So which ending is canon?

[Tillerman]

First of all I should maybe point out I never considered this a real argument. A debate, yes. As I said before, any fan of Lynch is OK with me. If you found me aggressive in anyway then I apologize - I didn't intend to be.

No, not really. I don't consider it an argument either. I don't even really consider it a "debate," more like just a discussion.

My position is not based from feelings or gut instinct. I critically evaluated and analysed both the Good and Good+ and decided that Good is beyond reasonable doubt the canonical ending.

How'd you measure that it's "beyond reasonable doubt"? What's that based on, if not a feeling? Is there some way you can objectively prove to me that it's "beyond reasonable doubt"? Can you define what "beyond reasonable doubt" means, and then show objectively that we have crossed that threshold?

You can't, right? You just feel that it's beyond reasonable doubt, right?

I've been saying the Red Liquid has nothing to do with canon, almost as default, because I've been arguing against the proposition of Good+ being an alternative.

Okay... so just to be clear, you're agreeing with me that we can learn nothing about canon from the obscurity of the red liquid. It is not in any way evidence of any of the 4 endings being a "canon" ending. Harry needs no reason to use the red liquid in this situation because it's something that's meant for the player to figure out. You agree with all that?

[alone in the town]

How'd you measure that it's "beyond reasonable doubt"? What's that based on, if not a feeling? Is there some way you can objectively prove to me that it's "beyond reasonable doubt"? Can you define what "beyond reasonable doubt" means, and then show objectively that we have crossed that threshold?

You can't, right? You just feel that it's beyond reasonable doubt, right?

Any doubts require the doubter to insist that Team Silent is either lying or confused when they made their statement about Good being the orthodox ending. There's no way to evade the fact that they have done so, nor is there a way to present such insistence as 'reasonable'.

[Tillerman]

Any doubts require the doubter to insist that Team Silent is either lying or confused when they made their statement about Good being the orthodox ending.

Indeed. I actually think "confused" is a likely possibility. Almost as if Owaku didn't realize that someone else had wrote this in the guidebook, and that person didn't realize what Owaku had wrote.

[Lemex]

How'd you measure that it's "beyond reasonable doubt"? What's that based on, if not a feeling? Is there some way you can objectively prove to me that it's "beyond reasonable doubt"? Can you define what "beyond reasonable doubt" means, and then show objectively that we have crossed that threshold?

You can't, right? You just feel that it's beyond reasonable doubt, right?

Imagine this court case: a man (let's call him Joe) was found in a room over a dead body with a blooded knife, Joe had been drunk and shouting that he hated the dead man, and had even said to a witness 'I'm going to sort him out'. Joe's finger prints were the only set found on the weapon. We don't know exactly what went on in the room, maybe the dead man attacked Joe for whatever reason which forced him to defend himself. It's a possibility, and Joe could be acquitted in terms of Self Defense, but there is no evidence to suggest this happened. And it cannot be an act of madness because Joe has otherwise proved to be very normal and rational, so there are no grounds for a reduced sentence on grounds of insanity. Surely you must agree that this is beyond reasonable doubt that Joe murdered the dead man in a drunken rage?

There has been nothing 'measured' and nor is there any necessarily 'gut feeling' on the side of the Judge to charge Joe with murder, because all the evidence points to a murder. Now that is just a story, it never happened, but could you honestly say there was another realistic and possible final judgement to that story, simply because it's a story?

Okay... so just to be clear, you're agreeing with me that we can learn nothing about canon from the obscurity of the red liquid.

Not that we can learn nothing about the canon because of its obscurity, but rather we can learn how unlikely a certain ending is because of it's nature.

It is not in any way evidence of any of the 4 endings being a "canon" ending.

Not by itself, yes.

Harry needs no reason to use the red liquid in this situation because it's something that's meant for the player to figure out. You agree with all that?

No. Because the player cannot figure out something they have no clues for. Neither can Harry.

Like I was trying to say on the last page, I when playing SH1 I had no clue as to its use. Even after replaying and seeing the Good ending when Kaufman used the aglaophotis on the demon I still didn't think to use Harry's red stuff on Cybil; because where the ending had a demon, where Cybil was infected by one of those parasite-bugs. So if this is a clue then it's still a pretty obscure one, I'll admit, it's not as obscure as just plain no hints at all, but it's still pretty obscure.

