I hope you guyz understood that I didn't developp this for no reason.
This was done in order for you to understand that there was no headcanon in my reasonning. Only a strict deconstruction of every parameters possible.
This is how we should really approach the discussion about the next Nakama. Strict logic and narrative deconstruction.
I use headcanon, I do. But only when I'm making hypothesis. (Like the possible future action of Carrot in wano) And even then, those hypothesis are based on logic and the characteristics of the characters. For example, I could make the hypothesis that Luffy and Carrot will have a moment in Wano, but it wouldn't be based on much as Luffy will most likely stay up and fight Kaido. But I can make the hypothesis that Carrot could encounter a challenge while coming back.
But I need to clear something. When i'm talking about future event. I'm careful not to confuse everything:
- A hypothesis is an "extrusion" of the material to try to imagine the futur. This stands on the basis of the material, but uses imagination.
- A logical postulate (in this context) is also an extrusion of the material, but it is a logical one based one real data. It's therefore much more probable
- A theory is mass of narrative reasonning and logical postulate. It's a coherent work. It's created to explain something that has yet to be explained, a void in the knowledge.
So..
- When I say "Carrot will probably be defeated again in Wano" I'm making a simple hypothesis. I use my imagination to create a reasonning were Carrot is defeated again and therefore explain another hypothesis that is imagining that Carrot's arc is related to her usefullness (she would feel a great sence of uselessness, which would lead to her being reassured by someone close and sneaking back on the ship)
In other world, i'm using that "extruction" of the material to explain another hypothesis and so on. This is basically what "theorist" on youtube do. They are functionning in circle.
- When I say "Carrot will most probably sneak on the Sunny as a stowaway" I'm making a logical postulate. I uses the characterization of Carrot, pure logic and two parameters to make a conclusion:
A. Carrot has been constructed as this excited for everything teenager. Meaning that the moment Oda put her on the pass for adventure, the ONLY reason that would make her wants to go back would be if she lost that "spark" for new things and adventure. Without that, the fact that Carrot would want to go back out of nowhere would not make sence from a character development standpoint.
B. Carrot has been constructed as taking what she wants instead of asking. She also stowaway once before. PLUS we now that Minks have a tendancy to stowaway whenever..
There is therefore high chances for Carrot to stowaway again on the Sunny. Simple characterization logic.
- When I say "Carrot will be the next Nakama" and make a blog to developp this claim. I'm making a theory. I use multiple and strong logical and narrative arguments to create an explanation for a very strange treatment of the character of Carrot.
What you can see in my theory is the closest to the scientific process.. difference being that the peer review can be done by reading the support and the conclusions or experiments are replaced with logical argumentations.
Well my blog is there for it. What I did was just a tease for those articles.
Right now, the probability for Carrot to join the crew is above 99%. There is too many evidences. Can I be wrong ? Of course. But cosmologists could also be wrong about the expension of the universe.. the thing is.. They have strong evidences in the reality proving their point. Just like I have strong narrative evidences in the story proving mine.
That 1% is anything that oda could come up with tocreate a future for Carrot in coherence with both her characterization and her treatment.
A possibility like that would be for example: Carrot being captured by the World gouvernment (for some random reason, with Robin for example) explaining still why Carrot was put under the light for a moment, why she was put on the look out post, why she was under the radar in Wano, why she is treated like a future strawhat.. while not joining at the end of the arc..
(in this possibility, she would still become strawhat, but at the very end of the story)
> This is what an hypothesis looks like.
This was done in order for you to understand that there was no headcanon in my reasonning. Only a strict deconstruction of every parameters possible.
This is how we should really approach the discussion about the next Nakama. Strict logic and narrative deconstruction.
I use headcanon, I do. But only when I'm making hypothesis. (Like the possible future action of Carrot in wano) And even then, those hypothesis are based on logic and the characteristics of the characters. For example, I could make the hypothesis that Luffy and Carrot will have a moment in Wano, but it wouldn't be based on much as Luffy will most likely stay up and fight Kaido. But I can make the hypothesis that Carrot could encounter a challenge while coming back.
But I need to clear something. When i'm talking about future event. I'm careful not to confuse everything:
- A hypothesis is an "extrusion" of the material to try to imagine the futur. This stands on the basis of the material, but uses imagination.
- A logical postulate (in this context) is also an extrusion of the material, but it is a logical one based one real data. It's therefore much more probable
- A theory is mass of narrative reasonning and logical postulate. It's a coherent work. It's created to explain something that has yet to be explained, a void in the knowledge.
So..
- When I say "Carrot will probably be defeated again in Wano" I'm making a simple hypothesis. I use my imagination to create a reasonning were Carrot is defeated again and therefore explain another hypothesis that is imagining that Carrot's arc is related to her usefullness (she would feel a great sence of uselessness, which would lead to her being reassured by someone close and sneaking back on the ship)
In other world, i'm using that "extruction" of the material to explain another hypothesis and so on. This is basically what "theorist" on youtube do. They are functionning in circle.
- When I say "Carrot will most probably sneak on the Sunny as a stowaway" I'm making a logical postulate. I uses the characterization of Carrot, pure logic and two parameters to make a conclusion:
A. Carrot has been constructed as this excited for everything teenager. Meaning that the moment Oda put her on the pass for adventure, the ONLY reason that would make her wants to go back would be if she lost that "spark" for new things and adventure. Without that, the fact that Carrot would want to go back out of nowhere would not make sence from a character development standpoint.
B. Carrot has been constructed as taking what she wants instead of asking. She also stowaway once before. PLUS we now that Minks have a tendancy to stowaway whenever..
There is therefore high chances for Carrot to stowaway again on the Sunny. Simple characterization logic.
- When I say "Carrot will be the next Nakama" and make a blog to developp this claim. I'm making a theory. I use multiple and strong logical and narrative arguments to create an explanation for a very strange treatment of the character of Carrot.
What you can see in my theory is the closest to the scientific process.. difference being that the peer review can be done by reading the support and the conclusions or experiments are replaced with logical argumentations.
Post automatically merged:
Well my blog is there for it. What I did was just a tease for those articles.
Post automatically merged:
Right now, the probability for Carrot to join the crew is above 99%. There is too many evidences. Can I be wrong ? Of course. But cosmologists could also be wrong about the expension of the universe.. the thing is.. They have strong evidences in the reality proving their point. Just like I have strong narrative evidences in the story proving mine.
That 1% is anything that oda could come up with tocreate a future for Carrot in coherence with both her characterization and her treatment.
A possibility like that would be for example: Carrot being captured by the World gouvernment (for some random reason, with Robin for example) explaining still why Carrot was put under the light for a moment, why she was put on the look out post, why she was under the radar in Wano, why she is treated like a future strawhat.. while not joining at the end of the arc..
(in this possibility, she would still become strawhat, but at the very end of the story)
> This is what an hypothesis looks like.
Last edited:
