Debunking Narrator Chara Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- Check out Andrew Cunningham! / @andrew_cunningham
And a link to the surviving narrachara post I found - nochocolate.tu....
Music:
• Undertale Yellow OST: ...
• Deltarune Chapter 2 OS...
• Your Best Nightmare
• Waterfall
• OMORI OST - 088 Lost L...
• End of the Road
• Grim's Fan Tango
• OMORI OST - 122 WHITE ...
• ANOTHER HIM
• Culmination - Picayune...
• OMORI OST - 113 Chemis...
• Occultation (Boss 4 Th...
• OMORI OST - 074 Pyrefl...
• But The Earth Refused ...
• Rude Buster
• Enemy Retreating - Und...
• Buddy Simulator 1984 O...
• OMORI OST - 127 Rememb...
• Dialtone
• OFF OST: -09- Rainy Da...
![[spoilers] Full Genocide Ending (Asgore, Flowey, Chara) - Undertale](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PoToC-bQhWU/mqdefault.jpg)
![[spoilers] Full Genocide Ending (Asgore, Flowey, Chara) - Undertale](/img/tr.png)
Well the video's been out for a day and there's already quite a lot of discourse in the comments. (Not surprising considering the nature of this video) I would just like to leave a reminder here to try to be civil, at the end of the day we are discussing a video game. There is no need to rip each others throats out. (Admittedly though I may have gotten a little heated at a few parts of the video lol)
Also I have been made aware that there is actually an archive of the determinators narrachara post on Andrew's Discord Server, so I'll definitely take a look at it later and I'll probably add anything else I have to say about it to this comment. I'm not going to look at it right now though. I am very tired.
Edit: I finally got around to reading the full determinators post! You can see my thoughts on it here: ua-cam.com/video/doKbJwGOEHM/v-deo.html
Correction: 20:31 I actually just started a casual playthrough of Undertale where I killed the canine unit, but I was surprised to see that when I inspected the dog food I didn't get the "You just remembered something funny" narration. I looked it up and figured out there is a bit more to the trigger for this narration.
"all of the dogs in snowdin (doggo, lesser dog, dogamy, dogaressa, greater dog) must die AND the total kill count must be at least 21.
coincidentally, 21 kills is also the amount needed to begin showing the kill count on the stats screen. before that, nothing appears in the bottom right corner."
Not super important but just thought it was worth clarifying.
Source: nochocolate.tumblr.com/post/143337942070/dog-food-you-just-remembered-something-funny
Your "debunking" is literally just another attempt to twist Fanon Chara into being canon
If that's the case, you're literally trying to ruin Undertale even more than it already is
Without Narra-Chara, there's nothing to hold back *Sans AU fangirls* from consuming everything good that has left in this Fandom
Undertale universe is perceived better when you forget there's a "player" and instead associate yourself with the character you play as
This is the part that should be perceived the same way as in other games
That's just some food for thought
Now I'm leaving
Oh, and Deltarune Save points in Dark World don't really count, because Undertale is equivalent to the Light World and Kris can't use Save files there
Error: connection lost
you misgendered chara
I found this theory a bit strange, since Chara notably states "At first, I was so confused..." when talking about how they were awakened from death. I was hoping that would be addressed at some point in the video, but the debunking of this particular detail never came. This one thing I feel like is pretty significant despite being such a small thing.
Once you gain control of Frisk and land in the Underground, you don't get a single lick of Narrator Text until after the Flowey Intro. Notably, you can't interact with the flowerbed at this point, but can do after the Flowey Sequence.
This would seem to line up with the detail of Chara being confused at first, as they stated themselves. I doubt a generic Narrator, or Frisk would be absent for this small moment of time. On top of that, it appears the same code that checks for the exact plot number requirement is applied to some of the sign text in the Ruins too, despite it being impossible to attempt to interact with them before advancing the plot value. A very interesting code detail.
There being a lack of narration in the beginning is no evidence of anything related to who may or may not be the narrator. It could simply be dramatic silence. You just started the game and are in a weird underground place. Makes sense there would be a lack of dialogue as you take in your surroundings.
The big reason the "Chara is the narrator in routes other than Genocide" theory falls flat is that nobody can give ANY evidence for it. Narrators are always ambiguous in fiction. In EarthBound, which hugely inspired Undertale, the narrator switches between omniscience and limited knowledge all the time, as well as using "you" and "me" just like this game. Yet nobody argues that Earthbound's narrator is a character in the game.
@@kl4969 "The demon that comes when people call its name" is pretty on the nose. It lines up quite nicely with the naming screen at the start. To suggest Chara is only present in Genocide would suggest that what they said here was not true, but rather they come when we kill a lot of people. (Until we stop doing that, then they just leave for some reason.) Generic Narrator might as well be a theory in of itself, as there is even less supporting that compared to NarraChara, someone who has an alibi.
Earthbound wasn't exactly trying the kind of Meta Narrative that Undertale was going for, so your argument in that front is in bad faith. Earthbound didn't give a world reason for it's save system, or have characters act differently when you reload save files. Just because Undertale was inspired by it, does not mean it isn't going to do it's own new things that make us ask questions Earthbound never presented to us.
@@zaxentothegreedy7816 Yes, but just because Undertale is "more" meta than Earthbound does not mean every meta thing must be true. There are less assumptions that need to be made to say that the narrator is generic than there are that Chara is always the narrator. A narrator is assumed to be simply a plot device unless any evidence can be given to the contrary. There is ZERO evidence that Chara is narrating anything other than Genocide, unless you'd like to provide something other than "Undertale is meta, so I think the narrator being meta is cool"?
@@kl4969 If Chara's own words that I have quoted here aren't considered 'evidence', then neither would be the confirmation of "It's me, Chara." said in Genocide, as that too would be in word form. You value evidence and simultaneously ignore it in a fickle manner to suit an empty devil's advocate argument, which would have to involve new plot holes to justify itself.
We would have to also assume Toby Fox dropped the ball really badly with most of the text in the game if we are going with the idea that there is just this second Narrator that just so happens to be present and not have any distinct features that separate them from Chara. We would also have to assume that Toby Fox intentionally ignored every unaltered line of text for Narrator Chara in Genocide, creating an inconsistency in the Narrator situation. Genocide-only Chara Narrator requires that you ignore a lot to make it work.
NarraChara has a stable, logical vision from a Storytelling and Game Developer perspective. Generic Narrator requires us to believe Toby is a bad writer that didn't take full advantage of a really cool meta idea he had already used in his game with lots of meta storytelling.
@@zaxentothegreedy7816 I agree that Chara is with Frisk the entire game. I never denied that. I've always held the theory that Chara's soul is absorbed by Frisk when he first falls into the underground onto Chara's grave. That explains why Chara's name displays during battle. My problem is that there's no evidence that they narrate, other than a small part of New Home on Genocide. Chara isn't awoken until they gain enough power (which they even mention when they appear to the player), which only happens at a very high LV on Genocide.
personal edgy theory frisk died when taking the fall and chara basically got a new body and is slowly remembering stuff as we play
That goes pretty hard. Unfortunately I think Frisk telling Asriel their name disproves it.
that would thematically take all of the impact out of “despite everything, it’s still you”
@@mrblakeboy1420 kinda since it mostly directed at you first and frisk second
Pretty cool AU idea
@@calebdemosthene284 except in geno it says “it’s me, chara” signalling that they have replaced frisk. we have more control than chara at that point, so it wouldn’t make sense for them to say that unless it’s frisk they’ve replaced. there’s also the narraflora theory, in which that’s “it’s me, chara! i did what you wanted! aren’t you happy?” instead of saying “that person in the mirror is me, i’m chara”
frisk: "it's me chara im the one who stole your chocolate pie"
The save point in the room where Alphys complains about Mew Mew 2 is called "Bad Opinion Zone" and I really want Narrachara to be real, because that would imply that the long dead demon ghost child has strong opinions on anime.
Considering Mew Mew 2 was supposed to be far darker than the original, I think it would also fit Chara if they REALLY liked the dark, edgy version over the relatively light one
I will die on the hill that the narrator is Chara, and my reasoning is connected to my personal theory of Undertale, and while I am not able to go through everything in this comment on the theory, but I can quickly go over the fact that the red soul is the Player, and it is acting like a parasite that takes over the host and makes them do what the Player wants, and the red soul stands for control in soul traits. I think the dialog of using second person when talking about stuff that Chara would recognize like the locket at the end of genocide is basically Chara passing these things onto you as the Player who they think is Frisk.
Okay, so just headcannon?
@@ChariTheAlternate It is a theory, not headcanon
Theories by definition require evidence. It does not need to be proven, but it does need SOMETHING to legitimize it. NarraChara is a possibility, not a theory.
@@kl4969 Okay, I get your point, and I am sorry that I do not want to type out the evidence, and there is some evidence for my theory (Kris scenes in Deltarune), but I do not feel like putting them all into comments
@@kl4969"It's me, Chara." is pretty obvious proof lol
chara is the “true name” because [NAME]’s sprite is “truechara”
And frisks is “mainchara”
just felt like saying this
Isn’t chara short for character
@@joshtrashcontent4237 what do you think the chara in true chara is short for
@@kirby47897 character
@@joshtrashcontent4237 it was a rhetorical question of course it was character
Before I get into this, I'd like to say that this video was well structured and you did a great job highlighting the importance of small information. Excellent work, even if I disagree on one major count.
Toby Fox was rather explicit that the "You" used in narration is referring to you, the player, at all times in a prerelease interview.
"Melos: 1. The player-character is silent - was this done for any reason other than following traditional RPG tropes? I can think of a few possibilities but I’d rather have you answer to whatever you’re comfortable saying.
Toby: The character doesn’t say very much because then you can identify with them better. Most of the game’s narration is in the second person. The more details and personality I add to “you,” then the harder it is to get absorbed into the role"
It stands to reason that this holds true in all cases where the player isn't directly experiencing a memory of Chara.
As a result, the explicit choice to add the line, "Still just you, Frisk" to the final mirror you can see in the game is a direct admission that the player is Frisk.
And I don't mean this as in "The player character is Frisk". I mean this as in "The player is literally supposed to be the entity that is 'Frisk' "
If the Player is Frisk, it stands to reason that the name Frisk had to come from somewhere. The only character we see, in the game, who 'speaks' like 'we' do when we're not in control of what's being done (Genocide Route with Flowey, Pacifist Route right before the Asriel fight) is Chara, on the True Lab tapes. No sound, no text, Asriel explicitly repeating back what was said.
"You're right, big kids don't cry."
is no different than;
"What will I do then?"
"Why am I doing this?"
and "Frisk? That's a nice name."
They're all the same exact speech formatting, which is explicitly shown to be the way Chara speaks. In the Genocide Ending, Chara gets text, but no sound still.
If you take into account the opening of Deltarune, and the potential that the character who interrupts Gaster is Chara, then the same exact thing applies -- Chara gets text and no sound.
And what is that character doing? Responding to us giving our name by taking that name from us and giving us one in return. One that just so happens to be eerily similar to the other one we have been given, and may have even been an attempt to tell us we are "Frisk" but got cut off.
We already know the naming process retroactively affects the past in Undertale, so it's reasonable to assume it would do the same in Deltarune as well. Kris may well have been named whatever we named them until Chara changed their name, aware or unaware that they and us and Chara were ALL going to be separate. It's technically possible that the reason we're not completely in control at all is because this naming process failed (though that's entirely speculative).
It's a really easy argument to make that Chara names us Frisk, because all of the in game information lines up with it -- including the obvious parallel that it creates that we give them our name and they give us a name in return.
Furthermore, if we believe that the SOUL is the player, our colors remain the same in Deltarune.