[Tillerman]

Imagine this court case: a man (let's call him Joe) was found in a room over a dead body with a blooded knife, Joe had been drunk and shouting that he hated the dead man, and had even said to a witness 'I'm going to sort him out'. Joe's finger prints were the only set found on the weapon. We don't know exactly what went on in the room, maybe the dead man attacked Joe for whatever reason which forced him to defend himself. It's a possibility, and Joe could be acquitted in terms of Self Defense, but there is no evidence to suggest this happened. And it cannot be an act of madness because Joe has otherwise proved to be very normal and rational, so there are no grounds for a reduced sentence on grounds of insanity. Surely you must agree that this is beyond reasonable doubt that Joe murdered the dead man in a drunken rage?

There has been nothing 'measured' and nor is there any necessarily 'gut feeling' on the side of the Judge to charge Joe with murder, because all the evidence points to a murder. Now that is just a story, it never happened, but could you honestly say there was another realistic and possible final judgement to that story, simply because it's a story?

Since it's just a story, there's *always* another possibility. Would it be realistic, no. Of course what I measure to be "realistic" is based on a feeling, too.

But for example, if this story were part of a game, say Phoenix Wright, you would expect it to have a different final judgment. Because the game is about dramatic turnarounds, so things are never what they seem. So whether "realism" is a factor in what's "possible" depends on the context.

Not that we can learn nothing about the canon because of its obscurity, but rather we can learn how unlikely a certain ending is because of it's nature.

Well then we completely disagree. I'm saying we can't learn anything about canon from the obscurity of the red liquid.

Like I was trying to say on the last page, I when playing SH1 I had no clue as to its use. Even after replaying and seeing the Good ending when Kaufman used the aglaophotis on the demon I still didn't think to use Harry's red stuff on Cybil; because where the ending had a demon, where Cybil was infected by one of those parasite-bugs. So if this is a clue then it's still a pretty obscure one, I'll admit, it's not as obscure as just plain no hints at all, but it's still pretty obscure.

Actually, I don't think it's that obscure at all. In the ending, the red liquid is used to basically purge a demon from Alessa. It has the exact same use for Cybil. I could see someone making that connection.

[alone in the town]

Actually, I don't think it's that obscure at all. In the ending, the red liquid is used to basically purge a demon from Alessa. It has the exact same use for Cybil. I could see someone making that connection.

And that is the point at which story and gameplay separate. The player has the opportunity to replay the game and get experimental, as many times as is desired.

Harry is not able to do this. Harry gets one chance to achieve victory and the life of his daughter (and, for all he knows, perhaps that of the entire world) is on the line.

That is how the red liquid has two entirely separate purposes. Its gameplay purpose is a key to unlock a bonus ending. Its story purpose is a Chekhov's Pharmeceutical, tempting Harry to take it but offering no clues to its use until he sees someone else use some. After which time, he can't save Cybil with it.

In a sense, you're right: the liquid itself doesn't have anything to do with canon because, as far as canon is concerned, the red liquid never plays a role in first Silent Hill. According to canon, it does not even have to be obtained at all. Perhaps Harry picks it up, and uses some of what he has to make Heather's pendant. Perhaps he doesn't pick any up, and when he obtains more later, it's the first time he's ever possessed any.

The only real impact it has is that it isn't used at a critical moment in the first game and this eliminates the plus endings as possible canonical outcomes. If there is reasonably a way to doubt this, nobody has ever articulated it.

[Lemex]

Since it's just a story, there's *always* another possibility. Would it be realistic, no. Of course what I measure to be "realistic" is based on a feeling, too.

But it wouldn't be a realistic ending, that's my point. Besides, realism in a story is based on things we know and logically deduce. I don't see how this has anything to do with 'feelings'.

But for example, if this story were part of a game, say Phoenix Wright, you would expect it to have a different final judgment. Because the game is about dramatic turnarounds, so things are never what they seem. So whether "realism" is a factor in what's "possible" depends on the context.

I've never played that game so I have no idea what you are talking about. But if that game is based on things not being as they seem then anything can presumably happen in that world. Silent Hill is not like this however. The characters talk as if they come from an otherwise realistic world at least.

Well then we completely disagree. I'm saying we can't learn anything about canon from the obscurity of the red liquid.

Ok then. Why?

Actually, I don't think it's that obscure at all. In the ending, the red liquid is used to basically purge a demon from Alessa. It has the exact same use for Cybil. I could see someone making that connection.

