So which ending is canon?

[Lemex]

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.

I'm sure I've wrote these words before, but this is why we use reasonable doubt to decide which ending truly is canon.

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

If I do then I'm not arguing an interpretation of it in anyway or using it to support an argument. I don't know if I come across as being biased in anyway (how would I?) but I'm honestly not. Ultimately if some future canonical game comes along and shows an alive Cybil after the events of SH1 I'd have to accept Good+ as canon, just as I am forced now to accept Good as canon because it's the most likely result. I don't have an opinion on it in the context of supporting an argument I'm making, because it doesn't support an argument; that's my point.

Again. Unless you think no one person can be objective, and I'd certainly disagree with that.

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.

I don't see how ignoring it is making an assumption. Besides, that's not what I'm doing. Again. I am evaluating the quote critically, and assessing it's merits as a comment on canon. It doesn't have any, and so I must consider it suspect, and groundless in an argument. If you don't understand this you don't understand it, but this is the way criticism works.

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.

Please reread this sentence again. And then read this from a section you didn't quote:

Although the Silent Hill series has consistently come to portray terror as a central theme, the fact that behind this, "love" is invariably depicted is frequently overlooked. One aspect that has become particularly prevalent is the attachment between parent and child. Up to this point in the series, the love between parent and child has brought about a great deal of drama and has even become a great driving force in the development of the story.

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."

Ok. How are you not quote-mining when you are using a section subtitled 'Deciphering the love and hatred behind the terror' to talk about Cybil's fate?

The section from which you quoted has nothing to do with what is canon. At all. Here is the full and actual section itself if you don't believe me:
http://www.silenthillmemories.net/lost_ ... 092_en.htm

[alone in the town]

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.

I'm pretty sure that, if he was talking about Good+ possibly being canon, he would have actually mentioned that, too. Since it is apparently okay to infer some things, I choose to infer others. The player can imagine her fate. The player's imagination does not play any role in deciding what is canon.

[Edea]

I asked Jeremy recently and Tomm posted on facebook, that it seems that both endings can be considered canon. Really, if Cybil lives or not is minute concerning the series overall.

[alone in the town]

Concerning the series overall, yeah, it's not important.

As a self-contained element within the first game, itself, the plus endings are pure nonsense. That's the real reason I have an issue with them.

[Tillerman]

I'm sure I've wrote these words before, but this is why we use reasonable doubt to decide which ending truly is canon.

And I know I've said before that I disagree with that. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Please reread this sentence again. And then read this from a section you didn't quote:

Although the Silent Hill series has consistently come to portray terror as a central theme, the fact that behind this, "love" is invariably depicted is frequently overlooked. One aspect that has become particularly prevalent is the attachment between parent and child. Up to this point in the series, the love between parent and child has brought about a great deal of drama and has even become a great driving force in the development of the story.

Oh, I see. I forgot about that. But still, I disagree with your interpretation... that text blurb about "love" is at the top of the page, and more of a general lead-in to the articles which concern relationships. But the actual section I quoted, the one devoted to Cybil, isn't really talking about Harry's relationship with Cybil. It's almost entirely devoted to discussing Cybil's fate. Let's re-examine exactly what it says, in depth:

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

The is the header. It's addressing the FMV that depicts Harry and Cybil together.

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...

This point of this section is to point out the contradiction between the Harry & Cybil FMV and the fact that Cybil isn't in the 3rd game. The question it is begging is, what is Cybil's fate? Note that this paragraph doesn't actually talk about Harry & Cybil's "relationship" or "love" at all.

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

This image blurb is basically doing the same thing as the previous paragraph, pointing out the contradiction between the FMV and SH3. Again, love is not mentioned.

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

After the question of "what is Cybil's fate?" has been raised, the creator directly tells you the answer. And the answer is... sorry, it's meant to be an unanswered question, and that's all we're going to say. Notice how "love" is not mentioned at all in this quote. It's entirely about Cybil's fate. That's the entire point of this section.

So no, I can't agree with your interpretation at all. It makes no sense to me. It seems extremely obvious that this section is about Cybil's fate, and what he's saying is very clear and straightforward. I can't see any good reason to dismiss it.

