can't believe that they still haven't talked about the actual murder method at all. And that there were literally no trial mechanics in this video. Who needs 'em?

I hope you enjoyed my perspective on the episode. If you have any additions or questions, feel free to send me a comment or an ask. There's also a chance that I'll add onto this myself after seeing other people's ideas to respond to them. But for that, I'll have to read other people's ideas. I'm off to see what my mutuals have to say >:D See ya!

141 notes · View notes

thefirstknife · 3 months

Text

Let's chat

So, the Winnower. Right?

Today, they finally released the lore on one of the ships that you got if you purchased (pre-ordered?) the annual pass. The ship is called Nacre. As usual with names of things in Destiny, this means something, though I'm currently unsure about the significance of this name in relation to the text of the lore tab.

But the text of this lore tab will cause a billion discussions and people will fervently believe in one side or the other. You'll understand why the moment you start reading the lore tab (I'll go through it a bit later in the text) if you remember the style of Unveiling. It's written in the same style with many references to Unveiling and the author speaks to us post-Witness' defeat (most likely).

I think it's intended to make us discuss and argue, given the inherent unreliability and religiosity of the subject.

But let's go back a little bit. Why the Winnower? Well, the word "Winnower" was finally mentioned in-game by the Witness. When you finish the second encounter in the Salvation's Edge raid, you proceed towards the third, and at one point the Witness will speak (it speaks a lot during the raid):

The rest of the post below:

Many people, upon hearing this, have jumped to the conclusion that the "Winnower" is now confirmed as a real thing; including Byf who made a video about it and now everyone and their grandma believes this fully and is already constructing fanfics about the next big bad.

And it could be true! But to claim that this line specifically confirms the Winnower makes me question people's media literacy. This line is spoken by the Witness. The Witness has both the reason to lie to us, but also the reason to believe in the Winnower. This is unreliable narration 101: the Witness could believe that it serves something else, that the reason it destroyed its own and many other civilisations is because it is following something greater. Obviously the Witness would believe that it's "the first knife" of some godly entity. It's religion. The word of a religious person who believes in a deity is not the proof that the deity exists.

This does not mean that the Winnower is NOT real. We don't know if it is. This only means that we can't use this specific source as proof.

But this line is very interesting to me because of how it's phrased. Initially, I believed that the Witness spoke to us, the Guardians, because that's what it does throughout the raid. But after a few reads, this feels like it's at least partially aimed at the Traveler as well. The third line in particular is interesting: "Each child we save from the game, you again force to play." This feels like it's talking about the Traveler's growing/resurrecting powers, especially about how it resurrected Guardians. We were dead, but then we were forced to play again. It's also speaking about it like the "game" which can be a sort of 4th wall-breaking, but also it could clearly be referring to Unveiling which also calls it playing a game.

The last line is also interesting in this context: "Gods forged us both." Who is "us"? Obviously the Witness considers itself here, but which "gods" forged what else? Does the Witness consider the Traveler to be a god, forging the Guardians? The next line is also weird in this context, telling us that despite gods forging us, "they cannot tell the knife what shape to carve." Either the Witness still doesn't understand the Traveler or the Traveler is not considered as the god because that's the Traveler's whole philosophy: it creates things, but it doesn't tell those things what to do. It would never tell us what shape to carve. So if this is not referring to the Traveler forging Guardians, it might be referring to something else forging the Traveler. Possibly! I am very intrigued by these lines and the line of thinking the Witness uses here.

But let's go back to the Winnower. As I already said, this doesn't prove anything, it only proves that the Witness believes in it. We also know that the Witness believes in this because in the final mission it also told us that it is "the first knife, the edge that carved purpose into being." Later, after its defeat, Mara and Ikora discussed this phrase, which I covered in this post. This discussion also entertained the possibility that there's something else beyond the Witness, something that wielded it as a "knife." Mara and Ikora don't make any conclusions; they discuss the possibility, but they end it with "we don't know."

They discuss it in the context of Unveiling; this lore book is canonically available to read to characters in the game, which is neat! It's been discussed several times now in the lore, and it's discussed here as well. Mara and Ikora have read Unveiling, it's where they've read about "the first knife" concept and are wondering what it all means and if there's a way to figure out the truth in the allegories. Again, they don't know the answer. And neither do we!

However, we as players have more information than the characters. I'm pretty sure the delay on the lore for Nacre was on purpose, because it would've been confusing to read that before defeating the Witness. The lore tab itself has no clear author; the only way to tell is to speculate based on the style and phrases used. The style will immediately be reminiscent of Unveiling (and the one page in Books of Sorrow when something speaks to Oryx). It's casual and friendly, but persuasive.