It's in the Dark World where our choices actually matter. It's no coincidence then that in the Dark World Kris' colors change to OURS, their cape taking on the pattern and colors of our ("Frisk's") shirt.
Furthermore, the Determination that defines both the SOUL in Deltarune ("you are filled with a certain power" right before the mention of Determination in Ch2) and Frisk in Undertale are tied intrinsically to the song "Your Power", again reflecting directly on the player. This makes sense as "Your power" that "awoke me from death" is what Chara calls Determination. It's the player's, it always was.
Deltarune went out of its way to try to bury the lead that Determination was present because Determination is a trait specifically aligned with the player, in both experiences.
Toby Fox has said repeatedly that one should play Undertale BEFORE Deltarune, which is only contextually important if the Red SOUL is the same between games (Which is also why you can recognize Sans at all in Chapter 1, know that Alphys and Undyne are supposed to be together, etc).
The SOUL being stated to be your SOUL in Undertale (VIA Chara asking for it post genocide and much, much more) makes the player Frisk in that case as well, since the SOUL's colors are the same in both games then.
There's a mountain of evidence in support of the player being Frisk, which ALSO supports an argument AGAINST Narrachara, as the Narrator reacts sometimes to things outside of your control, which can then be explained to be Chara acting as an intermediary between the player and the body. We know Chara's not actually in control of the SAVE system, because if they were they wouldn't need us to choose to RESET. By the time of the Sans fight, Chara as we see them would not give up, thus, the player is in control of the Save System. Thus also the player is "The SOUL" and Frisk is a nonentity in all of this. Chara also wants the SOUL, implying they desire the choice or control of the player, further suggesting that the player isn't Chara.
At 21:11 you make an excellent point. Some ACTs and flavor texts seem flavored by Chara's mentality. It stands to reason that the ACT function may have Chara attempting to interpret our actions as best they can (hence why you can run out of jokes, etc). Though this could just as easily be a simple game limitation, it's always worth addressing.
At 28:10 you get into the inconsistency about the Genocide dialogue, but this is entirely clarified if the player and Chara are separate entities, with the narrator being overwritten by Chara when Chara explicitly thinks something that's counter to normal narration. If the player is represented by "you" here, and Chara is represented by Me/I, then this explains the Genocide dialogue entirely. The narration is addressing both you and Chara separately, as the interaction that eventually happens between you two would fulfill.
At 30:35 you make the point that what you see looking at the narrative is that we're supposed to see Chara as us, but that's not what the mirror ends up saying, necessarily. Explicitly, the mirror does say, "Still just you, Frisk." if you get given that name.
At 35:05 you make the point that you're talking about Chara representing the player rather than being the player, which in all ways except specifically in relation to the narration directed at the player, is probably correct. The thing that gives me specific pause about this is, again, the narration specifically connects "You" and "Frisk". The throughline between "You" and "Frisk" is very thoroughly established. The throughline connecting "You" with "Chara" is incomplete, and directly contradicted in the genocide ending and (in my opinion) by Chara explicitly naming the person who chose to take the pacifist actions "Frisk".
at 37:15 you assert that Chara fulfills both roles as player and protagonist, but it could be just as easily argued that Chara exists only in the protagonist reference. Chara being the intermediary between player and game isn't even necessarily correct, as you pointed out that text concerning jokes, speech etc could literally just be flavor text indicating the limits of what the game can force out of your in game body to suit your desires as a player.
What's most likely though, in my opinion, is that the player is not Chara (explicitly) but is "Frisk", named so by Chara simply to assert that the name you gave them is theirs.
...I believe strongly that you're on the right track for the vast majority of everything said. I don't think Chara is synonymous with the narrator. I don't think Chara is intended to be completely divorced from the player either. Chara is with us, every step of the way. But the game's narrative explicitly and repeatedly connects Chara as being another person, which you yourself acknowledge in the opening. We give them our name, but that doesn't make them us. Their actions don't reflect how we necessarily view the world. They have preferences, a personality and ideas beyond our own. Chara acts on their own physically multiple times.
I don't see a reason why them stepping in occasionally should be limited to the genocide route.
But Frisk? The game calls Frisk "You". The game explicitly treats that name as referring to you, with the only possible exception being Flowey's dialogue in the post pacifist plea he makes, which could be directed just as easily at the spirit following you and talking about you, rather than directed at you. Chara is rather explicitly not 'us'. They say as much, can countermand our decisions and do so in several instances. Chara may be present and Flowey is aware of this, but seems to associate our presence erroneously with them. None of this implies that we're not Frisk, it implies that Flowey is asking them to let us go. That's it.
It could literally be as simple as Flowey reminding you that if you reset, he'll think of you as that name again.
It could just as easily be the metanarrative talking about Chara as they self-define, that part of you that wants to see the numbers go up, vs the part of you that wanted to let the monsters go.
The use of the name Frisk could be as simple as using your name to refer to you when speaking to you, ala;
"You need to let this go, X. You need to let X be happy. Let X live their life." (a not-uncommon rhetorical device.)
Flowey has been anything BUT right about what is happening with Chara, many times. Not the least of which being here, where the only influence "Chara" could have over the game actually resetting is in the aforementioned metanarrative context. The player (Frisk) is in control here.
Though I can't blame Asriel for not wanting to believe that you are, given what you might be about to do.
I like to imagine that when Frisk falls underground, their memories and identity are forgotten and depending on which path the player takes, they will either remember their name and identity or see themselves as Chara and soon become Chara at the end of the genocide.
This is basically how TS Underswap handles their protagonist (who is Chara, obviously)
I think a very crucial aspect of Chara as a part of the narrative is that a first-time player is meant to initially believe that the fallen human they named at the start of the game is the same as the fallen human on-screen that they are controlling.
On your first time going through New Home, you think that this human in this backstory isn't you. But then, in a pacifist or genocide run, you realize that they kind of are. You thought that this kid with the purple shirt was you, but now they're kind of not.
I think the point of Chara is to make us question our own role in this story. In the pacifist route, the reveal that the character we named is actually the previously unnamed dead human from the backstory forces us to question who the character we're controlling is. Suddenly, instead of seeing Frisk as ourselves represented in this world, we are forced to consider them as a part of the game's world, with us being separate from it.
In the genocide route, Chara reflects the role we have come to play in the story. Like us, they are, in a way, separate from the game's world, only appearing on-screen in a black void at the end of the route. They have the name we thought we were choosing for ourselves. And their words in this scene match with what our choices in this route characterize ourselves as.
They aren't the same as the player; I think Flowey's monologue from before the Sans fight is meant to reflect the player of the genocide route. Instead, I think Chara in this scene is meant to reflect the version of a protagonist we have chosen to play as. The real life player isn't a heartless person who only desires power, they're just playing a video game. But that's the narrative role the player has chosen to fulfill in the game's story by getting to this point.
To summarize, I think the point of Chara is to remind us of how the player of a video game is both separate from and a part of a game's story. I don't think interpreting Chara as solely an in-universe character that talks to us or solely as a representation of the player makes sense, because they're both, and that's the point.
"You and I are not the same, are we?"
- Chara, second geno monologue.
Theory debunked
On a serious node, I'm not convinced by the argument that this video makes against Narachara. Sure, other games' narrators may be vague (you wouldn't want the narrator to spoil the game, would you?). In fact, this is exactly what happens in Deltarune (The man behind the tree) where there isn't any evidence of a singular character being the narrator. But this is not what happens in Undertale. You don't need Chara directly state to you that they are a narrator at the beginning of the game. They have already done so on the genocide route and there is a direct pathway to Chara being attached to Frisk, such as proving Narachara to be at least possible. Gathering enough evidence of things that could be said by in-universe Chara (the 3dot analysis, the soil jokes, etc.) and more random connections all over the place (menu, flashbacks, etc.) is how you prove a theory beyond reasonable doubt, and if there is no counter-evidence - there is no case against it. Saying that things could possibly be not said by Chara is not a way to disprove a theory. We all know that, it's just that calling the narrator Chara explains that plot point better.
If anything, the first set of screenshots do a better job of debunking the theory than the rest of the video, but some of those are also stuff that other characters do (Froggit, Papyrus, Sans, and even in Deltarune - Ralsey all break the 4th wall, explaining controls or just for lulz), others can be explained by the matter of speech. Sometimes instead of saying something like "They said they remembered their courage", we say "They remembered their courage". This is something that could be the case there, as such not capable of demolishing Narachara on their own.
Also the doc is available on Wayback Machine, but some comments have already said that.
Anyway, to explain how the referenced line debunks the "Chara is the protagonist theory" - Chara detaches themselves from us, as such proving we aren't in control of them. There are multiple lines like this in the game:
- "...What, you didn't do that?" - True lab, Snowy mom fight. Chara is wrong about the actions Frisk takes.
- "You are not actually [name], are you?" - Asriel after pacifist fight. Asriel recognizes Frisk is not Chara. This doesn't work well if we're playing as Chara who'd be controlling Frisk's body, which is exactly what Asriel thought was happening ("You are [name] right?" - Flowey completely ignores that Chara is not in their own body) - Chara borrowing some random kid's soul and body.
- Every monster candy bowl line. All of them.
- Waterfall trash zone
In fact, the True Lab example actually is a direct proof that Frisk can act on their own accord, as such being an even stronger line, but citing Chara themselves would sound more epic so 🤷(Also I just didn't think of that at the time lol).
@@bujitself "Gathering enough evidence of things that could be said by in-universe Chara (the 3dot analysis, the soil jokes, etc.) and more random connections all over the place (menu, flashbacks, etc.) is how you prove a theory beyond reasonable doubt,"
There are connections between the narration and Chara. This does not prove that the narration is being directly stated by Chara however. If Chara is present within Frisk, then it makes sense to have the narration show Chara's presence and influence. All the other connections to Chara also have nothing to do with the narration. Things like the menu and flashback cannot be used as evidence for Chara being the narrator, if they have nothing to do with the narrator.
"and if there is no counter-evidence - there is no case against it."
There is counter-evidence. The strongest piece of counter-evidence being the narrator referring to Chara in second person in the genocide route. The main foundation of narrachara is the narrator referring to Frisk in second person in the pacifist route, and referring to Chara in first person in the genocide route. However, when the narrator says things like "You can feel it beating." or "You feel like you're going to have a bad time" in the genocide route, they are referring to Chara in second person.
"Saying that things could possibly be not said by Chara is not a way to disprove a theory."
Yes it is. The entire narrachara theory is trying to prove that Chara said these things. Therefore to disprove it, I need to point to things that it doesn't make sense for Chara to say.
There are multiple things that point to Chara being present in the pacifist and neutral routes outside of the narration. The narrachara theory focuses on the narration, but that is only one aspect of the character. Chara taking complete control over Frisk in the genocide route, Chara's name appearing in the save menu, Chara thinking about Asgore before reloading, why include any of this if the main point that Toby wants us to come to is that Chara is the narrator.
You are the soul in detarune so that check out
It also says the same thing when ceiling the fountain
It talking about you as a chara-cter get it
Really good video, i actually always got a bit confused with Chara as a whole, so it really helped me, also i know this has nothing to do with the video but your voice is really nice to the ears.
EDIT: for some reason my first comment disappeared, and I don't know why but basically, I was saying at 19:02 the Determinators NarraChara post has already been fully archived, so you don't need to reverse-engineer it from Andrew's video. He actually has a copy saved on ACDs, and I remember there's a way back machine archive of the post (though unfortunately, the WBM version is laggy as hell, and a lot of the images are broken unless you use the oldest archives. The one on ACDs is much less laggy.) It's probably a good idea to check it out, as I think 80-90% of it wasn't in Andrew Cunningham's video.
