Chisps 🧑‍🍼

Table of contents:

How it started

The portrayal of Geppetto

Other discrepancies

The call-in

The Nightmare Theory

Are Lea and Sophia identical?

"Is reality a dream?"

Conclusion & final words

How it started

It all started when I reached the Monad Charity House.

Up until that point, I was absolutely floored by the DLC. It made me cry six times – six. When I knew I was finally going to the Rose Estate – which was hyped up for pretty much the entirety of the DLC – I could barely contain my excitement. My wildest dreams as a LoP fan were literally coming true – and although I was mentally prepared for the depressing stuff that awaited me there, it was still pretty upsetting.

One thing that gave me a very unexpected emotional punch to the gut was Geppetto's letter you find in the Rose Estate – I actually could relate a lot to the feeling of loss Geppetto describes following Camille's death (particularly the quote "That's the trouble with finding heaven. Losing it is more terrible for having known it in the first place."), due to having felt the very same thing in the past myself.

However, as it happens, it was actually this exact letter that would bring about the big turnaround. Because after I had calmed down from my emotional rollercoaster ride and went through everything that had happened again in my head, I suddenly thought "Hold it – does that letter even line up with Geppetto's character?"

The portrayal of Geppetto

Let me start off by saying that I think Geppetto's grief about Camille's death is authentic, simply because it's a feeling that only someone who experienced it themself will know – and that can't be imitated.

However, I have serious doubts about Geppetto sending Carlo to the Charity House for the sake of his happiness – it glosses over the fact that Geppetto does not want to bring back Carlo as the person he was, but as the son he desires, which is very clear from the implications in Geppetto's dialogue.

Don't believe me? Here, I'll give you a few examples:

If Geppetto didn't feel the need to have absolute control over Pino's development, why would he react so unfavorably to the "unexpected change" of his hair growing out? And, more curiously, what gave him the idea that Romeo/the King of Puppets "or some other ruffians" were responsible for it? (This actually made me wonder if Carlo might've had long hair before his death to imitate Romeo's style, and Geppetto altered it because he hated it; you do hear Romeo's voice during the hair growth cutscene, and Sophia exclaims rather shocked "My heavens, you look..." before stopping herself.)

Speaking of which, provided Geppetto wanted for Carlo's ego to awaken and bring him back exactly as he was, wouldn't it have been more effective to introduce Pino and Romeo to each other instead of letting them fight? However, Geppetto's intention seems to have been quite the opposite of that: Details in Romeo's design hint at Geppetto wanting to avoid the two meeting at any cost, which would suggest Geppetto held some kind of personal resentment for Romeo (which might be further supported by yet another design detail). And would Geppetto really say Carlo grew up happily in the Charity House if he was of the opinion that the influence of Romeo "corrupted" his son somehow?

Moreover, how would Geppetto even know Carlo was "mischievous" if he practically never saw him? (At least I don't think there would've been much reason for Carlo to have a lot of inner bottled-up anger before Camille's death, as everything seems to have been love, peace, and harmony up until that point.) And Geppetto even says to Pino, with no small amount of disdain: "It seems you inherited his personality instead of his memories." His son's personality is obviously something undesirable for Geppetto, making it even more likely that Geppetto, in fact, never intended to bring back Carlo as he was – it's his son's memories Geppetto cares about, not his actual personality. (Has anyone ever explained to this man that personality is at least partially shaped by personal experiences, read: memories?)

Not to mention the rather loaded description of the Golden Lie, which reads: "The boy loved the fairy tale about the wooden puppet's adventure. At least the wooden puppet's father was kind." This description caused some raised eyebrows, because, as lopposting previously said, it's not even about Geppetto being an absent father – it's about him being an unkind father. So, could there be more to Geppetto's self-justifying "No father wants to resort to the lash"? Could this hint at his actual treatment of Carlo? (Which wouldn't be too out of the ordinary given the game's 19th-century-inspired setting.)

Even if you wanted to disregard all of my previous points as pure speculation, Geppetto delivers the most striking proof of his more-than-impassively-neglectful relationship with Carlo himself: The letter he leaves you after the Real Boy ending starts off with "Thank you for coming back to me Carlo. I no longer bear a grudge." Like, why would Geppetto bear a grudge towards Carlo if there wasn't an argument between them? This goes beyond Geppetto simply being an absent parent, implying there was an active conflict between the two – and if I had to guess, I'd say it was because Geppetto disagreed with Carlo's life decisions. (And if you ask me, Carlo's relationship with Romeo probably had something to do with it.)

And you aren't telling me that Geppetto ordering his newly revived son to kill a hotel full of people is something he did out of grief. This is something a control-obsessed man would do – a man for whom everything has to work in the exact way he imagines it, or else it's not perfect.

