[SPOILERS] Is it really all James's fault?

[Ouro]

His sister, having been at a party where literally everyone was drinking, and seeing her brother with whiskey bottle in hand, asks James to drive her home. At what point does the sober party take responsibility for asking someone under the influence to drive? Clearly after some point drunk people aren't able to make rational choices. If I saw someone holding a half empty whiskey bottle I wouldn't get in a car with them.

Of course, this is all from James' s perspective so he would think it was his fault. But what do you all think?

[GameScrub]

Pretty neat analogy, need to go back and play it again with a different mindset.

[Spankler]

Originally posted by guistman:

I really like this discussion, you guys are making a lot of great points; but I think that you are all overlooking a very vital detail.

For I think, in order to answer the question if it really was all James' fault, we first have to ask ourselves what exactly he is accused of. As far as I can see, more or less all of you think of his crime as two-fold, the first part being the accident itself that killed his sister and the young officer, and the second part being the planting of the evidence on said officer; and from what I can gather, the general sentiment is that, well, he is partly responsible for driving drunk, but really not so much once you look at it with a critical eye, and, yes, he is definitely responsible for trying to frame the other driver for his own mistake.

The thing is, I completely agree with you guys on both points. Yes, the fact that none of the adults at the party did actually try to stop him from drinking too much and the almost satirical way his sister did not intervene when she had clearly have to see that he was severely intoxicated, does definitely take some of the blame from him, if not in a legal sense, then certainly in an ethical one (although to what degree, is very much up to debate); and yes, there can be equally no doubt that the decision to try to shift the blame on someone else and not take responsibility for his crime, was very much his own decision.

But the thing is this: while both of these statements are, in my opinion, true, they are not as relevant as it seems, neither to the original question nor to a much more important one: what of the things he did, was really the reason for James' mind to shut itself off from reality in order to avoid facing his guilt?

The obvious answer would be: having caused the accident in the first place and then tried to frame another man for his own crime; and these are exactly the two things the game itself is heavily focusing upon and giving us the most informations about. There is, however, a small detail that is provided to the player, but much more subtly - and it is probably here where the true horror lies that has consumed James' mind so utterly.

This important detail is the fact that James most likely could have saved his sister's life, but did not do so, even more: did most likely not even think about doing so. We can deduce this from two infromations the game is providing us.

First, at the very end of the game, when Jennifer, in James' mind, is directly adressing her brother and urging him to confess what he did, she sums his crimes up with the words: "...how you left me there and then planted evidence on that poor man!" (I am citing from my mind here). Both part of the sentence are important as well as the fact that they are spoken together. If Jen's statement that her brother has "left [her] there" is meant as an accusation, then it only makes sense if she was not already dead or dying while he was doing so; and indeed, during the short conversation between James' mother and the doctor, the latter states that Jennifer "passed away before we could get her to surgery" - this indicates that she did not die immediately after the accident, but either on the way to the hospital or shortly after being brought there. From the fact that the apparition of Jennifer fabricated by James' mind accuses him of not having tried to save her, we can deduce that he knows that doing so probably could have made a difference - and indeed the game tells us exactly why.

For the second piece of information is given right after the accident when James finds himself hanging upside down in his belt. The game states that from a hole in the car noxious fumes are pouring inside - and James immediately realizes that this is a mortal danger to him. Well, if it is a danger to him, then it certainly is one for his sister too, even more so, in fact, since she seems to be unconscious and entirely unable to protect herself from it.

And there it is, the root of the realization that would break James' mind: while he was outside and planting evidence on the young officer, his sister's system, already weakened by the injuries sustained during the accident, was poisoned so much by the fume that she died on the way to the hospital.

In my opinion, the very fact that the game is providing the player with all the information necessary to figure this out, but is not stressing it nearly as much as the details that led to the accident itself, is a very strong indicator that this is indeed another layer of horror deliberately hidden inside the more obvious folds of the story in order to be discovered by the player. And if you think about it, it does perfectly fit in with two other pieces of information that are given much less overtly than many other ones.

First, it is made clear by the game that James feels that his family loves him, but is not exactly proud of him. This has been pointed out several times during this discussion, and rightly so, for I think that it is a very important part of the game's narrative. As far as I can see, the player gets two pieces of information from which he can piece this fact together. First, during the new year's eve celebration, when looking at the banner, James states that he is finally "not the disappointment of the family anymore"; and later he observes that everybody had really gone out of their way to make his trip to America possible because they feel that he might need this "to get some perspective and direction in his life".