Ok, I finished watching the video and am leaving another comment on my arguments/counterarguments. Even though I still believe in NarraChara, I very much enjoyed it (especially seeing as you brought up a lot of my counterarguments shortly after I wrote them).
28:20 I don’t see 2nd person narration in geno as strong evidence against NarraChara, as it could just be explained as Chara talking to Frisk and or the player. (Especially in the sans fight. One of the flavor text lines says, “Just keep attacking”, implying that Chara is talking to someone else and not themself.)
The “breaking the fourth wall by mentioning UI elements/controller buttons” also could be countered with the other examples of UI fourth wall breaks (Papyrus saying to press Z in his date, and Alphys says to press Z in the SOUL mode. Conceivably, you could explain that as "Papyrus is using a dating guide for a video game, and there's a Z on the phone," but Ralsei also does this fourth-wall-breaking thing. He mentions saving, and tells you to move blocks by pressing Z.)
I mean, characters breaking the fourth wall to be a tutorial or telling you which buttons to press is pretty common in video games. (A prime example I can think of is the start of Knights of the Old Republic.) So, I can easily see Chara doing the same. (Seeing as Deltarune has already done that with Ralsei, and it was acknowledged by Susie asking who Z was.)
The narrator's seeming ability to read minds I do agree is the strongest evidence against NarraChara, (though seeing as Deltarune has already established that the player can read others' minds with Noelle’s dialogue in both neutral/snowgrave, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Chara could do a similar thing. Either that, or they're just guessing what they're thinking/messing with the player, but I admit that's a pretty flimsy counterargument.)
-Also, while Chara is supposed to be a player standing, that’s kind of messed up by them calling a distinction between themself and you. “[The SOUL and your DT] They were not mine but YOURS.” Calling you out for wanting to recreate the world, turning on you when you refuse to destroy the world, giving them your SOUL, -*-“You and I are not the same.”-*- Chara saying that their not you kind of muddles the “Chara=you” thing. (Unless it’s a Kris situation where they're the player character but not you.)-
Never mind. You mention this counterargument in the video and pretty much say everything I mentioned here. 👍I think your take of Chara being both the player and the player character makes the most sense with the weird, muddled "Chara is you but also not you" thing.
38:16 -The voice used in this scene is the adult/Absolute God of Hyperdeath voice, and Frisk would only recognize Asriel’s young voice.-
Wait, you covered this, too, but I have another explanation for that. The tone of voice Asriel speaks in the phone call/during his boss fight is the same voice he had when he absorbed Chara’s SOUL.
I mean, as Asriel died, he likely was crying out for help (as is kind of hinted in Asriel’s “nobody came” dialogue), so it makes sense if Chara heard their voice then/any other time they talked while sharing a SOUL.
Personally, I still believe in NarraChara, but the fact that you’re able to bring up counter-arguments shortly after I write them is, yeah, a great video. Have a like. (I swear I’m going to be so annoyed if the crossed-out text just shows up as dashes at each edge.)
Thank you for bringing out the "but why can't Chara too break the 4th wall?" argument.
Sans too plays on the thin line between almost breaking the fourth wall so much that in early age of fandom people 100% believed he knew he was in the videogame (debatable tbh).
One good point the original tumblr post brings up is that you can't even see any narration before the first encounter with Flowey. You can't interact with the golden flowers that broke your fall. If you go back after meeting Flowey you can finally get the dialogue "Golden flowers. They must have broken your fall."
Which along with Flowey saying "Did you hear me calling you?" in Genocide may explain when Chara became "aware" within Frisk's soul and started narrating.
You legitimately make great points and I'll definitely have to look at the archive on ACDs.
For me the actual biggest problem I have with narrachara theory is that I feel like it focuses too much on the narration. There are multiple things that point to Chara's presence in pacifist and neutral outside of the narration, and all those aspects of Chara led me to seeing Chara as a representation of the player and the protagonist. With that in mind it makes it more difficult for me to see Chara being the narrator as the main point of their character. Chara being the narrator makes it feel like they have a more passive role in the story. Frisk is doing everything while Chara gives them information in the background. However, when Chara's name appears in the save menu, and their memories appear every time we reload, and when Flowey seems to beg them not to reset and to let Frisk live their life, it makes me feel like Chara is meant to be a more active participant in the narrative. Where we can at least meet in the middle though is that I agree that the narration can show Chara's thoughts, feelings, and maybe even more aspects of their personality. I just don't agree with the interpretation that in pacifist and neutral Chara's role is solely to narrate the world to Frisk. I think there's more to them than that.
@@Grim-c8n Ok, but who's to say that "Chara is the narrator" and "Chara's role in the story is more connected then narrating" are exclusive? Chara can be an narrator AND be connected to the player ina special way, actualy if you think about it, Chara being the narrator automatically means they have a special connection with the player
@@Grim-c8n "chara being the narrator is them actively using their capabilities to guide frisk" is an extremely common interpretation, i'm surprised you've decided this has to be so separate
I won't go into too much detail, but I think you're looking at narachara a little too litterally. Chara probably isn't actually a disembodied voice talking inside Frisk's head, but I think what we view as the narrator is probably some portion of Chara's subconscious or something, allowing us more insight into both what's happening and Chara is thinking. This is made more obvious in Deltarune, where the narrator seems to reflect Kris.
In fact, Deltarune has a lot more interesting implications on the narrator, since it seems to refer to Kris in the third person and the second person. The most intriguing moment of this is at the end of the Spamton Snowgrave fight, where it says that "you" whispered Noelle's name when it says that "Kris" called for everyone else.
This does leave the question: who says 'No chocolate', 'Right where it belongs', 'About time' (referring to the real knife), 'My drawing', 'It's me, [name]', 'About as comfortable as it looks'? Is this just some unknown narrator entity temporarily roleplaying as Chara? Or does Chara do narration, but only part-time? While acknowledging that Nara-Chara has issues, I still think it is the least self-contradicting explenation for the narrator there is. That is, unless you believe there are multiple narrators and Chara is one of them.
I think so but that is genocide exclusive
Yes those are clearly Chara. The video even brings this point up at 17:04. However, NarraChara tries to claim that Chara is the narrator OUTSIDE Genocide, when there is no proof of that in the game.
@@kl4969 Then, does this mean that you believe that there are multiple narrators and Chara is simply one of them?
@@Foggeer-von-Dreitveld There is a standard narrator, who isn't a character, 95% of the time. Chara only interferes with narration when they wake up due to Frisk's actions on Genocide. My theory is that Chara first starts to wake up at about this point, specifically in New Home when Frisk is at LV19. This also coincides with Asgore and Flowey being killed without the player's input, inplying Chara has gained control. It would make sense Chara would have a problem with someone meddling with SAVEs, which explains why Flowey is mercilessly slashed eight times. That, plus Flowey/Asriel is the one who ruined Chara's plan to kill the humans on the surface when their souls were joined.
@@kl4969 So then, we are in agreement that Chara is the narrator at least some of the time. That is an exellent start. Let us first adress your guess as to what has awakened Chara. You don't explicitly state this, but it seems like you think that the actions of genocide route are what causes Chara to awaken. This is unsubstantiated. The best evidence as to the cause of Chara's awakening is the post genocide Chara monologue. Chara states that it was your power which awakened them. This is a rather vague statement, but Chara goes on to clarify: 'my human soul, my determination, they were not mine, but yours.' This would strongly imply that actually it is not your actions in genocide which have awakened Chara, but rather your determination and soul. As you are likely aware, you have acces to those two regardless of the route you take. Now, you may feel like this was a meaningless aside, but I felt I could not let your misconseption stand, as it would get in the way of the following:
Chara is the narrator at least some of the time. We agree on this. You believe there is also another narrator who narrates most of the game. The thing is, you can make interpretation work as long as you just keep introducing additional entities whenever you run into a problem. This why there is a so called 'razor' which is used to trim away the poor theories. It is commonly known as Occam's razer, and states: 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity', meaning: use as few assumptions as possible when explaining a phenomenon. This is, by the way, why I do not like the conclusion of this video. NarraChara is a lot simpler than multiple narrator theory, a lot fewer assumptions. There are some problems, but I think they are not very big. In addition, I think NarraChara is more narratively satisfying, as it would give us insight into an otherwise quite enegmatic character: Chara.
I was able to find the determinators' tumblr post by just pasting the link in Andrew's description in the wayback machine and finding a snapshot from 2017. I hope you managed to do that too before releasing this video otherwise you must be pretty pissed after writing this video so long without having all the information lol.
And yeah as Andrew said it's very long. But it is one of the best posts ever about Undertale as a story, even if you don't happen to believe in the narrachara theory. And a lot of it isn't just arguments to support the theory but more exploring all the implications and analyzing Chara as a character.
Anyway, that's not why I am writing this comment.
I have many issues with your interpretation of Chara/Frisk/Player etc. And while it was good on your part to address the counter evidence at the end of the video, you didn't mention a lot of stuff.
Now you said, that the scene at the end of Genocide makes no sense if it's referring to Frisk.
I say it's the exact opposite.
The only way for this scene to work is if Chara is talking to Frisk.
Frisk sells THEIR soul and in the soulless pacifist Chara takes control of Frisk's body. The player is just not in the equation here. I am personally against the player being LITERALLY in the story in any sense, but in this specific case it's explicit that it's Frisk's soul. Chara never says "this soul", "the soul you stole", none of that. It's "Your soul". And then they possess Frisk. It's really that simple. "You" in the narration is always Frisk.
And I understand what the problem is. All of this implies that Frisk did the Genocide route. And most people in the community cannot accept that, because they headcanon Frisk as a good person, with pacifism and compassion being among their core attributes.
And I agree!
Even the mirror dialogue seems to hint at this, saying "Despite everything, it's still you" as if to say that Frisk didn't let this journey change who they are inside, a pacifist.
But here's the thing. Asriel was the same way too.
Asriel died because of what he believed was right, not attacking the humans who were killing him. He really believed pacifism was the way.
But even he could not remain who he was when given the power of determination.
And yes, it is the power of determination that made him become sadistic, not just being soulless.
According to his story in Genocide, it took him a lot of resets before even considering killing anyone, and he killed a lot before he started embracing it and finding sadistic pleasure in it. It's being able to reset and growing inescapably bored with the world that made Flowey that way.
If someone as good as Asriel could go down that path, why not Frisk? This is something even the determinators' post is guilty of, and I just disagree personally. The Genocide is Frisk's doing, and its effects on Chara's state of mind cause the shift in narration. And you have to remember that the entire situation Frisk and Chara are in is a parallel to when Asriel and Chara were struggling for control in the body of Asriel after he absorbed Chara's soul. And in that situation, Chara wanted to use their full power and kill. When in the Genocide run you start killing, you show Chara that their way of acting was right. You enable that violent instict they had, and they start taking more and more control, until they even kill Sans, Asgore and Flowey on their own.
That's why the text in the mirror reads "It's me, Chara.". It doesn't mean Frisk is not doing anything and is just watching as Chara kills people in Genocide. They are together. As Chara said, they are partners.
So when the narration reads "I unlocked the chain" it's because Chara did it. When it says "You feel like you are going to have a bad time." it's because it's Frisk feeling that. Frisk is still there. This assumption that Frisk is just gone in Genocide is the source of all the counter arguments you brought up, but it is not at all confirmed that Chara is acting alone.
So yeah, I maintain that "You" in all of the narration is Frisk, even in Genocide, and "I" is Chara.
Now let's talk about Resetting. I am going to have to do some theory crafting on my own here, because the game is unclear about this.