I will say that I would be willing to go along insofar that Geppetto developed his control mania from the grief about Camille's death (which is something I've been through myself, as in "everything must be perfect so nothing goes wrong again"). Maybe this letter isn't a 100% truthful representation of his character, either – Antonia may be a close friend of Geppetto, but he still might not want to look bad in front of her.

However, if one domino falls, the others are soon to follow – and after the stuff about Geppetto, I began to notice other things that just didn't seem to quite fit in.

Other discrepancies

As it happens, there's another strange thing from Geppetto's letter that stood out to me: In the letter, Geppetto describes how jealous he was of young Venigni's accomplishments, and judging by the context, he met Camille at some point afterward.

But wait: Wasn't Puppet Camille – supposedly possessing human Camille's Ergo (also supported by the Madman's Journal) – the first known puppet to have an ego? Venigni's parents were murdered by Arlecchino when he was still a child, and he was clearly grown up at the time the letter is referring to – but that means Camille can only have been the second puppet with an ego at most, as Arlecchino existed beforehand.

Granted, "probably the first puppet with an ego found by the order" doesn't have to mean "definitely the first puppet with an ego found by the order". However, the article about Venigni you find in the main game says that he "came up with the Grand Covenant of the automated puppets and built the best manufacturing company at the age of 18". And the document about Puppet Camille's discovery explicitly states that the Grand Covenant was introduced after Camille was discovered. So: How the fuck can Venigni be running his business while Camille is still alive???

Also, presuming that the events of the DLC did actually take place in the past: How the hell did Arlecchino end up in Arche Abbey, pinned to the wall as he is in the main game? Lea has very clearly expressed her desire to make him pay for what he did to Romeo, but assuming Pino wasn't around – and he definitely wouldn't have been in the past – she would've been in no shape to defeat Arlecchino by herself. (Not to mention that without the key Pino returned to her, Lea most likely would've been unable to get into the Rose Estate in the first place.) As Lea herself said: "The last time I fought Arlecchino, I just barely managed to get the upper hand. And that was when I was healthy." And she is definitely not in good health at this point. So, if Lea can't bring him down, who is supposed to stop Arlecchino?

Sophia's diary that you find in her room makes the timeline even more confusing: The journal entry was clearly written shortly after Carlo's death, mentioning Romeo and Lea still grieving over him. Consequently, Carlo must've died when it was already winter; but at the point when the DLC takes place, it is still winter. So how much time has passed since Carlo's death? A few weeks? Months? When Lea talks about Carlo's death, it sounds like something that happened quite some time ago. How long has this winter (that most likely has unnatural causes, as implied by one of the loading screen tips) been going on?

Also, why the heck is there a print of the exact same photo from Romeo's locket in Sophia's room when the one in the locket, according to Lea, is the last print left? If Lea is also part of the Monad family and close to Sophia (as the presence of the photo in her room implies), wouldn't she be aware of this?

Now, I'm all too familiar with plot holes in video games, and if I see anything that smells like a plot hole in the slightest, I'm immediately on guard. Unfortunately, I also have quite the trauma of video game sequels messing with the lore of the original, as well as games ruining their story right before the finishing line. And the mere thought that this might be the case for Lies of P, of all things, was absolutely unbearable for me.

Lies of P is one of my most treasured games – the people who have read my past articles will know how much love and passion I invested into this game. And the possibility that all of that was for nothing... was killing me from the inside.

Granted, there was still a chance it would be revealed that all of this took place in an alternate timeline – perhaps the original timeline of the LoP universe before Sophia started turning back time (as was my own pre-release theory). If that was the case, it would honestly be a pretty genius plot twist and solve all the issues I named above (because it all would've taken place in a different reality anyway and thus wouldn't have affected the main timeline). The problem was just one key word: if.

I will admit that I'm an incorrigible pessimist, simply because clinging to false hope has always hurt me more than being prepared for the worst. That's why I always say "if you're not prepared for both outcomes – good and bad – don't do it". But in that moment, I wasn't – I knew that if my doubts were correct, I wouldn't be able to handle the intense anger and disappointment that I'd be feeling (because that's just how it is with autism and no filters).

Therefore, I decided to spare myself that emotional torture by doing a call-in. Read: I purposefully spoiled/informed myself about the rest of the DLC's story, including the ending.

The call-in

At first, it seemed like my worst fears were confirmed.

Not only was there no confirmation the DLC was set in a different timeline, there were also alterations – minimal, but still – in the current timeline after the completion of the DLC, as if you actually changed the future by changing the past.

