i know this has probably already been said before and im just late to the party again (plus, ironic given that a few reblogs ago i said a serious analysis would come later when nvm its happenin now ig AKJSHD), but i just had an idea of like
the thought about the whole platonic ideal of divorce thing that davey wreden said in his stream with dougdoug, n im just thinking about how maybe instead of divorce meaning a marital divorce, its a divorce/seperation of the narrator with life
like, what if the narrator in all versions of the game is just a snapshot of a real life narrator that cant change.
ok, maybe not like a real life narrator, but like, with us playing the game and thus reactivating this snapshot of sorts, we are reviving the narrator as a character in an unchangable state. like, he cant exactly change, there can be variations in dialogue, but compared to stanley where there are many endings and we can move however we please and we ourselves can change, the narrator cant. and sure ultra deluxe added more content which the narrator did change in some ways as a result of, but the contents limited to the point where that too will run out just like the HD remaster. like the game in a sense divorces him from life in such a way where a person can change and grow, it's an immortal snapshot of the narrator at a certain time of being that makes him incapable of true change. maybe thats why any deviations from the freedom ending arent welcomed as thats the players input, thats change, and he is completely separated from change as a concept
maybe this also ties into curators whole "stanley was already dead from the moment he hit start" line in the museum ending. with us playing the game and observing the game again as a snapshot, nothing will change, stanley wont ever truly die same with narrator, and despite it being replayable, without change theres no meaning, theres no life, theres no meaning in death












