I have previously written blog-posts about the hypothesis that the story of Sir Peter in the “Sir Peter” storybook is really a story of metaphors about Mr. Hoffman, his sexual dirtiness (from a child’s perspective), and his murder at the orphanage. See my previous blog-posts:

“Sir Peter” Storybook: The Story of Hoffman? (Part 1)
Clara and Hoffman: Mermaid and Hare?

Sir Peter is depicted in the “Sir Peter” storybook as standing upright (also walking and running) on two legs, holding an umbrella, and dressed like a man in a suit-coat and hat.

The hat may be an important clue that supports the above mentioned hypothesis that the “Sir Peter” storybook tells Hoffman’s story.

If you take Jennifer to the Headmaster’s Closet in the orphanage, you will see there a very tall black hat with a grey band.  I believe that one can accurately describe this hat both as a top hat and as a stovepipe hat.  Sir Peter is also depicted as wearing a dark hat of this type (and one that appears as though it may also have a lighter band, like the grey band of Mr. Hoffman’s hat).

Is it just a coincidence that both Mr. Hoffman and Sir Peter have the same peculiar hat?  I think not.  I think that this is a clue that connects Mr. Hoffman to Sir Peter in the Sir Peter storybook.

~

I think that it is also relevant that Mr. Hoffman is the “boss” of the “Sir Peter” chapter of the Rule of Rose game.  In terms of game-play logic, I would think that this indicates a special connection between Mr. Hoffman and the “Sir Peter” theme… which is consistent with the idea that the “Sir Peter” storybook tells us Hoffman’s story.

~

Another possible connection between the rabbit and Hoffman might relate to the sexual reputations of rabbits.  I don’t know how far back that reputation goes or how culturally limited that reputation might be.  Today we have Playboy bunnies, and the expression “f##k like bunnies”.

And, of course, there can be a sexual meaning to the word “peter”, giving the title “Sir Peter” a different connotation.

Tags: ,
38 Responses to ““Sir Peter” Storybook: The Story of Hoffman? (Part 2)”
  1. Plague says:

    This may be a stretch but perhaps Mr. Hoffman’s first name was in fact Peter?
    As far as my knowledge goes the headmaster was never referred to as a first name.It would make sense,actually. the children wouldnt be obliged to know their teacher’s first name or even refer to him in that manner. The creators probably created that mysterious allusion by not giving Mr. Hoffman a “known” first name. So that suggestion might back up the Sir Peter/Mr.Hoffman connection theory.

  2. PokerNemesis says:

    Welcome, Plague!

    perhaps Mr. Hoffman’s first name was in fact Peter?
    …The creators probably created that mysterious allusion by not giving Mr. Hoffman a “known” first name.

    I wondered about that myself. But unless someone notices some P.H. initials somewhere, I don’t know if we can take that idea further.

  3. PokerNemesis says:

    I just now extended my blog-post at the end, adding some sex talk.

  4. elyonum says:

    It’s no wonder rabbits are equaled with sexuality xDDD
    My cousin had an adorable couple in a cage, that somehow was able to SPAWN INTO ABOUT 12 RABBITS IN 6 MONTHS.
    They’re known for having lots of kids xDD

  5. Cherrona says:

    And, of course, there can be a sexual meaning to the word “peter”, giving the title “Sir Peter” a different connotation.

    Call me ignorant, but what is the sexual meaning to ‘peter’?

    I’m wondering if the orphans had anything to do with Hoffman’s disappearance.
    I know that it may have been Stray Dog because it looked like he was hiding behind a door in the story book, but in the chapter Jeniffer and the other orphans are chasing after a rabbit, only to sacrifice it to stray dog.
    Perhaps this is a combination of actually trying to catch and sacrifice Wendy’s rabbit in Jeniffer’s forgotten past, and actually witnessing the orphans doing something to Hoffman.
    Perhaps she really did see him tied up (explaining his appearance as the boss and the imps with him in his office), then ‘Joshua’ handed him over to Gregory (as a sacrifice to stray dog).
    After all, the chapter aim and story book both have Peter the Rabbit. Only difference is one is an actual rabbit while the other is a man.

