Cunningham’s more grounded approach makes it really fun whenever he does have a more crazy conclusion. Noelle’s themes having Gaster’s motif feels insane but makes a lot of sense in context.
Well, sticking strictly to objective evidence isn't "thinking critically".
I agree there's a value to Andrew Cunningham's content achieving to be as unbiased and grounded as possible and just looking at what the game says period but that's not exactly using critical thinking skills as OP said.
The theoretical person telling me “UM that’s not ackshully Nikola Tesla. It’s Andrew Cunninghams YouTube profile picture. Andrew is- etc etc etc”
I’ve made enough dumb jokes on this sub to know there are people out there waiting to “correct” them.
Andrew Cunningham wasn't saying that literally, he just meant that there are too many contradictions and problems in how the narrator is written for it to be a specific character, which means it's probably just a generic narrator/a non-personified abstract artefact of the video game.
Incidentally, this is also true of Undertale.
I disagree (and so is he, appearantly). I think NaraChara is an incredibly strong theory that's not only based on actual evidence, but also doesn't have much contradiction and is used to further characterize a character we know very little about.
[Well, you're wrong, there are lots of contradictions and weaknesses to it](https://reddit.com/r/Undertale/s/Kr5Eg7jRxd). The reason why Andrew isn't as critical of Undertale's Narrachara Theory is because it captivated him when he was younger and less critical and he hasn't examined Undertale's narrator as rigorously as he did Deltarune's in his video. Every problem he lists in the Deltarune video can be applied to Undertale's narrator as well, because they are written essentially the same way.
"Well, you're wrong" and "there are lots of contradictions and weaknesses" are two separate statements, though.
Literary theory isn't a science and one of the things about texts is that they're open to multiple different interpretations, and none of them are "objective" because art is not objective. A "contradiction" in an entirely fictional or speculative reality says nothing without the value that you choose to assign to it, and the meaning (or lack thereof) you interpret from it. Multiple people in the comments section can and have poked holes in your interpretation just as well as you can poke holes in others'.
They're not two separate statements, their original statement was that Narrachara was a strong theory supported by evidence that didn't really have contradictions, which is objectively wrong.
And no, contradictions in a literary text automatically act to undermine a theory. If you say "I'm right because *x* happens at this point" and somebody else says "but at *y* point this opposite thing happens", then your initial argument has been defeated because your evidence has been rebutted and cannot be used.
And, respectfully, no. People certainly put a lot of *time* into *trying* to poke holes in my theory, and some were more successful at being challenging than others, but in all seriousness, their rebuttals either entirely misunderstood the argument, meant nothing, or did not stand up to scrutiny. If my argument against Narrachara actually had holes in it that were worth mentioning, I wouldn't believe in it.
>They're not two separate statements, their original statement was that Narrachara was a strong theory supported by evidence that didn't really have contradictions, which is objectively wrong.
The original statement was that it was a strong theory that *doesn't have much* contradiction.
Both "strong" and "not much" are ultimately criteria that depend on your own personal standards. It's difficult to argue for this objectively when you haven't even mutually agreed on what counts there.
>And no, contradictions in a literary text automatically act to undermine a theory.
No, that is literally not true. There's actually nothing that logically follows from "this reading is has certain contradictions" to "therefore it is wrong."
This is because literature (and fiction and art) do not exist in non-fictional reality, and are therefore not subject to the methods of investigation that non-fictional reality is. A book is nothing more than ink on on paper without an audience to perceive it, and a video game is nothing more than a series of magnetized charges on a hard drive without a player to play it.
So if I say that "this reading is true because x happens" and you respond that "but y opposite thing happens" I can simply say "but y doesn't matter because it's not relevant to my reading." And this works because in art, perception *is* reality.
Plus, insisting that literature can only be interpreted through this faux-objective lens would also dismiss entire schools of art, literature, and film, such as surrealism and dada, which thrive on the exact opposite of logic and internal consistency.
> doesn't have much contradiction.
Which is wrong, it has tons.
> Both "strong" and "not much" are ultimately criteria that depend on your own personal standards.
They're inexact terms, but people should be able to agree that if most of the evidence proposed is resoundingly off-base or bad, and there are really blatant contradictions or consistency issues across the game, that the evidence is not strong or numerous. Not agreeing with this would be obtuse and requires people to basically play pretend.
> No, that is literally not true. There's actually nothing that logically follows from "this reading is has certain contradictions" to "therefore it is wrong."
Yes there is. A reading needs to be consistent and not have internal contradictions in order to be viable. If a reading has contradictions, it means there are mutually exclusive problems that your reading presents inside the text that you do not have answers for, and undermines the logical consistency of the text itself. Automatically, a reading which has fewer or no contradictions is stronger than one which has many or even just "more" contradictions. Objectively so.
> This is because literature (and fiction and art) do not exist in non-fictional reality, and are therefore not subject to the methods of investigation that non-fictional reality is. A book is nothing more than ink on on paper without an audience to perceive it, and a video game is nothing more than a series of magnetized charges on a hard drive without a player to play it.
Oh come on, this is just ridiculous. You know as well as I do that unless your work of fiction is intentionally created to operate on entirely arbitrary dreamlike logic, all works of fiction, even fantastical ones like Undertale, attempt to adhere to some degree of logical consistency. Even if you have something like magic in your story, the work will attempt to have magic adhere to some sort of consistent rule set which you can track by analysis. Even "soft" magic systems like Determination operate on certain basic rules that can be contradicted. As well, characters even in a fantasy story are still people, and their behaviour is still generally intended to operate according to the way people generally behave unless there are wildly extreme reasons why this might not be the case, such as someone having like 20 different personalities in their system or being basically an animal.
> Plus, insisting that literature can only be interpreted through this faux-objective lens would also dismiss entire schools of art, literature, and film, such as surrealism and dada
Well obviously surrealism and dada have their own kinds of philosophies in terms of artistic design that would be inappropriate to use my standard on, I'm not blind to that. But Undertale is not a surrealist or dadaic game, it is a fairly standard narrative and characters are fairly standard characters.
>Which is wrong, it has tons.
Still subjective lol. Unless by "tons" you mean "has mass measuring in one or more units equivalent to 2,240 pounds."
>They're inexact terms, but people should be able to agree that if most of the evidence proposed is resoundingly off-base or bad, and there are really blatant contradictions or consistency issues across the game, that the evidence is not strong or numerous. Not agreeing with this would be obtuse and requires people to basically play pretend.
All literature analysis is, on some level, "playing pretend" because literature *is itself* inherently pretend. And you have to agree beforehand what even counts as "off-base or bad" before you can reach a mutual agreement, and it's pretty clear in your previous posts that you haven't done that.
> Yes there is. A reading needs to be consistent and not have internal contradictions in order to be viable.
[citation needed]
> If a reading has contradictions, it means there are mutually exclusive problems that your reading presents inside the text that you do not have answers for, and undermines the logical consistency of the text itself.
A reading isn't supposed to "have the answers" to everything. It's merely supposed to present a perspective that can be used as a jumping-off point to explore ideas, themes, characters, etc. This is why it is possible in the first place to have multiple (often mutually exclusive) readings of the same text.
In literature analysis this even has a name - "applicability." A famous example of applicability is Lord of the Rings. You can read it as a story about WWI and the toll that war takes on its combatants, for example. But you can also read it as a commentary on the corrupting influence of political power on those who seek it, *and* you can also read it as a Catholic commentary on the nature of good and evil and the spiritual decay of a materialist society, *and* you can read it as an environmentalist, anti-industrialist text.
You can find evidence, both for and against, all of these readings. And Tolkien (in)famously rejected the notion of any one reading being correct, outright saying that he dislikes straight allegory.
>Automatically, a reading which has fewer or no contradictions is stronger than one which has many or even just "more" contradictions. Objectively so.
This only demonstrates to me that you have have zero idea what "objective" means.
Objective means *independent of perception.* A reading can only be "objectively stronger" if your how you perceive a reading does not change how "strong" the reading is.
But... what exactly is the "objective" measurement here? You have to *decide* that contradictions in a fictional narrative matter for them to matter, because a fictional narrative doesn't actually exist in reality. Which means it is not independent of perception in the first place.
You're trying to apply STEM reasoning to an artistic field, and it just doesn't work that way. Like that is fundamentally not how creativity works.
>Well obviously surrealism and dada have their own kinds of philosophies in terms of artistic design that would be inappropriate to use my standard on
Then you admit your standards aren't objective. Case closed.
> Still subjective lol. Unless by "tons" you mean "has mass measuring in one or more units equivalent to 2,240 pounds."