Let's read it piece by piece:

Let's chat, shall we? One more nice sit-down for the books. Did you think you wouldn't hear from me again, after all this? You'd have missed me, I hope—and I would certainly have missed you. Have no fear. I'm not so easy to be rid of. Now, let me show you: my beloved. Oh, no, not my sedimentary necrolite, fossilized in time. You've seen that. I speak of that dear and distant expanse of the universe, miraculous in its fullness and its emptiness all at once. Are you surprised to hear of it? Yes, I never much cared for the change of rules, but here we are, and there's no use in crying over spilled radiolaria. Besides, at the heart of it all, there was a gift. To me. That gift is the chance to speak with you. You, and a billion like you.

A few points right away. It's telling us that we should chat and that it hopes we didn't think we'd never hear from it again. If this is truthful and can be trusted, then it would be alluding to it speaking to us before, in Unveiling. But we've gone over the debate about Unveiling and who wrote it; most recent information was that it has to have been the Witness and the characters in-game believe so as well. So what's the truth now? I don't know! That's a full sentence. We simply don't know. There are far too many variables, allegories, metaphors and unreliable (and completely unknown) narrators.

Both options could also be true at the same time; if the Witness somehow managed to get a glimpse of the Winnower (in whatever form this entity exists), perhaps the Witness was given a speech of this nature which it could've adopted on purpose to further spread propaganda to others and to convince itself (and others) that it is a part of something greater. Again, we simply don't know.

The author continues telling us that it wants to show us its "beloved." It then goes into a bizarre description of something as "sedimentary necrolite, fossilised in time." I am not sure what this refers to, but it could be referring to the Witness? Because we've "seen that." A "necrolite" is an old term for a type of stinky minerals that form rocks which might be referring to the Witness' obsession to calcify and preserve things as they are; therefore, "fossilised in time." It could also mean something else. Really strange!

Either way, the author does not refer to that, whatever it is, it refers to the universe as a whole. The universe is its beloved. Then it continues and draws back from Unveiling directly. It tells us that it "never much cared for the change of the rules," the rules being the rules of the flower game and the change being the one the Gardener put in the game. It even jokes with "no use in crying over spilled radiolaria," a reference to the fact that previously, the winners of the game were always the Vex.

The interesting bit here is that, if the author was indeed talking about its disregard for the Witness, then the Witness claiming to be "the first knife" the Winnower wielded is not true. If this author is the Winnower, it does not really care about the Witness or its view of the final shape. Hell, the line about Winnower discovering the first knife in Unveiling would then not refer to the Witness at all, but despite that, the Witness believed itself to be that knife. This is why we can't use the Witness' words as any sort of proof, but also we can't use this narrator's words either.

To go back to the change in the rules, another intriguing thing is, in Unveiling, the Winnower appeared to be angry about the change. It's what made it "discover the first knife" and begin the fight with the Gardener. But here, it claims it didn't care about it after all.

I believe this is important to understand that what we're dealing here is not a clear cut truthful chat with a friend. The author of this text, and the author of Unveiling, does not have to tell us the truth and we simply have no clue which one of these statements is truth, if any. Or, it simply changed its mind; perhaps it was angry back then, but now it no longer is, because it realised that the change in rules gave it the ability to speak to us, something it appears to value greatly. And "us" does not just refer to us as Guardians or even humanity, it appears to be referring to all living creatures in the universe. It continues:

I am making this offer over and over again, in every tiniest cell and the vastest of civilizations. Let me in. Take what you need. Be at ease. You have no say in the degradation of your telomeres, but in all the interim, the whole world is your sweet silicate shellfish. You exist because you have been more suited to it than all the others. Steal what you require from another rather than spend the hours to build it yourself. Break foolish rules—why would you love regulation? It serves you to cross lines, and if others needed rules to protect them, then they were not after all worthy of that existence.

This also seems to be a continuation of its philosophy in Unveiling. About taking and breaking and destroying and whether or not someone is worthy of existence.

Caricatures of villainy are out of style, I hear. Yes. I am no cackling mastermind: I am serious when I say this. It was not the trick of standing upright that lifted you from the dust: it was the mastery of fire, the cooking of cold corpse-meat. That is not any unique faction's province, neither good nor evil. It is simply truth.

And this as well, continues with its claims that it is, essentially, neutral. It is not a villain, it's merely stating the truth that sometimes destructive forces can be good. This can also have a second meaning, telling us that it will not be our villain in the game. As in, we will not be fighting against this entity because it's not something that can be fought in the first place, nor does it care to fight. The final paragraph adds:

This great, beloved cosmos. Always decaying, always finding that same old lovely pattern, despite every candle-flame burning amid the flowers. A billion electrons taking the path of least resistance. In Darkness or in Light, someone is always making my choice. Be seeing you.

Some more references to Unveiling with "same old lovely pattern" and stuff about flowers. And then it ends with telling us that Darkness and Light don't really matter because either way "someone is always making my choice." We can assume this means the choice to violence. And that's true; Darkness and Light, as we've learned, are not moral forces. Many atrocities were committed by Lightbearers, and Darkness users have, throughout the universe, been benevolent.

