Deltarune: Monster's Blood Manipulation Resistance Upgrade

[GodlyCharmander]

Intro/Explanation
Very simple stuff. This thread intends to change the current "possible resistance" to Blood Manipulation, to a complete resistance of said power.

The reason we currently treat it as only a "possible" resistance is because, while Monsters were stated to not be made of blood, and even implied as much with this line from this monster character, we have Susie stated that "everyone bleeds" when referring to how she's going to beat up Lancer's dad.

The problem with taking this at face value are obvious if you know the context of the scene, but I will bring further evidence to counter this statement.

Why the statement isn't valid
It's quite literally a figure of speech. (A variation of this one, but yeah). A common one, referring to how anyone is susceptible to damage, and being defeated. Furthermore, this is said about Darkners, who I do not think have shown the ability to bleed in all the battles they've been, including the very battle Susie refers to when stating this (Delta Warriors vs The King).

Furthermore, to support the fact that this is just flowery language for "Anyone is susceptible to be beaten", I provide you the Official Japanese Version of Deltarune. No, not translation, the dialogue is adapted, not directly translated.

It uses ケガ, which means bruise or injury, no mention of blood. It adapted the figure of speech to what it actually meant since Japan has no equivalent.


Thus, Monsters should have a full resistance.

 

[Abstractions]

Is there a reason we are prioritizing an adaptation of the original over the source material? Toby Fox's first language isn't Japanese, he's American.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Is there a reason we are prioritizing an adaptation of the original over the source material? Toby Fox's first language isn't Japanese, he's American.

It's an official Japanese version that he went out of his way to make in partnership with a Japanese speaker. If it was just a mention of blood with no metaphor (which is literally implied by the context of the line), the Japanese version would just replicate it and state that "everybody bleeds".

This is supporting flowery language on the original line, we're not taking it over the English version.

 

[Transcending]

I think the OP makes sense

 

[Abstractions]

It's an official Japanese version that he went out of his way to make in partnership with a Japanese speaker. If it was just a mention of blood with no metaphor (which is literally implied by the context of the line), the Japanese version would just replicate it and state that "everybody bleeds".

Okay, but, the English version is still no less correct, in fact it's even more correct. It being done in partnership doesn't detract from the original dialogue. That's why we always appeal to original Japanese text despite translations being accurate when translated to English, it should be the same here.

Bleeding in this context doesn't work as a metaphor, that's reserved to something like a "bleeding heart" for someone who displays a large amount of sympathy for others, here it's just stating the fact of the matter which is that "everyone bleeds", because you do, I do, everyone does.

This is supporting flowery language on the original line, we're not taking it over the English version.

It isn't flowery language though, and you are using a different language from the original, the original happening to be complicated with how much slang it has versus others that are much more literal.

By suggesting that the original statement is indeed flowery and relying on a different language to discern context, you are doing exactly that; taking it over the English version.

Unless you can provide a better reason, I'm not in support of this. Sorry.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Okay, but, the English version is still no less correct, in fact it's even more correct. It being done in partnership doesn't detract from the original dialogue. That's why we always appeal to original Japanese text despite translations being accurate when translated to English, it should be the same here.

The creator directly worked on it.
I'm not appealing to it, we're saying it has a merit.
I'm not saying it's more correct than the English version.
I'm not saying we should take it over the English version.

I'm saying that how the line is layed out in this version works as a support for an obvious interpretation in the English version. It's Toby's translation.

Bleeding in this context doesn't work as a metaphor, that's reserved to something like a "bleeding heart" for someone who displays a large amount of sympathy for others, here it's just stating the fact of the matter which is that "everyone bleeds", because you do, I do, everyone does.

That's still a form figure of speech.
It's not a metaphor, my bad, it's a Synecdoche, where blood represents general damage/injury.

It isn't flowery language though, and you are using a different language from the original, the original happening to be complicated with how much slang it has versus others that are much more literal.

By suggesting that the original statement is indeed flowery and relying on a different language to discern context, you are doing exactly that; taking it over the English version.

Unless you can provide a better reason, I'm not in support of this. Sorry.