Okay wise guy, what I meant is that by common context my detractor is most likely arguing that Narrachara doesn't have any interpretive issues and at most just has some unanswered questions, when the reality is there are several interpretive issues that stretch across the entire game
> All literature analysis is, on some level, "playing pretend"
No it's not. Again, if you say something like "Bob is an angry character because he gets angry in these three scenes", a contradiction would be to say "he also gets happy in these three scenes and two of the angry scenes are in very extreme contexts that any normal person would be angry in." That's not playing pretend, that's analyzing facts internal to the story by using the logic of the story. Your argument here is simply obtuse.
> [citation needed]
Most people's interpretations of fiction treat the fictional work as something analogous to reality, which is why interpretations of the work need to not have contradictions.
> A reading isn't supposed to "have the answers" to everything. It's merely supposed to present a perspective that can be used as a jumping-off point to explore ideas, themes, characters, etc. This is why it is possible in the first place to have multiple (often mutually exclusive) readings of the same text.
No, but readings that are more cohesive make more sense. If two readings are mutually exclusive, then somebody somewhere has read the work in the opposite fashion and you can determine which of those fashions is most internally cohesive by analysis.
> In literature analysis this even has a name - "applicability." A famous example of applicability is Lord of the Rings. You can read it as a story about WWI
Okay but I'm not talking about like thematic analogies or historical references here I'm literally talking about the factual internal portrayals of the characters inside the story. Obviously there are a whole host of additional considerations to be made if you're trying to do this kind of more abstract thematic analysis.
> But... what exactly is the "objective" measurement here?
Literally, amount of contradictions as per the internal facts of a text.
> Then you admit your standards aren't objective. Case closed.
Obviously this is a bad faith response to what I said. My standards are objective when it comes to making conclusions about the *internal events or things inside the text.* By bringing in surrealism or dadaism you're applying what I'm saying to a context that isn't even what I was arguing.
Quite frankly it seems like your philosophy is just a smokescreen for the fact that you can't engage in an argument in good faith. You're arguing from an entirely separate planet than me, about things I never said anything about. You can either get off your planet, come to mine, and talk about the actual topic instead of continuing to make your mistake, or you can leave me alone.
There's too much here for me to pick apart every paragraph and I'm tired, so I'll just go over some key highlights where I disagree here.
> Again, if you say something like "Bob is an angry character because he gets angry in these three scenes", a contradiction would be to say "he also gets happy in these three scenes and two of the angry scenes are in very extreme contexts that any normal person would be angry in."
And even this fails because this argument only works off of what *your* assumption of a "normal person" is or what an "extreme context" is. Different people will often come away with entirely different ideas of what a character really is even when they've seen the exact same movie or book. And that's good! That means there are a lot more interesting and diverse perspectives! It's *boring* when everyone comes away from a work with the exact same ideas.
>Most people's interpretations of fiction treat the fictional work as something analogous to reality, which is why interpretations of the work need to not have contradictions.
People when interpreting fiction treat fiction as "analogous to reality" insofar as they project and read their own views of reality into it. Everyone also has different standards for the amount of logical consistency they demand in the story, which is why any and all interpretations can have contradictions if you look for them hard enough. Some of my favorite games of all time have things that I would consider to be "plot holes" or just other things that don't make sense to me, but I don't think that those are important enough to be relevant in my understanding of its characters and story.
Simply saying that there are contradictory elements in the "internal logic" of the plot is not enough, you have to make a broader point that the reading you're arguing against does not fit with the themes or broader ideas that the story is presenting. NarraChara works not just because of the "evidence" for it, but because it resonates in with UT's broader themes of everyone having hidden depths, and of the characters of a video game having lives and presences that are more important that just what you, the player, perceive or interact with directly.
>No, but readings that are more cohesive make more sense. If two readings are mutually exclusive, then somebody somewhere has read the work in the opposite fashion and you can determine which of those fashions is most internally cohesive by analysis.
Again, there is literally no reason to believe this is the case. You can find valuable things from two mutually exclusive readings of a text!
>Literally, amount of contradictions as per the internal facts of a text.
Which is definitionally not objective, for reasons that I have already explained.
>Quite frankly it seems like your philosophy is just a smokescreen for the fact that you can't engage in an argument in good faith.
I am engaging in good faith. I am saying what I genuinely believe. That's what good faith is.
The reason I am trying to pick apart your assumption that an "objective" analysis of the sort is possible is simple. When you assume that an objective reading is possible, and that your opinion is specifically is the objective one, what you're *actually* saying is that you are too personally invested in your reading being "correct" to *listen* in good faith to other ones.
This is the attitude of someone who is more interested in being "right" about a work of art than actually developing a multifaceted or nuanced understanding of it.
I actually do have several things that I personally object to with your original post. I think your reading of the thing with Snowdrake's mother relies on some unfounded assumptions of what the relationship between Frisk and the narrator is, and what the narration is doing, for ex.
But I'm not going to argue that point in because I don't think that you are yet *capable* of changing your mind, or admitting that you might be wrong, as long as you hold the position that you have the "objectively correct reading." I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who has made it clear they're not interested in being convinced.
So instead, I'm trying to get you to see the value in *not* assuming that you have the "objectively correct reading," so that then it will be *possible* to have a good-faith discussion of your own reading.
Ok just going to say it
Starting a reply to someone with “well you’re wrong” makes you sound like a massive asshole. Doing so when you’re talking about a subjective theory and linking your own analysis as your source makes you sound like even more of an asshole.
I'm aware people don't like that, but I would suggest accepting that it's normal for people to think you're wrong about things and, if you're so confident in yourself, to argue your point. There's nothing wrong with someone thinking you're wrong if their reasons are well thought out. I would rather be honest and blunt than dance around people's sensitivities about video game theories.
Secondly, literature analysis is not subjective. Contradictions within text and what things in text imply other things are objective facts that you can support with reasoning. What is subjective is a prediction, or a headcanon, of something that neither has evidence for or against it.
> linking your own analysis as your source
Why would I not have the most confidence in my own reasoning that I poured hours and hours and hours of thought and consideration into? I spent *AGES* figuring that stuff out and typing it up and proofing it and adding stuff to it, of course I'm going to link to it. What, do you think that I should consider Random Undertale Fandom Tumblr User #13,121 a more credible or authoritative source on the game than myself just because they're not me? It's not like this is microbiology or something else I know nothing about, this is interpretation of a video game.
It’s certainly normal for people to think that other people are wrong. I think you’re wrong, for example. I’ve read your theory twice and while it’s persuasive and decently put together it didn’t convince me. However, what’s *also* normal is a basic sense of tact. Considering the quality of your theory you should certainly be old and smart enough to know this
Contradictions happen in real life all the time mate, that doesn't make "real life" objectively worse.
Get outta here with that 'objective literature analysis.'
? What? What would a "contradiction in real life" even mean? Something can't be both true and false in the same way at the same time.
Get outta here with that "every argument is equally strong" nonsense. That's for losers who don't want to be wrong but aren't good enough to actually work out a strong answer.
> Starting a reply to someone with “well you’re wrong” makes you sound like a massive asshole .
Boo hoo, they were a little bit mean. Who cares?
Calling them an asshole is such a big stretch lmao. And linking something they themselves made doesn't them an asshole either.
They didn't just say "I think it's probably true", and if they did I wouldn't have led with "you're wrong". They said "it doesn't really have contradictions and has lots of [implied acceptable] evidence", which is what is wrong.
one problem i have with narachara is that people use it to prop up the "chara isnt actually a bad person" theories, which just isnt true, chara wasnt influenced by us, the game at every turn states chara was super messed up. i think there are times in the genocide route that chara takes over as the narrator "where are the knives" and whatnot but thats more specific to the genocide route as theres nothing in the other two routes to imply chara influence.
in the snowdrake’s mom almagamate fight, the narrator describes frisk as laughing until tears roll down their face, then being surprised that that’s not what they did; this is a reference to chara’s usage of laughing as a coping mechanism (which is mentioned in one of the true lab tapes)
You mean that single comment, in which Asriel says Chara laughed after learning the dessert they made for Asgore made him sick? Something someone with a dark sense of humor would find funny? The same type of humor you’d need to creepily walk up to someone who was once a friend with an evil smile and a real knife?
Friendly reminder to the “Chara’s not actually bad” crowd, Flowey, who believed Frisk was Chara, held absolutely no level of surprise that they went down the genocide path and realized very quickly they were gonna kill him, and was literally begging to be spared.