I entirely agree that Flowey is talking to Chara in the post pacifist dialogue. I mean, he literally says the Fallen Child's name.
But here's the thing.
Frisk left the underground. And I think Chara doesn't come with them. Otherwise, how is Flowey talking to Chara here? Frisk is on the surface and Flowey is back in the Ruins, as far as we know.
I think Chara's ghost, or whatever we want to call their reincarnated form was left in the underground as well. Maybe the final battle against Asriel finally allowed them to move on from being attached to Frisk's soul.
Whatever the case is, Chara is now the one in charge of resetting, not Frisk or Flowey. It's weird and the game doesn't even attempt to explain it. But Flowey specifically says "Let Frisk live their life, Chara."
This could also explain why this is the only situation where the button says "True Reset" and even Flowey loses his memories if you do a run after that. It's a different power compared to Frisk's reset.
Ok, but can't it be Chara who resets throughout all the runs? Well, no. We know this for sure because if you do Genocide twice Chara says "There is a reason you continue to recreate this world." and "Should you choose to create this world once more."
We already established that the "You" here is Frisk because of what happens in the Soulless Pacifist ending. It's not my body as the player getting possessed by Chara, it's Frisk's. And so Frisk has to also be the one Resetting.
So yeah, it kind of seems like the regular Reset is Frisk, and the True Reset is Chara. But I do understand that this is very speculative and it's barely even about NarraChara anymore and this comment is so goddamn long what am I doing with my life
Oh also, the determinators post talks about the possibility that Chara was very good in their life about understanding people, which could explain why Asriel kept saying that Chara was the only one who understood him (meaning he felt like Chara was someone who understood him deep down in a way Asgore and Toriel couldn't).
If this is the case it's not that unthinkable that sometimes Chara could figure out what Papyrus and some other monsters were thinking in the CHECK dialogue.
Anyway, it's not like it matters all that much, my point wasn't about defending narrachara but about Frisk not being controlled by Chara the entire time
@@godoatthegoat2884 its because the human soul need to break the barrier aren't human but angels soul,its doesn't make dense 7 common human soul be able to create a barrier not even gaster could do,we are talking about one most terrifying guys in fiction,the only explaination is chara and others fallen kids are just puppet in strings, chara soul was never hers,but yours,frisk was empty vessel like chara, but after genocide chara doesn't need a soul anymore, she is more a feeling than physical person,even the theory that Frisk is reincarnation of chara makes sense
There wasn’t really an issue with the idea of the player not being an in world entity until we got the Legends of Localization book. According to that, there are “three entities vying for control of the main character’s body.” So that basically confirms the player’s existence in Undertale’s world.
@@giasfelfebrehber12 That section that talks about "The Power of Three" in the Legends of Localization was part of Glyde's own thoughts of the game, in the final section of the book. Clyde has specified on twitter that he is not a substitute for Toby himself when it comes to the lore and he is more of a "narrator". He has also said all future prints will not have the "Power of Three" section anymore, which is the final nail in the coffin. It did not come from Toby, but from Clyde.
@@godoatthegoat2884 I didn’t know that. Even so, that’s not disproving the player’s existence, especially since he did work directly with Toby. And there’s further proof of the player’s existence. The Snowgrave route in Deltarune tries to make it clear that it’s caused by the player and this may be a response to people thinking the player’s not a major part of the route.
The Narrachara OG post is still available in the wayback machine!
Anyway, I think using Omori of all things is a bad way to debunk something in Undertale, since it assumes the narration in both work the same way. What is a stylistic choice in one game can be something diegetic in another - which Undertale does often. Its inclusion makes something that would usually be passed off as game logic suddenly make sense in-universe as well (CHECKing enemies, reading about the water sausages, and so on).
In other games, it would make sense if the narration updated after eating the monster candy to say it tastes like licorice. That's cool, adaptive narration. However, the ONLY reason why the Undertale narrator would say it definitely has a "distinct, non-licorice, flavor" would be if the narrator was a diegetic entity of its own, with assumptions based on their own experience. And out of all the candidates, the only one that makes sense is Chara.
This interpretation is simply the one which adds the most to the game, tying up various loose ends (why you're suddenly healed in the first encounter with flowey at the last second - just like in the photoshop fight when the six souls help you, why you can only inspect things from that moment onward, why the narration is suddenly stretched out, recognizing asriel's voice in the exit of true lab)
With Asriel's voice in the True Lab, I thought it said "It's a voice you DON'T recognize"
this video is a lot more interesting than i initially gave it credit for (before actually watching it lmao)
i guess i never really liked the idea of "Chara controls Frisk" (even in Genocide) because it almost entirely removes what little character we have of them. since, unlike Kris, they aren't really given any opportunity to show themself if this is the case.
personally, i like both the common "NarraChara theory" and your whole True Protagonist theory, since both can be seen as interpreting dialouge in certain ways.
there's some things in the narration can be taken as either being spoken to, or simply creative writing of the narration (like the Snowdrake's Mom "You didn't do that?" lines, and another example being a like in the Gyrtrot fight "Hey now. You aren't made of money.")
I'd try to pick apart what might be wrong with your evidence and such, but I really like tigerbear5845's comment already, and there's not much I can do without just repeating a lot of what they said.
Honestly my theory is that at the start the player gets the most control of "the body" and chara none. Near the end of either pacifist or geno, they get more control, either through the "stats" or kindness or whatever. In pacifist they are optimistic and go by the name of frisk because obviously toriel and asgore would know charas name. At the end, they finally get full control, as seen by the sleeping cutscene, where the player can only watch. In geno, theyre pessimistic and go by chara because everyone who would know them is dead :D. They finally kill you and regain control of the body, but they still need your soul. After theyve taken your soul, they are immune to resets. After the end of the cutscene in pacifist, instead of sleeping, they show their red eye effect, likely because they know the player is watching. Notice how after both routes the player is trapped alone with their soul, but without frisk/chara's body. I'm not too sure about who owns the soul but my theory is that it was originally chara's but after their and asriel's plan failed, it went into a sort of limbo, as if they lost control. Then we come along, and now we control it. Of course chara is going to want it back, however in neutral theyre not given enough power or love in order to do so, meanwhile in pacifist it seems they do not want to do it, because we really only give up our body, perhaps they formed a soul from all that excess friendship or something? However, in geno, after they kill us, we still have our soul, so they need us to be willing to give it to them. After geno, while they still might have it, we can still control it (either so chara gets a happy ending or because we are still more powerful than them). At the end of post-geno pacifist, we see chara do the flickery light thing, as they can finally control both the soul and the body, or can they? Because we can still use our soul after a geno reset. What I believe is that the pacifist-soul that accumulated from all the friendship the player gave was enough for chara, or maybe that's the soul we are controlling? This game's lore is definitely deep and a little confusing, sorry if this was super long to read lol.
Ok after reading the comments here's a summary of my theory:
- Chara died after their plan to get human souls failed
- Their soul gets locked in limbo, they have lost complete control in it
- Buried in ruins, that's where the player comes in
- Player now controls both chara's body and soul, chara is initially confused
- Player does pacifist route. As they obtain more and more friendship, chara feels more optimistic and gains more control over their body
- (in true lab) they have enough control to move slowly as they are afraid of the thing in the curtains
- notice lack of narration after asriel is defeated
- Toriel (I think) asks chara their name, since the player cannot speak (as they learned throughout the journey) they answer "frisk". They have enough control to speak now. (Also notice how we were able to speak in order to tell toriel our favorite flavor in the ruins)
- Finally leaving the underground, you still have control of your soul the entire time, meanwhile chara finally regains control at the end of the sleeping cutscene, as you let go (they also obtain a soul somehow, if this is the case it explains why we still control our soul after geno routes)
- special credits with asriel, both characters who are now stuck in the underground (for some reason)
- the end?
- just kidding, geno time, chara forgets everything up to the point where we join
- now we start killing, chara is confused and later believes that is why they were resurrected
- chara becomes pessimistic, and believes they are meant to help this person kill everyone (notice kill count after ruins).
- at the end, after killing flowey, chara finally has enough power, either from the stats you collected (that ended up belonging to chara) or from anger.
- Chara explains themselves to you, and kills you to finally get their body back
- Now they have their body, but since they hate you and because they want your soul they make a deal with you
- they "take" your soul, but do nothing with it, either intentionally or because we have power again
- now go through pacifist again
- at the end, they show themselves likely to scare you. They give you back your soul for some reason (friendship-soul theory from above?)
- the end
And now chara never forgets.
Hope this explains it better ;P
Love it when I spend more effort on an undertale theory than school essays.
Also I have a mini-theory that the body you control is just Chara's but rotted a little bit, since bodies don’t rot until the soul dies (not sure if this is actually confirmed, pls tell me if it is canon) and since their soul is in limbo they rot but at a lower pace. Anyways that's all, have a good day/night.
@@mistahmatrix nice theory.frisk being chara has a few holes.the ovious one is why would they lied to asriel and tell him a fake name.but there are a few hidden detail that sadlydestroy frisk being chara.in the throne room we could vist the coffins and charas says either in pasfist of geno that it was conformable as it looks impling that they put chara there assuming asriel did not get a chance to place down chara.but this implies that toriel took chara body from the throne room and place and buried them there.the thing that really kills the mini theory is that chara soul fused with asriel and so when he died chara went down with the ship,that includes both of their souls.
@@mistahmatrixo BUT,even assuming the mini theory is correct and ingoreing it holes,the main theory also has some holes.chara says in the geno rote that they had no control over their body
@@calebdemosthene284 yeah I think either stated directly in-game or is implied that toriel buried chara at the one spot in the ruins, since the flowers are there and the seeds stuck to their body. Also with chara saying they had no control they were referring to past tense, which would mean that they do have power now
I think the message you're conveying near the end about how we should all look at art in ways beyond needing to merely explain the entire story and make sense of everything rings very true. I remember seeing a video a while back about Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, and the person making the video was tired of everybody explaining what the show _told_ them and not what the show made them _feel,_ so they created the rather outlandish theory that the entire first season was about autism and Yellow Guy representing kids with autism being mistreated in the education system.
Ofc the show made it exorbitantly clear what the REAL story was, being about corporatized kid shows in the 90s and stock exchange crashes and Red Guy fighting for creative liberty in his narrative, but this theory was more an exercise in discussing the empathic side of art, and how it can tie into somebody's personal experience, like how the video's creator was autistic and connected these threads because certain moments aligned with their own experience. The confusion of learning new things, the panic when a ton of nonsense is happening around you, the things all making no sense, the people getting mad at you when you can't understand what the hell is going on, and something about an Emotion Chart that apparently gave every autistic kid under the sun PTSD. None of it intended by DHMIS, but all of it felt by the viewer of the show.
Personally I never liked the NarraChara theory, not because its stupid and makes no sense, since it very much does make sense (and your scene of reconstructing it before debunking it actually managed to convince me of its likely validity), but because I felt it failed to further the narrative experience of Undertale as I myself interpreted and understood it.
Basically, Undertale is art, and art isn't about knowing exactly why DaVinci used this brush stroke when painting the Mona Lisa's nose, or knowing why she's smiling like that, its about understanding your own feelings when you see them smiling (personally I'm indifferent to it cause the Mona Lisa is the least interesting painting ever)
Basically art is subjective (shocker) so while you can spend a thousand years explaining that Monster Kid is actually Undyne's son and Sans is Ness and Gaster is Ganondorf soul-merged with Tupac Shakur, we should still remember Undertale is a VERY emotion-driven narrative that I've seen multiple grown men cry over (one of which was just listening to the soundtrack before playing) so we should look more about the emotional impact it leaves you with rather than ravenously scouring its surface for clues. Don't understand, interpret. Don't explain, experience. Don't think, feel.