I would comment on this but Ryantology already has, and much better than I could have.

[Tillerman]

But it wouldn't be a realistic ending, that's my point.

Yes, and you're right about that, but again: 1. that's a subjective judgment based on experience, and 2. that conclusion is dependant upon the context of your story. What makes it subjective is that you can't actually measure how "realistic" it is.

I've never played that game so I have no idea what you are talking about. But if that game is based on things not being as they seem then anything can presumably happen in that world. Silent Hill is not like this however. The characters talk as if they come from an otherwise realistic world at least.

Well, it's not really necessary for you to have played it... just think of it as a detective game where you're trying to solve a mystery.

Sure, the characters in Silent Hill talk as if they come from a realistic world. They also do that in any detective story. However, in most detective stories, the "solution" is often whatever the author thinks will be the most surprising for the readers, right? That is completely opposite of the way things happen in real life. In real life, the solution to mysteries is often the most mundane and obvious one.

Do you see my point? Silent Hill is fiction. You can't judge it by the same standards as a real life court case. The concept of "reasonable doubt" is meaningless... it all comes down to whether the author wants to bring back Cybil or not. If they had wanted to bring her back, they could easily do so. The developers of the current game could still easily do so if they really wanted to. But they probably won't just because they probably want to distance themselves from the older games, and make their own mark on the series.

Now, they apparently didn't want to bring her back for SH3, but they also didn't seem to want to spell out her death either. Owaku's quote from the guidebook makes it pretty clear that he wanted her fate to stay ambiguous. I think Owaku wouldn't have wanted us to ask all these questions about the canonical fate of Cybil... he probably would have told us that it's meaningless in the overall scheme of the story. Well, I'm just putting words in his mouth, but that's how I interpret his quote from the guidebook. And of course that contradicts what was written about the Good ending being the "orthodox" ending, which is why all this is so unclear. That's why my opinion is if you're gonna call one ending the "canon" ending, the Good ending is the best fit, but it's not set in stone.

Ok then. Why?

Canon is decided by the game's authors. To be more exact, I believe it only has meaning if it's decided by the authors. If canon were something that was left up to each individual player to decide, well then there wouldn't be any point in calling it "canon," right?

So then, the red liquid's obscurity can only tell us about canon if it was actually made obscure purposefully by the creators in order to reveal that the Good+ ending isn't canon. So, they would have had to know from the beginning that the Good+ ending wasn't going to be the canon ending in order for this to make sense.

I believe this is clearly not the case, for a couple of reasons:
1. It doesn't make sense that they'd even be thinking about "canon" when they created Silent Hill.
2. There's a lot of obscure things in Silent Hill, the Good+ ending is hardly the least of it. So the fact that this one item's usage is obscure is in no way significant.
3. I don't believe that it would have even occured to the creators that Harry should need to have a reason to use the red liquid for "narrative" reasons. I believe they only would have thought of it as an item used to unlock a branching path. The red liquid is a game mechanic. It makes as much sense to insist that Harry needs a "narrative reason" to use it as it does to insist that the health drinks needs a "narrative reason" to heal you, or that Harry needs a "narrative reason" for being able to fight or run from so many monsters when he is supposed to be an ordinary man with ordinary stamina. It's silly to apply real world logic to game mechanics, and it's not the kind of thing that would have even occured to the developers.

[alone in the town]

I still don't see what's unclear.

Let's say you're right and Owaku really did just want the player to ask questions about what happened. Let's say he wanted people to look at the event and figure it out for themselves. A person who does that will come to the same conclusion most of us have: Good+ would never happen.

The problem with leaving this open-ended is that it really isn't. Look at all the points being argued. Those who stand for Good+ being possible have only one reason to believe that it might be, that being the quote itself (or, more accurately, their interpretation of it).

On the other side are people who rely on another quote, which is not interpretive but which is supported by every single piece of relevant evidence in the games and in the guidebooks, with the added bonus that it actually makes logical sense.

What you're doing is arguing on the very weakest possible technicality imaginable, one which exists only if you read an obscure quote in a certain way and believe it takes precedence over mountains of evidence to the contrary, and insisting that such an argument deserves equal consideration in a debate over canon. You justify this by saying that fiction doesn't follow real life rules, and that's true, but if that's how you justify an otherwise impossible position you appear to take seriously, then there's no point in ever analyzing any fiction at all because we can make up any explanations we want to explain anything we want. It's solipsism applied to fiction.