    If this theory has already been mentioned then don’t mind me. :)

  6. PokerNemesis says:

    Cherrona asked:

    what is the sexual meaning to ‘peter’?

    Penis.

  7. Cherrona says:

    lol Thanks for that explanation PokerNemesis. Kinda obvious now. :P Guess I’m just too naive. ;)
    But yeah, it now puts the story in another light. o_O

  8. The Broken Princess says:

    o_o …….And I liked that story too…..*goes to cry somewhere in the emo corner*

  9. PokerNemesis says:

    Cherrona wrote:

    I’m wondering if the orphans had anything to do with Hoffman’s disappearance.
    I know that it may have been Stray Dog because it looked like he was hiding behind a door in the story book, but in the chapter Jeniffer and the other orphans are chasing after a rabbit, only to sacrifice it to stray dog.
    Perhaps this is a combination of actually trying to catch and sacrifice Wendy’s rabbit in Jeniffer’s forgotten past, and actually witnessing the orphans doing something to Hoffman.
    Perhaps she really did see him tied up (explaining his appearance as the boss and the imps with him in his office), then ‘Joshua’ handed him over to Gregory (as a sacrifice to stray dog).

    That is indeed the next mystery that needs to be addressed: what exactly was Mr. Hoffman’s fate?

    We will need to somehow sort out the information about the death of Sir Peter (separating the information—if any—that may pertain to only the rabbit from the information that pertains only to Mr. Hoffman) in order to get a good theory of Mr. Hoffman’s fate. There is information that implicates Stray Dog and information that implicates the orphans. But whatever the involvement of Stray Dog may or may not have been, we still must preserve (in our theory) the idea that the orphans were kept sufficiently in the dark about Stray Dog that they could later plausibly believe that “Stray Dog is Wendy’s lie”.

  10. PokerNemesis says:

    Plague wrote:

    perhaps Mr. Hoffman’s first name was in fact Peter?
    …The creators probably created that mysterious allusion by not giving Mr. Hoffman a “known” first name.

    Mr. Hoffman is also conspicuously missing a royal title in Jennifer’s mind. Jennifer refers to each orphan as either a Prince or a Princess (ignoring the Aristocrat Club titles) and refers to Martha as the Queen of Cleaning. Shouldn’t Hoffman be King (by this logic)? But Jennifer never gives him a royal title (that she tells us about).

  11. Cherrona says:

    PokerNemesis said:

    We will need to somehow sort out the information about the death of Sir Peter (separating the information—if any—that may pertain to only the rabbit from the information that pertains only to Mr. Hoffman) in order to get a good theory of Mr. Hoffman’s fate. There is information that implicates Stray Dog and information that implicates the orphans. But whatever the involvement of Stray Dog may or may not have been, we still must preserve (in our theory) the idea that the orphans were kept sufficiently in the dark about Stray Dog that they could later plausibly believe that “Stray Dog is Wendy’s lie”.

    I was thinking if the orphans did have something to do with Hoffman’s disappearance it could’ve just been subduing him and leaving him somewhere Wendy said Stray Dog would find him. Perhaps near that well where they sacrificed the rabbit.
    Nobody saw anything, so when they thought Stray Dog was a lie they could’ve reasoned Hoffman freed himself and ran, not returning from fear of the same thing happening, only the orphans not being so kind as to leave him alive next time.

  12. Plague says:

    PokerNemesis says

    Mr. Hoffman is also conspicuously missing a royal title in Jennifer’s mind. Jennifer refers to each orphan as either a Prince or a Princess (ignoring the Aristocrat Club titles) and refers to Martha as the Queen of Cleaning. Shouldn’t Hoffman be King (by this logic)? But Jennifer never gives him a royal title (that she tells us about).

