Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 23 Sep 2019




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Same person, different face. (spoilers)
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2003
Notes left: 12943
Last seen at: The Wand'ring Wood
In Walter’s Kingdom, a place beyond the limitations of the World of our Lord, two sides of himself are shown: the adult and the child. I believe that the latter is a reflection of innocence – Walter’s innocence – and that he expresses the most simplest human desire: to find [his] mother, to be with [his] mother. The adult is more complicated than all that, after years of abuse, perversion, and diabolical scheming took their toll. My theory is that up until the incident in Eileen’s apartment, these two aspects were interchangeable and one was not separate from the other. To clarify: little Walter and adult Walter were not two separate things running around the Kingdom, they just changed faces (like how you can switch from Adult Link to Child Link in Zelda: Ocarina of Time).

Neither figures are seen together at the same time in any part in the game before the attack on Eileen. The first time you do see Walter is as a child, in the graveyard in the forest behind Wish House. Then again you see him in the prison, carefully staring down Andrew DeSalvo before turning and walking away. Again, you see him in Richard’s apartment, pointing out the window – and finally he’s in Eileen’s apartment, standing over her brutalized body. Personally I find it suspicious that little Walter shows up wherever adult Walter is attacking, at times in the very same room. (Maybe that’s just me, though, so this is my attempt to explain it for myself.) Little Walter’s behavior in the prison also made me curious: he acted so unlike a child that it was eerie to watch him stare down Andrew while the former guard crouched down and murmured incoherently. It was almost as if the mannerisms of the killer emerged, briefly, in the child’s form.

The first four Sacraments [that we see in the game] passed without opposition from the child – adult Walter was able to kill Cynthia, Jasper, Andrew and Richard without a peep of naysay, or perhaps the child was unaware. It’s only until Eileen is attacked is there a discrepancy, a disruption. But why? Let’s take what we know about all three involved, starting with Eileen.

The only previous contact she’s had with Walter was when she was a little girl, and he a young adult. Homeless and at the time harmless, Walter was given Eileen’s doll to keep him company because she felt sorry for him. Such a genuine and compassionate display obviously stayed with Walter, who undoubtedly did not receive that kind of warmth growing up as an orphan and on top of that an orphan in the care of The Order. Clearly this stayed with him because he kept the doll, didn’t he? So even if you disagree with the emotional impact there is still physical evidence. Eileen is also known as The Mother Reborn. She’s particularly special to Walter. What labeled her a Sacrament is, I believe, her kind actions as a child. Whether she intended to or not she left an impact on Walter that was tainted as Walter concocted his plan for the Sacraments.

There is an innocent half of Walter. This innocent self felt remorse for the Ten Hearts murders, was arrested for murdering Billy and Miriam Locane, and eventually killed himself in prison. I believe it is this innocent half that had an attachment to Eileen, and after Walter created His Kingdom this innocent self turned into the child guise. Whether it be because a child is a symbol of innocence, or contemptuously Walter viewed this half of himself as a child, helpless and incapable, remains up to the players to determine. I think it can be both, though, since both make sense.

The last part is the adult Walter, the murderer. He’s taken his fixation on Eileen and warped it into the desire to make use of her through the 21 Sacraments. I believe this part of Walter cannot fathom how much Eileen’s compassion previously moved him, and that he’s too far-gone with his plans to give a damn.

Taking what I said above, the adult Walter hangs around the apartment complex, knocks on Eileen’s door, and later on attacks her. When Henry enters Eileen’s apartment you find her sprawled on the floor, badly beaten, with the child Walter standing over her. She thanks him, asks about his mother, and urges him to get out of here, that it’s not safe for him. Later on when you have Eileen with you she mentions that “the little boy saved” her from “that man.” But logically how could a child impede a grown man? There’s no physically explainable way for little Walter to stop adult Walter from beating Eileen; but it is plausible that little Walter’s consciousness/form fought and emerged victorious, his desire to save Eileen, to save the only person who acted “motherly” to him winning over his desire to kill her [Also note that Eileen is the only person who expresses sympathy, concern, and compassion towards the child in the game - Henry seems curious and wary, but Eileen wants to help him. She unknowingly takes on a mother-like role].