Since it is apparently okay to infer some things, I choose to infer others. The player can imagine her fate. The player's imagination does not play any role in deciding what is canon.

"Infering," huh? I'm just taking his words at face value. You're making things up.

I asked Jeremy recently and Tomm posted on facebook, that it seems that both endings can be considered canon. Really, if Cybil lives or not is minute concerning the series overall.

I agree with you 100%. Although I will say in defense of some of the people on this forum, I can totally understand why they might prefer that Cybil's character is dead for logic reasons.

[Lemex]

Oh, I see. I forgot about that. But still, I disagree with your interpretation... that text blurb about "love" is at the top of the page, and more of a general lead-in to the articles which concern relationships. But the actual section I quoted, the one devoted to Cybil, isn't really talking about Harry's relationship with Cybil. It's almost entirely devoted to discussing Cybil's fate. Let's re-examine exactly what it says, in depth:

This doesn't make any sense at all. Why wouldn't they just make an entirely new section dealing with the canonical ending? They already have sections dealing with the four main endings anyway so why put it in an article detailing the theme of love where it would be much easier to find else. That's essentially like pasting the goriest scenes from Saw into the end of The Elephant Man for the shit. Can you see why I might consider this quote-mining?

And I'm sure you've noticed by now but flowery interpretations really don't impress me.

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

The is the header. It's addressing the FMV that depicts Harry and Cybil together

.

Considering the page is about Love - note the capital L, and Cybil is mentioned on that page, and also since that is clearly an emphasized subheading - since it's further down the page, it is dealing with another representation of the theme of Love in SH1. Do you read any non-fiction?

This point of this section is to point out the contradiction between the Harry & Cybil FMV and the fact that Cybil isn't in the 3rd game. The question it is begging is, what is Cybil's fate? Note that this paragraph doesn't actually talk about Harry & Cybil's "relationship" or "love" at all.

I don't see how you can say this considering how they were given baby Heather. Love and human compassion clearly stopped Harry from just dumping the tot at the roadside. Philosophically Love has a mass of meanings which I can't believe you are ignoring. Maybe the paragraph is pointing to (I don't know) Cybil's influence on Harry? Maybe the cinematic is pointing to a possible romantic connection? Or even a connection based on a shared experience? Just a thought!

[Please note: No I'm not saying anything positive, nor am I making assumptions, just proving that there can be more than one interpretation]

This image blurb is basically doing the same thing as the previous paragraph, pointing out the contradiction between the FMV and SH3. Again, love is not mentioned.

It doesn't have to be. The rest of the page hammers the theme in nicely, it's mentioned 12 times on that page.

After the question of "what is Cybil's fate?" has been raised, the creator directly tells you the answer. And the answer is... sorry, it's meant to be an unanswered question, and that's all we're going to say. Notice how "love" is not mentioned at all in this quote. It's entirely about Cybil's fate. That's the entire point of this section.

Again. It doesn't have to be. And honestly, if a slightly more sophisticated version of 'I dunno - work it out yourself' is an answer then our world becomes a place where nothing and everything is an answer at the same time.

I also can't help but notice that that quote is given no references, and after an admittedly brief search I can't find that quote really anywhere outside Book of Lost Memories. So we don't know when the comment was made. It could have been made at any time after (maybe even during) SH1's development; and could, for all we know, have come from a time when the Bad endings could also have been considered valid.

So no, I can't agree with your interpretation at all. It makes no sense to me. It seems extremely obvious that this section is about Cybil's fate, and what he's saying is very clear and straightforward. I can't see any good reason to dismiss it.

Again. I'm not dismissing it. Are you even reading my posts anymore? Critical Evaluation. Google it. It'll help.

Besides. As I've pointed out, it doesn't say anything. At all. Because it could be used on any side of the argument regarding canon. Therefore it's not a good source to have when arguing a point. How can it be?

"Infering," huh? I'm just taking his words at face value. You're making things up.