Even if I were to concede that Good+ is not mathematically impossible, it is so close to mathematically impossible that it makes no practical difference. It doesn't make this debate any less a waste of time.

[Tillerman]

Even if I were to concede that Good+ is not mathematically impossible, it is so close to mathematically impossible that it makes no practical difference.

"mathematically impossible"? Seriously? Why don't you post some of your equations so we can check them.

[Lemex]

Yes, and you're right about that, but again: 1. that's a subjective judgment based on experience, and 2. that conclusion is dependant upon the context of your story. What makes it subjective is that you can't actually measure how "realistic" it is.

Subjective opinions or arguments, as I have already shown, has nothing to do with measuring.

Otherwise, what are Objectivists measuring?

Sure, the characters in Silent Hill talk as if they come from a realistic world. They also do that in any detective story. However, in most detective stories, the "solution" is often whatever the author thinks will be the most surprising for the readers, right? That is completely opposite of the way things happen in real life. In real life, the solution to mysteries is often the most mundane and obvious one

.

You do have a point. I'll grant you that. However, because of all the evidence and questions left unanswered and unadressed if we did say Good+ is the canonical ending then that means Team Silent would have forgotten a large portion of important canon. I couldn't see how you can satisfactory argue this is the case.

Besides, there is no 'official' result to the game. So that isn't a surprising ending anyway.

You can't judge it by the same standards as a real life court case. The concept of "reasonable doubt" is meaningless...

I disagree: to repeat, because a large portion of important canon is left unaddressed otherwise, and because this is ambiguous, reasonable doubt still is applicable because of the ambiguity.

it all comes down to whether the author wants to bring back Cybil or not. If they had wanted to bring her back, they could easily do so. The developers of the current game could still easily do so if they really wanted to. But they probably won't just because they probably want to distance themselves from the older games, and make their own mark on the series.

If a later game shows Cybil alive then I would accept that and Good+ as the canonical ending. I would have to. However, it wouldn't be an easy addition. They would have to explain a lot.

Now, they apparently didn't want to bring her back for SH3, but they also didn't seem to want to spell out her death either. Owaku's quote from the guidebook makes it pretty clear that he wanted her fate to stay ambiguous. I think Owaku wouldn't have wanted us to ask all these questions about the canonical fate of Cybil... he probably would have told us that it's meaningless in the overall scheme of the story. Well, I'm just putting words in his mouth, but that's how I interpret his quote from the guidebook. And of course that contradicts what was written about the Good ending being the "orthodox" ending, which is why all this is so unclear. That's why my opinion is if you're gonna call one ending the "canon" ending, the Good ending is the best fit, but it's not set in stone.

To be honest I don't know of the Owaku quote. But the fact that you say it's an interpretation leads me to consider that it might be suspect. Besides Ryantology has already addressed this point.

[alone in the town]

Even if I were to concede that Good+ is not mathematically impossible, it is so close to mathematically impossible that it makes no practical difference.

"mathematically impossible"? Seriously? Why don't you post some of your equations so we can check them.

Nice dodge, btw.

[Lemex]

Even if I were to concede that Good+ is not mathematically impossible, it is so close to mathematically impossible that it makes no practical difference.

"mathematically impossible"? Seriously? Why don't you post some of your equations so we can check them.

Nice dodge, btw.

... are you a genius?

[Tillerman]

Subjective opinions or arguments, as I have already shown, has nothing to do with measuring.

It's objective arguments that have to do with measuring, though that's just a rule of thumb. According to Wikipedia, "A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject."

And "Subjectivity refers to the subject and his or her perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1] In philosophy, the term is usually contrasted with objectivity."

Keep in mind that I'm referring to the philisophical concepts of objectivity and subjectivity. So, the dictionary definition you looked up for objectivity is not what I'm talking about, that's a different usage of the word objective.

Otherwise, what are Objectivists measuring?

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to by "Objectivists" here, but I believe it's probably a different usage of the word "objective" than I'm talking about. It also has nothing to do with Objectivism either, which is what Ayn Rand calls her political philosophy. I'm talking about the difference between the philosophical concepts of "objective" and "subjective." The easiest way to explain the difference is like this: objective things are physical things that exist independant of the mind. Subjective things are ideas or concepts. One is a tangible truth that can be measured, and the other requires judgment or interpretation. Sometimes knowing the difference can be a bit dicey.

