See-all Walkthrough, With Commentary: “Rag Princess Sews” Chapter (Part 3): The Salon and Eleanor
Posted by PokerNemesis in Clues, Plot Structure & StoryGo now to the door of the salon. You will see that there is a sign next to the door that says “Aristocrat” (written in red) taped above the sign that says “Salon”. Enter the salon.
I have mentioned before that the airship salon is a transformation of the orphanage reception room. See my blog-post See-all Walkthrough, With Commentary: “The Little Princess” Chapter (Part 17): The Airship Salon is the Reception Room Transformed for an account of the correspondences that can be seen.
The salon has two tables that have been flipped onto their sides and moved away from the center of the room. There are small red objects scattered on the rug and the couch. Are these red feathers, or the petals of red roses? The flower vase that would normally hold red roses is lying on the rug, tipped on its side among the red objects. This seems to support the idea that the red objects are rose petals. However, Eleanor’s red bird is in the salon, which could support the idea that the red objects are red feathers.
It seems problematical to attribute the mess in the salon as being due to the affect of air turbulence on the airship. The china looks undisturbed on the narrow ledge of the china cabinet. Why did none fall and break? And why have none of the free standing picture frames, on the table to the right of the china cabinet, tipped over?
Go to Eleanor and press “x” several times while Jennifer stands next to her. You will get the following text:
The cold Princess said, “The thief will be punished.”
Eleanor just stands near the grandfather clock and the hat/coat rack, facing the area between them, holding an empty bird cage with her right hand.
If Jennifer moves to the clock, Eleanor’s red bird will fly to the rack. If Jennifer moves to the rack, Eleanor’s red bird will fly to the clock.
Alternatively, instead of running to the rack from the grandfather clock, Jennifer can run away in the opposite direction from the rack. Now, If Jennifer moves to the clock, Eleanor’s red bird will fly to the rack. If Jennifer moves away from the clock (in the opposite direction from the rack), Eleanor’s red bird will fly to the clock.
But you can mess with these patterns because Jennifer can move faster than the bird can respond. By outrunning the bird’s flight pattern I’ve achieved making the bird seem to chase Jennifer: First Jennifer moves to the clock, then the bird flies to the clock; next, Jennifer moves to the rack, and then the bird flies to the rack.
What does it mean that Eleanor’s red bird is alive in the “Rag Princess Sews” (October 1930) chapter, when it apparently died in the “Bird of Happiness” (July 1930) chapter? As you ponder that question, don’t forget that, in the “Once Upon A Time” chapter, Jennifer speaks of: “The red bird in the cage… The doll Eleanor treasured.” So Eleanor’s red bird was never actually alive in reality.
Before leaving the salon, have Jennifer stand near the free-standing lamp by the door. Pressing “x” will cause the lampshade to move.
Entries (RSS)
Eleanor’s red bird is the red bird of happiness, isn’t it?
When she has it she’s happy, I would think.
But the only time we see her with it in the cage (when it’s actually “WITH” her) is when she’s standing on the Aristocrat tables.
Could the redbird purely symbolize Eleanor’s happiness? And it dies when her friends betray her? And she keeps it locked up and with her unless she’s alone?
I don’t know. Just brainstorming. I like the idea though. Eleanor is the only one who’s more or less mysterious of the top rungs of the aristocrats (besides Wendy, who seems to be incapable of rational decisions many times…). It would give us a little more insight into her personality a bit more. I mean besides the fact that she’s vengeful when someone hurts her feelings and very very smart.
Masq asks:
Possibly. We might be seeing a symbolic representation of happiness being out of Eleanor’s reach.
On the other hand, the action with the red bird here is that the red bird flies away from Jennifer whenever she approaches it. So maybe the stronger symbolism here (which wouldn’t negate a symbolic meaning relating to Eleanor) concerns Jennifer’s own happiness.
Red Bird of Happiness could indeed symbolize happiness in general.
And it’s true Jennifer can’t really capture that bird until it’s dead. Which is kind of sad too. Her happiness died.
I think the bird is supposed to symbolize happiness for Eleanor. However I’m pretty sure that at some time during the game she says that happiness is forever out of reach for her. I’ve always seen the storybooks, such as Bird of happiness, as having been more about each girl that takes center stage in those chapters then about Jennifer herself. It seems quite telling to me that the bird dies in the bird of happiness storybook and that it’s dead when you finally get to it in that chapter. After haveing lived in the orphanage for so long its no surprise to me that Eleanor would find happiness to be a lost cause. Her attitude of indifference would also explain why she didn’t become angry when her bird was stolen from her. After all why would she get mad if she really doesn’t care anymore?
I’m particularly interesting in Eleanor’s comment about punishing the thief. Didn’t Eleanor and Meg take the koi a month after the red bird was killed? Diana did get into a spot of trouble for that.
Mallorie, I think Eleanor means the thief who stole Joshua the Bear (a topic of this chapter).
I think Eleanor may actually like punishing theives… <> The Koi was punishment for one of the people who took her red bird, after all.
And she had no intention of stopping Diana from punishing the final party.
Actually, RuleofEleanor, I think that you are referring to the comment that Jennifer makes in the OUAT chapter. “The red bird in a cage… The doll Eleanor treasured. “If only we could fly like birds and go wherever we wished,” she whispered softly. Yet, no matter how much Eleanor wished, she’ll never be able to just fly away from the orphanage. Poor Eleanor… She was burdened by her own frozen heart.
I never noticed that there was a quote from Eleanor in that small text. It’s truly amazing how much someone can learn about a game that they thought that they were familiar with by reading someone else’s comments (or, in the case of our valiant blog administrator PN’s case, posts.)
Masq, your comment about Eleanor liking to punish thieves is one of the few time that I haven’t found something to dispute with you. The description of her as the “cold” princess and your observation in the above comment I think is one of the few solutions about this game that we can feel secure with. The child was just eerie and I always feel ill at ease when she is around.
I agree; there is something disquieting about Eleanor.
I’m thinking that Eleanor is somewhat autistic…
She’s always focused on the red bird and didn’t care much about the environment around her. In OUAT, Jen mentioned that the bird was a doll. Could it be that Eleanor kept that doll in a cage as a replacement for the dead bird? So, it seems that Eleanor is only cares for one thing: the red bird. Whether it’s a real bird or just a doll bird sitting on the cage.
I don’t think she ever had a real bird. If Wendy wasn’t allowed to keep Peter, I find it hard to believe they would allow Eleanor to keep a pet of her own. Also Eleanor is not autistic by any means. She’s just depressed and withdrawn. She cares very little for her surroundings and as a result pays them little attention.
As for Eleanor being somewhat disquieting, this very trait is why I found her to be the most interesting of all the charters. The less you know about someone, the harder they are to figure out, the more interesting they become to me. I guess I’ve always personally found normality quite boring.
RuleofEleanor wrote:
I agree that the red bird was never a real bird.
But I don’t get your reasoning.
Are you suggesting that Hoffman didn’t allow Wendy to have Peter as a pet?
Although Jennifer says (rather obscurely) that Wendy “had to give him up,” I know of no evidence that this means that Hoffman didn’t allow Peter as Wendy’s pet, or that it was Hoffman that made Wendy give him up. In the “Once Upon A Time” chapter, Peter’s cage is in the Sickroom of the orphanage. I think this (along with the drawing of the bunny prominently displayed in the Sickroom) implies that Wendy openly kept Peter in the Sickroom with the permission of Hoffman. Hoffman writes of the rabbit, in his diary, only that he got angry that somebody let the rabbit escape.
The Salon appears to be in exactly the same state of disruption during the “Bird of Happiness” chapter. The only difference in the Salon is that, in the “Bird of Happiness” chapter, there is a bucket knight and a rubbish bin in the Salon, but during the Rag Princess Sews” chapter there is not either of these.
I now get the strong impression that the red items on the floor of the Salon (in both chapters) are rose petals and not bird feathers. When we see bird feathers on the floors of the corridors during the “Bird of Happiness” chapter, they are of a larger size than what we see in the Salon (in fact, the feathers we see are much too large to actually be appropriate to the size of the red bird itself!).
I suppose I should clarify my statement. What I meant was that if Eleanor had a real bird at some point, Jennifer would have spoken of it when she talked about Wendy being forced to give up Peter, but because she never did say anything about it logical it did not exist.
I’m sure it was Hoffman who made Wendy give up Peter. He runs the orphanage so it would be up to him to decided what would be allowed and what would not be. It seems safe to assume that in the begging he let Wendy have Peter, maybe even got her the rabbit, but at some point something happened or changed so that he decided to make her give Peter up. It could have been Peter being let out of his cage that changed Hoffmans mind.
RuleofEleanor wrote:
That doesn’t fit the time-line.
Jennifer tells us in the “Once Upon A Time” chapter:
Wendy decided to take care of Peter at the same time that Jennifer started looking after Brown.
The first time that Jennifer mentions Brown is
Obviously, Wendy does not know about Brown yet, so if she started taking care of Peter in response to learning about Brown, Wendy did not start taking care of Peter until sometime after 22 July.
But Hoffman writes of Peter being let out of his cage long before 22 July:
So the incident about Peter being let out of his cage has nothing to do with Wendy giving up Peter. She hadn’t even decided to take care of him until long after that.
RuleofEleanor wrote:
In the dream-plot, it was the Aristocrats who were responsible for Wendy and Peter being parted. How do you know that in real life Wendy didn’t have to give up the rabbit due to some business connected to the Aristocrat Club?
Damn, I hadn’t noticed the time line problems with my idea about why Wendy started taking care of Peter. I’d always believed she got the rabbit after finding out about Brown as some kind of counter move to Jennifer having gotten the puppy, like a jilted lover getting even with her ex by showing up with a new lover on her arm. It just seemed so like Wendy to do something of the sort that I never even considered another option … however if the dates on her letters are correct then that cant be the reason…to bad.
As for Wendy having to give up Peter…I still think Hoffman would be the most likely person responsible for that. Of course it’s not possible for me to know that for a complete serenity because we only have Jennifer’s single comment to go on, but I believe Wendy was made to give up Peter before the orphanage went completely crazy and the Aristocrat club took over so Hoffman would still be the one making the rules. With Hoffman still at the helm I don’t think the other children would have the power to make Wendy give up Peter without his knowledge or approval. Also Jennifer never makes mention of any friction between Wendy and the other aristocrats so I cant see why they would want to force her to give up Peter. I could be totally wrong (wouldn’t be the first time) but for my money Hoffman would seem the most likely perpetrator.
RuleofEleanor wrote:
I think you are still misunderstanding the time-line.
Jennifer says:
…so there is nothing to rule out that Wendy started taking care of the rabbit as a response to learning about Brown.
I stand corrected…again. I totally misunderstood what you meant. After reading your previous post it really sounded like you were against the idea of Wendy getting Peter as a response to Brown and nothing more, when what you really meant was that Peter was around long before Brown so Wendy couldn’t have gotten him as payback because he was already there. I’d never paid much attention to the dates so I’d always thought Peter arrived at the orphanage after Brown, but the dates prove otherwise. So I ended up possibly being right but for the wrong reasons. You know, I read your post more then once but I never saw my mistake in till you pointed it out to me…talk about being blind.
RuleofEleanor wrote:
No. My point was to reject your hypothesis: “It could have been Peter being let out of his cage that changed Hoffman’s mind.”
The incident wherein Peter was let out of his cage occurred long before Wendy even decided to take care of Peter, therefore Wendy having to give up Peter later would not have any connection with the much earlier incident in which Peter was let out of his cage. In other words, if Hoffman ever allowed Wendy to take care of Peter, it would have already been after the incident in which Peter was let out of his cage. It doesn’t make sense that he would change his mind due to an event that he had already known about long before he gave permission.
I really wish I hadn’t posted that last sentence about Hoffman making Wendy give up Peter because he was let out of his cage. I hadn’t even intended to write it, but at the last second I added it in as a possible explanation just for the hell of it. But because of this when I read your post, even though the whole point of your post was to point out how that couldn’t possibly be the reason because of the dates on the letters, I didn’t see it that way. Because the statement was a throw away comment in the first place and I never really believed it anyway, I instead focused entirely on the mistake I’d made about the timeline of events somehow never even realizing that you were pointing out the dates on the letters in the first place solely to invalidate my claim about why Wendy mite have had to give up Peter. Then in you next post when you said that there was nothing ruling out my idea that getting back at Jennifer mite very well have been Wendy’s reason for suddenly taking care of Peter I immediately jumped all over that still totally missing the real point of your first post. After going back and re-reading your first post its painful obvious what your point was, can’t see how I kept missing it. It would appear that this is my week for missing the obvious.