Or you could keep theorycrafting till the moon turns to cheese, I'm not your boss. If that's what made you love the game then go ahead and do it.
Retribution hits hard as a bg music lol
With this theory, I mostly think that it's reasonable to think Chara is all three: Narrator, Player, and Protagonist. Afterall, that's usually the case in games with self insert protags. I would argue that Chara as a Protagonist is the weakest of the three overall since Frisk seems to have a bigger 'protag' role. Most of your Narrator debunks mostly just weaken the theory rather than debunk it. Like,, Yes, the Narrator can be no one and just be playing into what Frisk or You should know etc etc Andrew Cunningham etc but that barely impacts much.
The thing with reading minds with Narrachara is that,, it's still leaning into the idea that Chara knows the monsters in the underground, they can be guessing what they're up to. Like,, books written in first person can have the protag go 'She looks like she is [blah blah]' and justify it by reading expressions and the like or just never explaining it beyond what is presumably a guess by the protag. I don't the points of mind reading in Narrachara cross the line of 'Chara could never have guessed or assumed this'.
And the inconsistent use of I and You in geno doesn't feel that odd to me. It seems that most of the use of You is during the Sans battle where the game is busy calling You out for Your completionist tendencies. Which. Chara also does at the end of Geno. I don't think it's impossible that Chara is ascribing things to You the player or even giving control back to Frisk so they have to deal with Sans instead or something like that. Either way, at the end of the battle, Chara strikes Sans separately from You/Frisk so there is some discrepancy between you and Chara exists in this last fight and Chara can comment on it.
Which of course,, basically makes my Chara very 'loose' in definition? I guess? I'm not sure.
TOBY FOX IS THE NARRATOR!
tbh, when asgore was kinda poisoned, chara probably laughed it off because they wanted the pain to go away.
28:13 i think it’s because chara does simple actions like unlocking the chain but your the one fighting sans dodging and clicking fight
Cool vid! It was relaxing to watch. Though, you've unfortunately not convinced me.
There are a few points in this video that I wanted to point out, but I forgot most of them (and am too lazy to write a really long essay,) so I'd like to point out two things:
1. When the narrator says "It's a voice you have never heard before," there's more space between each letter than in normal dialogue. When Undertale does this, it's usually to show shock or some sort of extreme emotion. (Like with Toriel when she says: "Now I know who I was protecting by keeping you here. Not you. But them.")
I think it's more so that the narrator is shocked to hear Asriel's voice again, but they're trying pull themselves together. This wouldn't make much sense if the narrator is anyone other than Chara, but if it is them, then it makes sense that hearing Asriel's voice would throw them off.
2. And this is something that I think can work as counter-evidence against your True Protagonist theory, is that when a true reset happens (true reset, not soulless true reset,) even the narrator seems to be affected. Nobody remembers anything, not Flowey, not Frisk (who we know remembers regular resets; e.g. if you go back and meet sans again for the second time, Frisk will turn around and shake his hand before he asks them to,) and not the narrator either.
Even Chara's memory is erased, as proven by their dialogue at the end of the geno route. "At first, I was confused."
If Chara was in full control, why would a true reset wipe their memory? And why would they hold the player accountable for what happens in the geno route if they willingly chose to reset and kill everyone?
Yes, Flowey calls "Chara" in his little conversation with us, the player, after opening the game following the end of the true pacifist route. But what if that's just what he calls the player? He doesn't know our real name after all.
Oh, and thank you for reading all of this by the way.. if you did. XD
this video made me really confused tbh, before i watched i believed in nara-chara but now i see it as many different perspectives at different contexts
A generalized narrator you would see in any game, that speaks according to the knowledge of both chara and frisk (explains the attitude change in genocide)
and Chara herself, who makes intrusion regarding certain topics during genocide.
wow, this is a really well made video. I honestly love the true protagonist theory and it's all very interesting to think about, good work man
I think this is interesting to talk about the player/narrator/player character dynamic, and it reminds me a little of one of the major plot twists of the first Zero Escape game. (Spoilers ahead, for anyone who's interested in Zero Escape at all -- it's a puzzle/escape room visual novel, highly recommend, though CWs for descriptions of gore via narration & sexual innuendo.)
999 (how I'll be referring to the game from here on out) was originally released for the DS, so the top screen consisted of normal textboxes and dialogue, and the bottom screen was taken up by the narration, which is in a third person prose style. (In the conversion to single screen consoles during the HD port, this was deemed as "Novel Mode".) You play as Junpei, and you keep going with the story, thinking the narrator is just serving to convey Junpei's inner thoughts to us. But eventually, when you reach the final puzzle, the narration switches to first person on the bottom screen, revealing that you've been playing not as Junpei but as someone else. This someone else is Akane (another major character) from the past, who Junpei is telepathically linked to. Junpei is still the protagonist and the main character, the one you root for that leads the story. Akane is the player character and the narrator, though.
And this is where the comparison comes in. I agree that I don't think Chara is responsible for every bit of text, but I think this theory doesn't account enough for Frisk as a character. Who is Frisk? I think to some extent we do influence characterization through the choices we make in an RPG, but...once again, I come back to Asriel's dialogue at the end of Pacifist, where he talks about how Frisk is the real friend he wishes he always had and doesn't know how he mistook Frisk for Chara. If Frisk was meant to be possessed/controlled by Chara, and the actions they took guided by the player ascribed to Chara, why would Asriel say that? I'm not sure I really have a point here, just that I think this subject isn't easy to detangle, and there's a reason it's still being discussed after so many years 😅 I'll admit to having been somewhat of a skeptic of Narrator!Chara myself, in that I was never 100% sold on it, but I'm only just arriving on the scene now. I think Chara being the protagonist and the narrator isn't 100% out of the question, and there's definitely a balance to be found, though maybe it's just personal bias because I refer to myself in second person in my internal monologue frequently.
Good point. I know I said this multiple times in the video already, (but it's the best example I have especially considering it's written by the exact same person) but think about Deltarune. Kris still has their own personality and the other characters seem to genuinely get to know them despite our control over them. If it works the same way with Frisk and Chara, even though Chara is the main one pushing them forward, Frisk's personality could still come through. I also think this helps explain why in Genocide, Chara's presence is much more obvious. Since Genocide Chara is more ruthless, they demand complete control. On the other hand, Chara in the pacifist route is more lenient with Frisk, so their own personality comes through more. Admittedly this all sounds pretty convoluted, but I think Chara is just a pretty convoluted character in general lol.
(me when I haven't played Deltarune yet...I'm not a huge RPG player, so it might be a while.)
I think ultimately what feels defining for me is the options that we are presented with. There are, at least in theory, an infinite amount of options we can take, but we're limited. To analyze the effect of this in-universe imo it's that the player/Chara cannot do anything that's completely out of the question for either Chara or Frisk. Which lines up with Chara automatically killing Asgore and Flowey after the Sans fight, as well as the removal of the Mercy button when we enter the battle with Asgore despite him being willing to spare us. Mercy is no longer an option at that point.
I came into this video expecting something that I could pull together some rationalization against.
I couldn't. I don't believe the theory anymore. Well done.
(And once again I'm glad I left my echo chamber...)
nice theory, subscribed.
now, what do you think Undertale's timeline looks like? You know, when were the monsters sealed, 201X, when did Patience fall, when did Justice fall, and when did Frisk fall?
Thank you!
To be honest I have put more thought into Undertale's narrative and characters than I have into the timeline, so I wouldn't be surprised if I get a few things wrong. Well one of the only things we know for sure is that Chara entered the underground in 201X, but we don't know exactly how long the monsters were trapped underground before Chara showed up. The ancient writing in waterfall was written before Chara entered the underground, so the monsters were probably sealed underground awhile before 201X. We also know that Chara and Asriel died in 201X, because the royal memorial in MTT Resort was also built in 201X. Most of the evidence I have seen seems to point to Frisk entering the underground about 100 years after 201X, but I'm not really sure. As for when each human entered the underground a lot of people assume it is the order in which we get their equipment in the game, but that's probably not actually accurate. One of the first humans to enter the underground could have made it all the way to hotland and died and left their equipment there. I think the most likely order can be found by looking at the coffins. We know Chara was the first, and their coffin is all the way to the left of the room, so if the coffins are ordered from the first human to the last, then the most likely order that all the humans entered the underground is actually Bravery, Justice, Kindness, Patience, Integrity, and then Perseverance.
I like what you have presented here, but there is one thing I don't understand.
My main question for you about this theory is: why is ANY of the narration in first person?
If we accept that the narrator is not Chara, what exactly IS the first-person narration that Chara gives? Why does it exist? Does Chara provide some but not all of the narration, and if so, why?
this theory takes away too much agency from frisk.
they are also a character and saying all of their actions are just chara possessing them is pretty unreasonable i think.
frisk and chara are separate characters, frisk isnt just chara 2 electrical boogaloo.
Tbh Frisk was just done really poorly by Toby. Assigning all player's actions to Frisk isn't exactly the best way to build the character either.
@@bujitselfPersonally, I think frisk might be the worst character in undertale. They barely count as a character.
I should say that I've never played the game.
"this theory takes away too much agency from frisk." like he had any to begin with?
@@bujitself i don't think so, frisk was never meant to BE a character from what i've gathered through the game
I think a big problem is just that we know so little about Frisk and how much Chara's presence influences their character. Throughout the underground you can learn a lot about Chara, and so finding connections to the things we know about Chara along with Chara's undeniable presence within the genocide route leads to theories like this. Along with narrachara, another popular theory back in the early years of the fandom was that Frisk is literally the reincarnation of Chara. There's just so much Chara to go around that it makes it hard to not unfortunately see Frisk as an excuse to have Chara come back into the story. I feel that Toby may be trying to address this though with Kris in deltarune. Rather than focusing solely on the person taking control, deltarune also tries to focus on characterizing the person who is being controlled. I feel like Kris is in the role Frisk had in Undertale, but they have more of a presence like Chara because we actually get to learn about them as a person and they are able to resist us, similar to how in the genocide ending if you choose not to erase the world, Chara can basically just go "lmao no."
I think this, like a lot of things in Undertale, is largely left ambiguous. So, the identity of the narrator being Chara does not have any concrete, undeniable proof outside of the geno route, so you could argue that Chara is only the narrator in the geno route, and only at certain points nonetheless. There are only hints that Chara might be the narrator.
I still think Narrachara is a rather solid theory. It isn’t perfect, it has its flaws and holes, but I still feel that it explains things relatively well.
Here are some points to consider:
- The narrator seems to have a distinct personality, and they react to choices that you make (water sausage, dog food, Lesser Dog, Shyren etc.) They are well-worded, formal and occasionally snarky, which seems consistent with the way Chara speaks at the end of a geno route
- the Check ACT gives the stats of the monster along with a brief description. It would not make sense for Frisk to know this just by checking the monster. I doubt that in a game so focused on the metanarrative, the narration would just conveniently give us this information without a meaning behind it. Though if this is Chara, it doesn’t make much sense for them to know about monsters like Undyne, who certainly didn’t live at the time of Chara.
- Chara specific memories, such as the Game Over text, Undyne bridge cutscene and saving Asriel
I might write more later, but I must leave now
The narrator having a personality is nothing new in fiction, and is no evidence for NarraChara. It's so common there's even a TV Trope called "Lemony Narrator".
It's very likely that the one to call Chara's name is actually Flowey, since he literally says "Did you hear me calling your name?" in his New Home dialogue, and he certainly wasn't too far from Chara's grave when doing so, in that sense, it makes a lot more sense why Flowey mistakes you so easily, the very moment he chose to call out to Chara, someone who looks very similar to them just showed up after a long time of no humans
JUST Prior to Undertale's release there are some tweets that appear to be written by Flowey. Similar to how Gaster called us to Undertale.