Though, I've had discussions about objectivity before where some people insist that it's not necessarily required for something to physically exist in order for it to be objective. For example, some would call math objective. It's a concept that doesn't exist outside of the mind, so technically it's not objective, but you can measure it. So that's why lately I've taken to describing objectivity as being about things you can measure.

Now, this all barely relates back to the topic at hand, except in that what we're talking about is something inherently subjective. Cybil is a concept which only exists in the mind. This is not the same as a court case in which there is a tangible objective reality we are trying to uncover. And that's really the only point I wanted to make, well I probably wouldn't have gone into such detail if you hadn't of genuinely seemed interested. But anyway, I don't think we should spend a whole lot more time on discussing this, at least not in this thread...

You do have a point. I'll grant you that. However, because of all the evidence and questions left unanswered and unadressed if we did say Good+ is the canonical ending then that means Team Silent would have forgotten a large portion of important canon. I couldn't see how you can satisfactory argue this is the case.

Well, thanks for acknowledging my point, I do sincerely appreciate that.

And yes, I agree with you that if the Good+ ending was canon, that would definitely raise some unaddressed questions. And perhaps from a writer's point of view, that makes the Good ending the preferred choice. Unless of course the next writer suddenly decides they want to bring Cybil back, so I guess it depends. Well, I actually don't see that as being very likely, I think at some point if the Silent Hill series continues they will just completely ignore established canon and simply use their own vision as to what Silent Hill will be. Which I think is kind of what they're doing with Downpour, judging by how that new map doesn't seem to fit with the old maps at all.

But anyway, let me just point out again that no one's arguing that the Good+ is the de facto canonical ending. The only thing I'm saying is that there's a *little* room for abiguity. That's a far cry from saying that the Good+ ending is canon.

I disagree: to repeat, because a large portion of important canon is left unaddressed otherwise, and because this is ambiguous, reasonable doubt still is applicable because of the ambiguity.

How does "reasonable doubt" help us understand what the original creators intended for the canon to be?

To be honest I don't know of the Owaku quote. But the fact that you say it's an interpretation leads me to consider that it might be suspect. Besides Ryantology has already addressed this point.

Ryantology gave his opinion about what he thinks Owaku meant, but he's not a mind-reader. Neither are you or I. The Owaku quote is: "Cybil is not involved in Silent Hill 3. What happens to her afterwards is left to the player's imaginations." My interpretation of this quote is this: Owaku is saying that the question of whether Cybil is dead or alive has no correct answer. It's something that the writers deliberately want to leave unanswered. Maybe that's not what he meant, maybe it is... I'm not arrogant enough to assume that my interpretation is correct. I could very well be wrong. But that's my best guess. What's your guess?

[Lemex]

It's objective arguments that have to do with measuring, though that's just a rule of thumb. According to Wikipedia, "A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject."

And "Subjectivity refers to the subject and his or her perspective, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1] In philosophy, the term is usually contrasted with objectivity."

Keep in mind that I'm referring to the philisophical concepts of objectivity and subjectivity. So, the dictionary definition you looked up for objectivity is not what I'm talking about, that's a different usage of the word objective.

I'm well aware of the philosophical definition. However, that's just not what the word means in the context of argumentation, and what I strain to call 'literary theory'. There really does need to be a good word for this for things outside of literature. It's about story, and when making an argument about fiction, just as the outcome of court, Objective means free from bias and subjective feeling. I'm sorry but that's just what the word means in our context. You can't get away from that.

Besides, read this sentence again: 'A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject."'

I know that I am a conscious entity - or at least I hope so, but being 'mind-independent' is about eliminating conscious feeling, and thus being unbiased. Unless you want to argue that no one person can be objective and then that is something I would disagree with, but it's moving away from the topic at hand so let us stop here.

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to by "Objectivists" here, but I believe it's probably a different usage of the word "objective" than I'm talking about. It also has nothing to do with Objectivism either, which is what Ayn Rand calls her political philosophy.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is basically an attack on altruism, and freeing subjective feeling from self determination. If you don't know this then you haven't read The Virtue of Selfishness. For the record I'm not an Objectivist.