But... wouldn't that kinda defeat the core message of Lies of P? At least to me, one of the main themes of Lies of P always was that no matter how often you turned back time, there are some things that are simply bound to happen (e.g. Carlo's death and the entire disaster that befell Krat). But if you actually managed to achieve some changes by turning back time... Why should you stop there? Why couldn't you keep trying until you found a way to save everyone and prevent the catastrophe that happened in Krat? Why wouldn't Sophia have done this, if it was possible? (And isn't this entire train of thought veering dangerously close to Geppetto, as in changing reality until it's the shape you like?)

Not to mention that the DLC ending itself is the most confusing thing imaginable – like, why would Lea fight so hard to defeat Arlecchino and save Romeo, but when Geppetto comes with his suitcase and unleashes the Nameless Puppet, she just sits there and gives up. Like, WTF? (Granted, Lea had no weapon at the end because she gave her sword to Pino, but she might've been able to use the blades Arlecchino dropped during his phase change; either way, I don't see her as one to simply give up.)

Also, suppose the entire plan of "changing the future by changing the past" actually worked... Wouldn't that create a discontinuity with Arlecchino at Arche Abbey? I mean, he surely wouldn't be there if his body was destroyed after the fight at the Rose Estate. But when you go to Arche Abbey after the DLC, he's still sitting there, pinned to the wall at the same place in the same room. So: How the fuck is that possible? (Mind you, Arlecchino tells you that he found the way to the Trinity Sanctum himself by "interrogating" an Alchemist; and the Alchemists reviving Arlecchino and giving him a new body again after everything that's happened would honestly be mighty stupid, even for them.)

On the other hand, if you don't play the DLC before Arche Abbey – so, hypothetically, Arlecchino escaped from the Rose Estate and continued his rampage until someone managed to nail him down (pun intended) in that Trinity Sanctum – why is it that his body in the Arche Abbey looks so widely different from his body during the boss fight? (His body during the boss fight is much larger than in Arche Abbey, as well as different in shape and color.)

Besides, what even is that red goo that Arlecchino uses to go into Super Saiyan mode? Blood? I mean, symbolically, I get why it would be blood, but I have to ask from a logical standpoint: How does a puppet buff itself with blood?

Moreover, just what is going on with Romeo's storyline? Pre-DLC, we had that loading screen tip about Romeo suffering from the Petrification Disease and "making a deal with the devil to save more people" – presumably meaning that he made a deal with Geppetto to give him a puppet body. However, watching the ending of the DLC, you might think that after killing Lea, Geppetto simply kidnapped Romeo and turned him into the King of Puppets against his will (at least that's what one person on Reddit assumed*), which would decanonize the main game loading screen tip. (Which, personally, I'd consider pretty lazy writing, since that's essentially forcing a plot twist with a retcon).

*I was unable to find the exact post again, however.

However, at the end of the DLC, Romeo shows no signs of having the Petrification Disease – and in order to be turned into the King of Puppets, he must have had the Petrification Disease, cuz otherwise, his Ergo wouldn't exist. Remember: No Ergo, no puppets. And no Petrification Disease, no Ergo. (The same would go for Carlo, btw, as his Ergo resides in Pino's heart.)

But what other reason would Geppetto have to let Romeo live, presuming he only killed Lea (probably telling Romeo Arlecchino killed Lea or whatever)? As explained above, I don't think Geppetto thought too highly of Romeo, and I wouldn't assume Geppetto to be a charitable man unless there's something in it for himself. (Pre-DLC, I used to think that Carlo died in the Rose Estate incident while Romeo was one of the only survivors, and when Romeo sought shelter in Geppetto's house, Geppetto used that opportunity to question him about what actually happened at the Rose Estate and to his son; however, in the context of the DLC, I can't think of any information that Romeo specifically possesses and that Geppetto would desire.) And I don't think Geppetto simply killed Lea and left Romeo at the Rose Estate (whatever the reason for that would be), because, well… there's no way Romeo is gonna make it back through that horror house in the state he's in.

Also, Lea's family relations threw a complete wrench into all of my expectations – I mean, the pre-release theory that Lea was Sophia's twin sister existed, since they both share the same hairstyle, so Lea being part of the Monad family is not what I'm surprised by. It's the fact that Lea and Sophia's faces are almost identical, yet Lea is supposedly Sophia's adoptive sister.

I'm actually baffled that I've seen no one – no characters in-game and no people online – remark on the resemblance of Lea and Sophia. When I saw Lea's face reveal, I inwardly went: "Holy shit! Could my own pre-release theory that Lea is Sophia's past self actually be true?" But then, when I saw Lea's letter and the family portrait, I was just like "...The fuck?"

Speaking of Lea, why does she only seem to have very vague recollections of Carlo? When she meets Pino, she remarks that he looks sort of familiar, but can't quite put her finger on it – only at the end, right before Pino dissolves, she realizes who he was. Meanwhile, Rosaura, another character from the DLC, recognizes Pino as "looking like her old friend" (= Carlo).