"Leave it to Undertale fans to somehow turn a bag of dog food into..."
Do you... think that toby just... changed the dialogue for fun?
Like genuinely toby was just like: TIme to change this dialogue specifically based on Kills, for no reason?
This is a dumb point.
That was a joke about the fact that a bag of dog food of all things is a crucial point we need to analyze when discussing the narrator. It is not me saying that it's not a valid piece of evidence.
This is a good video! While I personally still believe in narrachara, I also agree with most of the theory you came up with at the end. The video is well put together, and you clearly put a lot of effort into it, even if I don’t agree.
Thanks, that actually means a lot to me!
Okay since i'll i've heard are points that make no sense and have no research put into them (mostly) i'll just say this: In the check dialogue for Nabstablook the narrator says "This monster doesn't seem to have a sense of humor…" which Nabsta replies with "oh, i'm REAL funny." This outright shows that the narrator is an actual character since Nabstablook was able to presumably hear the narrator speaking and actually responded to them. Now, who's the only other ghost in ut that would be with Frisk at the time and say this? Chara, obviously. It also makes sense that Nabsta would actually be able to hear the narrator (Chara) because both of them are ghosts, they would be able to communicate unlike Chara and other non-ghost monsters. And as for why Mettaton or Mad Dummy don't reply, it's either because since they are possessing something they don't see things through the eyes of a ghost or that Metta was too busy putting on a show and Mad Dummy was too mad to care.
Well, as someone who believe the charanarrator and consider it to be as canon as the Flowey is Asriel because of the dust thing , I'll be sure to watch. Unsure I'll agree, but I'm definitely curious to see !
First edit: 30:17 Still not sold because to me, narrachara seems to be part of the intent behind Undertale (I'll develop when I'm done with the video). In fact, Toby's intent and my interpretation of Undertale is the core reason why I believe the Charanarator theory to be true. Can't wait to hear the rest.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
I think chara doesn’t make sense as them being a metaphor for the player. If you play the game as intended, you are going in blind. You know nothing about the world. You are thrust into a mysterious place, where various monsters are trying to kill you. You can fight, like any ordinary rpg, or use acts to spare monsters. While the game encourages you to spare enemies, as Toriel encourages you to act and spare, and the early enemies like Frogget and Whimsum aren’t particularly intimidating, but many players may kill anyways, as that’s what you do in most rpgs. But characters will call you out on it, and you eventually see monsters as people who are just trying to get by, not enemies in your way.
But chara should know better. They are someone who were likely mistreated by humans, but when they fell into the underground, the monsters took them in. Toriel and Asgore made them part of a caring family they probably never had.
Since you assume chara thinks their decisions are their own until the end of the genocide route, then chara isn’t forced into doing things they don’t want to, unlike Kris in snowgrave.
Unless chara has amnesia or something. But there isn’t really any evidence to support this. Especially since flowey didn’t have amnesia when he was revived.
But if what I say is true, then why is chara prevalent in the genocide route the most? Honestly, I’m not sure. Maybe they are like flowey, and became soulless after dying, so all of their feelings for monsters, even their own family, are gone, replaced with nothing but their ideas of power and efficiency, which is implied in the newsletter letter and alarm clock dialogue.
This is going on the assumption that chara is dormant unless you do a genocide run, which explains why they are much more prevalent in that route than others. But this doesn’t really explain why they are present on other routes. Maybe their memories are somehow leaking out to frisk, and therefore, us?
Honestly, there isn’t any theory on Chara that I have 100% confidence in. They just have something that just doesn’t feel right, and details you have to handwave to make sense, or thing that are completely unexplained. Maybe I’m dumb, and not just getting it. Or maybe Toby Fox messed up somewhere.
I am writing this first part of this comment before watching the video.
1:
I believe that Nara is a cool theory that is mostly harmless and slightly plausible, but maybe not the intended solution by Toby Fox but still fun to think about .
Cool video, you should read wandydoodles’ Oblivion Theory. It basically finds the notion (though not interpreted exactly like you do) that Chara is the true protagonist and even uses that to arrive at some conclusions regarding Deltarune.
wouldn't it just be funny if toby just forgot about some specific narration parts and swapped them
that's so toby
and the thing is, if chara was the narrator they would probably paint frisk as a monster if they do a genocide route but if they do a pacifist right after then frisk would painted as the devil who liked controlling the world for their ending.
A lot of your counter points are dismissals of individual points, and I feel like thats a bad way to debunk a theory.
Like, I can technichally debunk most theories by looking at individual points and saying "Well TECHNICHALLY..."
This is a theory where everything supports everything else, and you have to make far more points to say "Well TECHNICHALLY..." than to explain the narrator through chara.
Occams razor.
Give me a theory and I'll try to do what you've done to disprove it.
The Gaster Valentines Day Theory?
@@RocketShipSquid Can I have the individual points of evidence for that one please? It'll make things simpler.
nooo broo I loved this theory
In Deltarune, do you believe the three souls theory? That Shira is the one controlling kris?
A piece of counterevidence u missed is the snowball/snowdechahedron (or however its spelled) thing
Hey loved the theory but ive being looking for the game that appeared in the end but i never found it again can you tell me the name please
Buddy Simulator 1984! I actually put it in the about section of my channel but I should probably also just start putting it in the descriptions of my videos too now that I think about it...
@@Grim-c8n thanks I've being looking for so long heard it's really good
Extra support for Chara representing us: we name them and if we dont know anything about the game then we most likely named them after ourselves
“chara isn’t being forced to do anything, they kill everyone in the genocide route.”
no, they don’t. they don’t have a BODY until the end, and they don’t take control away from you until the sans fight. chara kills three monsters: sans, asgore, and, after you force the dialogue to progress: flowey.
YOU kill every other monster on the genocide route. not chara. not frisk, though frisk is the vessel you use to do this. YOU kill them. and chara is NOT you. chara communicates with you, and they’re meant to reflect you, but they are NOT you. that’s one of the ground-zero thematic precepts of the genocide route; YOU, the player, have forgotten your sentimentality towards a game you enjoyed in your desperate desire to experience everything.
yeesh.
also another note: you’re incredibly disrespectful in this video towards your opposition. “leave it to undertale fans to see a bag of dog food as a piece of evidence.”
must i tell you not to do that? insulting your opponents isn’t very convincing. if you’re trying to sway people who believe in the theory to agree with you, _insulting them_ will more likely convince them to disagree with you by principle.
third note: “perhaps our character has become pessimistic”-
but you just argued we are chara, we are playing as chara. if chara is our character, not frisk, and the character is becoming pessimistic, chara does affect the narration.
No. Toriel is able to start a school, sans mentions things being less crowded(do you really think less than 200 monsters spread out across that much land would be able to ever be considered crowded), mettaton is able to reach over 10k ratings. Saying chara killed only 3 monsters is complete cope.
@@ikmkr But he is pissed off at how popular this became, and if the facts are right insulting doesn't matter, although it is inefficient for debates.
@@pvpvpvpvppv4228 respectfully, the end of the pacifist route has nothing to do with the identity of the murderer in the genocide route. chara having three direct kills isn’t cope, it’s the truth. you, the player, kill the rest, using frisk as a vessel. using chara as a scapegoat is the real cope.
I think you write off the "you and I, we are not the same" too easily, and you fail to mention how weird it is that Chara would want our soul in exchange for resetting the world, if Chara is the player wholestop then why wouldn't Toby just have them share our sentimentality? I wouldn't say it's unjustified in universe if he did, Chara could easily come to regret their actions and wanna continue in the world
But instead Chara judges the player and wants our soul and denies us a happy ending
I think this is because Chara isn't the player but more precisely the psychopathic tendencies a player would have in a fictional universe
Chara on the genocide route is concerned with min maxing, defeating the enemy, destroying the pointless world and moving on. And in the pacifist route they step out of the way and let the story play out.
I believe what is happening is that Toby is trying to convey how 100%ing a game like Undertale robs it of it's magic or feeling of being a real universe, you can never experience it as a real place anymore, just lines of dialogue, sets of numbers, you have sold your soul to completion and can't feel empathy anymore
Chara is Flowey's brother because they represent similar things, the player as they could be vs the player as they have become
I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say and I don’t blame you since it was explained a bit confusingly but the point wasn't that chara is literally us but that they represent an aspect of us. The part of us that wants to see everything the game has to offer no matter what it is we have to do in the game or how boring and difficult and soul crushing it might be. So yeah this video completely agrees with what you're saying.
I think Chara, Frisk, the us the player, and the narrator, are all seperate entitys. I don't recall Chara's backstory hapening to me.
Plus, if we refuse Chara's offer to erase the world in genocide, he does it himself; thus not the same person.
"You either die serving the chara defense squad or live long enough to debunk narrachara" lmao 🤣
Anyways, jokes aside. Great video! The player/Chara/Frisk trifecta has always been by far the most convoluted and up to interpretation aspect of Undertale and I really like your take on the matter! I think narrachara has its merits but it really sucks when it's taken as canon within the fandom even when it comes to theorycrafting and not a "I'm basing my theory within other theory"
I love Chara a whole lot and even have my own theories about them, I always saw them as being a representation of the player but never as a "True protagonist", it's really hard to tell which parts of the protagonist are frisk and which ones are chara, so I feel kinda bad downplaying frisk's presence within their own story. Honestly it's one of the only things that bother me in undertale in general, you really have to dig through to discern who's who and while I know that's intentional, it's a bit frustrating to have 3 whole entities at play here
Anyways, great video, you just earned a new subscriber! I had a lot of fun watching this too
I've been convinced that the human on the flowers at the beginning of the game is determined by what ending you get.
In the Genocide route, Frisk never fell. The player's determination upon opening up the game raised "Chara" from the dead on top of the grave. We never actually see 8th human fall, only "Chara".
Frisk's name only appears in Pacifist, but the name 'Chara' never appears in the game. The only reason people associate it with the 1st fallen human is "the true name" text.
The existence of "Hard Mode" when choosing "Frisk" and it not being a full game is due to the possibility that Frisk completes a genocide route. This wouldn't work unless Frisk was the first human but we know that's not true.
I think what you have here is close. After seeing this, yeah, I don't think Chara narrates literally every line in the game, but I still do think the have a very big presence in the game's narration since their prescence is always with us. Essentially, I think they narrate most lines, just not with things like game mechanics, or battle description flavor text. I don't think it changes my perception much because Chara is still clearly a big influence on the perspective that the game's narration is using.
Small mistake, you said there's no canon pronunciation for Chara, but in Japanese they pronounced it something like Kyara
like the Theory but i like Narrator Chara more tho good theory tho
I’d argue the “inconsistent” first person and second person issue is due to the fact Frisk and Chara are separate entities and Chara is sort of struggling for control until the end of the geno route. Additionally, second person quotes are most likely referring to “you” as Frisk, while “Me/I” is Chara. Chara represents immersion to me, being strongest in pacifist and what allows you to save Asriel, while in genocide, that immersion is shattered, permanently, just like how it is when you start viewing the game not as a story, but as a yknow… a game.
The situation between Frisk, Chara and the Player feels like a very rough prototype for what Toby Fox would later refine through Kris & The Player in Deltarune.
There is the character on screen and there is you playing the game. Frisk is the character on screen, so Chara is meant to represent "you" as the player controlling Frisk _and_ represents Frisk themself as the character serving as the in-game avatar for your own identity and consciousness. Within that, there is a degree of separation, the "you" in the game's world and the "you" outside the game are different versions of yourself. Chara is a Character with their own life, backstory, etc... But they also represent "You" and your own actions, choices, identity and will. What all of this really means is that Chara in totality represents the connection between the Player and Frisk. Everything that shapes and defines the concept of the playable character that you control in the game to interact with the world and reach the end, is Chara.