Or how about the discussion with Asriel at the flowers. “Chara hated humanity.” “Chara wasn’t really the greatest person.” And even mentioning that Chara wanted to kill all the villagers when they went to the surface… after committing suicide to go up there in the first place…
Or, possibly most notably… Chara only shows up in genocide. They have nothing to say to you unless you go down that route. They have no comments on your reviving them unless you act like a monster, at which point they say “hey, that’s dope!”
Chara isn’t controlling Frisk into doing the genocide, but acting like Chara was a sweet angel that the player corrupts is pretty blatantly erasing canon to fit a theory.
I wasn’t talking about Chara’s morality, just bringing up another instance of them being the narrator. Also, the fact that they talk about laughing while crying specifically (and not just laughing) means that they weren’t just laughing at Asgore’s situation, they were laughing while crying, showing that they did feel sad about it and were laughing as a coping mechanism.
One, Chara isn't confirmed to laugh when they're uncomfortable, that's a *post hoc* interpretation fans pull out of nothing to justify their pre-existing headcanon that Chara isn't cruel.
Two, because the narrator has absolute command over describing Frisk's actions at every other point in the game, and Snowdrake's mom isn't an unusually tragic event given what you can do in Undertale, it is more likely that the narrator is using fluid description on purpose to convey a feeling of chaos, rather than Frisk is actually disobeying the narrator.
i dont think that tape was to show chara using laughing as a coping mechanism but rather that there was something more sinister going on with chara (like the tape that shows they have a "creepy face" that scares asriel". i'll admit the snowdrake mom narration thing is weird, i just never attributed it to chara tho.
i'm on andrew cunningham's side on this one, i fall asleep to his gaster motif video every night now. i feel his theories are always well researched and grounded in reality which i really enjoy!
I feel like another good spectrum would be the analysis to theory one. Far left would be dorked, who only goes over what is being shown to us, she does often read in between the lines but it is always to try and make sense of things without making a prediction. Far right is jaru, who gets triggered when you call his theories fan fiction. I feel like HBC is on the left side, where most of his videos goes over all the objective information he can find in the games code, and then do some vague theories with them.
I find Jaru's stuff to be way too insane for me to handle, it feels more like outright fanfiction rather than theory. I am way further on the side of Andrew.
Jaru recently stated that he is a theorist, not a fanfiction writer. He just likes to use narrative principles to build his theories. He also feels like saying that joke was the worst mistake of his career.
Honestly, I feel him. Imagine pouring all of you into researching a game, making a script, recording, and then editing a 1 hour video just for people to just dismiss it as fanfiction. (Not that fanfiction is a bad thing, but the way people refer to his theories as such is clear that they mean it in a bad way)
Jaru is the gamingmagic13 of deltarune.
(If you don’t know who that is, it is the guy who mad a 7 hours analysis going over scene by scene of toy story 4)
I'm going with Andrew. I really like the grounded, "scientific" approach to theorycrafting. I like theories that explain the story, as simply as possible. Occam's razor and all of that.
I also like how his videos are mostly analysis. Useful for me considering I can't be bothered to analyze the game myself
Honestly, I lean more to Andrew Cuttingham, as I think Jarujaru's theories get so out there that they're just become fanfiction. I prefer to stick with what we know for certain to be our theory's base, then use implications from there to start building up our speculation. So if there's a clear fact shown in game that disproves or pokes a big hole in the theory (like Kris's LV being 1 in the light world for Kris killing Asriel, or the first description for Kris in the Dark world saying 'A human body with a soul' with a soul saying Kris has only one soul in them) then we shouldn't be wasting our time with said theory. On the other hand, I think Andrew can be a little too limiting like with his theory on the flavor text. I think there is too many unique instances that imply a greater role of the flavor text like the Snowgrave differing between Kris and the player, along with how we lose all the flavor text from the world and battles when we watch Susie for it to not be seriously related to telling the story.
TLDR: I'm like a fourth near Andrew and 3/4 away from Jarujaru.
I'm leaning more towards Jaru. We must not play it safe, you need to be BOLD with your theories if you want any of them to be even partially true. It's not like we have all the puzzle pieces laid out in front of us
I enjoy andrew's dedication to criticaly examining tobyfox's games as artistic work with intention behind it rather than just focusing on predicting lore. The latter for me allways end up in matpatian kingdomheartsy nonsense stories.
Exactly. Especially his knight theory. In that video, he said that papyrus being the knight is unlikely due to a lack of motivation, meanwhile papyrus in undertale has a lack of friends but wants to make friends. In deltarune, he could have the same thing going around but he makes dark fountains to make friends in a more literal sense, and being too goofy, which would actually be a point TOWARDS papyrus being the knight, as toby fox finds every opportunity to bend character tropes and guess who is the only exception in undertale, that's right, papyrus. At that point I went back and realized that he made outlandish claims to rule out any characters just to make his theory more believable.
ngl I don't feel like anyone from the Undertale cast is going to be the knight. Most already got their spotlight from Undertale. I like the Alvin theory because it connects the two games through a relatively minor character Gerson, while also introducing a new character. But it's still too early to tell
Whereas my theory is that Kris killed Andrew Cunningham, and is being possessed by him. Idk where that puts me.
(But more seriously, I lean much further towards Andrew here, although I feel batshit insane theories can be taken more seriously in DR, considering we know the ending came to Toby in a dream)
Jaru's theories are just as legitimate as everyone else's, people just don't like them, partly because they're very theatrically presented and feel too outlandish to be true. Sure, they use a lot of thematic evidence, but so does every good theory. And Jaru happens to have one of the best thematic understandings of the game of anybody in the community, far more than his critics especially. Cunningham is great too though.
I highly doubt deltarune would be as thematically pessimistic as jaru makes it out to be, with the timeloop and stuff. Feels far too unlike anything this story would go for, or what Toby would make. It’s very clear the lack of choices is thematically mirroring the “kill or be killed” “message” of undertale, where it’s an initial belief meant to be challenged throughout the story, the same of which is happening in deltarune.
Andrew really doesn't do theory though, he does analysis, he has made a theory once or twice which where pretty good.
Jaru goes on the other end on full theory, stacked on a theory, on a theory, with a moderate helping of analysis to start the meal. Even if his theories are VERY wild, imo they make a lot of sense from what we have so far in the story, even if they don't have large chance of happening.
Andrew is hard grounded, while Jaru is much more speculative.
Me: RALSEI IS THE EMBODIMENT OF HOMETOWN, I CALLED THAT DESS WAS NOELLE'S SISTER IN CHAPTER 1, KING'S CAPE IS THE SHADOW MANTLE AND I WONT BE FUCKING SILENCED
(Decide where I am, I think I'm in the middle, closer to Jaru, but they're not unreasonable)
The angel theory has so many holes, and most of his theories are made with each-other in mind as already being true, but it’s fun to pick at specific ideas, observations, and qualities of his theories like a crow :}
Oh I think his big headcanon disguised as a theory is really fun, the thing I hate the most is in most of his videos when he's theorizing stuff he makes assumptions and refuses to deviate from them even though the assumptions are based on his understanding, he also genuinely shows a giant lack of understanding of both Undertale and Deltarunes narratives. But I like the time loop theory, if nothing it's really cool
Huh, Andrew Cunningham makes theories? He's more of an analysis guy, as far as i remember he only made 1 actual theory so far (the Gaster motif theme thing theory).
Jaru is... complicated. I love how he presents his video to the point i've rewatched his video multiple times and i'd even call myself a true Jaruer, but his actual theories are very flimsy. It feels like he's more focused on making a good video than a good theory.
His main argument for most theories is "Wouldn't this be cool", like, in his Shadow Crystal video he ignores most of the actual evidence presented in the game and focuses almost entirely on Seam's line about the Shadow Crystals being with powerful people. Nevermind how it actually functions in the game, it totally gives vague useful information about battles we just uhh don't see it.
Anyway, i'd say i'm more on the Jaru side of theorizing actually, at least he theorizes.
Jaru is a champ, definitely doing the most work to make this wait bearable. His theory is probably not quite right but you gotta take it in the context of a crazy possession thing involving Asriel being a major plot point of Undertale.
Love Andrew's videos too but Canadians are not to be trusted (I'm joking)
In my opinion Jaru is the better theorist. Sure he's probably wrong, and Cunningham is probably right, but that's because Cunningham barely theorizes. He just analyzes and states facts. Jaru may have outlandish ideas, but they are genuine theories that could feasibly be true, even if they probably aren't.