    Good point!
    I thought about that briefly on my first run if the game actually. Perhaps the title of ‘Sir Peter’ then properly fits in this case? I understand the game is set in England and were well-known to claim knight-hood among adult men. Maybe Mr. Hoffman was seen [but never referred to] as Sir Hoffman? Sir Hoffman=Sir Peter. Hehe, I dont know just a suggestion.

  13. Lost Orphan says:

    Strange that we fight the Hoffman Boss during the Sir Peter chapter if he isn’t represented by the rabbit. I believe (I could be mistaken) that it is during this chapter that we first encounter the rabbit imp.

    At the end of the Haffman fight Jennifer picks up a bloody bag containing the rabbit and I wonder if it isn’t a correlation to Hoffman’s fate. I wonder if he wasn’t bludgeoned to death and placed in a large bag for disposal. The orphans then cleaned up the murder scene as represented by the clean up by the imps. The cutscene showing the orphans beating something outside the orphanage may be a flashback to his fate. It was said that the bag was covered in animal hair and I always assumed that it was dog hair, but aren’t people like Hoffman sometimes referred to as animals.

  14. PokerNemesis says:

    Lost Orphan wrote:

    I wonder if he wasn’t bludgeoned to death and placed in a large bag for disposal.

    That is certainly one interpretation that one could take from the “Sir Peter” storybook. The last illustration in the storybook shows Sir Peter bagged with sweeping imps nearby.

    But we have an over-abundance of Sir Peter fates to consider for Hoffman.

    We have the possibility that Stray Dog got Hoffman. See: Did the Orphans Think That the Men’s Lavatory Was Haunted By Mr. Hoffman’s Ghost?

    But we also see Sir Peter hung on a gallows during the animation that opens the “Sir Peter” chapter of the game.

  15. LaiLament says:

    I dont know how relevent this is but if you look at the children’s drawings in the user manual (that comes with the game) there is a picture of a witch keeping Sir Peter locked in a cage. I dont know how this would work out, but the only character that comes to mind at the mentioning of a witch is Martha since she was “accused of being a witch.” If Sir Peter is Hoffman, is this drawing a revealing connection to Martha cageing hoffman’s urges or maybe holding him captive somehow? I cannot attach a scan of the picture but I know it is at the top of page 25 on MAP MENU. I’m not sure if these doodles are even relevent to the story or simply decoration, but I feel that this may be a clue to something.

  16. PokerNemesis says:

    Welcome, LaiLament!

    I’ll take a look at the user’s manual as soon as I can find where I put it. Hopefully that won’t take too long.

  17. Somebody'sPrince says:

    I noticed, while going through the Hoffman boss battle, as he comes around the corner his shadow somewhat resembles a rabbit’s head. I saw this once and it really made me think. Did anyone else notice this?

  18. PokerNemesis says:

    Welcome, Somebody’sPrince!

    Haguki37 very recently mentioned this effect in comment #109 for the blog-post The Hoffman Boss-battle Mystery (Part 1).

    I’m still trying to get a good look at the effect, but I’m inclined to think that you and Haguki37 are correct and have found a helpful clue.

  19. Somebody'sPrince says:

    Thank you! I noticed it and thought this would be a good place to put it. I didn’t realize it had already been mentioned. I apologize. XD XD