But I think Toby failed to execute this concept properly, as none of this is as clear as it should be. The story of Chara & Asriel, and everything about how Chara is represented and shown throughout the Genocide Run, altogether creates a distortion in this whole concept, painting an image of Chara as a "character" first and foremost rather than an Avatar of "You". The actual conversation Chara has with you at the end of Genocide doesn't make things any better, as that in and of itself creates a massive wedge being driven between Chara and the Player. As a result, the deeper meaning Toby was looking to convey was lost on everyone. Reflecting on this, he goes on to make Kris in Deltarune as a refined reworking of the concept. "Kris" isn't really Frisk or Chara, what "Kris" really is the in-universe narrative character of "Chara" separated from the other half. That other half being entirely filled by the Player themselves, "You".
By having Deltarune open with a character creation sequence complete with naming that vessel before giving your own name.... only for the vessel to be discarded as the player is thrust upon Kris instead, and its the player's own name used in the SAVE Files over Kris... This makes everything all the more clear. Kris is the in-game character on screen. The human child cared for by Toriel and Asgore, and the sibling/best friend of Asriel. "You" are the Player controlling Kris, using them as a vessel to carry out your will as you play the game. But "Kris" is not 'You". Kris is their own person with their own life that you are robbing from them by "possessing" them. The Human Soul itself housed within Kris' body... the same Red SOUL that Frisk and Chara have in Undertale... It is not theirs, but YOURS. They are the body, the vessel, the "character"... But the SOUL that gives them life, gives them will, gives them DETERMINATION... is "You".
In short, Chara represents both in-game "Character" *and* You as the player at the same time... While simultaneously being a separate entity from Frisk, the actual character you see and control on screen, and You as the real person playing the game. This paradoxical placement of their presence is what perpetuates the imperceptibility of their true personality in relation to the player. Chara represents connection between Frisk and The Player, but it's executed in a very confusing way that left the deeper meaning of it all shrouded in ambiguity.
T'as tout dit. Surtout sur le fait d'être en couple à tout prix, c'est vraiment pas nécessaire dans la vie quoi que les gens peuvent en penser
Lore of Debunking Narrator Chara Theory momentum 100
I like this video,but I don’t think any undertale fans will believe it.
rip inverted fate
6:54 not that surprising considering "ge ou of e ay a a begi of this video"
Pretty good video, just here to nitpick one thing.
At one point, you mention that, as boss monster souls can persist after death, Chara could’ve killed Asriel/convinced him to kill himself to fulfill the plan rather than killing themselves to do so. However, this is not true.
Even if they were to absorb Asriel’s soul, cross the barrier, and kill six humans, they would be unable to absorb their souls. Humans can only absorb monster souls, only Asriel would actually be able to absorb the six human souls.
Thus Asriel being the soul-absorber in question and Chara being the one to die is actually a wholly necessary part of the plan.
I am aware this is pedantic and has essentially little to nothing to do with the main point of the video, just thought I’d bring it up.
I wanted to say, a theory doesn't have to be intended by Toby Fox for it to be true. If you think narrachara is true, that's ok. If you think it's false (me included), that's also ok. I don't even think Toby Fox intended it to go this far, but that doesn't mean you can't.
For the rest of the comment, I'll also be adding on to the video. I do agree that Chara isn't the narrator. Here's what I have to say about the narrachara theory.
First, lets get this one out of they way. I think Frisk and the player are the same, and Kris and the player are the same. I won't try to prove that in this comment, but know that I'll be making this assumption for the rest of this comment. You could also try to fit it with if they're different, but it gets a bit more difficult.
"The narrator doesn't seem to be all knowing"
This point bothered me the moment I heard it, as it's not really evidence, is it? You did talk about this in the video. To add on to that, most books don't even have the narrator know everything. Sometimes, the narrator is literally the protagonist. Even in third-person narratives, you'll usually find the narrator only knows the thoughts of 1 characters, or maybe a few. They'll rarely know the thoughts of all characters, or what's correct or incorrect. That's because you're supposed to experience in as the protagonist would. This is way more important in narratives for games, cause you're supposed to experience everything. You're supposed to be the main character. I would argue that it doesn't make sense for the narrator to know everything.
Using the save menu and other stuff to prove Frisk has a connection to Chara at the start of the game
I don't think using the save menu, menu screen or inventory screen to prove the narrachara theory is justified, as it would be a 4th wall break. Undertale has done quite a few 4th wall breaks, but the 4th wall still exists, and there's no reason the believe the save menu. A lot of the 4th wall breaks didn't even have any lore based reasons. The only 2 major 4th wall breaks to think about are the saving and Sans' attacks in genocide. And unlike these 2, there's no reason to believe the 4th wall will be broken again. If you want to use it as evidence, there's no problem, but there's also no problem with not wanting to accept this evidence.
Also, the game was trying to push you to believe that Frisk's name wasn't who you thought it was. This is an interesting decision, and I'm not exactly sure why Toby Fox decided to go this route. The best guess, which I've seen other people say, is just for the plot twist, nothing else.
As for you theory you made, I don't think the narrator is supposed to be representing either Frisk, the player, or Chara. It's just giving you the information that you would know, as if actually were in the video game world as Frisk. Maybe subtly giving Toby Fox's opinion at sometimes (like that "it's half full" vs. "it's half empty" thing at 20:31), but that's about it. It's the more straight forward idea, and unless there is something that directly contradicts with this, or there is more clear evidence on an alternative idea being the case, I don't think it's unjustified to think this is the case in Undertale.
The main question is, why does the narration go to first person sometimes, as if it were from Chara's perspective? I don't know if there is a full lore explanation for it, or if there even is a cannon answer to that. However, this point alone doesn't really prove the narrachara theory, it's more a point of discussion. Maybe after doing so much of the genocide route, Chara is now talking directly to you. Maybe the "it's me" in genocide could be Chara seeing themselves when they see Frisk. Frisk and Chara are connected with the same soul colour, so that would be something that made this possible.
Well, that's just my opinion on the narrachara theory.
Damn I don’t believe you lol.
Well I think it’s sorta both. Both could be true. Chara is both a representation of the player and the narrator. The player has limited information due to the nature of it being a video game it’s not like we’re there but Chara is in a way a self-insert. They are meant to be a representation of the player and so it only makes sense to me that they would be the player’s in game narration. Chara is both a character and a representation of the player. It’s as if we have taken their place because their will is our will. The game only goes as far as it does when we are playing the game.
Basically it doesn’t sit well with me that it sorta feels like Frisk is no longer like a character??
I like the idea that Chara is a ghost that we puppet and they give suggestions to Frisk tho idk maybe I’m making this comment too prematurely but it’s seems like the main points have already been made and now it’s just like backstory for the dislike of the theory.
I certainly see the appeal of this theory. But i do feel it makes Frisk overshadowed.. almost like a plit device
Narra-Chara allowed both characters to still have their personalities shown, and like if Protag Chara was in thought, most of the Act options, wouldnt ve Frisks, but Chara's
which is more development for Chara, but takes away so much, from the already little, we know about Frisk.
and like, i personally feel heartbroken taking that away
Protag Chara kinda tells us, Frisk isnt important, do no think about them..
Which like, feels so opposite to what Deltarune says?
I would love to discuss the difference in deltarunes narrative and undertales narrative
maybe that is the point?
idk lol
I always just want with Frisk is Chara's corpse and we just...kinda use it as a vessel
I love Retribution
Bro frisk can't take a W, it's chara controlling them or it's us, lil human aint having control
They seem pretty chill with it. In the localization book it says that we control them and that Frisk kinda just goes along with it.
Sans is the narrator
Your voice sounds nice.
You've ruined my life 😭
The most logical explanation is the easiest one.
Chara takes over the narration during genoslides, and only then.
Otherwise, it's mainly omnipotent, outside of other characters also taking it over for a gag.
veedio
I don't think Frisk actually exist. Just like Deltarune is a Survery *Program*, so does ubdertale. Frisk is just our meat puppet
So yeah, the "it's all about the player" thing
Then why do they canonically not like soda?
ok but narrachara is more interesting then anything else going for charas character (also i didnt watch a single second of this :3)
Undertale_narrative.yaml
Main-characrer-setting:
Frisk:
self-character: true
control: player
associated: self
Chara:
self-character: true
control: self
takeover:
character: Frisk
type: optional
duration: short
associated: self, player
Save-system:
access: soulless
control:
require:
property: DETERMINATION
property-value: highest-found
characters: Flowey, Chara
Narrator: Chara
That's my theory
Congratulations you played yourself, cuz now you caught my interest. Which means now, I will fully go on a tangent and explain why Chara is both the narrator, and the one inhabiting Frisk. *clears throat* Frisk is an empty vessel, ironically if you really think about it. Frisk is likely the empty vessel from DeltaRune, because you have to remember the connection to that vessel was cut whilst it was still in the void. Or something very similar to the void, and it's not that unreasonable to think that, that vessel could end up in the sister universe of DeltaRune. But, here's the thing, the player is obviously an entity inside and outside of DeltaRune and Undertale. Chara may be the one in control of the save file, but they certainly are not in control of the body. Without the player's input that body, will Never Move. And the narrator of the game, has Insider knowledge that the player should have. So it's fair to assume that Chara is both the narrator and inside the vessel that is Frisk.
Chara representing the player, has a few issues. If you're going to go off of the text box with Sans. That's an easy one, Chara never actually fights, it's the player that always fights. Why would Chara narrate themselves having a bad time if they're not the one in control of the battle? That doesn't make any sense, there are albeit multiple holes in the narrator Chara theory. But there are so many more holes in your theory even with outs taking the Chara narration Theory into account. For instance, let's say you're right, it's Chara's name on the menu, and when you save. So clearly they are connected to frisk in some way. In the genocide route, chara moves Frisk's body multiple times, but the player doesn't. According to your theory Chara represents the player or is the player in some way. If that's true why and how would they move Frisk without the player's input? Another thing is again the battles, there's no Auto Battle feature, what you would think there would be if Chara was representing the player in some way. A shared connection, where you could fight, or they could fight if so you choose. But that's not a thing, now you could argue that the reason it isn't a thing is because they do represent the player. But I think it's the opposite, and I'll explain why. And a lot of RPG games, only the main player character has an auto battle feature. Now granted that Auto Battle feature will let the entire party attack. But you can only select it the main character, the literal representation of the player in that world. If chara was the representation of the player, and clearly undertale is an RPG. Why isn't there an auto fight feature? Now you can say it's because it's a bullet hell, or similar type game to that but. There are some bullet hells that have auto Play features, now that's more rare, but it is a thing. And once again it's only for the main character that represents the player. And side note, how to play future is usually unlocked after beating the game the first time, or with a code. Or putting out on easy mode, couple ways to do it actually. I'm getting off traffic, my point is, that I believe you're right and wrong. You made a lot of good points but there are a lot of holes which ironically enough. Get filled in, if chara is the narrator, so I believe due to this. Chara is both, they are representation in world of the player, but they are also the narrator for the actual player. Because they are the only person in undertale to talk directly to the player, so it makes perfect sense that the only person to ever speak directly to us as the player. Is the same person who is narrating the game to the player, and to point out the fact that you pointed out. Everyone else that is aware, or at least Flowey, directly speak to chara. So while in universe is the representation for the player, outside of it to the player chara is the narrator. That's my opinion, that's my theory, a game theory~! I'm sorry I had to say it lol.