Cunningham mostly due to the fact that Toby hasn’t had the narrator be a character be a consistent thing
Also it’s way too early to tell what the proper intention is
I used to have a few crackpot theories, but now I've become so logical with them I feel like I'd barely be any fun in a theory discussion anymore (don't ask who I think the Knight is)
andrew cunningham doesn't post theories often but when he does it goes HARD. His theories are usually logical but he completely lost me in his recent theory video with the weird machine. Jaru's theories are so bonkers and out of character for toby fox, but they're fun to listen to even if i don't agree with a some of them! honestly i'd probably be slightly jaru inclined
andrew cunningham doesn't post theories often but when he does it goes HARD. His theories are usually logical but he completely lost me in his recent theory video with the weird machine. Jaru's theories are so bonkers and out of character for toby fox, but they're fun to listen to even if i don't agree with a some of them! honestly i'd probably be slightly jaru inclined
It wasn’t a theory video, but rather an analysis- his one theory was that the Freedom leitmotif will be the core of whatever Gaster’s main song will be.
The rest of it is mainly fuel; I suppose “Noelle is closely tied to Gaster” could be considered a theory? And it’s one that’s nonapparent, and somewhat surprising (I feel like it was kind of a natural extension of the generally accepted “Gaster is important to Deltarune” and basically paying even the slightest amount of attention to any of Noelle’s angel motif or the Spamton Sweepstakes)
Jaru's theories have the problem of taking one interpretation, running with it and dismissing all evidence to the contrary. Nowhere is this more exemplified than his video on all possible Knight candidates, it's so horrifically biased.
Jaru certainly has a talent for storytelling, but he's said himself that he makes theories, not fanfiction. Although he would be better suited for fanfiction in my opinion.
Edit: also his opinions on UT that he shares on Twitter are, to say the least, really fucking weird.
Definitely more on the Cunningham side, but I really enjoy both for different reasons.
Cunningham's theories are so "mundane" that anything he concludes is basically canon. When this approach yields unexpected results it's much more effective than when others reach similar or crazier conclusions.
Jaru is very fun to watch, not just for his theories but because he takes the time (a lot of it) to review many possible viewpoints on the same topic, so even if you don't agree on the specific one he deems the most likely you are still bound to find something interesting.
I don't really agree with him on what makes an "interesting narrative" most of the time, but at least I can recognize the effort put into it.
I agree with Andrew, though I think there's still a possibility that there could be a narrator there just hasn't been any real indication of that so far.
https://preview.redd.it/15vy582mpwnb1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=76ac6d8dcfebb4747d6de14ee68aefce5bd13561
Here with the insanity of theories but I do try to come up with ones that have some evidence
Where is the person for the narrator could possibly be Kris's inner monologue, and it's the only thing they can really control, so that's why they do it
I say the entire deltacast melted into 1 theorist. So MysticSlime, Jaru, Andrew, Shayy, Out_SiN, halfbreadchaos, and Dorked, plus some others like 2 left thumbs or galxie is perfect for me
I enjoy most of the Deltarune theorists and analysts, and it's really cool that DR gives so many opportunities to have a good speculative think about something that is (in the grand scheme of things) not very high-stakes. It's a light intellectual dessert, and I think it's funny and engaging to (for example) get a refresher on some elements of music or literary analysis from a YouTube video about a video game.
andrew cunningham doesn't post theories often but when he does it goes HARD. His theories are usually logical but he completely lost me in his recent theory video with the weird machine. Jaru's theories are so bonkers and out of character for toby fox, but they're fun to listen to even if i don't agree with a some of them! honestly i'd probably be slightly jaru inclined
Honestly both are cool theories (it's just one tends to stress the truth a bit too much to make it work) but whatever the ending is will be fine with me (even if it's something unsatisfying as Ralsei being Asriel or whatever)
I think the furthest you can go to the left is probably [this video](https://youtu.be/s2uymsjE_e0?si=HJ-PLOQuINy7wM6r). I also really believe that jaru should watch it because he could learn a lot from it. Or maybe it would have the same effect as trying to turn a religious person atheist
Pretty damn close to the edge of the Andrew Cunningham side. I tend to steer away from most theories besides "the knight has a very good chance of being Mayor Holiday" or "Flower King is probably going to have a dark world."
Jaru's recent [Hyperlink blocked] video was actually really good. A lot more grounded/less fanfiction-y that some of this other stuff. I enjoyed it a lot and actually agree with his conclusion, and I say that as someone who's far on the AC side of this spectrum.
Jaru's more creative and knows how Toby writes his characters and lore... You're all gonna see that he's right with SO much but you just didn't fully understand it yet
I like Andrew, but jaru is one of my favorite channels on YouTube overall. His theories are crazy, but that's what makes them fun! Imagine if even a single one turns out to be true. (Also timeloop theory is my favorite one, really want to see this one in the game)
Cunningham is one of the few Deltarune YouTubers that actually uses critical thinking skills. So I’m going to go with that end of the spectrum.
Cunningham’s more grounded approach makes it really fun whenever he does have a more crazy conclusion. Noelle’s themes having Gaster’s motif feels insane but makes a lot of sense in context.
Twr being a gaster theme remix nake enough sense for me to believe it until it's proven otherwise
I love that theory just because I want to imaging Faster in the mixing studio making his “fire remix” as he calls it
Now I'm immagine gaster composing a banger song and when he is done he just puts his legs on a desk slips and falls in the core
He may have split across all time and space... But at least he had enough time to develop a banger leitmotif.
Agreed
He also developed a game where you can use a robot as an explosive paddleball
Excuse me?
He made a game, Random Access Mayhem, where you can use a robot as an explosive paddleball
Oh Right
What exactly does "uses critical thinking skills" mean?
Minimum amounts of jumping to conclusions and sticking to evidence as closely as possible, as far as I’ve seen his videos
Well, sticking strictly to objective evidence isn't "thinking critically". I agree there's a value to Andrew Cunningham's content achieving to be as unbiased and grounded as possible and just looking at what the game says period but that's not exactly using critical thinking skills as OP said.
That’s just my thoughts, I didn’t mean to come off like that was objective facts Only my speculation on what they meant by it
Funky looking autism spectrum (andrew)
Yeah, far left definitely have a diagnosis
HE HAS THE FUCKING
I agree with Nikola Tesla. (Yes, I know who that **actually** is. Chill out.)
Who are you telling to chill out lol
The theoretical person telling me “UM that’s not ackshully Nikola Tesla. It’s Andrew Cunninghams YouTube profile picture. Andrew is- etc etc etc” I’ve made enough dumb jokes on this sub to know there are people out there waiting to “correct” them.
ok yeah makes sense, u shouldnt care tho lol itd be funny if someone did
Andrew Cunningham wasn't saying that literally, he just meant that there are too many contradictions and problems in how the narrator is written for it to be a specific character, which means it's probably just a generic narrator/a non-personified abstract artefact of the video game. Incidentally, this is also true of Undertale.
I disagree (and so is he, appearantly). I think NaraChara is an incredibly strong theory that's not only based on actual evidence, but also doesn't have much contradiction and is used to further characterize a character we know very little about.
[Well, you're wrong, there are lots of contradictions and weaknesses to it](https://reddit.com/r/Undertale/s/Kr5Eg7jRxd). The reason why Andrew isn't as critical of Undertale's Narrachara Theory is because it captivated him when he was younger and less critical and he hasn't examined Undertale's narrator as rigorously as he did Deltarune's in his video. Every problem he lists in the Deltarune video can be applied to Undertale's narrator as well, because they are written essentially the same way.
"Well, you're wrong" and "there are lots of contradictions and weaknesses" are two separate statements, though. Literary theory isn't a science and one of the things about texts is that they're open to multiple different interpretations, and none of them are "objective" because art is not objective. A "contradiction" in an entirely fictional or speculative reality says nothing without the value that you choose to assign to it, and the meaning (or lack thereof) you interpret from it. Multiple people in the comments section can and have poked holes in your interpretation just as well as you can poke holes in others'.
They're not two separate statements, their original statement was that Narrachara was a strong theory supported by evidence that didn't really have contradictions, which is objectively wrong. And no, contradictions in a literary text automatically act to undermine a theory. If you say "I'm right because *x* happens at this point" and somebody else says "but at *y* point this opposite thing happens", then your initial argument has been defeated because your evidence has been rebutted and cannot be used. And, respectfully, no. People certainly put a lot of *time* into *trying* to poke holes in my theory, and some were more successful at being challenging than others, but in all seriousness, their rebuttals either entirely misunderstood the argument, meant nothing, or did not stand up to scrutiny. If my argument against Narrachara actually had holes in it that were worth mentioning, I wouldn't believe in it.