Think of it as a tug of war. The rope is the form that Walter takes, adult or child, and at either end of the rope is the innocent and the murderer. Neither are in full opposition of the other until the attack on Eileen – until one puts force on the rope in its favour. This “force” is attacking Eileen, so in response the innocent pulls and wins, momentarily, managing to save Eileen. This force is what ruptures the two guises and separates them into halves; no longer is the innocent connected to the murderer and vice versa. In the Building World on the second pass, both adult Walter and child Walter come face to face. This confrontation is a bit tricky considering the child doesn’t even recognize the adult – but that makes sense, if you believe that since the two had never met face to face before, because it was either the child or the adult that took form, little Walter had no idea what the adult looked like. I’m sorry if that seems like it’s a cop out, but I don’t think it is… Little Walter’s focus was simply finding his mother. This desire became corrupted and tainted, bastardized over the years spent in The Order’s care, and in Walter’s own mind. This innocent half is a reflection of that simple desire, before it was tarnished, which is also why the adult is a stranger.

Interestingly enough, even though these two sides are at odds with each other, adult Walter still manages to fulfill his basic need in one of the endings – in “21 Sacraments” adult Walter stands aside and watches as the child Walter curls up on the couch in Henry’s apartment and sighs, happily muttering, “Mom, I’m home.” I think it was always Walter’s intention of being reunited with his mother, regardless of the cult’s intervention and perversion, and even though Walter could very well tell the difference between a room and a human, think of it in this way: Walter sees the cult’s God as the Mother to us all: The Holy Mother. Given the means and the ability to bring her to life, Walter does so – spitting in The Order’s face at the same time as fulfilling his own wish. Therefore both the child and the adult can be satisfied with the results.

I hope something cohesive and intelligent can be pulled from this text. I’m sorry that I can’t write in any other fashion – this makes the most sense to me, but I think it may not be as such for anyone else.

Edit: Bits and pieces that I let slip but still fit:

When Richard's being electrocuted he tells Henry: "A kid? That's no kid. That's the 11121 man!" .. His meaning can, of course, be skewered and is open to interpretation and this is how I'm interpreting it: Richard was able to see both disguises. He pursued the child Walter, tipped off by Henry, and at some point there was a switch between the figures. Richard witnessed it and possibly while in a daze of terrible confusion (as would anyone if they saw a kid.. y'know, morph into an adult) was unable to put up a fight... and the rest we all know since that scene was particularly brutal.

Andrew is positively horrified by Little Walter. He keeps saying "He's gonna kill me, help me," but how could a child pose such a threat? My belief is that Andrew fell asleep (perhaps on the job?), and Adult Walter was able to imprison him in the cell; after this, and some time during Henry's travels through the prison, he's a child again. Perhaps being back in a copy of the prison and being reminded of his time there made the switch over? I know I'm making stretches here, but if the whole theory's abstract why not go for the whole nine yards, eh?

Also pointed out by the Adversary:

Quote:
After Richard Braintree is killed, Lil' Wally is seen at the window, pointing to Eileen's room. Afterwards, when Henry wakes back up in his bedroom, you can look out the window over to Braintree's apartment: Lo, Walter-as-an-adult is seen pointing at Eileen's room, not the child.

_________________
I'm not dead yet, dammit.


Last edited by Mis Krist. on 23 Feb 2006, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 20 Jul 2005
Notes left: 3898
Krist., I like this theory a lot. It's clear and well explained. I agree that Little Walter represents the innocent, childhood self while Adult Walter represents the product of years and years after physical and emotional abuses during Walter's adolescenses life.

One thing I feel is that the Little Walter while he is innocent, he is not 'loving'. He simply doesn't care about Cynthia, Richard, Jasper, or Andrew. He only feels affection towards Eileen, thus Eileen is the only one that Little Walter interfers Adult Walter. Little Walter does not a sense morality, he only loves people who had treated him with love before (hence, only Eileen).