  20. Rule of Rose is like the most confusing horror game I’ve played.Itz just the way they made the game.Like you kinda have to put the puzzles pieces together meaning you have to piece the story together bit by bit.Sorry for getting off topic, but they don’t really make anything in the game very clear.I supposed the makers felt that in order for the player(s) to understand the story fully he or she would have not to just play the game mulitple times(perhaps) but would have to explore everything everywhere.I doubt anyone’s first playthrough in the game would they have explored everything,no offense to anyone but they might have been afraid to do anything really, but after beating the game they have the instant-kill weapons not to mention Jennifers badass Goth costume lol French kinda like Tennis costume with an a,which might stand for Aristocrats, and her nurse costume.So the player might fill overpowered which would ’cause them maybe to explore alittle more.But the game not only takes place really in a girl’s mind which kinda explains everything in a different manner sorta , but they don’t really tell much about all the characters which is why we have these little mystery blogs, but the storybooks like tell about the story and everyone in a weird way, like if “Sir Peter” is representing Hoffman than they made a story for Hoffman but in a werid manner as said before.See I think not everyone got the storybooks right until they read things like this, I mean because I know I didn’t think of the storybooks to tell about certain characters in the way it does, I just thought “Oh yeah Sir Peter, the rabbit!” I would never had thought,unless I put very much thought into it, that Sir Peter would represent Hoffman.Now after reading this I think the whole rabbit you know Wendy’s rabbit,chasing it around and all, was just to throw the player(s) off to think that it was about Wendy’s rabbit not about Hoffman.And they definetly threw me way off track, so I just thought the chapter was just about that white rabbit.Maybe eventually I might have gotten the idea that it was about Hoffman, but Rule of Rose until now was just a mystery game to me that I didn’t care much for until I was playing it or talking about it.
    So for getting sooooo off topic for a little bit

  21. Lexzl says:

    Also recall the gift for that month was a “One-horned Peter”

    Given that Sir Peter is actually Hoffman and his relationship with Clara/Diana, I wonder what that horn could be?

  22. At Lexzl: “One Horned Peter” I have an idea of what they could mean by “One Horned”.They could possibly mean his penis XP but I’m not sure.

  23. Emriss says:

    Lexzl said: “Given that Sir Peter is actually Hoffman and his relationship with Clara/Diana, I wonder what that horn could be?”

    Jully Bean said: At Lexzl: “‘One Horned Peter’ I have an idea of what they could mean by “One Horned”.They could possibly mean his penis XP but I’m not sure.”

    I’m fairly sure that was already his implication, dear. :P

  24. PokerNemesis says:

    I’m a lot more inclined, now, to think that the “penis” interpretation has merit than I originally was when it was first proposed.

    Another angle on the “one-horned” rabbit idea to bear in mind is that there is a legend of a one-horned rabbit associated with India, and India is the probable destination of the orphan’s airship in their game of playing airship (as it was the destination of the airship for which the orphans attended the inaugural ceremony on April 25, 1929—the same destination and the same airship of the crash with Jennifer and her parents on board). For information about the legendary one-horned rabbit of India see my blog-post One-horned Peter, the Miraj.

  25. Anon says:

    Slightly off topic, however during the Sir Peter Chapter, after defeating Hoffman, if one goes to the Working Class Luggage (Connected to Sector 8 Cargo Bay) behind the sewing machine there is a covered object. If examined it reads: “Here sits an object about knee high.” Or something to that effect. Any ideas what it may be? Probably nothing, just seems curious.

  26. Lussh says:

    I think it is believed to be the real size doll of jennifer amanda is crafting.

  27. PokerNemesis says:

    Anon asks:

    during the Sir Peter Chapter, after defeating Hoffman, if one goes to the Working Class Luggage (Connected to Sector 8 Cargo Bay) behind the sewing machine there is a covered object. If examined it reads: “Here sits an object about knee high.” Or something to that effect. Any ideas what it may be?

    I used to think it was the “Little Princess” dress (i.e. the dress that resembles that of the Little Princess doll) that we see Wendy wearing in “The Funeral” chapter. But now I think that the Jennifer Doll is probably more likely to be what Amanda was making.

  28. Nubcake says:

    Hey, all this “Sir Peter is Mr. H.” talk is making me think about stuff. Didn’t they burn Sir Peter? Sorry, I’m kinda slow and there’s probably a blog about this… but i can’t find my way around at all XD What I think: They tied up Mr. H *lots of ropes on him xp* and killed him. Or “fed him to stray dog” :p Sorry again, if someone else said this too lol

  29. PokerNemesis says:

    Welcome, Nubcake!

    Nubcake wrote

    Hey, all this “Sir Peter is Mr. H.” talk is making me think about stuff.