But why would Lea, of all people, not know what Carlo looked like? Granted, it's possible that Geppetto intentionally created Pino to look like Carlo when he was younger, so he wouldn't look like he did right before he died. Still, Lea did meet Carlo when he was younger and just graduated; and even if Pino does look different from Carlo, why wouldn't Lea recognize her own fighting style (only describing Pino's movements as "oddly familiar") when the Red Fox and the Battle Maniac of the Black Rabbit Brotherhood in the main game do?

At least, those were my thoughts right after seeing the ending of the DLC.

I was so frustrated by all of this that at some point, I thought to myself "Y'know, all of this bullshit would make a lot more sense if the DLC was just a fever dream of Lea."

...

"Wait... That actually makes perfect sense!"

The Nightmare Theory

In the vein of the ME3 Indoctrination Theory, I chose to dub this the "Nightmare Theory": Basically, the entire DLC is just a fever dream of Lea, born out of her unprocessed fears, guilt, and wishes, and our job is to help her escape from this nightmare by coming to terms with the past. Thus, Overture isn't an objective look at the past of the LoP universe (as in all events from the DLC 100% actually happened), but rather a subjective one, from Lea's perspective.

However, while one of the Mass Effect writers said – and I quote – "we weren't that smart" in regard to the Indoctrination Theory, I feel like the LoP devs would absolutely be smart enough to do something like this, and there are even some small hints scattered throughout the DLC that seem to suggest as much.

In fact, what got me the idea that the DLC might be a nightmare of Lea was the Nightmare record – and after that first realization, I suddenly noticed just how prominent the theme of nightmares and dreaming was in relation to the DLC: We have the Nightmare's Amulet (special amulet from the Guardian of the Ruins), Klaus says "Imagining others reaching the light after a dark night gives me hope this nightmare will end" (this video, at 16:12), Geppetto was "trapped inside a dark nightmare of his own creation" according to the description of the Genius Meister's Monocle, the description of the Puppet Prince's Imperial Crown says that Adelina's voice "captivated many with its dreamlike performances" but that the crown "vanished like a dream" (this video, at 2:29), and even the appendix of Antonia's letter added after the DLC talks about "the pain and nightmares of the past".

At the beginning of the second phase of his fight, Arlecchino downright prompts Lea "Show me your truest fears!", with Lea responding "As you wish."

So, is this what this is actually all about? Is Arlecchino in Overture simply a nightmare demon conjured up by Lea's worst fears, and him kidnapping Romeo never actually happened? (It would certainly make more sense than Arlecchino simply knowing where Romeo is, Arlecchino speed-walking from the sea shore to the zoo, phasing through the walls of the zoo cave without a key, having infinite inventory space to store candles, creating some weird "sculpture" by sticking together dead bodies with a large amount of wax that he somehow managed to heat up in the middle of winter, being able to buff himself with the almighty red goo, and expertly giving Romeo functioning arm prostheses despite having no medical education.)

It would also explain a lot of other weird, rather disconnected plot points in the DLC: How did a white butterfly manage to free Rosaura from her cage, and how did her lost shoes end up in a chest at the Carnival Garden? Would Lea really be so careless as to simply forget her key in the lock down at the Zelator Laboratory? And how the heck did Lumacchio know that Lea would go down into the laboratory, since he planned to lay a trap for both Lea and Véronique? (And I hardly believe Arlecchino and Lumacchio were allies; Arlecchino is his own authority, acting independent of the Alchemists.)

Speaking of Lumacchio, how is it possible that he was ill, as stated in Medoro's notebook? "Illness" most likely implies Petrification Disease, but prior to taking the Alchemists' carcass turn-potion elixir, he seemed to be doing fine (discounting him being sick in the head). Medoro would have no reason to lie about Lumacchio's state, so how does this add up?

Lumacchio isn't the only NPC either whose role deviates from what's implied in the main game: In the DLC, the real, actual Alidoro never told anyone his real name, not even his acquaintances; furthermore, real Alidoro is known by the moniker "The Tracker", unlike in the main game where he is known as "The Hound" (Eugénie says a Stalker known as "The Hound" saved her life, and she was definitely saved by the real Alidoro). While Alidoro could've changed monikers in the meantime, it's strange how in the main game, Alidoro not only has considerable fame as a treasure hunter, his real name also seems to be widely known (e.g. by Hugo). This could be explained by Fake Alidoro blazoning himself out with his name, although that might be of questionable effectiveness if no one previously knew Alidoro's name (and also potentially dangerous given real Alidoro was wanted by the Alchemists). But why would Alidoro tell the Parrot, of all people, his real name if he didn't even tell Lea?