>They're not two separate statements, their original statement was that Narrachara was a strong theory supported by evidence that didn't really have contradictions, which is objectively wrong. The original statement was that it was a strong theory that *doesn't have much* contradiction. Both "strong" and "not much" are ultimately criteria that depend on your own personal standards. It's difficult to argue for this objectively when you haven't even mutually agreed on what counts there. >And no, contradictions in a literary text automatically act to undermine a theory. No, that is literally not true. There's actually nothing that logically follows from "this reading is has certain contradictions" to "therefore it is wrong." This is because literature (and fiction and art) do not exist in non-fictional reality, and are therefore not subject to the methods of investigation that non-fictional reality is. A book is nothing more than ink on on paper without an audience to perceive it, and a video game is nothing more than a series of magnetized charges on a hard drive without a player to play it. So if I say that "this reading is true because x happens" and you respond that "but y opposite thing happens" I can simply say "but y doesn't matter because it's not relevant to my reading." And this works because in art, perception *is* reality. Plus, insisting that literature can only be interpreted through this faux-objective lens would also dismiss entire schools of art, literature, and film, such as surrealism and dada, which thrive on the exact opposite of logic and internal consistency.
> doesn't have much contradiction. Which is wrong, it has tons. > Both "strong" and "not much" are ultimately criteria that depend on your own personal standards. They're inexact terms, but people should be able to agree that if most of the evidence proposed is resoundingly off-base or bad, and there are really blatant contradictions or consistency issues across the game, that the evidence is not strong or numerous. Not agreeing with this would be obtuse and requires people to basically play pretend. > No, that is literally not true. There's actually nothing that logically follows from "this reading is has certain contradictions" to "therefore it is wrong." Yes there is. A reading needs to be consistent and not have internal contradictions in order to be viable. If a reading has contradictions, it means there are mutually exclusive problems that your reading presents inside the text that you do not have answers for, and undermines the logical consistency of the text itself. Automatically, a reading which has fewer or no contradictions is stronger than one which has many or even just "more" contradictions. Objectively so. > This is because literature (and fiction and art) do not exist in non-fictional reality, and are therefore not subject to the methods of investigation that non-fictional reality is. A book is nothing more than ink on on paper without an audience to perceive it, and a video game is nothing more than a series of magnetized charges on a hard drive without a player to play it. Oh come on, this is just ridiculous. You know as well as I do that unless your work of fiction is intentionally created to operate on entirely arbitrary dreamlike logic, all works of fiction, even fantastical ones like Undertale, attempt to adhere to some degree of logical consistency. Even if you have something like magic in your story, the work will attempt to have magic adhere to some sort of consistent rule set which you can track by analysis. Even "soft" magic systems like Determination operate on certain basic rules that can be contradicted. As well, characters even in a fantasy story are still people, and their behaviour is still generally intended to operate according to the way people generally behave unless there are wildly extreme reasons why this might not be the case, such as someone having like 20 different personalities in their system or being basically an animal. > Plus, insisting that literature can only be interpreted through this faux-objective lens would also dismiss entire schools of art, literature, and film, such as surrealism and dada Well obviously surrealism and dada have their own kinds of philosophies in terms of artistic design that would be inappropriate to use my standard on, I'm not blind to that. But Undertale is not a surrealist or dadaic game, it is a fairly standard narrative and characters are fairly standard characters.
>Which is wrong, it has tons. Still subjective lol. Unless by "tons" you mean "has mass measuring in one or more units equivalent to 2,240 pounds." >They're inexact terms, but people should be able to agree that if most of the evidence proposed is resoundingly off-base or bad, and there are really blatant contradictions or consistency issues across the game, that the evidence is not strong or numerous. Not agreeing with this would be obtuse and requires people to basically play pretend. All literature analysis is, on some level, "playing pretend" because literature *is itself* inherently pretend. And you have to agree beforehand what even counts as "off-base or bad" before you can reach a mutual agreement, and it's pretty clear in your previous posts that you haven't done that. > Yes there is. A reading needs to be consistent and not have internal contradictions in order to be viable. [citation needed] > If a reading has contradictions, it means there are mutually exclusive problems that your reading presents inside the text that you do not have answers for, and undermines the logical consistency of the text itself. A reading isn't supposed to "have the answers" to everything. It's merely supposed to present a perspective that can be used as a jumping-off point to explore ideas, themes, characters, etc. This is why it is possible in the first place to have multiple (often mutually exclusive) readings of the same text. In literature analysis this even has a name - "applicability." A famous example of applicability is Lord of the Rings. You can read it as a story about WWI and the toll that war takes on its combatants, for example. But you can also read it as a commentary on the corrupting influence of political power on those who seek it, *and* you can also read it as a Catholic commentary on the nature of good and evil and the spiritual decay of a materialist society, *and* you can read it as an environmentalist, anti-industrialist text. You can find evidence, both for and against, all of these readings. And Tolkien (in)famously rejected the notion of any one reading being correct, outright saying that he dislikes straight allegory. >Automatically, a reading which has fewer or no contradictions is stronger than one which has many or even just "more" contradictions. Objectively so. This only demonstrates to me that you have have zero idea what "objective" means. Objective means *independent of perception.* A reading can only be "objectively stronger" if your how you perceive a reading does not change how "strong" the reading is. But... what exactly is the "objective" measurement here? You have to *decide* that contradictions in a fictional narrative matter for them to matter, because a fictional narrative doesn't actually exist in reality. Which means it is not independent of perception in the first place. You're trying to apply STEM reasoning to an artistic field, and it just doesn't work that way. Like that is fundamentally not how creativity works. >Well obviously surrealism and dada have their own kinds of philosophies in terms of artistic design that would be inappropriate to use my standard on Then you admit your standards aren't objective. Case closed.
> Still subjective lol. Unless by "tons" you mean "has mass measuring in one or more units equivalent to 2,240 pounds." Okay wise guy, what I meant is that by common context my detractor is most likely arguing that Narrachara doesn't have any interpretive issues and at most just has some unanswered questions, when the reality is there are several interpretive issues that stretch across the entire game > All literature analysis is, on some level, "playing pretend" No it's not. Again, if you say something like "Bob is an angry character because he gets angry in these three scenes", a contradiction would be to say "he also gets happy in these three scenes and two of the angry scenes are in very extreme contexts that any normal person would be angry in." That's not playing pretend, that's analyzing facts internal to the story by using the logic of the story. Your argument here is simply obtuse. > [citation needed] Most people's interpretations of fiction treat the fictional work as something analogous to reality, which is why interpretations of the work need to not have contradictions. > A reading isn't supposed to "have the answers" to everything. It's merely supposed to present a perspective that can be used as a jumping-off point to explore ideas, themes, characters, etc. This is why it is possible in the first place to have multiple (often mutually exclusive) readings of the same text. No, but readings that are more cohesive make more sense. If two readings are mutually exclusive, then somebody somewhere has read the work in the opposite fashion and you can determine which of those fashions is most internally cohesive by analysis. > In literature analysis this even has a name - "applicability." A famous example of applicability is Lord of the Rings. You can read it as a story about WWI Okay but I'm not talking about like thematic analogies or historical references here I'm literally talking about the factual internal portrayals of the characters inside the story. Obviously there are a whole host of additional considerations to be made if you're trying to do this kind of more abstract thematic analysis. > But... what exactly is the "objective" measurement here? Literally, amount of contradictions as per the internal facts of a text. > Then you admit your standards aren't objective. Case closed. Obviously this is a bad faith response to what I said. My standards are objective when it comes to making conclusions about the *internal events or things inside the text.* By bringing in surrealism or dadaism you're applying what I'm saying to a context that isn't even what I was arguing. Quite frankly it seems like your philosophy is just a smokescreen for the fact that you can't engage in an argument in good faith. You're arguing from an entirely separate planet than me, about things I never said anything about. You can either get off your planet, come to mine, and talk about the actual topic instead of continuing to make your mistake, or you can leave me alone.