Incredibly good video. There are many points I agree with just by basis, but there are some things that I seem to disagree with (if these are addressed in the follow-up video, please ignore as I'm about to watch that after). What I'm disagreeing with, so far is:
- Chara is talking to the player.
- Chara is actively controlling Frisk all the time.
Overall, great job with this, even if you didn't have all the materials at hand, such as the NarraChara/Charrator master-post by Determinators (shame what happened to them, and I'm glad to hear that you're not particularly fond of this, either).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9:14 - "The question is: who's Chara actually talking to?"
And I'll make my case for Frisk. The being Chara talks to has a "human soul" and "determination" of their own. Which Chara initially mistakes as theirs. Who is the owner of the red soul? Well, "you":
* Astigmatism gazes through your soul.
The narration, independent as to whether or not it's Chara, tells us this. And who is the narration's you? Frisk, of course!
* It's you!
* Despite everything, it's still you.
* Still just you, Frisk.
This is even emphasized by the Ball Game message for the red trait, as it clearly parallels what's stated above:
* RED - Try as you might, you continue to be yourself.
That's not even mentioning about the line Chara drops after a second kill-all:
* "This SOUL resonates with a strange feeling."
If the SOUL is resonating, it means that someone inside the game is doing it, just like the SOULs resonate with Asriel:
* You feel your friends' SOULs resonating within ASRIEL!
And that someone can only be Frisk as well.
And for the determination, it flows for the same thing. Someone, in any other route, is filled with determination every time they touch a save point. Even if all of this is not mentioned in kill-all, it still establishes the lore for what actually happens there. There are other possible parallels to this being the case such as the following, but I think this establishes most of what I had to say about it:
* Frisk... You really ARE different from Chara.
* "You and I are not the same, are we?"
Even Chara saying they were called here could be attributed to another character:
* "... but, why then...? What made you wake up? Did you hear me calling you...?"
(Of course, Chara calling themselves that is a meta reference to the naming screen, I'm not denying that, but considering the other characters present there and the first time Chara's name is chronologically appears, I don't think that's a canon segment)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12:36 - "If Chara has control over the save system in Undertale, then it would logically mean they also have control over Frisk."
See, I agree with this. They say it themself to Frisk, after all (/hj):
* "SINCE WHEN WERE YOU THE ONE IN CONTROL?"
But the problem is that I don't agree they are the sole user of the SAVE file, since the narration implies in Asriel's fight that the SAVE file is yours:
* You tried to reach your SAVE file. Nothing happened.
And, as established by the mirrors, "you", in most routes, is Frisk. So this would mean that Frisk themself is the one that uses it normally, not Chara. But, since Chara is capable of exerting control over Frisk whenever, they are capable of using it, as you point out in the Flowey speech.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28:00 - "Why are there multiple instances of [kill-all]-specific dialogue narration that still uses second person?" (Using "kill-all" instead of you-know-what here because I don't want to risk youtube doing something)
If you read the previous points, you understand what I think of this. Frisk is still around. It's because of two of the points above AND the remaining non-specific dialogue narration that I believe we can say they are still around, and that any exclusive narration from kill-all that uses "you" is, still, addressing Frisk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And... That's it. For now. Could probably change in the future, if something comes up in Deltarune.
Edit: And I'm already removing my "buttons" complaint, since TigerBear already addressed it and it is discussed in the follow-up. It's unironically so fun being able to delete walls of text without a care in the world.
The problem with the idea that Chara is talking to Frisk is that their dialogue makes genuinely no sense from an in-universe perspective. The counterarguments to the idea that Chara is talking to the player rely on taking what they say far too literally when they speak primarily in metaphors.
They are either talking completely to the player, or they consider the player and Frisk to be one entity (which is disproven by the TP route by Flowey and Chara should be aware of that if they are coherent but maybe they're a little stupid so who knows).
"Now, we have reached the absolute. There is nothing left for us here. Let us erase this pointless world, and move on to the next."
This is talking about Undertale as a game. You two have reached the pinnacle of what you can do in Undertale, now you must erase it, for it is pointless, and move onto the next game. This is backed up by the genocide ending originally having the game deleted entirely.
Chara describes it in their dialogue itself (the one where they list stats), but they represent that obsessive desire for completionism, for power. The desire that causes you to complete/grind games until theres nothing left, toss them aside, and move onto the next.
When you choose to erase, they call you a great partner and say "you'll be together forever" Frisk does not move onto other games as they are not a personified concept like Chara describes themself as.
"The demon that comes when people call its name. It doesn't matter when. It doesn't matter where. Time after time, I will appear. And, with your help. We will eradicate the enemy and become strong."
You agree this references the naming screen, but the rest of it also references other video games. It doesn't matter what game you play or when, but when you do, Chara (that part of you) will appear.
"You and I are not the same, are we? [...] You. You are wracked with a perverted sentimentality. [...] Hmm. I can't understand these feelings any more."
They can't understand why the player chooses to continue to play undertale. They're only that sole aspect/mindset. Why come back to a game you've already pushed to its limit?
"There is a reason you continue to recreate this world. There is a reason you continue to destroy it. [...] Despite this. I feel obligated to suggest. Should you choose to create this world once more. Another path would be better suited."
This dialogue to me proves that Chara isn't talking to Frisk. Frisk DOES NOT remember past true resets or the world getting erased. Chara and the player are the only people in Undertale that remember past it. If Chara was talking to Frisk, that suggestion is being told to someone who won't remember it the next time around, so theres genuinely no point to saying it.
There are so many other ways to take the "My 'human soul.' My 'determination.' They were not mine, but YOURS." lines with this context that they're talking to the player in mind. Chara could be genuinely referring to their original SOUL. Especially if the theory (or similar ones) the video proposes about Chara is correct.
@@evilness3404
"They consider the player and Frisk to be one entity (which is disproven by the TP route by Flowey and Chara should be aware of that if they are coherent but maybe they're a little stupid so who knows)."
As both this UA-camr, the "main" author of NarraChara, and I agree, we both believe that Flowey is talking to the Actual Chara in the end of TP. So that separation you propose isn't necessarily the "be-all and end-all" of this point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You agree this references the naming screen"
I agree that, meta wise, this is supposed to be referencing the naming screen. But considering the very structure of the naming screen itself (as it has multiple characters talking to you as well, who shouldn't even /be/ there for the first apparition of the name you chose), I disagree as it being the /only/ interpretational layer about this line. Especially when there's a character, in-universe, who actually expects Chara to wake up after being called:
* "... but, why then...? What made you wake up? Did you hear me calling you...?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frisk DOES NOT remember past true resets or the world getting erased."
This point is not as clear-cut as it normally seems to be, as Sans himself has this nagging feeling about Frisk actually remembering previous routes in MULTIPLE timelines, even if it happens right after a True Reset, or it's just your first time playing:
* i suspected something like this. you're always acting like you know what's going to happen. like you've seen it all before. (Neutral, kill Papyrus)
* though... one thing about you always struck me as kinda odd. [...] sometimes... you act like you know what's gonna happen. like you've already experienced it all before. (Leg. Fartmaster, part 1)
* (Anything he says during his fight)
And Sans /is/ talking to the "kid," not the player.
And again, the deal goes as follows:
"Chara asks for the SOUL of the person who they are talking to. And they take Frisk's SOUL when we appear to agree without reservation to their terms."
It seems quite straightforward.
@LimaBravoCharlie You have a fair point with the SOUL trade deal dialogue, but it could also fall under the same thing as the lines about the soul/determination.
I will still maintain that if you try to analyze the totality of Chara's dialogue from an in-universe perspective, it is nonsensical. Talking about being the feeling of stats rising, the demon bit, and the "erase this pointless world and move onto the next" bit do not make sense for Chara to be talking to Frisk.
For the Sans one:
We have confirmed instances of Frisk remembering through saves, loads, and resets. They act differently in certain cutscenes depending on if you've already seen it. All of those get wiped away on a true reset. The ONLY character who remembers past true resets is Chara. It is illogical to use Sans' dialogue to argue that Frisk remembers true resets but also runs prior to the player's arrival. ESPECIALLY since Sans' is just wrong in the genocide route battle. Sans is operating under the assumption that the human he's talking to is the same anomaly he (and most likely Alphys) have been studying. The anomaly in question is Flowey, as Sans studied the timeline manipulation prior to Frisk's fall (which occurred earlier in the day).
@@evilness3404
"do not make sense for Chara to be talking to Frisk."
It does not make sense in your perspective for Chara to be talking to Frisk because you've already established to yourself that the player is a literal creature within the narrative, and not simply the focus of the analogy.
All "game" elements in Undertale have canonical precedent even before your arrival, from the Save Files, to even LV and ExP itself, to the point of monsters having a rough estimate of how much they are worth (So Sorry dialogue) to how much is the maximum (as Sans' LV 9+ judgement implies you're "over halfway").
Chara's dialogue makes sense to the player, but, with what we know about the UT universe, it's clearly just a delusion, since LV and EXP don't grant actual "power" and are simply measurements of cruelty and apathy, which are effective against monsters due to their weaker attuned SOULs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have confirmed instances of Frisk remembering through saves, loads, and resets. They act differently in certain cutscenes depending on if you've already seen it. All of those get wiped away on a true reset. The ONLY character who remembers past true resets is Chara."
And yet, it remains. Selling the SOUL affects /Frisk/. Chara finds the resonation within their newly-acquired SOUL "strange." The SOUL /resonates/, implying that it has a will, similar to other SOULS:
* You feel something faintly resonating within ASRIEL.
* You feel something resonating within ASRIEL.
* You feel something strongly resonating within ASRIEL.
* You feel your friends' SOULs resonating within ASRIEL!
* You reached out to ASRIEL's SOUL and called out to your friends.
* They're in there somewhere, aren't they?
* Within the depths of ASRIEL's SOUL, something's resonating..!
* Strangely, as your friends remembered you...
* Something else began resonating within the SOUL, stronger and stronger.
Why would the SOUL resonate a will of its own if it's simply an avatar for the player, if Frisk doesn't exist anymore at that point? And why would Chara use that resonation as a segue point to question the motives of the person who continues to recreate the world?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is illogical to use Sans' dialogue to argue that Frisk remembers true resets but also runs prior to the player's arrival. ESPECIALLY since Sans' is just wrong in the genocide route battle."
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to have it.
But assuming that Sans is completely wrong in one of his most defining moments, in which he reveals his loneliness and overall desperation... Feels odd, /to me/.
Same goes for Post Credits Pacifist Flowey, who knows Chara best and dutifully believes he's pleading to them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sans studied the timeline manipulation prior to Frisk's fall (which occurred earlier in the day)."
That's a pretty popular /theory/, but Sans knowledge of timeline anomalies seems to predate even Flowey, as he can tell how many times the human died the first dozen times through their expression alone, and it's not something he remembered from Flowey because, as evident in-game:
* Sans hasn't met Flowey in that timeline;
* Sans is one of the major characters who remembers (comparatively) less.
We don't know Sans' Modus Operandi when it comes to this. Heck, we don't even know how the reports are /made/ or even what exactly they contain. We know Sans was able to see the end of the world through it, as he even warns you about it and it's the only reason he intervenes in the first place:
* "our reports showed a massive anomaly in the timespace continuum. timelines jumping left and right, stopping and starting... until suddenly, everything ends."
* "all i know is... seeing what comes next... i can't afford not to care anymore."
* "so... guess that's it, huh? just... don't say i didn't warn you."
Because that could imply that the reports are being written in real time, and only the one in genocide spells the world's end. But we don't know how they really work, only that they are.
Good video, you've got new sub :)
veedio