Now, while this is not exactly much to go on, it does at least allow the conclusion that James is a person who lacks a certain determination and hence an orientation in life; and if we interpet the part about his family seeing him as a disappointment as a sign that they think that at least part of this is his fault, then we can certainly deduce that James is a comparatively weak-willed individual who is not able or willing to go out of his way in order to make things happen. And since the way this statement is given during the banner segment, hints at a certain bitterness on James' part, it is equally reasonable to assume that he knows about this trait of his and is unhappy about the way his family reacts to it.

And right there it is: the true horror of Stories Untold. During this discussion it has been said that James' behaviour right after the accident is actually quite remarkable: getting out of a car while already suffering from brain damage, whiping the bottle clean to destroy traces, then pouring some of it over the officer's face and flinging the bottle on the passenger seat before passing out in front of the policeman with perfect timing? Astounding!

And I absolutely agree with this sentiment: yes, James' behaviour after the accident is quite unlikely, yet not impossible. In any case, it is not the result of bad or overly creative writing, but rather the opposite. For James' actions right after the accident are deliberately shown this way to illustrate the two most defining traits of his character: an almost monstrous egotism paired with a pathologically weak will that enable him to perform feats of almost inhuman proportions, if only it allows him to avoid facing the consequences of his actions, but make it impossible for him to perform the one very human act most people would probably think of first: trying to save his sister whom - and this is important - he dearly loves.

This, in a nutshell, is, in my opinion, the true horror of Stories Untold: the horror of looking into the mirror and finding one's greatest fear undeniably confirmed - the fear that the others are right and that one is truly as weak and disappointing as all seem to think. And the worst thing is that James could have been something else entirely: a tragic - very tragic - hero that, after having killed an innocent man after driving drunk, at least managed to save his sister's life. In this case, he still would have made the same mistake of driving while under the influence of alcohol, but the true fear nagging at him, would have been put to rest: the fear of really being as weak and disappointing as everyone seemed to think. In my opinion it is this realization - that it was his very own flawedness that killed his sister and not the mistake of drinking and driving to which indeed many had contributed - that shatters his mind and make him retreat into a world of painful and twisted memories where once again everything else - aliens, supernatural forces etc - is responsible for everything bad that happens except himself.

As I have suggested before, there is a second observation that could strengthen this theory as well; it is, however, to be taken with a grain of salt, for it is entirely possible that I am seeing too much here.

The technical term for "being drunk" in the English language, is, as far as I am aware, "intoxicated". Like many other foreign words, this one is taken from Greek, and if you translate it literally, it means "poisoned" (from toxikon, "arrow poison"). Now if we keep that in mind and look at the scene right after the crash, then we could say that while James himself is intoxicated and tries to transfer this metaphoric poison in his veins from himself to another one who does not have it, his sister is suffering from actual poisoning that eventually will claim her life.

Now, as I said before, I completely accept that this is some stretch of the imagination; and I think that my interpretation of the reasons for James' breakdown work fine without it. Still, however, I would like to remind you of two things: first, it would not be the first play on words with a Greek word, for James' last name, Aition (Greek for "guilt"), does the very same thing; and more importantly, second: even if the assumption of the allusion to the word "intoxicated" is rejected, the interpretation of the aftermath of the crash is, in my opinion, still valid. For if you think about it, it really is a metaphor for what James is doing during the entirety of the game: desperately trying to move the responsibility for something that is literally in his blood - his own flawed character - to someone - anyone - else because he cannot live with the fact that it was this very thing that has cost him everything he held dear.

And I think it is here that we could once again pick up our original question: was it really entirely James' fault? Only now the question is much more complicated than at the beginning; for now we have to ask: can we truly blame someone for a weakness he was born with? Can we condemn the coward for being a coward? Or do we not once again have to put the blame on those that knew about this weakness and obviously did not approve of it, but in essence did act the very same way James did: by going out of their way in their effort to send him away, but not being there for him in the one moment where he truly would have needed the guidance of someone stronger tham himself?

I truly have to apologize for this immense mountain of words I have heaped upon you; i have finished the game only two hours ago and was so under its spell that I simply had to add to this discussion.

So maybe the infamous TL;DR could read something like this: a game that manages to coax half a master thesis' worth of highly speculaltive rambling out of an otherwise unassuming and innocuous individual, is certainly worthy of our admiration, our support and - last, but not least - our money.

Way to go, No Code, way to go...

What an interesting read. Thank you.

Even though the second part looks a bit stretched to me, I agree with the the first observation(s).

As for thinking about the original question after all you wrote and your considerations in the antepenultimate paragraph, yes, the question is a lot harder to answer than before. I love how you patiently and articulately construct an idea which shows that in the end it all boils down to philosophy. About moral, ethics, guilt, desperate actions, duties and rights. About what we think of us as human beings, about others and also about the intricate and intertwined social relations existent in society. Bravo!