Sorry dude, you seem like a nice guy and everything, but inconsistency is one of those things that make me just a little irate. You are not taking things at face value. You are interpreting, as you have even admitted. If you wish to say this then you have to disregard every interpretation you have admitted to making. Otherwise you have just contradicted yourself.

[alone in the town]

"Infering," huh? I'm just taking his words at face value. You're making things up.

Did Owaku say anything about the Good+ ending being a legitimate bridge to the rest of the series in that statement? I'm quite sure no words like that appear anywhere on that page, yet you inferred that it somehow contradicts the statement on the endings page. The entire argument against Good being uncontested canon is nothing but interpreting a certain statement in such a way that it contradicts a concrete statement.

And, if you're okay with doing that, so am I.

[Tillerman]

I also can't help but notice that that quote is given no references, and after an admittedly brief search I can't find that quote really anywhere outside Book of Lost Memories. So we don't know when the comment was made. It could have been made at any time after (maybe even during) SH1's development; and could, for all we know, have come from a time when the Bad endings could also have been considered valid.

The quote comes from the guidebook itself, which was written by the creators including Owaku. So I guess you could say "the quote was made" when the guidebook was published. I'm not exactly sure, but it seems to be between SH3 and SH4. I assume it was before SH4 since SH4 isn't mentioned in it.

Again. I'm not dismissing it. Are you even reading my posts anymore? Critical Evaluation. Google it. It'll help.

No need to be snarky... anyway, if we start getting to the point where we're debating the meaning of the word "dismissed," don't you think we've gone too far? If this conversation is reaching the point where you're starting to feel irritated, then perhaps it's best if we bring it to an end and simply accept that we have two very different viewpoints on this issue. Hey, no big deal... I'm sure there's lots of things we *do* agree about. Like David Lynch, for example.

Besides. As I've pointed out, it doesn't say anything. At all.

It says "What happens to her afterwards is left to players' imaginations." If the Good ending is meant to be canonical, then that's just plainly untrue.

Sorry dude, you seem like a nice guy and everything,

Thanks, I try.

but inconsistency is one of those things that make me just a little irate. You are not taking things at face value. You are interpreting, as you have even admitted. If you wish to say this then you have to disregard every interpretation you have admitted to making. Otherwise you have just contradicted yourself.

Well, to be fair, you're kind of right. But I feel like I am, *mostly* taking the quote at face value, and that the inferences I'm drawing are very natural. He says "What happens to her afterwards is left to players' imaginations." Taken at face value, those words mean that her fate is ambiguous. What conclusions we draw from that is where the interpretation comes in. Some conclusions flow naturally, others do not. It does *not* say anything about, as Ryan said, "The player's imagination does not play any role in deciding what is canon..." Where is he drawing that conclusion from?

I'm quite sure no words like that appear anywhere on that page, yet you inferred that it somehow contradicts the statement on the endings page.

That's not an "inference." It's a simple contradiction in logic. If Cybil is dead, then her fate isn't "left to the player's imaginations." So either Owaku is lying, or he's confused, or Cybil has no definitive fate.

[alone in the town]

That's not an "inference." It's a simple contradiction in logic. If the Good ending is the orthodox ending, and if "orthodox" means canonical, then she is dead. If she is dead, then her fate isn't left to the player's imaginations.

Really? Because I'm quite capable of imagining what her fate might be if she were to have survived. The ending doesn't have to be canon for a person to imagine its implications. Since the Bad endings do not result in Harry escaping, Good+ is the only other ending which leaves anything to the imagination. Owaku is really only pointing this out. He says nothing about canon. If you think he is, and you think that's not inference on your part, what is it?

[Lemex]

No need to be snarky... anyway, if we start getting to the point where we're debating the meaning of the word "dismissed," don't you think we've gone too far? If this conversation is reaching the point where you're starting to feel irritated, then perhaps it's best if we bring it to an end and simply accept that we have two very different viewpoints on this issue. Hey, no big deal... I'm sure there's lots of things we *do* agree about. Like David Lynch, for example.

I maybe should apologize. But when I've explained that I'm not dismissing something, but evaluating somethings merits, and you still consider that dismissing, I can't help but get a little tired in having to point that out for the 4th time.

And yeah. David Lynch rules.