The author concludes telling us that it will be seeing us.

What does it all mean? We don't know!

I think a lot of people will take this literally; this is the proof of the Winnower, this is the proof that it is preparing to be the next big bad, that we will see it eventually, etc.

I'm personally not sure if the literal reading makes sense, primarily because we have no way to verify anything it said or who sent it and how. But also, if we accept that it is written in the style of Unveiling (which seems fairly obvious), then we also have to accept that it's not entirely reliable or fully truthful. As in, there's a lot of metaphors and philosophy here, rather than facts. Some of it could be facts, but we can't tell which those are.

I also think a lot of people will immediately conclude that this proves the Winnower as a real entity that exists somewhere that will be relevant going forward. Personally, I don't know. I'm not inclined to believe either option just yet. If we knew more about the source of this (and I'm not taking into account the Witness' beliefs), then it would be easier to discuss it, but for me this is just something that remains a mystery for now, in the same way a religion would be. This is what makes it interesting to me.

A reading I'm partial to is that this is a really neat conclusion on that chapter of the story without telling us too many details and facts about a text that, genuinely, reads better if it remains unexplained. There's... something... out there. We can call it the Winnower for simplicity. But this entity is not some sort of big bad physical being that's scheming behind the scenes and directing its pieces around; it does not care. It did not care about the Witness and its final shape, despite the Witness believing, potentialy, that it is enacting exactly what the Winnower wanted, calling itself its "first knife."

This entity is not the way the Witness imagined it or believed in it. This entity does not need to involve itself or even be physical; its adherents are everywhere in the universe, all the time, because "someone is always making my choice." No matter where we go in the universe and how much we explore it, we will eventually find those that choose this. It cannot be removed or defeated. We defeated the Witness, yes, but someone else can always rise up to do something similar. The fight is never done and it's not tied to simply Light and Dark. Our choice is not over because we won here; we could always choose differently in the future.

It honestly feels like a setup for us going forward, but not for us meeting the Winnower or fighting it; instead, to tell us that if we plan on exploring more of the "beloved" universe, we will always find those we disagree with, those to fight, those who made the other choice. And if we're not careful, we may end up making that choice too. Whatever that entity is, the universe is making its argument for it and it will never truly be defeated. It can't be!

The Witness wanted to end the game. This entity states that the game has to play itself out.

Or it could mean something completely different. I'm not going to claim anything one way or the other and I think it's genuinely really baffling that anyone would try to do so. We all have our preferences for the story, but I don't think any of them are sufficiently backed up and I'm not going to hype myself up for a scenario that will probably never happen. Or we'll be hearing about "bad writing" and "retcons" in a few years time when the Winnower never shows up (or if it does).

The point is that this is a very intriguing piece of lore that fits perfectly with the mystery and religiosity of Unveiling. It's not some huge epic reveal, though it could always be something more in the future. However, we would have to get a lot more information to be able to make that conclusion. Something spoke to us in this lore tab, but we have no way of knowing who or how or why exactly now. We have no way to verify it either; is the author legitimate or is this a scheme from someone else pretending to be it? And even if the author is legitimately some other entity, is it truthful? Can we trust it? Should we? Does it even matter? Is this information important for us to understand our enemies or is this just insight into the philosophy and metaphysics of the setting?

Is the Winnower real? We don't know.

Is Unveiling still an allegorical mystery with some truths that we can't really tell apart from the metaphors? Pretty much yeah.

Is there going to be a lot to discuss about this going forward? Absolutely. It's why I wanted to write about it immediately because it's fascinating and I can't wait to see all the ways people will interpret it. I highly recommend that everyone reads it themselves and compare to Unveiling (and the last two pages of Inspiral).

I just don't want people to subscribe too hard to a single narrative and then get incredibly disappointed if it doesn't happen. There is not a single narrative being promised by this lore tab and we have no confirmed facts. But I'm super excited to see where this goes in the following years. Even if it goes "nowhere" as in this does not end up being setup for some big antagonist 5 years from now, I find it incredible that this was part of the setting. Weird space religions and bizarre entities from beyond the universe are some of my favourite parts of scifi so this whole thing, no matter how it ends, is a 10/10 story for me.

#destiny 2 #witness #winnower #the final shape #lore vibing #long post #i'd be happy to hear everyone's take on this #i'm fully in the 'we don't know shit' camp and i'll be excited to learn more (if we ever do). either way #but yeah. don't latch onto a single interpretation. i sincerely doubt it's meant to be read to find one fact about the whole thing #if there's any facts at all #i know most gamers will just ignore the whole beauty of it being a puzzling piece of philosophy and instead...#...immediately start fantasising about a bigger and better evil villain. despite the fact that this entity literally says it won't be that #but then again. can we trust anything it said? does it matter?#anyway. have fun losing your mind about it!

110 notes · View notes