But anyway, let me just point out again that no one's arguing that the Good+ is the de facto canonical ending. The only thing I'm saying is that there's a *little* room for abiguity. That's a far cry from saying that the Good+ ending is canon.

By it's nature yes. It is ambiguous - but also easily explainable in favor of Good. This is why reasonable doubt could and should be used. To say otherwise is, with all due respect, ignoring the nature of logical process.

How does "reasonable doubt" help us understand what the original creators intended for the canon to be?

Since this conversation is about canon (don't believe me look at the title of the thing), which was established with SH3 - which was made with different developers, original intention could be disregarded in favor of discussing canon. As you pointed out, the original developers probably didn't know Silent Hill would become what it is/was, so talking about original intent when discussing canon is rather useless.

If you are not discussing canon, and just saying with SH1 alone Good+ is an alternative. Then so is Bad and Bad+, and the UFO ending, and this entire thing was wasted because no body would disagree with you there. But reasonable doubt can still apply to something because there is ambiguity, even if it's fiction like my court-case story. Again. To say otherwise is, with all due respect, ignoring the nature of logical process.

Ryantology gave his opinion about what he thinks Owaku meant, but he's not a mind-reader. Neither are you or I. The Owaku quote is: "Cybil is not involved in Silent Hill 3. What happens to her afterwards is left to the player's imaginations." My interpretation of this quote is this: Owaku is saying that the question of whether Cybil is dead or alive has no correct answer. It's something that the writers deliberately want to leave unanswered. Maybe that's not what he meant, maybe it is... I'm not arrogant enough to assume that my interpretation is correct. I could very well be wrong. But that's my best guess. What's your guess?

Thanks for quoting him - I now know what you are referring to. This is where mine and your arguments differ sadly. That quote is so passive that it's entirely meaningless. I can't interpret it, guess, and nor can I even hold an opinion of it because it doesn't actually say anything.

It's almost as if those words were designed with the sole intention of being open enough to support whatever you think about Cybil's fate. No matter what you think you will find those two sentences can back up your argument, so it's intellectual value is zero. In a debate it has as much use as ad-hominem attacks.

[Edea]

I made a video debating the Good vs the Good+, mostly because of Twin Perfect though. I think people misunderstand that Owaku said "What happened to Cybil is left to the player's imagination." Vs "The Good ending is the orthodox ending." If you're looking at the statements, that don't nessecerily conflict with each other. Especially since we know at the very least SOMETHING happen to Cybil. Unlikely as it may seem, she could have even survived Harry's attack or had a tortured spirit like Lisa did. We simply lack data.

As well, Homecoming made it clear she never made it back. I'm sure someone has already brought it up but looking at this last page the arguments are way too long and going in every which way I can't keep up. Harry notes the red stuff in the bike he found is similar to the vile in the hospital where he collected "red stuff". At the end of this he says that it "Must be drugs." And that he wasted his time. It's rather illogical that if he thinks it's drugs he'd throw it on Cybil. But, it makes sense if he saw what Kaufman did to Alessa, saved the stuff, and gave it to Heather...

[Tillerman]

I know that I am a conscious entity - or at least I hope so, but being 'mind-independent' is about eliminating conscious feeling, and thus being unbiased. Unless you want to argue that no one person can be objective and then that is something I would disagree with, but it's moving away from the topic at hand so let us stop here.

I'll be brief and simply say that I strongly disagree with this, and based with all the discussions I've had with people much smarter than I, I'm 99% sure that I'm correct. But since I can't seem to convince you, let's just drop it for now. It's kind of a distraction from the topic at hand.

Thanks for quoting him - I now know what you are referring to. This is where mine and your arguments differ sadly. That quote is so passive that it's entirely meaningless. I can't interpret it, guess, and nor can I even hold an opinion of it because it doesn't actually say anything.

This is a key point, so I want to focus on this. I see where you're coming from, but I unfortunately cannot agree. IMO it does not read as "passive" at all. Just to explain where I'm coming from, I'll post the full context of that quote. This is all from the same page:

"SECTION TWO: A relationship between Harry and Cybil, the heroine of the first game?

In the "Good+" ending of Silent Hill, Harry and Cybil escape the town together. Although one could interpret this in such a way as to envision a connection between the two of them, Cybil doesn't appear in Silent Hill 3...

IMAGE: Cybil and Harry in the opening movie
The alteration of the opening after clearing the game with the "Good+" ending invites various speculations.