    ~

    And then Nubcake asked:

    Didn’t they burn Sir Peter?

    I’m not aware of any reason to believe that Sir Peter was burned. There is an animation at the beginning of the “Sir Peter” chapter showing him hanged upon a gallows.
    ~

    Nubcake wrote:

    Or “fed him to stray dog”

    That might possibly be the significance of the bloody bag hung in the forest. And it is true that Thomas’s modification of Mr. Hoffman’s portrait in the sitting room shows Stray Dog gobbling him up.
    ~

  30. KraftyKrow says:

    Just to introduce myself on my first post, hello, I’ve been lurking away and decided to join in the fun at long last. :)

    I think the connection between an actually rabbit (Peter) and Hoffman in the “Sir Peter” chapter, is one of the biggest mysteries of the game for me. I love to hunt out symbolic meaning in everything, but I try not to read too deep into things at the same time. However I ran over many theories and still not everything is accounted for in them.. and probably never will. Some even canceling out the death of any rabbit at all. It’s also hard to tell what is simply a symbol or surpressed memory of Jennifers too.

    But since you guys are talking about the “one-horned” bit at the moment, I thought I might throw this out there. Perhaps it’s a referrence to his pointer (can’t think of the word)? He does always seem to have it and probably whipped the children with it. He did you it as a weapon in his boss fight (also when he stalks toward you in the cutscene he holds it out if front of him, that’s kinda what sparked the idea). He was also waving it at Diana when he finds his fish, like a threat to punish her.

    So to go further, Perhaps Peter and One-horned Peter, are separate. The poster asked for One-Horned Peter saying that he had escaped (Hoffman was leaving?). I don’t know. But something about the actually Rabbit being killed doesn’t add up to me. The way everyone in the game reacts to his ‘escape’ and sacrifice, just seems strange. (One in perticular, Clara’s reaction to the bloody sack. Sorry can’t find a quote. But it really disturbs her and doesn’t refer to it as a rabbit, only “Is that..!?” or something like that).

    For a time I wondered if the actually bunny Peter, could symbolize the possible aborted fetus. When Hoffman referred to the child letting Peter escape, maybe it meant that Wendy found the fetus and he was afraid she’d tell the others, thus releasing ‘peter’. And then in Jennifers mind she related Wendy’s caged bunny to Hoffman being caged by his secret actions toward the girls and also his possible child with Clara. So when she chases the escaped Peter, she is hunting Hoffman as he runs away with his secret… It still doesn’t add up quite right either. But nothing ever seems to fit perfectly.

    Didn’t mean to ramble so much was originally just going to say “pointer = horn?” Ha.

    Well I’ll have to do more pondering. But this site has really helped me in coming up with my own ideas and I greatly appreciate everyone putting there thoughts out there. In games like this there isn’t much right or wrong afterall.

  31. PokerNemesis says:

    Welcome, KraftyKrow!
    KraftyKrow wrote:

    But since you guys are talking about the “one-horned” bit at the moment, I thought I might throw this out there. Perhaps it’s a referrence to his pointer (can’t think of the word)? He does always seem to have it and probably whipped the children with it. He did use it as a weapon in his boss fight (also when he stalks toward you in the cutscene he holds it out if front of him, that’s kinda what sparked the idea). He was also waving it at Diana when he finds his fish, like a threat to punish her.

    It is an interesting idea to connect the “horn” to the pointer. There is a follow up video to My Video: A Sex Scene in “The Funeral” Chapter of Rule of Rose? that I have in mind, that shows the very last part of that “sex scene” and asks if the pointer that Hoffman holds close to Clara’s head might be, at that time, symbolizing his penis. I think it was comment-maker Stephen who first proposed that the horn of one-horned Peter was symbolic of that part of male genitalia.

    Sometimes, of course, a pointer is just a pointer (or a stick for corporal punishment). But there are aspects of the Hoffman boss battle (humping motions that Hoffman does if he knocks Jennifer over and falls on her) that seem to suggest some hint of a sexual threat, and there is a sexual element (I have proposed) in Hoffman’s pawing of Diana. Perhaps, with the pointer, there is a blending of symbolic sexual threat into the threat of corporal punishment.