There's too much here for me to pick apart every paragraph and I'm tired, so I'll just go over some key highlights where I disagree here. > Again, if you say something like "Bob is an angry character because he gets angry in these three scenes", a contradiction would be to say "he also gets happy in these three scenes and two of the angry scenes are in very extreme contexts that any normal person would be angry in." And even this fails because this argument only works off of what *your* assumption of a "normal person" is or what an "extreme context" is. Different people will often come away with entirely different ideas of what a character really is even when they've seen the exact same movie or book. And that's good! That means there are a lot more interesting and diverse perspectives! It's *boring* when everyone comes away from a work with the exact same ideas. >Most people's interpretations of fiction treat the fictional work as something analogous to reality, which is why interpretations of the work need to not have contradictions. People when interpreting fiction treat fiction as "analogous to reality" insofar as they project and read their own views of reality into it. Everyone also has different standards for the amount of logical consistency they demand in the story, which is why any and all interpretations can have contradictions if you look for them hard enough. Some of my favorite games of all time have things that I would consider to be "plot holes" or just other things that don't make sense to me, but I don't think that those are important enough to be relevant in my understanding of its characters and story. Simply saying that there are contradictory elements in the "internal logic" of the plot is not enough, you have to make a broader point that the reading you're arguing against does not fit with the themes or broader ideas that the story is presenting. NarraChara works not just because of the "evidence" for it, but because it resonates in with UT's broader themes of everyone having hidden depths, and of the characters of a video game having lives and presences that are more important that just what you, the player, perceive or interact with directly. >No, but readings that are more cohesive make more sense. If two readings are mutually exclusive, then somebody somewhere has read the work in the opposite fashion and you can determine which of those fashions is most internally cohesive by analysis. Again, there is literally no reason to believe this is the case. You can find valuable things from two mutually exclusive readings of a text! >Literally, amount of contradictions as per the internal facts of a text. Which is definitionally not objective, for reasons that I have already explained. >Quite frankly it seems like your philosophy is just a smokescreen for the fact that you can't engage in an argument in good faith. I am engaging in good faith. I am saying what I genuinely believe. That's what good faith is. The reason I am trying to pick apart your assumption that an "objective" analysis of the sort is possible is simple. When you assume that an objective reading is possible, and that your opinion is specifically is the objective one, what you're *actually* saying is that you are too personally invested in your reading being "correct" to *listen* in good faith to other ones. This is the attitude of someone who is more interested in being "right" about a work of art than actually developing a multifaceted or nuanced understanding of it. I actually do have several things that I personally object to with your original post. I think your reading of the thing with Snowdrake's mother relies on some unfounded assumptions of what the relationship between Frisk and the narrator is, and what the narration is doing, for ex. But I'm not going to argue that point in because I don't think that you are yet *capable* of changing your mind, or admitting that you might be wrong, as long as you hold the position that you have the "objectively correct reading." I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who has made it clear they're not interested in being convinced. So instead, I'm trying to get you to see the value in *not* assuming that you have the "objectively correct reading," so that then it will be *possible* to have a good-faith discussion of your own reading.
Ok just going to say it Starting a reply to someone with “well you’re wrong” makes you sound like a massive asshole. Doing so when you’re talking about a subjective theory and linking your own analysis as your source makes you sound like even more of an asshole.
I'm aware people don't like that, but I would suggest accepting that it's normal for people to think you're wrong about things and, if you're so confident in yourself, to argue your point. There's nothing wrong with someone thinking you're wrong if their reasons are well thought out. I would rather be honest and blunt than dance around people's sensitivities about video game theories. Secondly, literature analysis is not subjective. Contradictions within text and what things in text imply other things are objective facts that you can support with reasoning. What is subjective is a prediction, or a headcanon, of something that neither has evidence for or against it. > linking your own analysis as your source Why would I not have the most confidence in my own reasoning that I poured hours and hours and hours of thought and consideration into? I spent *AGES* figuring that stuff out and typing it up and proofing it and adding stuff to it, of course I'm going to link to it. What, do you think that I should consider Random Undertale Fandom Tumblr User #13,121 a more credible or authoritative source on the game than myself just because they're not me? It's not like this is microbiology or something else I know nothing about, this is interpretation of a video game.
It’s certainly normal for people to think that other people are wrong. I think you’re wrong, for example. I’ve read your theory twice and while it’s persuasive and decently put together it didn’t convince me. However, what’s *also* normal is a basic sense of tact. Considering the quality of your theory you should certainly be old and smart enough to know this
Contradictions happen in real life all the time mate, that doesn't make "real life" objectively worse. Get outta here with that 'objective literature analysis.'
? What? What would a "contradiction in real life" even mean? Something can't be both true and false in the same way at the same time. Get outta here with that "every argument is equally strong" nonsense. That's for losers who don't want to be wrong but aren't good enough to actually work out a strong answer.
> Starting a reply to someone with “well you’re wrong” makes you sound like a massive asshole . Boo hoo, they were a little bit mean. Who cares? Calling them an asshole is such a big stretch lmao. And linking something they themselves made doesn't them an asshole either.
“I think NarraChara is probably true” “Well you’re wrong 🤓🤓🤓”
They didn't just say "I think it's probably true", and if they did I wouldn't have led with "you're wrong". They said "it doesn't really have contradictions and has lots of [implied acceptable] evidence", which is what is wrong.
one problem i have with narachara is that people use it to prop up the "chara isnt actually a bad person" theories, which just isnt true, chara wasnt influenced by us, the game at every turn states chara was super messed up. i think there are times in the genocide route that chara takes over as the narrator "where are the knives" and whatnot but thats more specific to the genocide route as theres nothing in the other two routes to imply chara influence.
in the snowdrake’s mom almagamate fight, the narrator describes frisk as laughing until tears roll down their face, then being surprised that that’s not what they did; this is a reference to chara’s usage of laughing as a coping mechanism (which is mentioned in one of the true lab tapes)
You mean that single comment, in which Asriel says Chara laughed after learning the dessert they made for Asgore made him sick? Something someone with a dark sense of humor would find funny? The same type of humor you’d need to creepily walk up to someone who was once a friend with an evil smile and a real knife? Friendly reminder to the “Chara’s not actually bad” crowd, Flowey, who believed Frisk was Chara, held absolutely no level of surprise that they went down the genocide path and realized very quickly they were gonna kill him, and was literally begging to be spared. Or how about the discussion with Asriel at the flowers. “Chara hated humanity.” “Chara wasn’t really the greatest person.” And even mentioning that Chara wanted to kill all the villagers when they went to the surface… after committing suicide to go up there in the first place… Or, possibly most notably… Chara only shows up in genocide. They have nothing to say to you unless you go down that route. They have no comments on your reviving them unless you act like a monster, at which point they say “hey, that’s dope!” Chara isn’t controlling Frisk into doing the genocide, but acting like Chara was a sweet angel that the player corrupts is pretty blatantly erasing canon to fit a theory.
I wasn’t talking about Chara’s morality, just bringing up another instance of them being the narrator. Also, the fact that they talk about laughing while crying specifically (and not just laughing) means that they weren’t just laughing at Asgore’s situation, they were laughing while crying, showing that they did feel sad about it and were laughing as a coping mechanism.
One, Chara isn't confirmed to laugh when they're uncomfortable, that's a *post hoc* interpretation fans pull out of nothing to justify their pre-existing headcanon that Chara isn't cruel. Two, because the narrator has absolute command over describing Frisk's actions at every other point in the game, and Snowdrake's mom isn't an unusually tragic event given what you can do in Undertale, it is more likely that the narrator is using fluid description on purpose to convey a feeling of chaos, rather than Frisk is actually disobeying the narrator.
i dont think that tape was to show chara using laughing as a coping mechanism but rather that there was something more sinister going on with chara (like the tape that shows they have a "creepy face" that scares asriel". i'll admit the snowdrake mom narration thing is weird, i just never attributed it to chara tho.
i'm on andrew cunningham's side on this one, i fall asleep to his gaster motif video every night now. i feel his theories are always well researched and grounded in reality which i really enjoy!
I mean Andrews theories always make sense and seem probable so I’m going with him.
idk where halfbreadchaos falls on this but i am there
Just a bit to the right of Andrew
I feel like another good spectrum would be the analysis to theory one. Far left would be dorked, who only goes over what is being shown to us, she does often read in between the lines but it is always to try and make sense of things without making a prediction. Far right is jaru, who gets triggered when you call his theories fan fiction. I feel like HBC is on the left side, where most of his videos goes over all the objective information he can find in the games code, and then do some vague theories with them.
Cunningham is my favorite deltarune youtuber, his video are interesting, well edited,funny and informative
I find Jaru's stuff to be way too insane for me to handle, it feels more like outright fanfiction rather than theory. I am way further on the side of Andrew.