[wjousts]

At what point does the sober party take responsibility for asking someone under the influence to drive?

It seemed pretty clear to me that nobody was sober. Including the sister. She fell asleep in the car. James ultimately got behind the wheel and is ultimately responsible. He is even more responsible for his attempt to frame the other driver while leaving his sister to die in his car.

I enjoyed the game immensly (once I got past the annoyingly limited text parser - serious?!?), but one gapping plot hole appears to me. Wouldn't the hospital have done a blood test as soon as James arrived at the hospital? Wouldn't that reveal his blood alcohol concerntation (BAC)? Postmortem BAC measurements are tricky (from what I'm just now reading on the internet), but presumably the other guy would be just about a best case (found immediately after death). So shouldn't they be able to tell which of them had been drinking?

[wjousts]

Originally posted by Fien:

Yes, he's egotistic, but perhaps you're wrong about "most people". I checked a dozen youtube playthroughs and discovered that only a few players tried to help Jen. The majority just saved James and couldn't be bothered to look at their sister. I find that intriguing, because every single one of those players did try to avoid driving Jen home when she asked in the hallway. What is this, a sense of self-preservation kicking in, even in a text adventure?

Guilty.

But in my defense...it was obviously that this was the same scenario as in the second episode. So I tried to recreate the steps from that to move the story along. Since there wasn't another person in that (unless I completely missed that as well!), it didn't occur to me to even try to interact with Jen. My bad. But not self-preservation. More, self-moving-the-story-along-now-because-it's-getting-late.

[wjousts]

Originally posted by wjousts:

Wouldn't the hospital have done a blood test as soon as James arrived at the hospital? Wouldn't that reveal his blood alcohol concerntation (BAC)? Postmortem BAC measurements are tricky (from what I'm just now reading on the internet), but presumably the other guy would be just about a best case (found immediately after death). So shouldn't they be able to tell which of them had been drinking?

So looking around a bit, since I was curious. In the states at least, it's a mixed bag as to whether or not testing of fatally injured drivers is done. In some states it's mandatory, in others not. But even in those that aren't it might still happen in the coroner asks for it. As for others involved in the accident, that's even more mixed. It may or may not be required.

Of course, that's the states, and the game is set in the UK. I don't know what the laws there are regarding this.

[wjousts]

Originally posted by Fien:

So shouldn't they be able to tell which of them had been drinking?

Yes, they know. That's why doctor Alexander urges James to come clean: "And then you made it worse. Tell us what you did."

I read that, initially at least, as James had just admitted to drinking. Then Dr. Alexander said the "And then you made it worse..." bit. Not necessarily as they already knew he'd been drinking.

Then there was the comment about "I expect the police will want to talk to you..." which seemed to suggest that the James had been drinking was a new revealation. But I can totally see how it could be taken differently.

[wjousts]

Originally posted by Fien:

You hear Dr Alexander saying that just after the crash, shards of glass still flying. You lost it all, your sister, yourself, your parents. And then you made it worse... So Alexander already knows what the "worse" part is: Framing the other guy.

The police might want to talk to James because he's admitted he framed the other driver.

You don't hear it "just after the crash", you hear it "just after James remembering the crash" (and not necessarily for the first time). I don't think it's necessary to conclude that Dr Alexander had known James was drinking all along from that sequence. And I don't think the police would only now want to talk to James because of his confession if they already knew he'd been drinking.

[O4343]

My theory? James was never drunk in the first place. His sister was, and so was the other driver. The entire game is about a man who had lost everything being manipulated into taking the fall for someone else. James was trying to turn his life around, only to have his life torn apart by the mistake of a man everyone loved and respected. Pretty tragic stuff, honestly.

[Spankler]

Originally posted by O4343:

My theory? James was never drunk in the first place. His sister was, and so was the other driver. The entire game is about a man who had lost everything being manipulated into taking the fall for someone else. James was trying to turn his life around, only to have his life torn apart by the mistake of a man everyone loved and respected. Pretty tragic stuff, honestly.

I played the game a long time ago, but if I recall correctly, you (James) drink alcohol at the family party, so your interpretation has a flaw. If I remember it incorrectly, it is a pretty interesting view on the incident.

[TITOMOSQUITO187]

Originally posted by Spankler:

Originally posted by O4343:

My theory? James was never drunk in the first place. His sister was, and so was the other driver. The entire game is about a man who had lost everything being manipulated into taking the fall for someone else. James was trying to turn his life around, only to have his life torn apart by the mistake of a man everyone loved and respected. Pretty tragic stuff, honestly.

I played the game a long time ago, but if I recall correctly, you (James) drink alcohol at the family party, so your interpretation has a flaw. If I remember it incorrectly, it is a pretty interesting view on the incident.

He did. A lot of it.

[Flegit]

A lot of people here saying that it's the "sober" sister's fault that she asked her drunk brother to drive her, and allowed him to drive in that condition, etc... But in fact she was NOT sober, as some people mentioned. She was probably as drunk as James, since when James enters the kitchen and talks to her - she asks him to pour her another drink... And after that, if you choose to go outside, then take a walk through the yard and then to drink some whiskey - she snatches the bottle out of Jamese's hand and takes another drink herself...
So by that logic if being drunk takes away the blame from James, it can't be shifted to Jen, 'casue she was as drunk as him, and could not make "sober" decisions either.

Originally posted by TITOMOSQUITO187:

Originally posted by Spankler:

I played the game a long time ago, but if I recall correctly, you (James) drink alcohol at the family party, so your interpretation has a flaw. If I remember it incorrectly, it is a pretty interesting view on the incident.

He did. A lot of it.

Yes, but then again, the party is James's own recollection during yet another interview, and if the police and interviewers are indeed trying to manipulate it in order to pin the accident on him - then he may just be "recollecting" something already suggested by the the interviewers before, and not the actual truth, in which case their ploy is successful.

But I myself think it's not that complicated, and he was indeed drunk, and indeed he was the one who framed the other driver, since otherwise the people from the party and his parents would have easily debunked a theory staged by police. If he was not in fact drunk - witnesses from the party would have stated that. Also I remember it saying that the whiskey bottle was a pretty rare and expensive one, so I bet father would have recognized it when questioned by police, and confirmed that James had it (and not the other driver, which, if he did, would have been a hell of a coincidence).

[1uca8allarati]

This is what infuriated me when the game ended. Not only was James set up by his stupid, stupid relatives, his mother had the gull of not wanting to see visit him at the hospital!
This plot hole really dragged the whole ending reveal to the ground for me.

[Fien]

Originally posted by Flegit:

A lot of people here saying that it's the "sober" sister's fault that she asked her drunk brother to drive her, and allowed him to drive in that condition, etc... But in fact she was NOT sober, as some people mentioned. She was probably as drunk as James, since when James enters the kitchen and talks to her - she asks him to pour her another drink... And after that, if you choose to go outside, then take a walk through the yard and then to drink some whiskey - she snatches the bottle out of Jamese's hand and takes another drink herself...
So by that logic if being drunk takes away the blame from James, it can't be shifted to Jen, 'casue she was as drunk as him, and could not make "sober" decisions either.

I made James *drink whiskey* (after Jen asks you to take her home) at every location to see what would happen.

In the living room: You take a sneaky sip while your Mum is not looking!
In the kitchen: Dad tells you to take your sister home, but to go slow since you've had a few drinks already.
In the hallway: Jen pushes the bottle away. "Have more AFTER the drive."
Outside: She glares and smiles -- "enough!"
In the backyard: You take a sip and then Jen snatches it and takes a swig too. Her face contorts.
In the car: Before you get to take a sip, Jen snatches it from you and throws the bottle into her foot well.
When you type *get whiskey* in the car: Jen has taken your whiskey from you and you're not getting it back. (But you have it when you frame the other driver.)

Other interesting responses in the car (when she asks you to slow down):
Look at Jen: Overreacting, as usual ha
Talk to Jen: She's just yelling like a typical little sister. Leave me alone.

[Tomtom]

Just played this today. Interesting story. Lots of interesting theories. I did notice something that nobody has mentioned yet:

The party at which James supposedly got wasted was on new year's eve, according to the text adventure section in episode 4. James was due to leave the country the next day, and would be away for six months.

The accident, however, according to the police report microfiche (also episode 4), occurred on March 20.

Needless to say, this doesn't add up.

Also on that police report, the details of James' passenger and the deceased persons count are both censored. Don't know why, but it definitely looks dodgy.

[Fien]

Yes, the date discrepancy is strange. It's more likely to be cold with lots of snow on New Year's Eve than on March 20. And there's a third date on the first page of the police report with Dr Alexander's signature as the "presiding officer". I thought he was a doctor in a hospital...?

https://i.imgur.com/bBmoRcW.png

That's the best pic I could take. I read the date as 14/8 1986 = August 14. How can that be? Dr Alexander says the accident happened three weeks ago. A perhaps minor detail: it says NS1 but NS1 had the voice of the second doctor from episode 2, not the voice of Dr Alexander. And that second doctor's voice is also a colleague of the police officer who got killed in episode 4.

I find it all very confusing.