  32. PokerNemesis says:

    KraftyKrow wrote:

    Clara’s reaction to the bloody sack. Sorry can’t find a quote. But it really disturbs her and doesn’t refer to it as a rabbit, only “Is that..!?” or something like that.

    That was Wendy, not Clara.

  33. KraftyKrow says:

    Oh I’m sorry, I just assumed it was Clara cause she was in Hoffman’s bed. I forgot Wendy was in there too at one point. I just started to replay after a long time away and just finished the Sir Peter chapter.

    I’ve never seen that scene in the Funernal chapter. Thank you so much for posting that! It’s virtually impossible to deny that Clara was not being molested by Hoffman. My confussion is in the connection between Wendy’s rabbit’s possible death and Hoffman’s death.

    Something else about the Boss fight with Hoffman. I noticed him biting his hand the first time through and wondered why that was. Later after all the clues adding up to him molesting the children (or at least Clara), I wondered if it was a way of showing how he tried to restrain his urges during life. But this restrait was not enough and ended up becoming bound by constantly trying to hold back (being tied up by ropes or put in a cage). Also what puzzled me was the way he dies. It seems like his legs, or something, break and he collapses, but why?

    Another idea I had about the hand biting was that it could be a way to show the children punished him for what he had done. “Biting the hand that feeds you” in a way.

  34. PokerNemesis says:

    KraftyKrow wrote:

    I just assumed it was Clara cause she was in Hoffman’s bed. I forgot Wendy was in there too at one point.

    Wendy wasn’t in Hoffman’s bed. She was in the bed in the Sickroom.
    ~
    ~
    KraftyKrow wrote:

    My confussion is in the connection between Wendy’s rabbit’s possible death and Hoffman’s death.

    There might not be a connection between their actual deaths except in Jennifer’s dreaming mind. The point is that Jennifer’s dream may be confusing the story of Wendy’s rabbit and the story of Hoffman. One possible way to know when Hoffman is being referred to might be the hat. We can find a hat in the orphanage that seems to match the hat worn by the animation (and storybook depiction) of a bipedal, and dressed up, Sir Peter. This hat can be seen in the closet of Mr. Hoffman, which reinforces the idea that it must be his hat.

  35. Punkkunoichi93 says:

    I’m sure someone has brought this up already, but considering there is a model of a rabbit hanging by a noose in the Cell of Bliss, surrounded by imps, isn’t safe to assume that Mr. Hoffman was probably hung (probably by the orphans)? It is also a visual used when starting the St. Peter chapter. If this is somewhere else on the site, I’m sorry. I just thought I’d bring it up.

    Edit:
    http://ruleofrosemysteries.com/2011/02/09/mysteries/rabbit-doll-hung-in-the-cell-of-bliss/#more-2568
    Here we go! It was referenced. Maybe the orphans really did hang the rabbit in some ceremony, but maybe the blood on the rabbit doll relates to injuries given to Hoffman? I do believe St. Peter and Mr. Hoffman are related, but it’s hard to believe children were able to string up a heavy-set older man. So maybe it shouldn’t be taken literally. I don’t know, this is a tough one. :/ If Peter was a sacrifice to the Stray Dog, maybe Wendy told the other orphans that she could sacrifice Mr. Hoffman to the Stray Dog, too, making the two related. Maybe Wendy commanded the Stray Dog to rid them of Hoffman without the other orphans’ involvement. This could only work if he disappears before the other orphans believe that the Stray Dog is a lie. I don’t know all the timelines and dates, so sorry if this is impossible. This is the only way I can make sense of it as of now. I’m sure someone will come up with a believable theory.

  36. Punkkunoichi93 says:

    Okay, I read up on a bunch of stuff that I had forgotten. I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say that Peter the rabbit was sacrificed to the Stray Dog. The orphans recited the story of the peas that the Stray Dog is known for, and Jennifer talks about wondering how Wendy felt when she had to give up Peter in the last chapter of the game. So yeah, we probably agree on this.

