Talk:Full Circle

Full Circle?
This page seems highly speculative. Not only that, but the definition of full circle is entirely made up. All we know about the full-circle ending in downpour is that Murphy reawakens in silent hill and that other "real" people are trapped there. We do not know whether or not they have to "repeat" whatever journey they went through. Even if they do repeat their journey, we do not know whether or not they will be freed by coming to terms with their past.

If someone has information that states otherwise, it should at least be posted --Carousel123 9:35 p.m. 05/15/2012

Are you sure about that? Why not? Maria's full circle is not about her, it's about Silent Hill working towards the goal of the protagonist owning up to their sins. It's basically the same thing as Murphy getting killed/killing himself and coming back to Silent Hill. It shouldn't matter if she is a manifestation, because she is linked to and for James. If it were a matter of a manifestation experiencing a full circle without anything to do with the protagonist, then yes, it would make zero sense. She's not the full circle, she's part of it. I don't see the problem here.

Okay I've updated the page to include the theoretical nature of the concept... It IS speculative, and the page can be freely edited however anybody sees fit. So for sources, etc, everyone, be my guest. And the evidence I saw that they could be freed from their pasts was that Murphy already dies once in the main story when he tries to escape (when Anne shoots him on the boat). Then, at the end of his final "trial" in the Overlook Otherworld (his 2nd chance), he may or may not escape, depending on his acceptance of his responsibility or not. Murdering Anne served as covering up the past instead of dealing with it, hence the Full Circle ending (his 3rd chance). However, the reason I didn't include Maria when I created the page (besides her being a manifestation) was because the definition I made wasn't meant to be exactly about repetition of the journey, OR the repetition of the manifestations until the sinner comes to realization; that is another topic entirely. All I meant by the concept regarded the sinner's being trapped until they came to this realization. Unable to leave the town until they learned their lesson. And nothing more.SiL3NT KNiGHT 99 03:22, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Dudes, you need not add a topic to reply. And make sure to sign with your signature after posting. We need to know who we are talking to! -- Murphy Pendleton  :D  03:51, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Another SH2 Full Circle?
Couldn't the "In Water" ending of SH2 also be a Full Circle considering James has killed himself instead of living with the guilt, similar to Murphy's suicide attempt in the "Full Circle" ending of Downpour.  HeatherMorris6806 01:41, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

It could very well be. I didn't create the page, but I find the concept interesting (even if it is only speculation) and so I added the Maria ending. Maybe that should be added as well.

Nixerix 05:02, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

The condition of coming Full Circle isn't death, the condition is making a decision contrary to the realization Silent Hill wants to bring about to the protagonist (eg trying to leave with Maria, a manifestation, instead of accepting Mary's loss). About "In Water," it depends on how James has dealt with things. I haven't gone into it in depth at all, I only beat SH2 for the first time like 3 weeks ago in the HD Collection haha. So if you think "In Water" brought James Full Circle, then you have to either A) prove the town won't let him leave, or B) prove he didn't learn a damn thing! :P SiL3NT KNiGHT 99 06:52, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that the concept of a Full Circle is not death but rather the denial of the actions leading to the protagonist being stuck in Silent Hill. I re-watched the "In Water" ending and although James has acknowledged his actions he refuses to accept them, or a life without Mary, leading to him, possibly, to a Full Circle.  HeatherMorris6806 23:56, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I can kinda see that being the case... I read the end of the English SH2 translation here (which uses the In Water ending), it describes a bit more of the unseen emotions. It doesn't sound much to me like he was in his right mind lol. I'll look into some other ending analyses, to make sure he was going in the COMPLETELY opposite direction though, before we set it in stone ;D SiL3NT KNiGHT 99 00:06, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

Past characters
I had listed Eddie, drawn to Silent Hill because of murder, as a distinctly unrepentant character who could likely have reason to come Full Circle. Someone edited this out. Now I know I don't understand SH2 completely as of yet (having just beaten it for the first time weeks ago), but what reason could there be for him not to be included? Can someone explain why / why not?

Exact definition
Dudes... The definition has to be exact. It has been changed several times to things that don't apply to half the instances of Full Circles (ex: not everyone is trapped in an Otherworld). Be more careful to keep the wording applicable to every instance listed in the Occurrences section. SiL3NT KNiGHT 99 09:02, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

Everyone in a full circle ending is trapped in an otherworld. That would be the entire point of the full circle. Which is why you should get rid of the "chain of events" portion, because once again, that is speculation and the audience has no idea whether or not James will be pulled back to Silent Hill or if he even leaves in the first place. Maybe he never leaves, maybe something else happens to the manifestation of Maria, maybe he appears in the real world without her, maybe he learns his lesson later on. Frankly it doesn't seem possible for him to even take a manifestation back to the real world based on the games events and mythos. But none of that matters anyways because it stands to reason that assuming future events of the series is extremely speculative and should not be included in the definition. If you're going to keep this up, move the speculation tag back to the top of the page, because it keeps being edited to include all manner of speculation. --Carousel123 3:55 am May 20, 2012

