cashew | Wednesday, September 18th, 2024

Preamble (more like pre-ramble):

I'm going to switch to using 丹枫 and 丹恒 rather than English names because I realized the two names look too much alike in English and I keep accidentally mixing them up. There's more obvious visual distinction in Chinese, so.

On the subject of 1/1.5/2-person discussion

This entire discussion is purely driven by ship goggles. I wish fangirls would recognize that canonically there is only one interpretation: 丹枫 and 丹恒 are 2 separate people. The story is unequivocal about this, even with 2.5 patch's terribly inconsistent writing.

Why? Because the story is 100% behind the belief that 丹恒 is innocent of any wrong doing. 丹恒 is the victim, has always been portrayed as the victim, and the narrative never wavered on this point. While 丹恒 the character might be waffling back and forth about who he is and how he interprets himself, the narrative has not.

Because if the narrative actually agreed with 丹恒's logic, then the story would not allow 丹恒 to continue being a free person. The meta-texual ethical justification for 丹恒's continued participation as a member of the MC's party is because the narrative has always treated 丹恒 as a separate entity from 丹枫. The canon simply does not support an alternative interpretation.

With that said, the entire argument regarding 1/1.5/2-person interpretation is driven solely by shipping, specifically the type of romance that can be written depending on where one stands in the 1/1.5/2 debate. Are we good? All right, then on to the actual discussion.

( Why 1/1.5/2-person stance matters )

In conclusion

1-person theory is doomed to tragedy or ignoring 饮月之乱 via AUs. 1.5-person theory cannot absolve 丹恒 of criminal liability via memory loss excuse. 2-person theory absolved 丹恒 of 丹枫's crime, but turns him into a replacement goldfish.

Every version has problems, but the 2-person theory is the most ethically sound. But also maybe y'all should try shipping 景元/丹枫 instead, since that's where the actual emotional foundation lies.