One thing I slightly disagree with you is that Walter's innocent self doesn't neccessarily causes him to commit suicide. I think this can be interpreted the other way too--perhaps the evil Walter wants to kill himself since he has already completed the first half of the ritual--and now he needs a disimbodiment to traverse freely and find the rest victims.

I'd like to add that Eileen's care (giving doll) towards Young Walter when she was 8 years-old is a double-edged sword. It was the first time that Walter had ever felt nurture from a female figure, hence the young Walter starts to develop a sense of 'maternality' in Eileen (and perhaps 'jealously' of Eileen in her mom's hands). Of course, this helps Eileen survived because the Little Walter does not want the Adult Walter to hurt her. But if you look at it in reverse, it is Eileen's nurture that got her into trouble. If Eileen didn't care for Young Walter before, the Adult Walter might have chosen other female figures for the sacrifice. But since Eileen is the first and perhaps the only 'motherly' person Walter ever feels with, that is the reason why the Adult Walter chooses her.

I agree that to Little Walter, Mother = Room (with Eileen being second) while Adult Walter, Mother = God. The reason why Adult Walter changes his opinion from Room to God is because he grows up, and education and real-life experience tells him that a room could not possibly be a replacement for 'mother'. With the help of occult studies, Adult Walter finds out about the 21 Sacrements, and learn that he needs to sacrifice 'mother'. And the closest in-flesh-and-blood Mother he feels towards is Eileen.

Another thing I want to add is Walter's doll. If Henry doesn't pick up the doll, then there would be no hauntings in the appartment. Why? By taking the doll, Henry is taking away the only object that could remind Adult Walter about care and nurture. That's why when Henry takes the doll away, the Evil Walter can use his power more freely, hence more hauntings. It's not because the doll is with Henry that makes the hauntings, but rather the doll isn't with Walter that makes the hauntings occur.

Sorry for kinda adding on to your theory. Again, I think this theory is really good and makes a lot of sense to me.

_________________
QUICKLINKS | SH1 |SH2 |SH3 | SH4 |SH:H | SH:O |SHMovie |SHGeneral |FAQs




Last edited by amphreded on 23 Feb 2006, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Feb 2006
Notes left: 246
Last seen at: Canada
Amazing theory, Krist! And I agree with it wholey! :D

_________________
Image

...are my screams just a whisper?


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject:

Missing since: 12 Feb 2006
Notes left: 143
Last seen at: Devon
ummm..this might just be my idiocy.... but dont child walter and adult walter meet on like... 2 occasions?
once in building world and in the 21 sacraments ending?

_________________
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy.


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19401
Last seen at: #lfk
>this might just be my idiocy....
Neither figures are seen together at the same time in any part in the game before the attack on Eileen.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject:

Missing since: 12 Feb 2006
Notes left: 143
Last seen at: Devon
so why does the attack on eileen separate them? im sorry if this has already been answered

_________________
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy.


Top
   
 


 Post subject:

Phew, that's an interesting one, Krist. I know I wouldn't have thought it up...I always considered child and adult Walter seperate beings, with the child existing at the sufferance of the adult so that the desire to see Mother would live on. It does explain a thing or two, like why little Walter doesn't help any of the other people and why he's standing there when Richard dies, etc. The child half, though innocent in relative terms to the adult half, was still somewhat twisted...
There's one point I disagree with, and that's the adult Walter's view on Eileen. Even he feels remorse for the nescessity of Eileen's death...he reminsces fondly on the staircase, speaking her name with respect. He still cares for Eileen. Him giving away the doll is symbolic of accepting the needs of the sacraments over his only happy memory, sacrificing his last hope of salvation and allowing him to hunt Henry and Eileen.