Speaking of which: Where even is the Parrot in the DLC? He was Alidoro's partner, so why wouldn't he be there?

Medoro – who was a close friend of Alidoro, according to Hugo – is also completely absent from the DLC at a first glance. However, based on his post-game letter that you find, there is the theory that Klaus might be Medoro. That only makes things more confusing, though – first off, in regard to Medoro's notebook mentioned above, how would Klaus/Medoro even know about Lumacchio's fate? He only tells you that Lumacchio left "for business", and you can't even tell him about Lumacchio's betrayal and death. Second, Medoro is "quite a medic", according to Hugo, but in the DLC, we don't see any of that – by the looks of it, the only thing Klaus does is trading with antiquities.

Actually, it's interesting how Klaus/Medoro and Alidoro's roles are essentially reversed in the DLC: In the main game, Alidoro is the renowned antiquities dealer instead of Klaus, while in the DLC, Alidoro has a desire to reveal the truth to the people, like Medoro does in the main game. Meanwhile, in his cryptic vessel from the main game, Alidoro outright says "some truths are better left unknown"; granted, his attitude might've changed after learning about "the biggest secret of Krat", but it's still a noteworthy difference. Also, unlike what Hugo's dialogue in the main game implies, Klaus/Medoro and Alidoro aren't particularly close acquaintances in the DLC – they took shelter in the same hotel, but neither of the two ever mentions the other, so it seems like they didn't interact much.

I never thought I'd use the words "intentional plot holes" or "canonically not canon", but I get the feeling this actually applies to the DLC – otherwise, if this whole thing wasn't just some crazy nightmare of Lea (or at least an alternate timeline), I wouldn't know how to explain these small but in their sum substantial discrepancies. On that note, I wonder if Klaus' response to the Doubt gesture to "question everything" might be more than just a throwaway line – perhaps this is the devs, very subtly, telling us to not take everything we see in the DLC at face value. (Actually, in some corner of my brain, I wonder if the devs said to themselves "hehe, let's see how many people actually believe this shit" when designing the DLC and are chuckling at the fans toiling to make sense of this chaos.)

Even the description of the Rose Garden Key implies there might be something not quite right with the DLC timeline: The text says "Having lost their caretaker, the roses now gleam crimson, an ill-timed vision of bloom amidst the backdrop of white snow." At first, I thought "yeah, that's because of the bloodbath". But upon reading it a second time, I went "Wait... How are there even blooming roses in winter?" (I had actually wondered something similar about the trees with autumn-colored leaves at the Carnival Garden; either, the onset of winter must've been very sudden, or it's another anachronic abnormality.) Might this be yet another hint that the DLC is simply a vision of the past, and not the actual past?

On that note, I wonder if Lumacchio and Klaus laughing at Pino for asking about the year might be more than your classic cryptic Soulslike storytelling – perhaps they can't tell Pino the time because, well, in a dream, there is no time.

There's also the fact that the trophy for completing the DLC is called "The Rose's Memory". To me, that's a very clear indication that Overture does, in fact, take place in Lea's memories. However, human memories aren't objective recordings, but subjective experiences – and if this is indeed a nightmare of Lea, real events she experienced have most likely mixed with her own emotions, imaginings, and trauma.

Also, this means that the depiction of all characters in the DLC is based on Lea's perception of them and might not 100% line up with their actual personalities – so, if the Alchemists and Arlecchino seem more evil and imposing in the DLC than Geppetto, that's because Lea considered the Alchemists and Arlecchino to be the greater danger, while Geppetto was never really on her radar as a potential threat. (In regard to the letters of Antonia and Geppetto, I've been wondering whether the reason they're "undelivered" might be that they never actually existed; perhaps they were simply born out of a wish of Lea, like "Carlo, I wish your father was actually concerned for your happiness and acknowledged his mistakes", but Geppetto himself never wrote those words.)

That, of course, leaves the question what of Overture even is real – and if my theory that the DLC is a dream is correct, it might be impossible to tell. (Also, if Lea's memories are indeed from a different timeline, the events from the DLC might not even be valid to the current timeline, and everything might have happened in a more or less different way.)

In short: We know absolutely for certain. (Which means we're just as far as we were before the DLC.) So, sorry to disappoint all those who were expecting the DLC to deliver us some hard facts about the past of the LoP verse, but I don't think this is how it works.

However, we've at least found an explanation for all the weird stuff in the DLC: Time and chronology are irrelevant because it's a dream, no liability for 100% accurate character depiction because it's Lea's perception, if there are plot holes it's because dreams aren't obligated to make sense.

Except... If it's a dream, why are there changes to the canon timeline because of it?