It says "What happens to her afterwards is left to players' imaginations." If the Good ending is meant to be canonical, then that's just plainly untrue.

That's not what you could say when defending Good+. 'Left up to the player's imaginations' is a sentence seemingly designed not to give an opinion or answer, because it's designed to be open to interpretation. Whether this is intentional or not is unknown by us, and it's frankly beside the point.

Well, to be fair, you're kind of right. But I feel like I am, *mostly* taking the quote at face value, and that the inferences I'm drawing are very natural. He says "What happens to her afterwards is left to players' imaginations." Taken at face value, those words mean that her fate is ambiguous. What conclusions we draw from that is where the interpretation comes in. Some conclusions flow naturally, others do not. It does *not* say anything about, as Ryan said, "The player's imagination does not play any role in deciding what is canon..." Where is he drawing that conclusion from?

I'm not going to speak for the guy, he can do that perfectly well himself. Besides, why do you keep asking me to interpret Ryantology? This isn't the first time you've asked me to do so, and I can't help but find it a little odd.

And yes that quote is saying her fate is ambiguous, and no one is disputing that her fate is ambiguous. The problem is, I just can't take that quote seriously as a source - it's too risque, as I have tried to show. For one, to use that as the basis of an argument is quite honestly foolish, because it's not making an argument or comment to begin with other than her fate is ambiguous. So what can we do? Since it is too risque we have to not take it into account when formulating a final opinion on the matter of canon - this is not ignoring, this is in fact the opposite of that. It's just deciding the quote has no real merit.

So what can we do to find out her fate? Use logic and Critical Evaluation. Which always points to Good.

[Typographenia]

Besides, why do you keep asking me to interpret Ryantology?

You can't interpret Ryantology until you've experienced it!

[Lemex]

Besides, why do you keep asking me to interpret Ryantology?

You can't interpret Ryantology until you've experienced it!

Haha! I must experience it then.

[KingCrimson]

There seems to be a disconnect here that really comes down to language, so I think it would be helpful to separate two concepts:

"Word of God" Canon = determined solely by information provided by the authors of the narrative, whether (a) in the games through dialogue/exposition or (b) in supplementary materials.

"Most Charitable Interpretation" Canon = the explanation that fits best with the information given to us in-game, which requires the least amount of rationalization to fit the known facts, and assumes the story is well-written.

Word of God doesn't need to make any sense, as mentioned in an earlier post, as long as it carries the weight of authority by coming from official sources. Most Charitable Interpretation is when there are ambiguities in a narrative whose resolutions affect the quality of the piece. After all, it's possible to interpret the Bad ending as the truth, making all 8 of the sequels just part of a dream Harry is having after crashing his Jeep. Under that interpretation, the series is not as well-written, since the player should feel like the characters have real motivations. Regardless of what the creators say, most people would reject such an explanation as implausible.

I think this is all Ryantology and company are getting at with regards to Cybil. If we treat the Good+ ending as canon, several plot holes appear that did not previously exist: how did Harry know to use the liquid? how did Cybil beat him to the final boss area? did she keep in touch with Harry after the events? Taking the Good ending as definitive eliminates these questions and makes for a tighter story, which is the most charitable interpretation.

So, Tillerman is correct to say there is no established canon without creator input, and Lemex is correct in saying the Good+ ending is not canon... you're just using different meanings of the word 'canon.' The apparent disagreement vanishes if you treat them as separate concepts.

[alone in the town]

So, yeah. It's been fun, I guess.

Then again, the Round Earth Society still denies all those photographs taken from space.

[Edea]

I felt like I had to ask, might as well. Tomm and Jeremy didn't have the answer, so I went to Ito.

I'm sure some will still not believe it. It doesn't concern me, however. The end is only for the continuity of the series and doesn't necessarily mean that liking one ending over another is bad. All the endings are valid to the player.

[Aerith Gainsborough]

I'm glad this is finally resolved, though I really loved watching the discussion between everyone.

It's kinda sad, though. I had a glimmer of hope for Cybil to be alive...