The one real problem I have with this theory is it's intangibility. It's a bit like saying that every time Henry leaves the apartment, it gets completely devoured by Otherworld until he returns, at which point it's spit back out. Impossible to say it doesn't, not much to indicate it does, and would it even matter anyway? Of course, your theory has more relavance than something silly like that, and I do like it. I'm just saying it's somewhat abstract.


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19401
Last seen at: #lfk
>im sorry if this has already been answered
Perhaps you should read Krist.'s words. It's all in there.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2003
Notes left: 12943
Last seen at: The Wand'ring Wood
Raithien wrote:
There's one point I disagree with, and that's the adult Walter's view on Eileen. Even he feels remorse for the nescessity of Eileen's death...he reminsces fondly on the staircase, speaking her name with respect. He still cares for Eileen. Him giving away the doll is symbolic of accepting the needs of the sacraments over his only happy memory, sacrificing his last hope of salvation and allowing him to hunt Henry and Eileen.


See, that part always creeped me out; something about the way he said "Here.. I'll give this to you." And the way he spoke was eerie to me. It makes sense that Walter would remember it fondly, but there was something about the way he said it that kinda scheeved me out. Even so, you bring up a good point.

Quote:
I'm just saying it's somewhat abstract.


After I read it again and posted it I did have this moment of um, hesitation I guess, since the theory almost seems to be one those things of a person "thinking too much." But I figured since there's so much that's left open about The Room, and particularly about Walter, that I wanted to make sense of it.. for myself, first and foremost, and hopefully for other people. If it's abstract, it's abstract; No worries.

Quote:
so why does the attack on eileen separate them? im sorry if this has already been answered


Well.. I said it already.. Adult Walter does something that Little Walter directly opposes, leading to a "tug of war" of sorts. Please refer to my original post for a more descriptive answer.

Quote:
One thing I feel is that the Little Walter while he is innocent, he is not 'loving'.


This makes sense - the scene with Little Walter staring down Andrew and complacently pointing out Eileen's window as Richard suffers fits into your thought, and I only touched briefly on it with my original post. I think that since they are parts of the same person, just different guises, the lines and distinction may blur a bit between them. Little Walter maliciousness, his lack of concern for Andrew's terror and for Richard's suffering, his eerie semi-threat in the 21 Sacraments ending "I won't let anyone get in my way.. I'll stay with you forever." I suppose if I continue with the abstract-ness of my theory, you could say that since it's a little tug of war from opposite ends, there are moments where the lines begin to blur. But I think something more tangible can be explained for this.. Children are cruel. At times, anyway. They can be malicious, mean, horrible little things to each other, without realising the depth of these emotions and expressions. They say "I hate you" or something of the sort all the time to their mothers and fathers if they're arguing, they tease and torment each other. They're wicked little things. Little Walter's expressions of disinterest for the pain of others around him could very well tie into this inherent cruelty, as well as a "blur" between disguises.

Quote:
One thing I slightly disagree with you is that Walter's innocent self doesn't neccessarily causes him to commit suicide. I think this can be interpreted the other way too--perhaps the evil Walter wants to kill himself since he has already completed the first half of the ritual--and now he needs a disimbodiment to traverse freely and find the rest victims.


I kind of adapted a theory that was much debated and argued over here a little while ago, and brushed by it quickly since it wasn't the main focus. I think the conclusion, or proposal, of this idea was that there was a split, physically, between the guilty Walter and the innocent Walter, the latter being arrested and dying in prison, and the guilty one surviving, digging up his grave, and merging together again in the storeroom in 302. If I can find the thread with the theory I'll pass it along to you. It's explained in more detail there, and you can get a better idea from the brief explanation I've given.

Quote:
I'd like to add that Eileen's care (giving doll) towards Young Walter when she was 8 years-old is a double-edged sword [...]


Precisely. Sad, really. Also her concern for the child throughout the game gets her into trouble, too - she's so intent and focused on it that, somehow, she manages to be possessed by Walter and wanders away from Henry.