I didn't write the SH2 bit, I never knew that about the Maria ending until someone else added it. And it's not worth wondering about the obscure possibilities, the writers very clearly wanted us to think that Maria would get sick and die just like Mary. James might not return to Silent Hill (that's unproven, so I'll remove it), but he would be left exactly where he started: distraught, with a dead wife, and this is the definition of a Full Circle: back where you started, with nothing, and a new chance to face your demons. He is not left in an Otherworld, and Howard, JP, and Bobby are never seen in the Otherworld, so it is not proven that they are all trapped there either. No one is proven to be trapped in the Otherworld except Alex and Murphy. And my basis for saying the "chain of events" bit was Anne's becoming a prisoner and being transferred right back to Silent Hill, and for allowing for the possibility of James' return. SiL3NT KNiGHT 99 23:46, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

I keep mentioning that it isn't the "Otherworld" in which they are trapped, they are trapped in the "other worlds" which constitutes the dimensions of Silent Hill where everyone IS trapped. You appear to be defining Full Circle the way you want to define it, and not with facts that are presented in the game. Anne's scenario involved no chain of events! She killed Murphy and was trapped in the town in an alternate reality that manifested itself, because it obviously wasn't actual reality (which is encompassed by the term "other worlds"). Where does it ever say in any of these scenarios that they appear back in reality? You don't even know if that ending was cannon, or if it relates to the others. As far as James' return, this is not a Full Circle, a Full Circle is a mechanism of the town's influence, not a state of mind of the character. And you keep saying another CHANCE to face their demons which is still Conjecture. -- Carousel123 5:03 pm May 20, 2012

Ohhh I see, the way it was written before you said "otherworlds," one word, so I assumed you meant THE Otherworld. You never compound those words unless you're referring to THE Otherworld and NOT the Fog World, so no need to attack my thinking. I know obviously no one made it back to the Real World unscathed, then the point of being trapped would obviously be defeated.

And an ending's canonicity has nothing to do with whether it is a Full Circle or not; all the endings are possibilities which branch from the main story (except joke ones); they are various conclusions the characters may arrive at, all based on the SAME set of rules.

However, good point about Anne not being in any chain of events; I assumed Silent Hill warped the timeline to switch them. But we don't know if that was the case, so you could very well be right in that it manifested a fake reality to punish her outside of the Real World.

You're right in saying that a Full Circle is not a state of mind (the reason the SHSM ending wasn't a true Full Circle), but its occurrence IS critically intertwined with their state of mind. So based on all the trapped characters' mental states in Downpour, I projected that James, resisting reality, is a perfect candidate for one. And combined with Maria's sickness (meaning James will again be eventually left with nothing, in the self-deceived and broken emotional state where he began), then I also assumed he will come Full Circle, based on the conditions being flawlessly met. And if one comes Full Circle, then they DO get another chance, because the whole essence of the Full Circle is failing to make the right choice, and being trapped in the same place/emotional state until you do. I only use the "second chance" wording because some should have died and didn't, and/or they have another opportunity to make the right choice. Ex: in the Maria ending James made the wrong choice, the town refused him satisfaction (Maria's illness), but he has another chance to finally accept it after Maria dies too.

Also, look up the definition of the idiom "full circle" as it is used outside of SH, then this might start to make a bit more sense. SiL3NT KNiGHT 99 03:19, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

I accept your canonicity argument. (Although for many of the given endings the player can just as likely conclude that "it was all a dream," instead of attempting to construct rules around it) The Full Circle idea hasn't really been looked into until Downpour which is why its vague.

Also, i don't think Silent Hill can warp time outside of its other worlds, since (i'm pretty sure) those are the only places that it has any influence, and its especially doubtful that it has the ability to manipulate real world events (with Murphy and Sewell switching places) so it makes the most sense that its an illusion.

Also, i know what a full circle is outside of SH, but you have to understand that this is a fan given name based on the title of one of the endings and not for the actual concept. Its not that the idea of a "full circle" doesn't make sense to me, it's that your reasoning doesn't.

James could be considered to come Full Circle ONLY because the game doesn't show him leave the town and because he embraces a manifestation. Not because some speculated time in the future he may be trapped there or undergo a breakdown. Therefore this should not be included in the definition.

Finally, a Full Circle guarantees no such chance at redemption. It makes little sense to me that these people can leave when you consider how long Howard Blackwood and Bobby Ricks are kept in the town running errands for it as well as all the other characters that go missing after they "die" in-game. Do you think the town expects Bobby Ricks to realize his sins by spinning records all day? Or Blackwood by delivering mail? It makes more sense to me that these people are either eternally punished or dead. But that last bit would be my opinion and does not belong in the definition either.