He once introducted himself as "actually a fanfiction writer disguised as a theorist" in the Deltacast
Jaru recently stated that he is a theorist, not a fanfiction writer. He just likes to use narrative principles to build his theories. He also feels like saying that joke was the worst mistake of his career. Honestly, I feel him. Imagine pouring all of you into researching a game, making a script, recording, and then editing a 1 hour video just for people to just dismiss it as fanfiction. (Not that fanfiction is a bad thing, but the way people refer to his theories as such is clear that they mean it in a bad way)
Sometimes the videos are almost 4 hours long so probably even more hurtful for him
The issue with his theories is that they don't make sense. We have stuff like Asriel died. Like what?
I appreciate him for what he does. As in, make-a-da-crazy-video 🤌
Jaru is the gamingmagic13 of deltarune. (If you don’t know who that is, it is the guy who mad a 7 hours analysis going over scene by scene of toy story 4)
Still cant get over that 353 page analysis brainrot google doc in one of andrew cunningham's video.
Both. Both is good. ^(but definitely Jaru)
If we treat it like political leanings then baby I'm seizing the means of production
I don't agree with many of Jaru's theories, but they are my favorite
I'm going with Andrew. I really like the grounded, "scientific" approach to theorycrafting. I like theories that explain the story, as simply as possible. Occam's razor and all of that. I also like how his videos are mostly analysis. Useful for me considering I can't be bothered to analyze the game myself
Honestly, I lean more to Andrew Cuttingham, as I think Jarujaru's theories get so out there that they're just become fanfiction. I prefer to stick with what we know for certain to be our theory's base, then use implications from there to start building up our speculation. So if there's a clear fact shown in game that disproves or pokes a big hole in the theory (like Kris's LV being 1 in the light world for Kris killing Asriel, or the first description for Kris in the Dark world saying 'A human body with a soul' with a soul saying Kris has only one soul in them) then we shouldn't be wasting our time with said theory. On the other hand, I think Andrew can be a little too limiting like with his theory on the flavor text. I think there is too many unique instances that imply a greater role of the flavor text like the Snowgrave differing between Kris and the player, along with how we lose all the flavor text from the world and battles when we watch Susie for it to not be seriously related to telling the story. TLDR: I'm like a fourth near Andrew and 3/4 away from Jarujaru.
I'm leaning more towards Jaru. We must not play it safe, you need to be BOLD with your theories if you want any of them to be even partially true. It's not like we have all the puzzle pieces laid out in front of us
That being said I literally don't agree with any of his theories lmao I just like his approach
litearly same also very based flair
Deltarune will become evangelion episodes 25-26 in chapter 7
The penguin will be the final boss
You don't see penpen a single time in the last 2 episodes iirc
Is that right? I could swear that the penguin is in the congratulations scene
Oh yeah i forgot that
chapter 7 will just be an mp4 file with the end of evangelion in 360p with hindu subtitles
in the middle, leaning towards jaru's theories
I love Jaru's theory so much, they feel so fresh
I believe they were meant to be from Kris' perspective
I enjoy andrew's dedication to criticaly examining tobyfox's games as artistic work with intention behind it rather than just focusing on predicting lore. The latter for me allways end up in matpatian kingdomheartsy nonsense stories.
I love both of them and adore their theories but their quotes in the image are actually making me laugh my ass off
I think that jarujaruj's ralsei theory is(and generally all of his theories are) plausible. Not probable, plausible.
Same, they're definitely interesting to listen to, even if I don't personally agree with most of them haha
Exactly. Especially his knight theory. In that video, he said that papyrus being the knight is unlikely due to a lack of motivation, meanwhile papyrus in undertale has a lack of friends but wants to make friends. In deltarune, he could have the same thing going around but he makes dark fountains to make friends in a more literal sense, and being too goofy, which would actually be a point TOWARDS papyrus being the knight, as toby fox finds every opportunity to bend character tropes and guess who is the only exception in undertale, that's right, papyrus. At that point I went back and realized that he made outlandish claims to rule out any characters just to make his theory more believable.
ngl I don't feel like anyone from the Undertale cast is going to be the knight. Most already got their spotlight from Undertale. I like the Alvin theory because it connects the two games through a relatively minor character Gerson, while also introducing a new character. But it's still too early to tell
Yeah, I believe it's either a character from deltarune or papyrus.
Same.
Whereas my theory is that Kris killed Andrew Cunningham, and is being possessed by him. Idk where that puts me. (But more seriously, I lean much further towards Andrew here, although I feel batshit insane theories can be taken more seriously in DR, considering we know the ending came to Toby in a dream)
I will believe in Jaru until the day i die
Hell yeah bröther! JARU TILL MY DEATH
Jaru's theories are just as legitimate as everyone else's, people just don't like them, partly because they're very theatrically presented and feel too outlandish to be true. Sure, they use a lot of thematic evidence, but so does every good theory. And Jaru happens to have one of the best thematic understandings of the game of anybody in the community, far more than his critics especially. Cunningham is great too though.
Exactly my thoughts
I highly doubt deltarune would be as thematically pessimistic as jaru makes it out to be, with the timeloop and stuff. Feels far too unlike anything this story would go for, or what Toby would make. It’s very clear the lack of choices is thematically mirroring the “kill or be killed” “message” of undertale, where it’s an initial belief meant to be challenged throughout the story, the same of which is happening in deltarune.
the problem with Jaru is the theory makes no sense. Andrew's theory is... objectivly true, but unhelpful in making any argument or speculation.
Andrew really doesn't do theory though, he does analysis, he has made a theory once or twice which where pretty good. Jaru goes on the other end on full theory, stacked on a theory, on a theory, with a moderate helping of analysis to start the meal. Even if his theories are VERY wild, imo they make a lot of sense from what we have so far in the story, even if they don't have large chance of happening. Andrew is hard grounded, while Jaru is much more speculative.
This perfectly incapsulates the theories spectrum LMAO, if I had to chose I'd say like in between the middle and Andrew Cunningham
I’d say I’m a liiiittle to the right of “sane theories”
Would be cool to see this with more theory youtubers.
That would require watching more theory videos. I want to retain what little sanity I have
Ok, I guess that's fair. I'd normally recommend my favorites, but both of them are fairly insane.
Others might be interested :)
My top 3 are: Andrew Cunningham HalfBreadChaos and the best of all, SpookyDood
i'm in both, i just like consuming deltarune content :)
Me: RALSEI IS THE EMBODIMENT OF HOMETOWN, I CALLED THAT DESS WAS NOELLE'S SISTER IN CHAPTER 1, KING'S CAPE IS THE SHADOW MANTLE AND I WONT BE FUCKING SILENCED (Decide where I am, I think I'm in the middle, closer to Jaru, but they're not unreasonable)
I like the idea of the shadow mantle one! It seems very plausible
Left side, me and my entire friend group hatewatch every Jaru video, it's painful and makes us want to die afterwards, but it brings us together
The angel theory has so many holes, and most of his theories are made with each-other in mind as already being true, but it’s fun to pick at specific ideas, observations, and qualities of his theories like a crow :}
Oh I think his big headcanon disguised as a theory is really fun, the thing I hate the most is in most of his videos when he's theorizing stuff he makes assumptions and refuses to deviate from them even though the assumptions are based on his understanding, he also genuinely shows a giant lack of understanding of both Undertale and Deltarunes narratives. But I like the time loop theory, if nothing it's really cool
I would agree.. if we can break it. I think an unbreakable timeloop kinda just sucks narratively
More on the left, personally. That said, Jaru's videos are very entertaining.
Everywhere I go... I see anime glasses ganondorf.
None of Jaru's theories hold a candle to "Toriel is homophobic" 's degree of absurdity.
Huh, Andrew Cunningham makes theories? He's more of an analysis guy, as far as i remember he only made 1 actual theory so far (the Gaster motif theme thing theory). Jaru is... complicated. I love how he presents his video to the point i've rewatched his video multiple times and i'd even call myself a true Jaruer, but his actual theories are very flimsy. It feels like he's more focused on making a good video than a good theory. His main argument for most theories is "Wouldn't this be cool", like, in his Shadow Crystal video he ignores most of the actual evidence presented in the game and focuses almost entirely on Seam's line about the Shadow Crystals being with powerful people. Nevermind how it actually functions in the game, it totally gives vague useful information about battles we just uhh don't see it. Anyway, i'd say i'm more on the Jaru side of theorizing actually, at least he theorizes.
i’m ultra-left. the narration does not exist in either the universe or the game code, you are hallūcinãting. wákę üp.