An interesting thing about the doll is that it's kind of like a symbol of a child being corrupted.. If you take it and put it in your "item box," ghost babies pop out of the wall above it, and I think it makes the hauntings appear more frequently and with difficulty to get rid of. I mentioned above that Little Walter, throughout the years, became tainted and distorted (as everyone does when they grow up, but more so in this case), and this doll can kinda symbolise that if you want to think so. Or it can be anything that you and Raithien have said since it all makes sense.

Thanks for these responses, you guys. Makes me feel all warm and moooshy inside.

_________________
I'm not dead yet, dammit.


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19401
Last seen at: #lfk
One thing I'd like to point out for you, Krist., to abet in your case:

After Richard Braintree is killed, Lil' Wally is seen at the window, pointing to Eileen's room. Afterwards, when Henry wakes back up in his bedroom, you can look out the window over to Braintree's apartment: Lo, Walter-as-an-adult is seen pointing at Eileen's room, not the child.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2003
Notes left: 12943
Last seen at: The Wand'ring Wood
I'm not sure how I managed to forget that one. Thanks, duckie. I'll go back and edit that in, along with this (which I somehow let slip).

Also, when Richard's being electrocuted he tells Henry: "A kid? That's no kid. That's the 11121 man!" .. His meaning can, of course, be skewered and is open to interpretation and this is how I'm interpreting it: Richard was able to see both disguises. He pursued the child Walter, tipped off by Henry, and at some point there was a switch between the figures. Richard witnessed it and possibly while in a daze of terrible confusion (as would anyone if they saw a kid.. y'know, morph into an adult) was able to be apprehended... and the rest we all know since that scene was particularly brutal.

_________________
I'm not dead yet, dammit.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 20 Jul 2005
Notes left: 3898
So it was adult Walter we sees afterward? I need to play SH4 again.

But if that's the case, then I can think of two things:

1) The child Walter we see sometimes is actually the adult Walter playing tricks with us
2) or perhaps Henry sees the adult-child role reverse in his own appartment. For example, Henry sees a child Walter once he's outside the Room, but he sees an adult Walter once he is within the room. Though I think this point is a bit implausible since then it means the Walter that is after Henry in the forest world is actually the child Walter (although I can see a different branch of theory coming out from this point: that the child Walter is actually the guilty, demanding one instead).

_________________
QUICKLINKS | SH1 |SH2 |SH3 | SH4 |SH:H | SH:O |SHMovie |SHGeneral |FAQs




Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2003
Notes left: 12943
Last seen at: The Wand'ring Wood
Well, I still find it hard to conceive that a child can pose any kind of threat, even if it is Walter Sullivan. Any ill will he expressed seemed to be no more harmless than the regular cruelty of a child. I mentioned that in my post above Adversary's most recent (quicklink: http://www.silenthillforum.com/viewtopi ... 3423#43423).

But if the child Walter is a trick and really the Adult Walter in disguise, that doesn't explain why they're in two places at the same time in the Building world and "21 Sacraments" ending. Also Henry can see both forms of Walter, adult and child, outside of his apartment: he comes across the adult on the staircase when he's giving the Shabby Doll, and in the hospital. The point in the game when Walter is chasing you occurs after my proposed split. The child at this point is off on his own.

_________________
I'm not dead yet, dammit.


Top
   
 


 Post subject:

Krist. wrote:
Moooshy...scheeved me out.


What? :?

Anyway, I find myself in agreement with your theory. It makes sense, there's some loose circumstancial evidence here and there, and there's not a shred of evidence against it.

About two of the victims we see little Walter around, however...Richard, and the abusive jailer who's name I forget, which will be referred to hereafter as 'Fatty.'
Little Walter has a reason to hate both of these people, which besides being the reason why they were chosen for Sacraments, could explain a different reason for his presence at their death or incarceration. Richard pulled a gun on the kid....the little kid, who was already so scared of the outside world. Fatty, well, if you read little Walter's diaries on the stones you can see that he explicitly wishes for Fatty's death.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2003
Notes left: 12943
Last seen at: The Wand'ring Wood
Mooshy/Mushy = happy! :)
Scheeved = creeped me out.