Likewise the game never even states that these people have another chance at freedom, it just states that they are trapped for the time being (at least). Characters "die" many times in the games, never to be heard from again, OR to be heard from soon after. The definition that you give suggests that the characters that appear to die come full circle ALL THE TIME. Anne "dies" many times, so would you consider each one of those instances a full circle? No, because the town is simply not done with her. In short the town decides when they've learned or when they haven't and they are punished accordingly. Usually this decision happens by the endings to lend finality to the story. You should think of Silent Hill as limbo, and the town decides whether they get to keep living in reality or stay there. It seems to me to be a one choice thing. If the characters get infinite chances, the events of the games would be trivialized by comparison anyway.

Your theories aren't the only ones. Stick to what the game suggests. When the game suggests that Murphy returns to the real world after the full circle ending, then we can talk.

Carousel123 04:51, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Based on your above points: SiL3NT KNiGHT 99 07:07, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * It is vague, because this is the first time this concept has been stressed to this importance. It's a new game, the grounds for interpretation are fresh.
 * I agree that I shouldn't have assumed that Silent Hill warped reality, as I have no basis for this.
 * It's a very distinct possibility that the sequel could clarify previous mythology, and I did my best to define what I perceived to be an increase in the specificity of these occurrences' criteria, in a way most consistent and applicable to the past games, by attempting to narrow down things all "trapped" characters had in common.
 * It is established in SHD's gallery that Bobby Ricks is not spinning records for Silent Hill, rather it is his personal cowardice that keeps him there doing so, hiding in the clock tower calling for Murphy's help instead of escaping himself. Since this is true for Bobby, it is likely also true for Howard that the mail is likely a distraction or from his problems, as well as JP's suicide attempts. They are not learning anything by their activities, they are PREVENTING themselves from learning anything, which is the reason they're still there. Additionally, the only sure instance of seeing dead characters does not resemble JP's, Howard's, or Bobby's situations in any way, so I never considered this possibility an option.
 * If it appears I meant everyone who ever died in Silent Hill should come Full Circle (which it doesn't; check the Theories section) then be my guest and correct the definition accordingly. Silent Hill is known to warp its worlds in sensless ways (ex: repeatedly surviving 1000 foot drops) to preserve the lives of the summoned so they can make their discoveries. So no, I do not believe every death results in a Full Circle, because no one who ever fell in a hole did so to escape responsibility. The "chances" as I see them only translate to wrong decisions, not all the deaths, and I don't know how many they get, or if they are infinite, I only think they appear to get more than one (because Murphy potentially is able to make the wrong decision, transcend death, and make the right decision the second time around). It is for this reason that I said it LIKELY repeats until they make the right decision, and this is located in the speculation section, so I don't know what the problem is.
 * You are getting tired of my theories? I am getting tired of your increasing hostility. We are on the same team; I respect your input and wouldn't mind presenting another side alongside mine, but insulting the intelligence and discernment capabilities of someone you disagree with only makes others want to hear your side less, just in case you haven't figured that out yet. And I named it the THEORIE[S] (plural!) section for a reason. There is room for more, so consider yourself personally appointed to add whatever alternatives you see to my multitude of fallacies.

This is about the definition and why i changed it, i'm perfectly fine with your theories section which i have expressed multiple times. I got a little angry because i feel i've been forced to explain the same thing over and over again, but you should understand that i realized i was being antagonistic and i changed my wording. There is no increased hostility, just a little frustration because i assumed this problem was over with. Also, i never insulted your intelligence or discernment capabilities, if anything i'm just trying to make the line clear between fact and theory.

You can think of my theories any way you want, i only added them here to show that yours are not the only ones. I'm just saying (as i keep doing) to keep the factual parts factual and the theory portions theoretical. The definition as is is perfectly accpetable for the page

Carousel123 08:12, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

You have been insulting my intelligence/discernment all along by implication, with statements like "the definition of full circle is entirely made up," and "You appear to be defining Full Circle the way you want to define it, and not with facts that are presented in the game."

Before my last post I never once reacted in a provocative way towards your own theories; I always calmly attempted to further prove my standing on the issue in every response, so where your anger stemmed from escapes me. Where I saw truth in your reasoning, I corrected my own. And I did hint that I already know the definition is fine as is, with the statement "If it appears I meant everyone who ever died in Silent Hill should come Full Circle (which it doesn't...) then...correct the definition..."

Contrary to popular belief, I am not an idiot who pulls arguments out of my empty head; most of my university courses involve critical literary analysis, and consequently I am always doing the best I can to rationally prove everything I say before I say it, using in-game bases. I am willing to listen, but you would do better think before you speak, and politely ask me my reasons before you insinuate such things, as you cannot completely take back the results with a simple edit.

SiL3NT KNiGHT 99 22:53, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Thief in 'Stolen Goods' side quest another victim of Full Circle?
Granted it can only be perceived as speculation, after completing the Stolen Goods sidequest in Downpour, the Thief who subsequently hung himself disappears while his clothing remains. Could this also be an allegory alluding to 'Full Circle'? GUT 13:19, July 15, 2012 (UTC)GUT