I'm suggesting that the original statement has flowery language given how Toby did not translate it literally when adapting to a language that had no equivalent figure of speech.

Why would we ignore something official, worked by and approved by Toby himself? Nah. We have two contradicting lines, one of which is a figure of speech that's cleared up in another official version.

 

[Abstractions]

That's still a form figure of speech.
It's not a metaphor, my bad, it's a Synecdoche, where blood represents general damage/injury.

Or it's just stating a very clear fact of the matter, if Toby intended something different as a native English speaker he would have written it out that way. I don't believe that's a complicated concept.

I'm suggesting that the original statement has flowery language given how Toby did not translate it literally when adapting to a language that had no equivalent figure of speech.

And I'm telling you it doesn't and that it's literal, bleeding in other contexts are designed to represent say, taking someone of all they are worth, things not directly tied to bodily injury, where bodily injury is the very context here.

Why would we ignore something official, worked by and approved by Toby himself? Nah. We have two contradicting lines, one of which is a figure of speech that's cleared up in another official version.

Why do we take Japanese dialogue in Mario games even if the English translation is worked on and approved by Nintendo? Because it's the original, the source material.

You're asserting it's a figure of speech by using a different language when I can tell you that it's fine standalone, there's zero reason to appeal to it.

 

[Armorchompy]

Yeah I'm sorry, not only is there cultural and linguistial context that we cannot evaluate without actual knowledge of the language (maybe in Japanese threatening to shed blood is much more grave, or maybe it's just not as common of a figure of speed) but there's zero reason to actually prioritize that over the main language of the game.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Or it's just stating a very clear fact of the matter-

Nah. The dude quite literally put a line where he says Monsters aren't made of blood in the game, stop with the sophism.

And I'm telling you it doesn't-

You're telling me that you interpret the line a specific way when we have context, contradictions and support pointing the other way, I don't wanna hear it.

Why do we take Japanese dialogue in Mario games even if the English translation is--

False Equivalency and I don't even need to read the rest. It's the creator working on the game. Toby speaks advanced Japanese, he supervised the adaptation himself. If the intent was literal blood, the line would remain unchanged. It's not. It very much confirms the figure of speech.

You're asserting it's a figure of speech by using a different language when I can tell you that it's fine standalone, there's zero reason to appeal to it.

"Zero reason"

Toby made it.
Toby approved it.
"Everyone bleeds" is a very blatant figure of speech
Context of the scene implies "everyone bleeds" means "No one is invincible" (which is what the term means)
Direct contradictions with the established lore

Oh yeah, no reasons at all.

 

[Armorchompy]

Why would the figure of speech "everyone bleeds" even exist in a world where the great majority does not?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Yeah I'm sorry, not only is there cultural and linguistial context that we cannot evaluate without actual knowledge of the language (maybe in Japanese threatening to shed blood is much more grave, or maybe it's just not as common of a figure of speed) but there's zero reason to actually prioritize that over the main language of the game.

Who is prioritizing it over the English version?
Literally who is doing that?
Because I'm damn sure it's not me.

I'm showcasing the Japanese version as support to the interpretation that the English version contains flowery language/figure of speech, and it's not meant to be taken literally. And no, you cannot claim a cultural difference, the "does it hurt to be made of blood" line remains unchanged.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

great majority

We're suddenly assuming Monsters are the majority in the light world society?

 

[Thelastmlg]

honestly i don't see why care about "flowery speech" and other languages, susie is both not a darkener and was asking a question, and the context clearly shows she was confident that his dad wasn't invincible, none of that proves they got no blood or she was saying a scientific fact, meanwhile we have evidence of them literally not having blood vs susie just hyping up the team with a question.

i agree with the upgrade

 

[Armorchompy]

We're suddenly assuming Monsters are the majority in the light world society?

Because we see that the majority of NPCs are monsters. Not that it'd matter, even if they were a relative minority the saying would make little sense.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Because we see that the majority of NPCs are monsters. Not that it'd matter, even if they were a relative minority the saying would make little sense.

We literally don't know anything about Deltarune's general society's knowledge or culture, this point is quite literally moot when all the evidence points to either a contradiction or a figure of speech.

 

[Armorchompy]

And since we don't let's not jump to huge assumptions and keep the possibly.