Sorry. My vernacular is peculiar.

And I agree, and have little bits to tack on to what you said: Fatty Andrew was from Walter's past. He was the guard at the Water Prison where Walter was imprisoned, briefly, as a child. The Water Prison has ties to The Order and I know they kept kids there.. In Walter's diaries in the Forest I think he mentions going there, and clearly not liking his stay; also clearly not liking Andrew. I think that Konami released on their SH4 site more information about Andrew, saying that he was abusive and an alcoholic. I can't remember exactly what was said about the man, but it certainly doesn't make my heart weep for the guy.

Richard is also from Walter's past. He saw the child Walter wandering around the apartment building during his daily trips to see Room 302, and he was rude to the boy. This clearly left a mark because I think any young child would remember an adult bully. I certainly remember my first run in with a cross adult. Thank you for bringing up a fine point.

_________________
I'm not dead yet, dammit.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 20 Jul 2005
Notes left: 3898
Krist. wrote:
Well, I still find it hard to conceive that a child can pose any kind of threat, even if it is Walter Sullivan. Any ill will he expressed seemed to be no more harmless than the regular cruelty of a child. I mentioned that in my post above Adversary's most recent (quicklink: http://www.silenthillforum.com/viewtopi ... 3423#43423).

But if the child Walter is a trick and really the Adult Walter in disguise, that doesn't explain why they're in two places at the same time in the Building world and "21 Sacraments" ending. Also Henry can see both forms of Walter, adult and child, outside of his apartment: he comes across the adult on the staircase when he's giving the Shabby Doll, and in the hospital. The point in the game when Walter is chasing you occurs after my proposed split. The child at this point is off on his own.


Oh I still agree with your theory about the split after Eileen's attack Krist.
I was just trying to think up of other possibilities while Henry sees Walter as a child at Richard's death but then once back in the room, he sees Adult Walter instead.
You're totally right, the Endings (all of them) tell us that Little Walter and Adult Walter appear at different places, but they do share the same life/spiritual force (for the lack of better word). Since when Adult Walter dies, the child also seems to dissapear. And in "21 Sacraments" ending, the child survives as Walter survives (we can see him standing in the room).

I think it's possible that the adult Walter can morph himself into a child at will, but the child cannot morph himself into an adult. And everytime the adult Walter morphs himself into a child, the little Walter gets automatically morphed into an adult version. So at times, we see adult Walter with a child state of mind, and vice versa. I think this might explain the window-pointing event without contradicting too much with your theory. I dunno, I'm going a bit off haha.

_________________
QUICKLINKS | SH1 |SH2 |SH3 | SH4 |SH:H | SH:O |SHMovie |SHGeneral |FAQs




Last edited by amphreded on 23 Feb 2006, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 


 Post subject:

Yeah, moooshy I sort of guessed, but scheeved was giving me some trouble.
...Wow, I don't have anything else to add, except that it would be nice if all discussions could go this smoothly. Go Krist!


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2003
Notes left: 12943
Last seen at: The Wand'ring Wood
Aww, thank you for that. I'm pretty mellow when it comes to my own theories and discussions, because...... that's just how I roll. ;] Heh.

No worries, amphreded. I can only speculate as to what makes the change occur, but I do agree that sometimes things get a bit hazy: the child takes on the demeanor of the adult, the adult takes on the demeanor of the child. When I first played the game I thought there was something child-like about the way Walter speaks and interacts with Henry. He's almost too.. calm. Not sure what it is. I'll have to think about this, or maybe I'll leave it be. My head's too busy at the moment.

_________________
I'm not dead yet, dammit.


Top
   
 


 Post subject:

The theory is reasonable.


The whole Big Walter/Little Walter deal reeked of Jungian Psychology to me personally.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject:
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 20 Jul 2005
Notes left: 3898
The Shadow theory you mean?

_________________
QUICKLINKS | SH1 |SH2 |SH3 | SH4 |SH:H | SH:O |SHMovie |SHGeneral |FAQs




Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: