u/rickettsthequickest

Na maioria dos casos que eu vejo isso acontecendo é com o arco da crianças perdidas de Berserk e com Blood Meridian, e sinceramente, isso não faz o menor sentido. Primeiramente, a gente vive em um mundo onde a gente tem uma adaptação de No Country for Old Men e 120 dias em Sodoma pro cinema. Segundo, já existem obras que abordam praticamente a violência nua e crua que foram feitas direto para o audiovisual (as fitas de Poughskeepie(que é bem ruim) e Manhunt 1 e 2(que são bons), por exemplo). Terceiro, se fossemos deixar de retratar algo por ser extremamente pesado, não existiriam filmes sobre a Paixão de Cristo, sobre guerras ou muito menos sobre genocídios (como filmes sobre o Holocausto).

O que adiciona pra mim na camada de imbecilidade é quando dizem que é impossível porque "a obra seria cancelada", esse argumento me deixa especialmente irritado por dois motivos: 1. Ele pressupõe que o público vai ser burro o suficiente para não conseguir diferenciar ficção de realidade ou que vai achar que a obra automaticamente romantiza o tema apenas por representa-lo; e 2. Mesmo que de fato seja cancelado, não seria uma panelinha de pessoas no Twitter que fariam uma obra ser cancelada, especialmente se houvesse um público consumidor fiel.

Enfim, era isso, obrigado por ler até aqui.

I saw this on a scroll in my library, the hairs of beard are still shivering, I need to be enlightened by the wisdom of my fellow wizards.

Comercial é chato, irrita, está presente na vida cotidiana de todos e não necessariamente beneficia a economia. Os outros milhares de pecados do capitalismo como exploração da mão de obra barata/escrava, destruição do meio ambiente e etc não estão tão presentes na vida cotidiana de todos e beneficiam a economia de certa forma (por mais que seja extremamente antiético e errado).

Era um livro bem estranho, não lembro sobre o que era nem o título ou a capa. Eu ACHO que a capa era branco com um desenho preto. O que eu tenho certeza é que tinha um trecho que falava sobre uma árvore de dinheiro e um cara que calçava sapato e chinelo ao mesmo tempo e morreu disso.

Also, if I want to get a western hat, should it be a leather or a felt hat?

Na fanart está a cena em que o John Marston está prestes à capturar ele, só que tem pedaços de uma foto com o Javier antes da gangue ter acabado

Strange Man is an eccentric character, we know little about him, so theories that he is some kind of representation of a religious role, specially biblical ones, always come, I want to talk about this and give my view on to why this doesn't seem very correct.

​

Firstly, if Strange Man was the Devil, then why he tells John to choose between good and evil? And even seems to be very critical towards the violence caused by the gang, as seem by Jimmy Brooks, Heidi McCourt and his quote after John completes the first part of his mission. Every time we see the Devil in the Bible, since Genesis, he only influences people to evil, even when he tempts Jesus, he isn't testing the morality of Christ, he's trying to persuade him by disguising evil as something ok to do. Strange Man doesn't do that, he never influences anyone to either good or evil, he gives people a situation and tell them the options (I'll talk more about Herbert Moon's case later).

​

Now, if he was the biblical God, why he suggests to John that he can both tell Amos to cheat on his wife and rob Mother Calderón? And why he calls John a nasty little orphan when attacked? It doesn't follow any logic provided by the Bible. Even if he's not the biblical God, but a god from the RDR universe, in all the examples of real life religions, never a god puts itself in the same level as a human, Strange Man does, he puts himself below Heidi McCourt, telling John she's far more important than him. He's constantly judging John, but never as a higher being, he acts like he's a normal person talking to a criminal, he points Marston's hypocrisy, but also calls him an old friend, neither of this attitudes seem fitting to a god, even the most uncommon examples in fiction like The Sandman don't follow this line.

​

Moving to him being the The Grim Reaper, this is theory is pretty much sustained by the fact that he says he's some kind of accountant and the three bullets John shoots at him (Uncle, John and Abigail). I want to first make a question, why he collects the souls of Uncle and John so quickly but lets Abigail live for three more whole years? And why does he only targets John (independently of he making the good/evil choices)? Herbert has met with him too, four years passed and he's still pretty much alive. And why does he is so critical about murder if he's Death? Although he assumes a neutral position, he always presses John about his morality, he always presents the evil choices as the "other choice" or the "bad choice". The Grim Reaper wouldn't care about it, it wouldn't talk down to John because he's a murderer, neither it would call him a nasty little orphan. What I am saying is: it doesn't make sense for him to be The Grim Reaper, when he plays some sort of karma game with John, why would Death waste it's time this way?

​

In my vision, Strange Man is an entity that represents Karma or Karma itself. He says he's some am accountant in a way, his job is calculating people's actions, good deeds are gain, bad deeds are loss, then he calculates if they're on debt or if they have credit. With Arthur and John, he is almost giving them a second chance by leading them to Jimmy Brooks, Amos and Mother Calderón, he lets them choose between right and wrong, he gives them these opportunity due the good deeds they were doing (John helping Bonnie and expelling the outlaws from Fort Mercer, and Arthur helping Tilly and Karen). And in Blackwater, Arthur says in his diary to have seen a man similar to Trelawny, this probably is Strange Man and makes sense to be him, as he probably leads Dutch to Heidi McCourt, with Dutch becoming crazy/the gang falling apart maybe being a punishment for Dutch, due he choosing to kill her.

​

Now to Herbert Moon encounters him in some moment of his life, probably about before his daughter gets married, just like with John and Arthur he is faced with a choice: "happiness or two generations" to which he chooses happiness, as he disowns his daughter (the happiness would be not having to accept a jewish man as his son-in-law and surviving the cholera outbreak), Herbert proceeds to start worshipping Strange Man as a god, but doesn't notice the damage he done to himself: he lost his daughter, lost many of the friends he may had had in Armadillo, and being ostracized in the town as black and latino people start migrating to there, without noticing, Herbert was punished by Strange Man.

​

About the Skinner Brothers, the "man in a hat" they talk about might be Strange Man, if it is the case, they worship him and make human sacrifices to him, but we have to remember that their actions and visions about him, don't reflect his own actions and visions. We can't put the fact that they're psychopaths in Strange Man's account, in RDR I we see a lot of examples of cannibals in the game (both in "American appetites" and in the free roam) and in both games we can have a glimpse in the brutality of humans with Williamson's gang and the O'Driscolls. In my vision, Otis Skinner is a man that either somehow knows about Strange Man/has met with him before and made had to make a choice, and just as Herbert Moon he thinks Strange Man is a god and worships him, preaching about him to the gang and instructing them to give him their "harvests". But all of this is just in the case that the "man in a hat" is Strange Man, because that description is pretty vague and can be referring to literally anybody. And to finish, the Night Folk, my explanation to why they don't touch Strange Man's cabin is that they fear him, they have either entered the cabin and were frightened by what they saw or they have met Strange Man and were frightened by him, leading them to keeping distance.

​

That's pretty much everything I wanted to point, it probably has some errors to which I apologize, but I hope I made my vision clear and that we can have a healthy discussion in the comments.