 

[Abstractions]

Nah. The dude quite literally put a line where he says Monsters aren't made of blood in the game, stop with the sophism.

It's not sophism it's just understanding applications of the English language.

You're telling me that you interpret the line a specific way when we have context, contradictions and support pointing the other way, I don't wanna hear it.

If you didn't want to hear opposition to your interpretation, then why did you make a thread on the subject? Not everyone is going to blindly accept what you want without question. I couldn't care less what you want to hear or not.

False Equivalency and I don't even need to read the rest.

It's not a false equivalency it's the justification you provided me but it doesn't support your argument in this instance.

Oh yeah, no reasons at all.

You know who made and approved the English version? Toby. The American. The native English speaker.

Calm down.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

And since we don't let's not jump to huge assumptions and keep the possibly.

No, the line is adapted to a literal interpretation of the very figure of speech "everyone bleeds" implies in the Japanese version made by Toby, we're not just pretending like it means nothing and it has no value, also it contradicts established lore.

Plus, Susie is not a general representation of an entire society anyway. We don't know why she particularly uses such a figure of speech, and it doesn't matter to this thread whatsoever.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

It's not sophism it's just understanding applications of the English language.

Great job of not responding though.

If you didn't want to hear opposition to your interpretation, then why did you make a thread on the subject? Not everyone is going to blindly accept what you want without question. I couldn't care less what you want to hear or not.

Great job on not responding though.

It's not a false equivalency it's the justification you provided me but it doesn't support your argument in this instance.

It is a false equivalency.

Nintendo is a large company where the authors have nothing to do with Western adaptations of their works, or vice versa. It's given to a team of translators who interpret and adapts the dialogue. It's worth nothing.

Here, it's the creator himself working on the Japanese version of the game, adapting figure of speech that wouldn't work on the language. And you're telling me it's also worthless and holds no weight when interpreting Toby's intentions. It's hilarious.

You know who made and approved the English version? Toby. The American. The native English speaker.

Great. And?
This genuinely does not attack my point at all, because I'm not dismissing the English version. I'm using the Japanese version to interpret what Toby wanted to inform the audience with said line. It only helps me to answer the second of two questions:

1) Would the original line work as a figure of speech to say "no one is unbeatable"?
Yes.
2) Do we have any reasons to believe Toby meant to use a figure of speech in that line?
Yes, the Japanese version uses a literal version of the figure of speech.

Calm down.

This comment does nothing to respond to my arguments and it's honestly hilarious. I'm chill.

 

[Armorchompy]

No, the line is adapted to a literal interpretation of the very figure of speech "everyone bleeds" implies in the Japanese version made by Toby, we're not just pretending like it means nothing and it has no value, also it contradicts established lore.

I don't really care. I've made my point that you (or I) are completely incapable of making the claim of understanding why that specific line was changed, and I've disagreed with giving it any weight in the first place. If you wanna push for a change without using the Japanese script, I genuinely have no opinion. But regarding that piece of evidence, I've made my point and am sticking with it.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I don't really care. I've made my point that you (or I) are completely incapable of making the claim of understanding why that specific line was changed, and I've disagreed with giving it any weight in the first place. If you wanna push for a change without using the Japanese script, I genuinely have no opinion. But regarding that piece of evidence, I've made my point and am sticking with it.

I'm not.
I have a plentitude of reasons to believe the line is a figure of speech and that was Toby's intentions.

You have a "I disagree with this" and a Staff position.

We're not the same. Don't pretend like there's an ambiguity here, there isn't. If you want to push anything I throw at you away, for sure, do it.

 

[Abstractions]

Great job on not responding though.

You're interpreting them as non-responses just as I took yours, what do you want from me?

Nintendo is a large company where the authors have nothing to do with Western adaptations of their works-

Who approve the translations and consider them to be accurate, yes. It's far from a false equivalency by your standard.

1) Would the original line work as a figure of speech to say "no one is unbeatable"?
Yes.

Could it work perfectly fine as a standalone statement? Yes.

This comment does nothing to respond to my arguments and it's honestly hilarious. I'm chill.

When your comments reek of condescension it doesn't speak to someone who is chill, especially when you need to express how truly funny it is.

 

[Armorchompy]

I'm not.
I have a plentitude of reasons to believe the line is a figure of speech and that was Toby's intentions.

You have a "I disagree with this" and a Staff position.

We're not the same. Don't pretend like there's an ambiguity here, there isn't. If you want to push anything I throw at you away, for sure, do it.

Right, uh, I've explained my reason why I disagree and all that and this isn't really addressing anything, so I still disagree.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

You're interpreting them as non-responses just as I took yours, what do you want from me?

I gave you points to reply to your claims (assumptions).
It isn't a literal meaning (as in, all monsters, Darkners and humans bleed), because it's contradicted by lore and context and Toby putting a line saying monsters don't have blood whereas humans do.

And presented you what your interpretation is up against. Contradictions, implications, more plausible interpretations supported by an official version of the game which pretty much is made by Toby.
No response to that, you felt like going on tangents like "It's not sophism" or "You don't want to hear it?" (which is a figure of speech too, btw. I see you're not good with those).

Who approve the translations and consider them to be accurate, yes. It's far from a false equivalency by your standard.

My standard isn't "the Japanese version is better because it's more accurate" and I have no idea why you'd think that.

Could it work perfectly fine as a standalone statement? Yes.

No.
I don't mean to sound like a broken record but it contradicts established lore and the game's own statements regarding Monster biology. It literally doesn't work as a standalone statement, and the context very much supports the figure of speech used.
You're glossing over that and being pushy.

When your comments reek of condescension it doesn't speak to someone who is chill, especially when you need to express how truly funny it is.

Suddenly you're "great" at interpreting textual nuances, funny thing. Don't worry, I don't intend to be disrespectful or mocking you, please just attend to my points.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Right, uh, I've explained my reason why I disagree and all that and this isn't really addressing anything, so I still disagree.

I... blatantly addressed your concerns before, you just ignored what I had to say and said, "I still disagree".

Literally, what.
"Why should we prioritize the Japanese version?"

We shouldn't, it acts as support for figure of speech in the English version since it lacks literal translation from Toby.

"Why would Susie use a figure of speech"

It doesn't matter. The context implies it's a figure of speech, and it contradicts established lore.

I believe those were the two concerns you had, I responded, and you never gave a reason as to why you disagreed with them. You just said you disagree.

It's not fair to me at all, because I don't understand what you want from such a blatant use of Synecdoche.

 

[Armorchompy]

"Why should we prioritize the Japanese version?"

And I don't think that's enough to consider it viable given greater linguistical context we're unaware of, I've said this like four times and you've failed to change my mind on the subject.

"Why would Susie use a figure of speech"

I believe those were the two concerns you had, I responded, and you never gave a reason as to why you disagreed with them. You just said you disagree.

I literally don't disagree with the figure of speech bit, I just think the translation bit is stupid. You're free to argue whatever else.

Synecdoche

lmao

 

[Andytrenom]

I don't agree with using the Japanese version to support the thread but I think Monsters having blood is contradicted anyway.

You literally slice Undyne in two and there's no blood and there's statements of them being made from magic rather than flesh and water (I don't remember the exact statement, but it referenced a human's biological makeup and how monsters are different, I'll see if I can find it)

 

[Armorchompy]

I think we consider Undertale and Deltarune separate

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I don't agree with using the Japanese version to support the thread but I think Monsters having blood is contradicted anyway.

You literally slice Undyne in two and there's no blood and there's statements of them being made from magic rather than flesh and water (I don't remember the exact statement, but it referenced a human's biological makeup and how monsters are different, I'll see if I can find it)

If you wanted to communicate to your audience that "everyone bleeds" in a literal manner with a line, and you worked on a translation to a language you speak, would you make it so the line does not communicate that at all in this version?

That's why I said the Japanese version is a support to the interpretation that the line isn't meant to be literal, and contradicting the lore is my main argument anyway. Would you say you agree with the upgrade?

 

[Roachman40]

I'm gonna stay neutral on this one for now, rather curious on what those who disagree have to say.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I think we consider Undertale and Deltarune separate

Oh, they are separate worlds, but it's confirmed to be an alternative universe. (accompany that with a multitude of elements being shared and none being contradicted, and you have a strong reasoning to believe monsters also shouldn't be any different).

 

[Andytrenom]

Wait, the statement I was thinking of is "While Monsters are mostly made up of magic, humans are mostly made up of water" it says mostly here

Let's see if I can find other statements

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I literally don't disagree with the figure of speech bit, I just think the translation bit is stupid. You're free to argue whatever else.

Then shouldn't you agree with the thread's conclusion? The Japanese version is merely a support, but if you agree that "everyone bleeds" isn't trying to communicate that "all things contain blood", then we're good, no?

lmao

If the figure of speech is agreed on, that's the type of figure of speech in place here.

 

[Abstractions]

I gave you points to reply to your claims (assumptions).

I made no direct assumptions, I just countered your direct interpretation which was that an assumption that the statement was purely figurative, in which I explained instances to you where expressions that use the verbiage of bleeding would entail nothing relating to bodily injury, I didn't need to make assumptions to explain that to you.

No response to that, you felt like going on tangents like "It's not sophism" or "You don't want to hear it?" (which is a figure of speech too, btw. I see you're not good with those).

If you consider those tangents when those are direct responses to statements you levied towards me then you don't understand what a tangent is, which is ironic when you're making commentary as to what I am not so good with.

To speak on this further, you cannot say "(which is a figure of speech too, btw. I see you're not good with those)" in what is obvious to anyone as a mocking statement and follow it up with:

Suddenly you're "great" at interpreting textual nuances, funny thing. Don't worry, I don't intend to be disrespectful or mocking you, please just attend to my points.

Because these things are contradictory themselves, you even did it in almost the same breath. Yet you're trying to tell me and everyone else that you are positively chill, and not getting aggressive at the slightest adversity? Who are you trying to fool?

With all due respect, quit being uptight.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Wait, the statement I was thinking of is "While Monsters are mostly made up of magic, humans are mostly made up of water" it says mostly here

Let's see if I can find other statements

Please refer to the statement posted in the original post, it also tells us that Monsters do not contain blood.

 

[Armorchompy]

Then shouldn't you agree with the thread's conclusion? The Japanese version is merely a support, but if you agree that "everyone bleeds" isn't trying to communicate that "all things contain blood", then we're good, no?

I don't really have an opinion honestly. We don't know what the monster looks like so for all we know he's some object/plant dude. Is there other statements?

 

[Andytrenom]

Oh. Then yeah I'm fine with it

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I made no direct assumptions, I just countered your direct interpretation which was that an assumption that the statement was purely figurative, in which I explained instances to you where expressions that use the verbiage of bleeding would entail nothing relating to bodily injury, I didn't need to make assumptions to explain that to you.

You again gloss over the entire catalog (hyperbole) of reasonings for me believe my interpretation. You cannot call that an assumption.

If you consider those tangents when those are direct responses to statements you levied towards me then you don't understand what a tangent is, which is ironic when you're making commentary as to what I am not so good with.

Those were comments made after my responses.

"[Response], I don't wanna hear it."
"[Response], stop with the sophism."

You ignore the brackets, and go straight for the meaningless comments.

To speak on this further, you cannot say "(which is a figure of speech too, btw. I see you're not good with those)" in what is obvious to anyone as a mocking statement and follow it up with:


Because these things are contradictory themselves, you even did it in almost the same breath. Yet you're trying to tell me and everyone else that you are positively chill, and not getting aggressive at the slightest adversity? Who are you trying to fool?

With all due respect, quit being uptight.

I'll ignore this entire section, I don't feel like deviating on this, it accomplishes nothing. Believe what you will, I am not aggressive whatsoever.

Either way, there isn't a glimpse of a related discussion here, so I will discontinue my responses.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I don't really have an opinion honestly. We don't know what the monster looks like so for all we know he's some object/plant dude. Is there other statements?

Well, I assume not even the monster in the apartment learning from their mother that humans specifically have blood (saying Monster do not) isn't going to tip you over to agreement, then?

 

[Andytrenom]

As funny as that is, let's keep the derailing to a minimum