    Anyway, I had totally forgotten to mention the craziest cutscene in the Cloverfield chapter. We all witnessed the imps (which most agree are the orphans) killing and sweeping away Martha. I know she is seen later in the game bound and gagged, but it’s pretty safe to assume that the game isn’t exactly linear in time. Even if some of Jennifer’s memories are altered, is it safe to assume that the orphans really did tie up and later kill Martha? If so, it’s a lot easier to believe that the orphans were somehow responsible for Mr. Hoffman’s death.

    The only way I can think to tie the actual St. Peter with Mr. Hoffman is to say that they were both sacrifices to the Stray Dog. The storybook chapter of St. Peter is most likely about Mr. Hoffman, but I believe that aspects about the two were combined to create the story. The children sacrificed St. Peter in a ceremony to Stray Dog, and somewhere along the line, the orphans decided to sacrifice Mr. Hoffman to him as well. Perhaps Wendy had the Stray Dog kill Hoffman, considering he was a man much larger than the children, and they may not have felt they could overpower him. That would explain the illustration of the Stray Dog in the storybook and why Hoffman was the first of the adults to “disappear”. (It would also explain why the children later lose faith in Wendy and the “Legend of the Stray Dog”: they were not there when Wendy ordered the Stray Dog to kill Hoffman.) Then maybe the children gained confidence and decided to sacrifice Martha, and since she was an older woman, they were able to overpower her.

    I love the theories of what the text of the story means in relation to Hoffman’s personality. I think they’re the best explainations I’ve heard so far for the story of St. Peter. And the other blog post about the mermaid and the hare is GENIUS. I think we’re on the right track to understanding this chapter, and I hope my ramblings make some sort of sense. I also hope they aren’t redundant. :P

  37. kimbwy says:

    Cherrona says:
    November 28, 2008 at 8:59 pm
    “I was thinking if the orphans did have something to do with Hoffman’s disappearance it could’ve just been subduing him and leaving him somewhere Wendy said Stray Dog would find him. Perhaps near that well where they sacrificed the rabbit.
    Nobody saw anything, so when they thought Stray Dog was a lie they could’ve reasoned Hoffman freed himself and ran, not returning from fear of the same thing happening, only the orphans not being so kind as to leave him alive next time.”

    I was wondering about this part and it may have been some plausible. It may have been possible that Wendy told the orphans to leave Mr. Hoffman somewhere where Stray Dog will find him, hence the “sacrificing” scene in the forest. I guess they left him alone in the woods? Also, I noted this on your other blog post:

    Sir Peter, Sir Peter, went out for a stroll. Sir Peter, Sir Peter, put in a cage, had to hold it in. Sir Peter, Sir Peter, needs to go right now, doesn’t want to sin. Sir Peter, Sir Peter, bagged and whisked away, before he found a toilet. Good-bye, Peter. Good-bye.

    If Mr. Hoffman really was Sir Peter, then in the boss fight, you see a bloodied bag that the imps were mopping, right? Explaining why there was a bag before the boss fight with him and seeing him tied up: Mr. Hoffman appears as boss. All tied up. I noticed that he was “bagged and whisked away”, like leaving him in the forest, all tied up. I would just like to know the scene where he was asking the imps about who made the mess.

    Probably Jennifer remembers him scolding her all the time about the “filth”? He did make an entry in his diary about Jennifer’s filthiness..

    Sorry about the redundancy, I can’t think straight. LOL.

  38. Mireyuki says:

    Hmm. When I finished the Sir Peter chapter and was asked whether or not I wanted to save ( I choose to save) but my title changed into “Rag Princess” I chose The Bird as my next story and it changed to the right title? I wonder why saving in between makes it the “Rag Princess”. Does anyone have an idea of why it that happens?

  39.  
Leave a Reply


Powered by Laughing Squid