maggoty rat

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

I think that I have found some strong evidence against the theory that the forest scene at the end of the “Sir Peter” chapter of Rule of Rose might actually be the occasion of the hanging of Mr. Hoffman (see Part 1 of this series of blog-posts, and the comments there, for discussion of that theory). This evidence also argues against the “Mondays pea…etc.” chant being about Hoffman, Martha, or Clara.

At the end of that final scene, in the forest, of the “Sir Peter” chapter, Jennifer sticks a maggoty dead rat in Amanda’s face.

In Amanda’s diary, the following entry was made:

Sunday, June 1

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Those awful things got into my mouth!
She’ll be sorry the next chance I get.
But why me again?
What have I done?
(Working Class Luggage, “Rag Princess Sews”, Amanda’s Diary)

If the statement, “Those awful things got into my mouth!”, can be safely assumed to be a reference to the maggots getting into Amanda’s mouth when Jennifer thrust the maggoty dead rat into Amanda’s face, then we must date the forest scene to June 1, which is long before the time when Hoffman, Martha, and Clara disappeared (they were all present in the orphanage as late as November).

It seems to me that, unless we claim that two separate incidences were somehow mixed together in Jennifer’s memory (or we claim that the maggots were not the “awful things” that got into Amanda’s mouth), we must dismiss the idea that this scene, and the “Monday’s pea… etc.” chant, relate to the disappearances of Hoffman, Martha, and Clara.  A pity, as I had a shocking theory, to explain the plural peas in the chant after Thursday, that I was working on, but which totally goes down in flames with the June 1 date for this scene.

To view the forest scene, watch this YouTube video:  forest ceremony

~

(to be continued)

Tags: , , ,
18 Responses to “Was Mr. Hoffman Hanged? (Part 2)”
  1. Passerby says:

    Darn, I had a theory I posted in Part 1 about what the rest of the song meant.
    Maybe it still applies? They could have been planning everything they did for awhile…Or the song really is a summary put in by the game designers that foreshadows everything that happens…
    Nah, ignore that, I’m just irked my theory I spent so long on just went out the window. Sigh.

    Is it still possible the device that hangs the bag was a mock-up of Hoffman’s fate, maybe that was never used because they were forced to kill him some other way?

    And can I hear that not-so-shocking theory of yours anyways? Sounds interesting.

  2. PokerNemesis says:

    Passerby asks:

    And can I hear that not-so-shocking theory of yours anyways? Sounds interesting.

    Heh, heh… I was looking into a hypothesis that the “peas” of Thursday and Friday might be the male-orphans. I had noticed that, during the forest ceremony, although Meg makes an announcement to “Ladies and Gentlemen”, there are no boys to be seen, nor boys’ voices to be heard. And I had recalled that the boys are conspicuously absent during the “Stray Dog and the Lying Princess” chapter (although I haven’t checked yet for boys’ clothes in the front yard during the Stray Dog boss-battle).

  3. Cherrona says:

    I think it is possible that the chapter could be more than one incident combined. Maybe the maggots and rat were punishment for one thing that happened before the disappearances, and the hanging could be about Hoffman. After all nothing seems to be straight forward in the game.
    Wendy did have a bunny that was sacrificed, didn’t she? (can’t quite remember) If so then maybe the rat and diary entry are connected to that, while the hanging could be connected to Hoffman. I think I’ve mentioned before that I think the chapter is a combination of both the bunny and Hoffman.
    But of course this is just speculation, and I quite like the idea of them hanging Hoffman. :D Don’t know why.

  4. Jay says:

    Can we say that Amanda is a lil bit crazy and she got the dates wrong, please?

  5. Plague says:

    I remember reading that entry.
    About those “awful things in my mouth” I first thought of Jennifer’s incident when she wakes up bound to the pillar in The Funeral chapter and gagged in the mouth by many red crayons. I recall Diana praising Jennifer about finding Joshua the Bear and that she would get her “very own red crayon”. However we find that she is suddenly alone, attacked by imps, and found in that state in the Funeral chapter. Perhaps that reference of “awful things in mouth” refer to the crayons as some sort of punishment? We know Amanda strives to raise her rank, often being the one punished herself…perhaps she did a deed that was both scandalous yet wonderful that was “rewarded” with her “own special red crayon”?

  6. Masq says:

    If this is any indication, Jennifer’s mind might not be so messed up after all…

  7. Grace Saunders says:

    This is a great blog. I own Rule of Rose and should return to it.

  8. PokerNemesis says:

    Welcome, Grace Saunders!

    Thanks for the compliment! :D

  9. Choco-chan says:

    Been awhile since I’ve dropped in, I finally got the game for X-mas yesterday.

    I like Plague’s explanation for the red crayons possibly being the “things” in Amanda’s mouth, but the only potential problem I see with that is Amanda’s wording:

    “Those awful things got into my mouth!”