Granted, it's nothing big, but still, there are little traces of the DLC's timeline in the main game after completing it.

But how is this possible if the DLC is just a dream and didn't actually happen? If anyone in the LoP verse has the power to decide over what's real and what's not, it would be Sophia.

Or... is Lea actually Sophia?

Are Lea and Sophia identical?

As I mentioned above, I already had the theory that Lea and Sophia might be identical pre-DLC release (for the full post, see here), which was largely based on the fact that in the original novel of Pinocchio, the Blue Fairy takes over the role as Pinocchio's older sister at first (which would be equivalent to Lea and Carlo's relationship), and then, after being "reborn", she becomes a mother figure for Pinocchio (equivalent to how Sophia becomes P's "surrogate mom").

At first, I thought the Reddened Tailcoat from the DLC confirmed that Carlo considered Lea his "big sis", which would've made this theory even more fitting. However, re-reading the description of the Reddened Tailcoat after the DLC, it seems like it belonged to Romeo rather than Carlo, and according to Overture lore, Lea is Sophia's adoptive sister instead of her past self.

Still, I couldn't get the fact that Lea and Sophia look so much alike out of my head – so, I did a direct comparison to check if their faces are actually the same.

The lower part of their faces – chin, jawline, nose – looks extremely similar, and although Lea wears no earrings, you can see what looks like former earlobe piercings if you look closely.

At the same time, there are differences: Lea's eyes are a bit larger than Sophia's, their eyebrows are differently shaped and colored, and Sophia has a beauty mark on her left cheek which Lea lacks, while Lea has what looks like a healed scar across her nose/under her eyes.

On the other hand, it is curious that Lea and Sophia appear to have the exact same height – I do not have access to in-game models so I can't do a 1:1 comparison, but standing next to Sophia, you can see that Pino has about the same height as her, and when Pino and Lea enter the Rose Estate, you can see that Lea is also about as tall as Pino is:

So, while Lea and Sophia don't look exactly the same, they do bear a striking resemblance, down to their height. And I'd argue that the probability of Valentinus adopting a girl who looks this similar to his biological daughter by sheer coincidence is next to zero. (That makes me wonder if Lea and Sophia actually are twins, but Valentinus and Lady Isabelle either gave Lea away as a child, or she was taken away from them; what could be the reason for that, though?)

Curiously enough, the scene of Lea holding Romeo at the end of the DLC also feels quite reminiscent of Sophia holding P in the Rise of P ending:

Moreover, there's an interesting detail that caught my eye while making my way through Arche Abbey after completing the DLC: The door that leads to the room Sophia is trapped in is decorated with roses.

Why are there roses on the door of Sophia's room? Roses are Lea's symbol, not Sophia's.

This makes me wonder if there might be something to the theory of Lea = Sophia after all – but if they were indeed separate people once (as both the DLC and the memories at the Black Seaside suggest), how would they have become one?

My best guess would be that Simon did some sort of experiment that merged Lea and Sophia's souls somehow – that, on the other hand, would raise the question why he was even interested in Lea. Unlike Sophia, we know nothing about Lea possessing any special kind of powers – the DLC, however, is strongly associated with the theme of fate, and with the Rose Sword, Lea can summon what looks like threads, with "threads of fate" being a thing in various mythologies (in relation to fate spinners such as the Greek Moirai or Norse Norns).

So, who knows – perhaps Lea had some special powers that she wasn't even aware of. If she was secretly Sophia's twin sister after all, it wouldn't be too surprising. (Actually, if that was the case, could this be the reason Lea was separated from her biological parents as a child?)

We do have that one loading screen tip about Lea's disappearance which, notably, doesn't say that she died, simply that she "vanished", but that no one knows "what purpose her disappearance could serve". The fact that it's this specifically phrased makes me believe there was some kind of purpose to her disappearance – and if the DLC is an unreliable narrator anyway, it might as well have something to do with Simon (actually, Geppetto might've even killed Lea and brought Simon her Ergo upon Simon's request).

Admittedly, this is a bit of a wild guess, but if Lea did have special abilities, I wonder how this would've influenced Sophia's own. Until now, I always assumed Sophia developed her time manipulation skills because of the huge amount of Ergo she was exposed to, but perhaps Lea – if her soul was assimilated into Sophia's – might also have something to do with it. Being able to hear Ergo voices is one thing, but using Ergo to turn back time is something entirely else, and we don't know of any other listener who could do the latter (Lady Isabelle and Camille being the only known ones). Perhaps Sophia's time manipulation skills can only work thanks to Lea's Ergo, with time (= Sophia) and fate (= Lea) being two sides of the same coin.