Creator's Commentary: Cybil is not involved with Silent Hill 3. What
happens to her afterwards is left to players' imaginations."

What I want to bring to your attention is that this is not just a random quote... it comes from a section which is basically half a page devoted entirely to *Cybil's fate.* Since it's the only part of the guidebook which directly talks about Cybil's fate, I believe this section is meant to be the final word on that issue. And the final word from Owaku seems clearly to be that it's meant to be ambiguous. And since Owaku seems to be speaking for all the creators here, I assume they all share his opinion, more or less.

Now obviously this contradicts the other quote from the ending section, but I believe the creators just didn't think too strongly about this, and either didn't realize it, or just didn't think anyone would care. So in other words, it's a sloppy contradiction and there is no final word on her fate. Now, I agree with you that from a writer's perspective, the most logical choice is say that she is dead, (unless as a writer you have some great idea about how to use her character,) but I certainly can't agree that it's set in stone. Do you see what I mean?

As well, Homecoming made it clear she never made it back.

I agree with most of what you said, but I do want to make one point. IMO, what Homecoming says about Cybil's fate is entirely irrelevant, for a couple of reasons: 1. That was Double Helix's interpretation of the plot, and I doubt they'll be back for any future installments of the game. 2. For the most part no one seems to like Homecoming... and I have a feeling this probably extends to the current developers, Vatra. In fact Vatra has already ignored at least one canonical thing established by Homecoming, some of the map details were ignored/contradicted. In fact, a lot of people seem to feel like Homecoming should be completely ignored when it comes to canon, same with Origins. If you don't fall into that camp, that's fine... but for me, what is said about Cybil in Homecoming is entirely meaningless.

[Lemex]

"SECTION TWO: A relationship between Harry and Cybil, the heroine of the first game?

In the "Good+" ending of Silent Hill, Harry and Cybil escape the town together. Although one could interpret this in such a way as to envision a connection between the two of them, Cybil doesn't appear in Silent Hill 3...

IMAGE: Cybil and Harry in the opening movie
The alteration of the opening after clearing the game with the "Good+" ending invites various speculations.

Creator's Commentary: Cybil is not involved with Silent Hill 3. What
happens to her afterwards is left to players' imaginations."

What I want to bring to your attention is that this is not just a random quote... it comes from a section which is basically half a page devoted entirely to *Cybil's fate.* Since it's the only part of the guidebook which directly talks about Cybil's fate, I believe this section is meant to be the final word on that issue. And the final word from Owaku seems clearly to be that it's meant to be ambiguous. And since Owaku seems to be speaking for all the creators here, I assume they all share his opinion, more or less.

Now obviously this contradicts the other quote from the ending section, but I believe the creators just didn't think too strongly about this, and either didn't realize it, or just didn't think anyone would care. So in other words, it's a sloppy contradiction and there is no final word on her fate. Now, I agree with you that from a writer's perspective, the most logical choice is say that she is dead, (unless as a writer you have some great idea about how to use her character,) but I certainly can't agree that it's set in stone. Do you see what I mean?

That entire section (VI Lovers from Book of Lost Memories - it's word for word. Unless you are talking about another source I am unaware of) does not give definite answers or give positive reasons whatsoever on the issue of canon. It's about the theme of Love in the first game (hence the name). Which is why I say it's intellectual value is nil when discussing canon.

When noticing that that section is about a Theme in the game, what information do you get from this about what is canon?

In the "Good+" ending of Silent Hill, Harry and Cybil escape the town together. Although one could interpret this in such a way as to envision a connection between the two of them, Cybil doesn't appear in Silent Hill 3...

Note the ellipsis at the end. This is a common tool in informal criticism and non-fiction. Suggesting that the reader can make their own next sentence - work things out for themselves. The problem here is that this does not (again) mean anything.

Not that this is entirely meaningless. What the ellipsis kept out could have been important, and the mere fact it's there might suggest something - though because it doesn't you can't honestly make this the basis of an argument. It's really more of an indicator.

Going back to the quote at hand:

Cybil is not involved with Silent Hill 3. What happens to her afterwards is left to players' imaginations.

Imagine you are arguing from my position: you could use this quote to back my position just as much as you can use it to back up your own. Why? Because it doesn't actually say anything. 'It's left to the player's imaginations' could be read in a number of ways: 1) as a cop-out, not wishing to actually give a reason, 2) playful ambiguity. And 3) suggesting that it is ambiguous for the sole intention of being ambiguous, and letting the players actually decide the canon.