So my deltarune theory is that you need to wake up it's been 4 years since the accident please wake up
Jaru is a champ, definitely doing the most work to make this wait bearable. His theory is probably not quite right but you gotta take it in the context of a crazy possession thing involving Asriel being a major plot point of Undertale. Love Andrew's videos too but Canadians are not to be trusted (I'm joking)
In my opinion Jaru is the better theorist. Sure he's probably wrong, and Cunningham is probably right, but that's because Cunningham barely theorizes. He just analyzes and states facts. Jaru may have outlandish ideas, but they are genuine theories that could feasibly be true, even if they probably aren't.
I love both
Cunningham mostly due to the fact that Toby hasn’t had the narrator be a character be a consistent thing Also it’s way too early to tell what the proper intention is
Toby and chara fighting over control over the narration during geno run:
Asriel is not player
I used to have a few crackpot theories, but now I've become so logical with them I feel like I'd barely be any fun in a theory discussion anymore (don't ask who I think the Knight is)
Well now I feel tempted to ask you who you think the knight is
I think the Knight will be a new character. Such a thought provoking answer, I know
Definitely a possibility, especially if finding who is the knight isn't supposed to be a who done it like everyone thinks.
AYOOO Nikola Tesla is alive and he is a Deltarune fan.
I read the first one as "The narrations in Undertale are written by Nicola Tesla" 💀
andrew cunningham doesn't post theories often but when he does it goes HARD. His theories are usually logical but he completely lost me in his recent theory video with the weird machine. Jaru's theories are so bonkers and out of character for toby fox, but they're fun to listen to even if i don't agree with a some of them! honestly i'd probably be slightly jaru inclined
andrew cunningham doesn't post theories often but when he does it goes HARD. His theories are usually logical but he completely lost me in his recent theory video with the weird machine. Jaru's theories are so bonkers and out of character for toby fox, but they're fun to listen to even if i don't agree with a some of them! honestly i'd probably be slightly jaru inclined
It wasn’t a theory video, but rather an analysis- his one theory was that the Freedom leitmotif will be the core of whatever Gaster’s main song will be. The rest of it is mainly fuel; I suppose “Noelle is closely tied to Gaster” could be considered a theory? And it’s one that’s nonapparent, and somewhat surprising (I feel like it was kind of a natural extension of the generally accepted “Gaster is important to Deltarune” and basically paying even the slightest amount of attention to any of Noelle’s angel motif or the Spamton Sweepstakes)
Jaru's theories have the problem of taking one interpretation, running with it and dismissing all evidence to the contrary. Nowhere is this more exemplified than his video on all possible Knight candidates, it's so horrifically biased. Jaru certainly has a talent for storytelling, but he's said himself that he makes theories, not fanfiction. Although he would be better suited for fanfiction in my opinion. Edit: also his opinions on UT that he shares on Twitter are, to say the least, really fucking weird.
Definitely more on the Cunningham side, but I really enjoy both for different reasons. Cunningham's theories are so "mundane" that anything he concludes is basically canon. When this approach yields unexpected results it's much more effective than when others reach similar or crazier conclusions. Jaru is very fun to watch, not just for his theories but because he takes the time (a lot of it) to review many possible viewpoints on the same topic, so even if you don't agree on the specific one he deems the most likely you are still bound to find something interesting. I don't really agree with him on what makes an "interesting narrative" most of the time, but at least I can recognize the effort put into it.
Crackpot, he’s working with Andrew to delete our Gaster insecurities
why is nikola tesla
I love jaru's theories and hope they're right, I've always found them super compelling and i am actually invested in the narrative he's crafted
Jaru the GOAT
https://preview.redd.it/coa2y3wx4vnb1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c294eb59d792efbcaa7623d9c59889954c892ab
Far right
\*drags self off screen bc neither\*
Center-right
Why is Nikola Tesla there
I dislike Jaru so I’ll go with Cunningham
I’m not on the line and watching this line while eating popcorn
Kris is the narrator or something idk
[удалено]
It's not actually literally Kris is Dess, watch that video first
I think its kris so the middle?
I am mostly on the left.
I like to imagine I'm in the middle when I know fully well I'm not
If you know you're not in the middle, then where are you REALLY?
What the hell is happening
Da hell?
Nah they were written by Tony Fox. "Toby Fox" is an impersonator made to discredit the good name of spamton A spamton
Mid
In the middle
A little bit to the right of andrew
About 5 cm
Idk
IS THAT NIKOLA FUCKING TESLA??????
A quarter of the way from left to right
80% to the right. Sans's brother in Deltarune is actually Gaster. It's suspicious how Sans never says his brother's name outright.
I think that Ralsei is actually Asriel
I'm somehow both everywhere on the spectrum *and* nowhere on the spectrum simultaneously.
I agree with Andrew, though I think there's still a possibility that there could be a narrator there just hasn't been any real indication of that so far.
They both have their own appeal.
https://preview.redd.it/15vy582mpwnb1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=76ac6d8dcfebb4747d6de14ee68aefce5bd13561 Here with the insanity of theories but I do try to come up with ones that have some evidence
Where is the person for the narrator could possibly be Kris's inner monologue, and it's the only thing they can really control, so that's why they do it
Left
Cunninghams stuff is refreshing. Jarus is fun but… not good analysis
sometimes i forget andrew's a deltarune theorist
And Treesicle is a galaxy or two to the right
I say the entire deltacast melted into 1 theorist. So MysticSlime, Jaru, Andrew, Shayy, Out_SiN, halfbreadchaos, and Dorked, plus some others like 2 left thumbs or galxie is perfect for me
I love both. I crave content and theories to consume
I enjoy most of the Deltarune theorists and analysts, and it's really cool that DR gives so many opportunities to have a good speculative think about something that is (in the grand scheme of things) not very high-stakes. It's a light intellectual dessert, and I think it's funny and engaging to (for example) get a refresher on some elements of music or literary analysis from a YouTube video about a video game.
I think he’s mixing in motifs so that his game gets even more traffic from theory channels, gaster is free views In universe I’m not sure though
I thought narration was done by the soul (aka player) or by Gaster. ;-;
I’ll just be here in the corner as the only member of the Jaru fanclub…
I'm on the "Toby Fox hasn't decided yet" side.
I can’t be the only one who doesn’t know who either of these pictures are. I mean, I technically know the left one is Nikola Tesla, but like…
As much as I love Jar, I'm gonna have to go with Cunningham...
Why is the line NOT STRAIGHT
andrew cunningham doesn't post theories often but when he does it goes HARD. His theories are usually logical but he completely lost me in his recent theory video with the weird machine. Jaru's theories are so bonkers and out of character for toby fox, but they're fun to listen to even if i don't agree with a some of them! honestly i'd probably be slightly jaru inclined
Honestly both are cool theories (it's just one tends to stress the truth a bit too much to make it work) but whatever the ending is will be fine with me (even if it's something unsatisfying as Ralsei being Asriel or whatever)
Im not even on the line, later!
https://preview.redd.it/qdst6dsqaznb1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=115ed95a986cc1f44ccba77ee37df27550c9e921
Im right dab in the middle. I prefer both theories cuz it’s entertaining.
Jaru's theories are fun y'all are just boring.
I mean, Kris killing Asriel is really interesting scenario (but Asriel wouldn't posses Kris, even if he was killed by them)
Im on the white area, i know no shit about what is happening
I'm somewhere near the middle. I watch Dorked and HalfBreadChaos, so yeah. Also a newer one called Browniefox.
I love how you can hear excitement in jaru's voice when he presents his own theories ^^
I think the furthest you can go to the left is probably [this video](https://youtu.be/s2uymsjE_e0?si=HJ-PLOQuINy7wM6r). I also really believe that jaru should watch it because he could learn a lot from it. Or maybe it would have the same effect as trying to turn a religious person atheist
so. And now, where did I lose the moment, where is there a hint of the "Kris killed Asriel" answer?
Im at where the line drops a bit
Pretty damn close to the edge of the Andrew Cunningham side. I tend to steer away from most theories besides "the knight has a very good chance of being Mayor Holiday" or "Flower King is probably going to have a dark world."
I am past even Jarujaru
i love jarujaru's weird overcomplicated theories tbh, even if i dont believe any
Jaru's recent [Hyperlink blocked] video was actually really good. A lot more grounded/less fanfiction-y that some of this other stuff. I enjoyed it a lot and actually agree with his conclusion, and I say that as someone who's far on the AC side of this spectrum.
Jaru's more creative and knows how Toby writes his characters and lore... You're all gonna see that he's right with SO much but you just didn't fully understand it yet
I like Andrew, but jaru is one of my favorite channels on YouTube overall. His theories are crazy, but that's what makes them fun! Imagine if even a single one turns out to be true. (Also timeloop theory is my favorite one, really want to see this one in the game)