[alone in the town]

I made my first thread about this a few days after beating Silent Hill 3. Even then it was obvious to me, and nine years later it still amazes me that this was ever a debate in the first place.

[Typographenia]

It's kinda sad, though. I had a glimmer of hope for Cybil to be alive...

She is. Just in a different ending. : )
Just because there is are sequels that use one of the endings as a base of operations doesn't mean the other endings of SH1 aren't any less valid to achieve.

[VIVIsect]

It's kinda sad, though. I had a glimmer of hope for Cybil to be alive...

She'll always be alive to me, regardless of what anybody says. The first time I played the game (back in 1999; completely blind), I managed to save her... I didn't even think it was an option to kill her. I thought that if I shot her, I'd get an instant "Game Over". I tried everything to save her. I got lucky with the red liquid.

[Tillerman]

I maybe should apologize. But when I've explained that I'm not dismissing something, but evaluating somethings merits, and you still consider that dismissing, I can't help but get a little tired in having to point that out for the 4th time.

Well I appreciate that. Like I said, I don't want to get into an argument with you about the definition of "dismissing..." but later on in your post you say that Owaku's quote has "no real merit." Now personally, I consider that "dismissing" it. But if you really don't like the word "dismiss," then I'll try my best not to use that word.

That's not what you could say when defending Good+. 'Left up to the player's imaginations' is a sentence seemingly designed not to give an opinion or answer, because it's designed to be open to interpretation. Whether this is intentional or not is unknown by us, and it's frankly beside the point.

I'm not defending the Good+ ending, exactly. I'm simply pointing out that the guidebook is inconclusive about which ending is Canon. If the creators truly agreed that the Good ending was Canon, then Owaku's quote makes no sense.

I'm not going to speak for the guy, he can do that perfectly well himself. Besides, why do you keep asking me to interpret Ryantology? This isn't the first time you've asked me to do so, and I can't help but find it a little odd.

You brought it up. You commented on my comment to him, saying something about me being unfair in saying that his interpretation is pulled out of thin air. But you're right... it's better to leave that conversation to me and Ryan. Well anyway I feel like that conversation is just about over as there's not much more to talk about, so it's probably best to just drop it.

And yes that quote is saying her fate is ambiguous, and no one is disputing that her fate is ambiguous. The problem is, I just can't take that quote seriously as a source - it's too risque, as I have tried to show. For one, to use that as the basis of an argument is quite honestly foolish, because it's not making an argument or comment to begin with other than her fate is ambiguous. So what can we do? Since it is too risque we have to not take it into account when formulating a final opinion on the matter of canon - this is not ignoring, this is in fact the opposite of that. It's just deciding the quote has no real merit.

"Risque"? Doesn't that mean provocative?

I guess we'll agree to disagree, because I believe the quote is important. It simply makes no sense for Owaku to say that Cybil's fate is "ambiguous" if the creators intended for her to be dead. The guidebook is supposed to be a secret revealing book, not a secret obscuring book. I find it impossible to believe that Owaku was deliberately trying to obscure a fact about the game... so then, what does his quote mean? Maybe there was a disagreement among the creators about whether her death should be canonical fact, or left ambiguous?

So, Tillerman is correct to say there is no established canon without creator input, and Lemex is correct in saying the Good+ ending is not canon... you're just using different meanings of the word 'canon.' The apparent disagreement vanishes if you treat them as separate concepts.

Thanks, you've made a great point. I don't usually think of canon as "most charitable interpretation," but if you want to look at it that way, then you're absolutely right.

Thanks for posting some real evidence. Now we at least know that one of the creators think's that Cybil is supposed to be dead. In light of this, it would be really interesting to hear from Owaku...

She'll always be alive to me, regardless of what anybody says. The first time I played the game (back in 1999; completely blind), I managed to save her... I didn't even think it was an option to kill her. I thought that if I shot her, I'd get an instant "Game Over". I tried everything to save her. I got lucky with the red liquid.

I hear you. I get a bit hung up with things like the guidebook sometimes, but I've always felt that what's great about Silent Hill is that it leaves room for so many different interpretations. I think we're each allowed to have our own personal interpretation of the story, and I think the creators would probably want it that way.