Because of this I honestly can't have an opinion of the sentence, and nor can I interpret it or hold an assumption, as you do. You just can't interpret things, or assume things, about quotes like this when making an argument. If I did this in one of my university papers I'd get an instant fail

it comes from a section which is basically half a page devoted entirely to *Cybil's fate.* Since it's the only part of the guidebook which directly talks about Cybil's fate, I believe this section is meant to be the final word on that issue.

It honestly doesn't deal with Cybil's fate. As I said before, that section from Book of Lost Memories (it's word-for-word the same as what you posted) deals with the theme of Love, not Cybil's death. This is called 'quote-mining'.

If you are going to say 'It's just a game, you shouldn't take it so seriously' then why not? Why is it OK to have serious, academic criticism of literature and not of video games. Sure games are a much younger medium, and still really getting off the ground in ways, but games are still a medium.

[alone in the town]

Now, I agree with you that from a writer's perspective, the most logical choice is say that she is dead, (unless as a writer you have some great idea about how to use her character,) but I certainly can't agree that it's set in stone. Do you see what I mean?

I see what you're saying, but I also understand what you really mean, and what you really mean is that any scenario which cannot be entirely disproven must be considered as an outcome of equal possibility in terms of canon, and backing a stance which is practically impossible just because it is not literally impossible is what, if it is not splitting hairs just for the sake of splitting hairs?

I think that, if Owaku really had a point in saying what he did, it was to demonstrate that gameplay and story are not linked. The player can imagine what happens to Cybil if the player saves her, just as the player can imagine what might happen as a result of the Bad endings. But, the meta-narrative of Silent Hill is quite clear on which outcome really happened, and that's why Good is singled out on the endings page. Good is history as it happened, Good+ (and the Bads) are 'what if history had happened differently?". What if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated at Ford's Theater? What happens to him afterwards is left up to the imagination.

[Tillerman]

That entire section (VI Lovers from Book of Lost Memories - it's word for word. Unless you are talking about another source I am unaware of) does not give definite answers or give positive reasons whatsoever on the issue of canon.

Actually, I think the definitive answer from that section is that there is meant to be no definitive answer. That's the way I interpret it.

Imagine you are arguing from my position: you could use this quote to back my position just as much as you can use it to back up your own. Why? Because it doesn't actually say anything. 'It's left to the player's imaginations' could be read in a number of ways: 1) as a cop-out, not wishing to actually give a reason, 2) playful ambiguity. And 3) suggesting that it is ambiguous for the sole intention of being ambiguous, and letting the players actually decide the canon.

Because of this I honestly can't have an opinion of the sentence,

That's strange because you sure sound like you have an opinion on it.

and nor can I interpret it or hold an assumption, as you do. You just can't interpret things, or assume things, about quotes like this when making an argument.

But if you just ignore it, then you're also making an assumption. Anyway, that's what I believe is the likely meaning of the quote, but I never said that my view was definitive. I am guessing just like you are, so feel free to disagree... it's just a shame we don't seem to understand one another.

It honestly doesn't deal with Cybil's fate. As I said before, that section from Book of Lost Memories (it's word-for-word the same as what you posted) deals with the theme of Love, not Cybil's death. This is called 'quote-mining'.

Sorry, Lemex. Even if it does call that section "Lovers," other than that I don't see that it has anything to do with "love" at all.

And quote-minding is taking quotes out of context in order to change their meaning, so if I post the entire section from which the quote comes from, by definition I can't be "quote-minding."

I see what you're saying, but I also understand what you really mean, and what you really mean is that any scenario which cannot be entirely disproven must be considered as an outcome of equal possibility in terms of canon

Not quite, Ryan. Remove the word equal from that quote, and then you'll be correct.

I think that, if Owaku really had a point in saying what he did, it was to demonstrate that gameplay and story are not linked.

Honestly Ryan, I'm not really sure where you think you're getting that information from. To me, that seems like a very creative interpretation... after all, if Owaku's quote was REALLY about demonstrating that gameplay and story are "not linked," he probably should've, y'know, actually mentioned that. Since he didn't, I feel pretty confident that that's not what he meant... but hey, I suppose it's slightly possible I could be wrong, so feel free to believe what you want, I guess...