    …where the phrase, “got into” implies to me that the “things” were moving about and living beings, not inanimate crayons…unless Amanda tried resisting the crayons being shoved into her mouth somehow, in that case, the wording “got into” can be showing her failure to keep them out.

  10. PokerNemesis says:

    Choco-chan wrote:

    I like Plague’s explanation for the red crayons possibly being the “things” in Amanda’s mouth, but the only potential problem I see with that is Amanda’s wording:

    “Those awful things got into my mouth!”

    …where the phrase, “got into” implies to me that the “things” were moving about and living beings, not inanimate crayons…unless Amanda tried resisting the crayons being shoved into her mouth somehow, in that case, the wording “got into” can be showing her failure to keep them out.

    ~

    It is hard to be totally confident when analyzing the word-phrasing in this game since the translation seems to get poor at times, but I agree that “got into” doesn’t seem right for the crayons. I see “got into” as indicating an inadvertent occurrence not an intentional one. As in: Jennifer wasn’t trying to get the maggots into Amanda’s mouth, but some got into her mouth even so. But if crayons got stuffed into Amanda’s mouth, it was intentional on the part of whoever stuffed them in (so it seems like Amanda should have phrased her statement something like: “they stuffed those awful things into my mouth”).

    Plus, it seems more appropriate for Amanda to use the phrase “those awful things” for maggots rather than for crayons.

  11. Inquisitive prince says:

    I myself, one day, want to become a prosecutor(barrister)And this entire blog about hoffmans possible death, conflict. There is no safe assumption that hoffman was even killed.Simply baseles conjecture,with no solid evidence. This is all a product of the creators leaving a lttle too much imagination to the players.This is also the beauty of ror,Leaving the player to imagine the horrors that occured there,Giving you a little push in right dirrection.

  12. Jiinkei says:

    Inquisitive prince Says (in Part 1):

    Quite simply, Hoffman ,irresponibly left the children after having to clean up the mess that gets left behind.
    Or maybe he is a reformed pedophile, unable to contain his urges he attempts to leave temptation.

    Inquisitive prince Says:

    I myself, one day, want to become a prosecutor(barrister)And this entire blog about hoffmans possible death, conflict. There is no safe assumption that hoffman was even killed.Simply baseles conjecture,with no solid evidence. This is all a product of the creators leaving a lttle too much imagination to the players.This is also the beauty of ror,Leaving the player to imagine the horrors that occured there,Giving you a little push in right dirrection.

    I think elements such as the oddly placed suitcase, and the threatening drawing of Stray Dog gobbling up Hoffman’s portrait are far from “baseless conjecture”. You may want to be a prosecutor, but I’m working to become a graphic designer, and I can tell you those background details did not just magically appear there: somebody had go through the trouble to render them. And unlike trees and floorboards and other typical “background” things, the suitcase and the drawing did not have to be there to make the background seem more natural. They actually have the exact opposite effect. They are unnatural. So why would the creators choose to add something out of place?

    Ah. Because they wanted you, the player, to notice it, and to question why it’s out of place.

    It’s a much more deliberate process than I think you’re giving it credit for.

    Also, I don’t know if you’ve looked at the Hoffman boss lately, but: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/lith-chan/ror_hoffman.jpg

    Hoffman has noticeable bloodstains, identical to those present on Martha. He also has a rather nasty looking gash on his hand (practically showcased by the hand’s unique placement). Which, I think, could all suggest foul play.

    I will concede there is no “safe assumption” that Hoffman was killed. That’s why it’s a hypothesis, a possibility. Nobody’s saying it’s irrefutable fact. But it is a hypothesis supported by evidence we see in the game.

    And because this contrary evidence exists, it also casts doubt on the assumption that Hoffman simply “left”. He wrote in his diary that he was going to leave, and yet his suitcase has been left, hapharzardly placed, in his room. Jennifer tells us Hoffman simply “disappeared”, and yet he had appeared before us bloodied and injured in a way echoing another character who we do see die at one point. That Hoffman just left cannot be considered as an inherently “safe assumption” either.

    They’re both possibilites. Neither scenario can be considered an irrefutable fact.

    I think it’s unfair and irrational to just shoot down perfectly viable evidence as “baseless” without giving it proper consideration. :/

  13. PokerNemesis says:

    Re Jiinkei vs. Inquisitive Prince:

    I’d already been contemplating devoting a blog-post to the subject of the two differing attitudes towards “evidence” that the two of you espouse. Now I’m feeling more motivated to write it up. :)

  14. Basil says:

    Before I even start I’d like to say that I have not played the game, however I’ve been reading your blog over the past few days (I really like it BTW) and I’ve watched as many scenes on YouTube as I could, and I just wanted to share some of my thoughts.