Lea being part of Sophia would certainly explain a lot of things. For starters, it would make sense why the DLC canonically takes place from Chapter 9 onwards: The late game is when Sophia's state reaches its absolute breaking point, and in addition to her physical suffering, perhaps old memories of a long forgotten part of herself – namely, Lea – are resurfacing as well.

It would also explain why Lea's dream, specifically, is so important, and how she can be dreaming in the first place (after all, a dead person can't dream). Furthermore, it would provide an explanation for how Lea is able to speak to Pino through the memory at the Black Seaside, and why her memory is there to begin with – all the other, blue memories seem to belong to Carlo, but the single red one, where Lea stands over Carlo's dead body, appears to be Lea's (which also makes more sense, as Carlo would have no memory of being dead). While Carlo's memories are most likely triggered by the presence of Carlo's Ergo in P's heart, how would Lea's memory get there? Unless, that is, she's actually present.

Consequently, I see the white butterflies in the DLC as an embodiment of Lea's wish: She's unable to deal with her trauma of being unable to save Carlo and Romeo, and thus stuck in the past, she can't move on. Therefore, I essentially view the DLC as us assisting Lea in dying – it would be far from the first time we helped a NPC to die in Lies of P (Alexander's sidequest from Overture and the decision with Sophia at Arche Abbey come to mind), and with Lea's conscience being at ease, Pino's role in her dream is fulfilled, and he dissolves and returns to his own timeline. Meanwhile, the post-credits scene is basically Lea accepting the past and saying "Okay – the past is the past, a lot of bad things happened. We can't change that. However, what we can change is the future." And this is when she places the future in Pino's hands.

Due to Lea being part of Sophia, we are able to bring items from Lea's dream with us into the real timeline, and due to an "overlap" of actual reality and Lea's dream reality, we find what can be considered remnants of the latter in the current time, e.g. items such as the golden rose (given that the rose is "a golden tribute to the stories left behind, beyond the infinite repetition of time", my theory about Lea's memories being from the original timeline of the LoP verse might actually not be entirely out of the picture). I don't think the NPCs are necessarily aware of this "overlap", though – the memo of Antonia's letter seems to reference events of the DLC, but I find it difficult to imagine that Pino told everyone at the hotel in detail about what happened in the Forgotten Time, much less that anyone would believe him (it sort of reminds me of this pre-release meme, actually). Perhaps these memories only exist in the subconsciousness of the NPCs, or perhaps it was Lea's influence itself that put the letter of Klaus and the appendix of Antonia's there.

In any case, I wouldn't know how a painting physically changing could be explained other than it originating from a dream reality – not to mention a blind person creating said painting. With all due respect, I do not think that a blind person without assistance could, realistically, paint on a canvas with the same precision as Goddard did. If the painting itself originates from a dream and doesn't abide by the rules of reality, though? That makes a lot more sense.

Actually, I see the changing of Goddard's painting (and The Clear Blue Sky, the record associated with it) as a sort of representation of Lea's character development: She was trapped in the darkness of her trauma the whole time, being able to see no light, but with our help, she was finally able to let go of her past fears and die in peace – and subsequently, being able to embrace a new day and being reborn as part of Sophia. (Blue being Sophia's symbolic color; also, I already remarked on how the Star's Chrysalis, the DLC access item, can be seen as a symbol of transformation pre-release.)

Btw: Taeddy Vante, a friend of mine who also watched my Overture Let's Play, remarked that the Blind Painter could also be a metaphor for how in a dream, you're blind to the fact that you're dreaming – in that case, you could actually read the ending as Lea realizing "Ah, I've been dreaming all along", with "the veil being lifted" from her eyes (The Clear Blue Sky description), which I think is awesome.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the flowers in Goddard's painting are lilies. (Btw: The menu screen with the burning opera house you get after defeating Romeo also features lilies.)

Lilies are traditionally flowers symbolizing grief, but they're also associated with purity, rebirth, and the ascension of the deceased's soul to heaven, establishing a connection between life and death. Thus, the lilies further emphasize Lea overcoming her grief, with her now cleansed soul eventually being able to be reborn.

Speaking about the meaning of flowers, I'd also like to point out that the rose in the icon of Lea's last recorded message is white instead of red, like with all her other messages:

A Warning to Markiona

A Request to a Friend

Lea's Will

Lea's Recollection

The rose of her last message is dedicated "To Carlo", as the tag reads, but I also like to view the rose changing color from red to white as a sign that Lea is now able to move on and look forward to the future. Because white roses not only symbolize remembrance and honoring the dead, but also purity, hope, and new beginnings. And what could be a better fit for Lea at this moment?

"Is reality a dream?"

