Read the thread title. Jeremy B- something. Theres a link posted on page One.

I don't think you read the interview properly, then.







In case this isn't clear enough for you:
Jeremy Blaustein clearly states that it was always the intention to have Angela as a sexually abused character. Unlike James' body double, who was initially intended to be so but then later changed, Angela was always intended to be sexually abused. Furthermore, as they designed the game's scenes, they continued to think about her as sexually abused. They followed through with it: Angela was sexually abused.

If you don't like that, fine; that's your prerogative. However, there is no point in denying official sources stating that a character was sexually abused.

No, the link is posted on page 45 of this thread. It's one page one of another thread.

I don't see anything in the game to show that she was sexually abused then again I don't see anything that shows she wasn't it's a tie. (In my opinion)

It's been confirmed that she was sexually abused.

I know this is a weird thing to say coming from someone like myself, but I feel like now that this article has pretty much confirmed most of our suspicions, those of us who believed that Angela was sexually abused can stop beating the point home now.

It's a bit egregious, even for me.

I can somewhat agree, though I feel it needs to at least be said for people who continue to think she wasn't. Not rudely said, but confirmed.

I originally posted a reply to this thread, but deleted it for revision. Kinda long.

I'm not surprised that most people will take Jeremy's statement as the nail for Angela's sexual abuse debate, since most people weren't around when the other idea was first conceived.

The fact of the matter is that Jeremy's statement isn't particularly new. That is, Jeremy had already talked about it in silenthillforum.co.uk. So, in effect, Ratio's question was an old one, already answered by the man himself. And, logically, a repeated statement doesn't change anything. It didn't change anything then, and it doesn't change anything now.

Jeremy's not lying per se, and certainly I'm not the one to say that he has no idea what he is talking about, but we can't take his statement as the final deal for the same reason that there are differences between the English and Japanese script. According to Imamura, the scenario of Silent Hill 2 went through several directional changes and numerous revisions. The real question is how long Jeremy was a part of this development process. We know he was there in the beginning, we know he was around long enough to record the voices for the game, but did he stick around until the very end?

The English and Japanese script differences suggests that he wasn't around for the final revisions. If he were, then there would be few differences. And, even if it were true that he stuck around until the very end, what do the differences in the script imply about his relationship with the Japanese staff?

Certain people will say that it's "obvious" that Angela was sexually abused when you look at her scenes and read into her dialog carefully, but a subset of those same people may say that Pyramid Head is sexually molesting the monsters as well because it's "obvious" and certainly no-one can deny that Pyramid Head's actions are sexual. Yet, we know that Team Silent's stance on the subject of Pyramid Head is that he is slaughtering them: Meaning that the final answer may not necessarily be the same as their original intentions.

Ultimately, the answer lies in what the developers' final stance on the sexual theme was. Sexual themes are generally taboo and developers are worried about public reception on the matter. In that case, even though the developers originally had intended Angela to be a sexually abused character, their final stance may have been... "well, we're not sure how the western audience will take to a sexually abused character, so let's leave it to viewer interpretation."

I understand that "Jeremy said so" is newbie-friendly, or for people who want simple answers. That's fine by me, really. But if you're like me, and you like looking into things a little deeply than that...

And, of course, there's absolutely no meaningful reason to DOUBT this and say Angela WASN'T sexually abused, as the only reason it was doubted is that it wasn't stated outright.

I'm wondering, now, how many people here are arguing against this purely because they're not comfortable with it.

Your usage of the term "of course" is short-sighted in this case, of course.

A sexually abused victim is always taken as a "victim": "There's nothing she did wrong. Her killing is self-justified. It was the world that was cruel to her" etc. On the other hand, a physically abused victim, much like Eddie probably, gives you room to judge the character on his or her own merit. I don't see many people defending Eddie even though he himself is never stated to have killed anyone.

That was initial reason for this debate. If you didn't know that, then you had no reason to debate, really.


I'd expect no-one to argue anymore. Everyone's simply too tired dealing with the randomness this thread had to offer, and "Jeremy said so" seems like a good of an answer as any. I'm just here to say that Jeremy's "confirmation" isn't particularly new and give you a short history lesson on how the idea that Angela may have been physically abused came to be.

So what? It's not like the three judged characters have ever been on equal standing, anyway. Eddie, for example, has absolutely zero sympathy, unlike James and Angela.

That, and there's the implication that Angela may have murdered her brother and is seeking to kill her mother, so yea.



I'm aware. But I don't see any meaningful reason to think that anything has changed in development regarding Angela's sexual abuse.

if there were only some way to ask team silent.

Not trying to be rude but then you're not looking well enough.

There was some threads about Eddie in the past and apart from those that always says "I HATE HIM HE KILLED A DOG!!!!!!1111!!" or "EDIES A FATS0!@!@@!!!11" some were talking about what he did, defending him. I know I did that once.

um, why else would there be an "abstract daddy" that lies in bed as one of the monsters????

I think you might be kidding or being sarcastic... but JUST IN CASE, here's a link to that debate...

http://www.silenthillforum.com/viewtopi ... deal+daddy

actually, an this very thread we are in right now also covered quite a bit of that debate as well.

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that we basically HAVE asked Team Silent. Blaustein may not be TS themselves, but he worked closely with them to create the characters and (I presume) the storyline. If we disregard what he said, in my opinion, we can basically disregard anything that anybody says regarding it unless they verify it multiple times.

You should go back and read Burning Man's first post on the previous page.

I did, and I disagree with it.

This simply is not true. This is not an "all-or-nothing" situation, where we either take in everything he said or disregard it altogether. Although Jeremy's statement isn't particularly new to me, I still think there is insight to be had. I just don't think we should take it at face value in this case.

Taking his statement at face value basically means that the difference between the English and Japanese script is a non-issue. Since he "worked closely with [the Japanese staff]", we should take the English script at face value as well. This unfortunately means that the Japanese script has to take the back seat somehow, and we can't do that because we know for sure that the Japanese script is a creation of the Japanese staff.

I would have been willing to take Jeremy's statement at face value if there were few differences between the scripts. As a matter of fact, Angela's sexual abuse wouldn't have been an issue in the first place, since the English script seems to imply that. Unfortunately, we know that there are these differences.

I asked the man why there were meaning changing script differences, and to put it bluntly, he wasn't sure. He attributed the changes to his state-of-mind at the time the difference in the translation was made. This sort of answer is ambiguous, and as far as he was concerned, he did translate the script pretty accurately. As a reader I only had two options: either take Jeremy as an incompetent translator, or consider the possibility that the Japanese staff somehow gave him an earlier draft of the script. I opted for the latter.

And, if you think about it, this is entirely possible because Jeremy was not simply tasked to translate the script: he was also tasked to direct the voice actors. This meant that he had to have "a script" ready for the actors to read off of, and as soon as possible. And, we all know that scripts tend to be the last pieces of a game to be finalized. So, while Jeremy was handed a script for his work, and rest of the staff revised their script - the Japanese one - even further. And, you realize that it's clear in this case why it wouldn't do any good to give Jeremy the final revision, since what is he going to do? Re-record all previous sessions?

So, as you can see (or I hope you see, anyway), I didn't just decide to "disregard" everything Jeremy said. If you take his statement at face value, you're basically saying that he's incompetent as a translator. And, THAT is what doesn't sit well with me.

Well, it's your free will to disagree with me, and I respect that. But you have to understand that taking Jeremy's statement at face value isn't without its quirks.

it seems evident enough for me that JB answered the big question here. He worked with Team silent, and knew their intentions.
I dont agree with Burning man/ MMY on this one. sorry.