    I have to agree that I don’t believe Mr. Hoffman is being hanged in the scene but I do think that this scene is a mash up of some of the various things Jennifer is working through throughout this entire dream in addition to some actual memories. This is why I believe that this scene doesn’t have a particular “date” and therefore doesn’t necessarily match up to the date in Amanda’s diary. This would explain why the bag they are raising resembled the bag the Brown was killed in, when chronologically this wouldn’t have happened yet.

    That is also why I am inclined to believe the “pea song” is indeed referencing the murders, or at least the deaths, of the adults associated with Jennifer/the orphanage but I think that the song is actually something Jennifer made up rather than something that the children had really sung. My first reason for believing this is that they are mentioning peas in the first place. I think this is clearly a reference to Gregory however, it doesn’t seem that any of the orphans would know the reference outside of Jennifer and perhaps Wendy. Secondly the “peas” in the song seem to reference specific people/events, but I believe they are a bit different than people have been guessing. Here’s what I think they may be referencing:

    Monday: I’m not totally sure on this one but perhaps it was the death of Jennifer’s parents? I think it fits.
    Tuesday: Hoffman(this has been previously discussed so I won’t repeat it here)
    Wednesday: Clara(also previously discussed)
    Thursday: Martha. I’m not sure if this has been discussed but I think it’s reasonable to think that the children would have disposed of her for making them angry. I don’t know that she was particularly nice to them either.
    Friday: I think this would be Brown as he may have fared worse than Martha or incurred the most wrath(at least from Wendy)
    Saturday: This I think is about the massacre and the “sticking together” is a reference to the Jennifer/Wendy slapping incident which may or may not have eliminated the RCA? or perhaps just that Jennifer was no longer going along with the RCA’s decisions but that theory assumes that Jennifer was going along with the RCA in the first place, or at least not protesting much. She did push that rat in Amanda’s face after all.

    I may be way off base with all of this though. Let me know if there are holes in my theories. ^_^

  15. Basil says:

    So I watched the scene again and I want to retract some of what I said. Though I do still think that my theories regarding the “pea song” are valid, I now think that it could quite possibly be Hoffman in the bag. In going along with the previous posts discussing that Sir Peter is likely Hoffman and the orphan’s penchant for stuffing people(and dogs) into bags it seems entirely plausible. I particularly see a correlation between the idea of Sir Peter running away with “Tuesday’s Pea” almost getting free.
    And if Hoffman really is Sir Peter it’s likely true that Jennifer was definitely going along with the RCA. At least initially. It could be possible that Jennifer is not dreaming only to forgive the children and adults from the orphanage(as I’ve read commenters speculating in other posts) but also to forgive herself for her own participation.

    I had initially thought Jennifer really hadn’t had anything to do with the RCA but the more I read it seems more obvious to me that she did.This all may have been discussed before though as I haven’t read through all of the posts here. So my apologies if I’m just repeating theories already long over being discussed.

  16. Masq says:

    The only arguement I have with that is that the children wouldn’t know of/care about Jennifer’s parents as she hasn’t even remembered them herself yet.

    You saying “it’s hoffman in the bag” reminds me of a horrible bastardization of a christmas carol I heard often as a kid…

    “Joy to the world!
    The Teacher’s dead!
    We baaar-baqueeeed his head!

    We took it from his body
    And flushed it down the potty
    and watched it go round and round
    and watched it go round and round…”

    Because when I think of how small that bag was… XDDD

  17. Jiinkei says:

    PN Says:

    Re Jiinkei vs. Inquisitive Prince:

    I’d already been contemplating devoting a blog-post to the subject of the two differing attitudes towards “evidence” that the two of you espouse. Now I’m feeling more motivated to write it up. :)

    That sounds interesting. Go for it. :D

    Heh, my ultimate intention with the whole graphic design affair is to be a manga writer/artist, so I think I’m overly sensitive to this kind of thing. I wouldn’t want my own work to be taken uncritically…because, as any other writers or artists out there know, it does take a lot of time and effort and consideration. Especially to come up with something as incredibly intricate as RoR. o_o

    So it’s like the creators have earned it. They put in a lot of work, now it’s our turn.

    Masq Says:

    You saying “it’s hoffman in the bag” reminds me of a horrible bastardization of a christmas carol I heard often as a kid…

    “Joy to the world!
    The Teacher’s dead!
    We baaar-baqueeeed his head!

    We took it from his body
    And flushed it down the potty
    and watched it go round and round
    and watched it go round and round…”

    Because when I think of how small that bag was… XDDD

    I remember that song too. Haa, it seems so much creepier now. D:

    Maybe that’s what the children sang after they finished the pea song, lol.

  18. Vanilla Spice says:

    The thought of the head in a bag is kinda ooky, but maybe it did happen. I mean you never really know what happened to Hoffman, he leaves a letter that says he’s leaving. Knowing how twisted the children are the probably did put his head in a bad and had a creepy ritual about it…

  19.  
Leave a Reply


Powered by Laughing Squid