In any case, Lea being an "aspect" of Sophia is the best explanation I currently have for how Lea's nightmare can alter reality. Actually, when looking up some main game dialogue, I realized that the word "nightmare" appears rather frequently in the main game as well: In the factory, Venigni wonders "How did this nightmare come to be?", at the Grand Exhibition, Sophia implores P to "save Krat from this nightmare", and even a line from the Frozen Man's Letter reads "I wish this nightmare was all over".

I would like to point out it's not impossible that the entire game is a dream by Sophia – perhaps, in the real world, Krat has already been destroyed and all of its citizens are long dead.

But what does "reality" even mean in the LoP verse? Sophia is able to turn back time by using Ergo, but Ergo is, in essence, the frozen memory of dead people. Human memory, however, is subjective and prone to fault – in a past reblog, I even remarked on the absolute irony that what the Alchemists call "truth itself" deconstructs the very concept of an objective truth.

Therefore, "time" in the LoP verse is not an objective value – it's not a physical quantity, but born from subjective experiences. Actually, I've been wondering whether the reason Sophia is able to turn back time might be that all of Krat is already infected with the Petrification Disease, at least in a dormant state – that, of course, raises the question how the disease breaks out (or "goes into an active state"), but that's something that'll have to remain a mystery for now. We do, however, have that interesting DLC loading screen tip about some people saying "all of this has happened before" when the Petrification Disease broke out, and I already had the theory that Ergo is an alien gestalt intelligence in the past. (I compared it to both the Crystal from Atlantis: The Lost Empire and the Protomolecule from The Expanse.)

Taking this thought experiment a little further, I wondered if Krat itself might've "fallen out of time", so to speak. We have references to real people, places, and works of art in the game – Paracelsus is the name of a Swiss physician who was also an alchemist back in his time, the Estella Opera House looks almost exactly like the Opéra Garnier in Paris, and the Moon World Warrior Toy is a reference to "Le voyage dans le lune" ("A Trip to the Moon"), the 1902 movie by Georges Méliès (the life and work of Georges Méliès has also been the topic of "The Invention of Hugo Cabret", which prominently features a clockwork automaton as well).

So, could it be possible that Krat was once part of the real world, but... drifted apart, sort of? There are still recollections of its inhabitants of other countries and other times, but all of it is vague, far away, and not quite clear – as human memories tend to be.

However, because time and reality of the LoP verse are "generated" out of these people's experiences, time in the LoP verse is equally vague with no precise dates, and the world itself is made up of images and places in people's memories that have been mixed together in the reality of LoP.

But perhaps this is taking it a bit far – my point is, time and reality in the LoP verse are entirely subjective, and thus, changeable. (If you wanted, you could say nothing is real in the LoP universe – on the other hand, you could also argue that everything is true. It depends on interpretation, really.)

Conclusion & final words

Of course, even this comprehensive theory of mine still leaves some questions unanswered, and I have yet to replay Overture to verify the validity of it all. Also, considering the changeable nature of time and reality in LoP, it's up for debate whether this would make Overture the "new" past of the LoP verse, simply because this is how Lea/Sophia believes it happened. (Personally though, I'd find that rather lame because the DLC's storyline makes Romeo look like a complete victim and makes it seem like he had no competence to fend for himself whatsoever; I think he deserves better than that. Also, Arlecchino is just completely OP in the DLC and I dislike him – so, not gonna happen in my reality. :P)

However, if I'm sure about one thing, it's that Overture can't be the objective past of the LoP universe. "How does Overture fit into the main timeline?" is therefore not the question we should be asking – "How much of Overture actually happened?" is a much better one. And if Overture is indeed a nightmare of Lea, it might be impossible to find a definitive answer to that, given how reality and imagination tend to merge in dreams. (If I had to guess though, I'd say that at least the stuff about the Alchemists from the DLC is largely accurate; Lea was formerly part of the Monad family, so it would make sense for her to know a lot about their internal affairs.)

The DLC is a riddle that only each individual person themself can find their own solution to – and honestly, looking back at it, I feel almost foolish for ever expecting the DLC to be anything else. I seriously believed Overture would give definitive answers to what happened in the past of the LoP universe, and that somehow, these answers would line up with what I had previously come up with in my own head.

But Overture isn't a record written in stone of "this is how it happened" – the story, at its heart, is about Lea, and her feelings about what happened to her apprentices. And by putting Lea's troubled soul to rest, we give Sophia's other half peace, enabling Lea/Sophia to make a fresh start for herself and all of Krat – and that is how Overture is the completion of Lies of P to me.

On that note, I feel like I need to amend a statement that I made last year: I said that the way to recognize a masterpiece is to feel yourself longing for it when you get into a new piece of media.

However, Lies of P: Overture taught me an important lesson: A masterpiece is never created – it's always something you finish yourself.

To put it in Lea's words: