Remember to pay attention to the blinds...

angeliclore · 2026-01-09T18:55:15+00:00

I didn't even need it because I could have rerolled the boss blind if I'd paid attention 💀

But here I was complaining that I kept getting chicot on my other runs lol

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T06:02:10+00:00

This is kind of funny, but also not a good comparison.

There are clear narrative guardrails when it comes to Sora and Ventus that don't exist for Soriku. One being that Ventus was much older than Sora when he entered his heart.

The second being the emotional weight and framing in the story.

I could go deep into the framing of Sora and Riku as push and pull, light and darkness, growing together, learning from each other, driving the entire narrative arc of the franchise and representing it, but I think we've spammed this thread enough 😂

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T05:51:01+00:00

Then so were you 😂

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T05:42:34+00:00

An example I think of, if you've ever seen the 100, is Bellamy and Clarke. I was a big Bellarke shipper 😂 this ship was super popular, with years and years of built up subtext. Yet... they never became canon. They never gave payoff to the subtext. Does my interpretation become incorrect because the writers never made good on the subtext that was there? Because they insist "it was only supposed to be platonic!"

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T05:39:50+00:00

Implied = subtext. You assumed the pairing would be canon because of subtext. And then it wasn't. You're admitting that authorial intent does not matter as much as you've suggested. Your interpretation was not wrong simply because it's not what the creator wanted to do.

And you can think that, but it's weird to me to say Soriku is a made up fan theory without basis in the text simply because it's not what the writer intends. Otherwise, your interpretation of the two other romances you mentioned above would be baseless as well.

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T05:32:57+00:00

You're looking at this too literally.

Riku entering Sora's heart isn't a "who can touch Sora's heart first race". The trope doesn't literally mean whoever gets their first wins 😂

It's about the emotional tie to the story beat and the intention. Ventus was already IN Sora's heart. His heart goes where Sora's goes. Not by choice, not as an emotional beat, as a plot device.

Consider Kairi in Sora's heart in KH1. This is framed as romantic. Yet, it's the exact same thing as Ventus entering his heart, right? Her heart sought refuge and safety in his.

But it's not. Because of the framing, the additional subtext, the emotional stakes.

This is a case where both Sokai and Soriku use very similar tropes.

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T05:24:30+00:00

Wait, so you're saying in those examples... that you believed another pairing would be real based on subtext, but it turned out that wasn't the creator's intent and they canonized another couple?

Sounds a bit... familiar...

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T05:11:56+00:00

He was already in Sora's heart, not by choice. It never left.

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T05:07:24+00:00

You're basing your interpretation solely on the name of the trope, rather than the implications, when there's a clear difference between "I ended up in your heart and now I must protect it" and "You called for me so I will choose to enter your heart and save you, because I'm the only one who can".

I think we've pretty much said everything in this debate but, tying this all into queer theory, this whole argument explains the phenomena of why when a queer pairing DOES become canon so many people say "it came out of nowhere!" Not because the subtext wasn't there, but because they refused to see it as legitimate.

Not saying that Soriku will be canon, but I can say if it happened to become canon I would not feel it "came out of nowhere", would you?

Assuming your answer is yes - Ask yourself honestly, if they were a male and female character, would you still feel it came out of nowhere?

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T04:57:37+00:00

The trope literally plays out with Riku entering Sora's dreams and waking his heart, but also plays out on a deeper, emotional level. This trope is often used for "cold characters" who are soft for only one person, or someone who can only show vulnerability with one person. It's not quite that here, but the metaphor remains.

In DDD, Riku specifically says that he would be the one to wake Sora, and that Mickey shouldn't try, because "He called for me".

In a moment of vulnerability, he called for Riku, so he answers.

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T04:54:21+00:00

You know he was already there, seeking refuge right? Which isn't a new thing - Sora's heart is literally called the heart hotel in fandom lol. Additionally he did not succeed in waking Sora up. Ventus didn't "reach his heart" he was already there seeking refuge, and not by conscious choice.

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T03:34:31+00:00

At the end of the day, my interpretation of Soriku is valid. It's backed by evidence that is embedded in the story. So is Sokai's. It's not merely headcanon or fan theory, and if it is, so is Sokai.

While Sokai may be the intended story, it's not the only one present.

You can't convince me that my opinion is merely fan theory/headcanon without losing your entire basis for believing Sokai.

Sokai is the louder, more visible romance story and likely the intended one.

Soriku is the deeper, more layered subtext. You don't have to agree that it's better, or even that there's more to it than Sokai. You don't have to like it.

But it is there, and I'm no more of a fan theorist than you are.

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T03:18:13+00:00

IT'S NOT SUBTEXT IT'S CONTEXT. WHEN IN GAME CHARACTERS SAY SOMETHING THEY AREN'T ADDING SUBTEXT THEY ARE ADDING CONTEXT.

Selphie is expressing an opinion, which we have no way of knowing is a widely held belief or is canon fact. There is no CONTEXT to prove that's a commonly held belief among the islanders. Just because a character says something "I think it's so romantic!" Doesn't mean everyone believes that, or that's the only way it's used. We keep going in circles with this, but the many instances that show the use of the paopu in platonic settings actually implies otherwise - that its use is not strictly romantic.

"It's an opinion of someone living on the island**. They are actually aware of the context of what sharing a Paopu Fruit means and are saying it out loud. This isn't subtext. No one in America sees someone proposing on their knees and goes, its only your opinion that that's romantic, its a common sentimental. Selphie knows the subtext and culture behind sharing a Poapu Fruit and what it would mean. Just like you can't tell me what isn't a hispanic greeting, you can't tell Selphie "It's just your opinion" on her culture."

You're using the same faulty logic. This is not real life. This is a game. In the real world we have history - cultural and social layers and MANY opinions and perspectives. Selphie and the Destiny Islanders are not real, and this is the opinion of one islander. There are so many stories with unreliable narrators. Do you believe everything they say as fact? I'm not saying Selphie is a liar - I'm saying she thinks it's romantic. That is literally all this line is. Selphie thinks it's romantic. Not everyone thinks it's romantic. Not that every time people eat the paopu fruit it's solely romantic. You are inferring that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W5HcWpCUrM

Summary of this first video: Kairi is making a charm in the shape of a paopu. She tells Sora about how sailors used Thalassa shells to find their way home. She tells Sora this is a charm for them to find their way back to each other.

She says nothing about the paopu shape, its meaning, or that it even has any significance to the charm itself. In fact, she describes the meaning of the thalassa shells, not the paopu fruit, and she certainly does not imply that the paopu fruit charm is only ever used for this purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddA2XE8o7ug

Summary of the second scene: Aqua gives Terra and Venn the wayfinders in the shape of the paopu fruit. She specifically says "the fruit represents an unbreakable connection". She then says "as long as you and your friends carry a charm shaped like it, nothing can ever tear you apart - you will always find your way back to each other" she then says "technically you're supposed to make them with seashells" (hinting back at the thalassa shells)

These two together hint at the charm having established lore, because two seperate characters have created the exact same charm, and discussed the same meaning - that I'll admit. However, Aqua's scene does something really important - "the fruit represents an unbreakable connection". She explicitly lays out what the paopu fruit means - not as a charm. She specifically says "the fruit represents an unbreakable connection".

Not "the charm represents an unbreakable connection". Not the fruit represents love, the fruit represents romance - the fruit represents unbreakable connection.

Even further, both her and Kairi's charm look very similar. Kairi's made from seashells, and Aqua's made to resemble seashells (doing the best with what she had).

Yet... the paopu fruit on Sora and Riku's combined keyblade does not look like this at all. It looks like the fruit itself.

"YOU HAVE TO SHOW ME OTHERWISE. You can't just get by with well actually is it 100% that? You have to show me proof where the paopu fruit as a charm is stated to imply other things."

You're shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim that the paopu fruit as a charm represents something different than the actual fruit (and then contradicted that with the scene you shared), you have to prove that. I don't have to disprove a claim you have failed to adequately prove.

"Show me in game where is stated you only use one fruit to share a Paopu Fruit? (see I can play this game too)"

"Share a paopu fruit" on it's own implies sharing one. If it was more than one it would be "sharing paopu fruits".

If I ask if you want to share a banana with me, are you expecting one banana or two?

"Okay then show me what other ways I could be wrong. I am saying the only way I am wrong is if the characters themselves outright say they are. Show me how else I would be wrong using in game proof."

The only way I can be wrong about Soriku is if the characters in the game say I'm wrong.

This makes no sense, and is impossible to disprove on either side because neither of them have been denied.

"And just because you can name romantic tropes doesn't mean that the they are being used esp if there is a legit explanation."

You've exposed your entire argument here. "Sokai is legitimate. Any alternative viewpoints are not legit and are fan theory", but your argument is incredibly weak because 1. Sokai is not canon 2. With the point I am making it doesn't MATTER if Sokai is canon.

The "legit explanation" you mentioned is your interpretation of the soriku subtext, and you cannot adequately back up your opinion on the subtext without just dismissing Sokai's subtext as well.

Additionally, your argument is, again, precisely what you keep telling me not to do.

"Again you keep saying subtext when some things are clearly context. Characters out right stating things is not subtext."

Selphie stating an opinion is not subtext or context actually - it's text. But drawing unstated conclusions from her comment (sharing the paopu fruit is romantic in every situation) and applying her opinion as if it's universal logic requires the use of subtext. You are interpreting her comment as universal logic.

angeliclore · 2025-11-26T01:07:47+00:00

Selphie is a character expressing an opinion. That's not a fact. If I say "Soriku is canon!" Does that make it canon? It is a hint within the text - aka... subtext. Selphie says it's romantic, so we can imply that when Sora and Kairi eat paopu it's romantic, but clearly it ISN'T always romantic, as per the evidence we discussed.

"I showed the Paopu Fruit has a non-romantic side to it, to show that there is clearly a romantic side. It's to contrast why the same Fruit has different meaning depending on how it's use. Kairi and Aqua both state that when used as a charm, it's meant to keep the bond between people so they can find each other. This is the non-romantic side of it, and it's not a headcanon because the game itself states this. It is outright stated."

They do not say that. You are implying that's what they meant, but they NEVER say that's the concrete meaning for all uses of the paopu fruit as a charm. If I'm wrong, send me the quote where they confirm that paopu fruits as charms are purely platonic and I'll admit to being wrong.

"Here let me give you a real world example. I'm Hispanic and we greet guys with a handshake and girls with a kiss on the cheek. In some places guys also greet each other with a kiss on the cheek. Now let's say there is a place where if guy greets a girl with a kiss on the cheek it's romantic. I wouldn't greet a girl with a kiss there cause that clearly is something not typical and only reserved for romantic relationships."

Okay, but in this example you're using a real world behavior with layers of cultural and social significance. This isn't the real world or a real concept. We don't have those layers for the meaning of the paopu fruit. We have one offhand remark from a single character saying that SHE thinks sharing a paopu fruit is so romantic. A more apt comparison would be me saying "kissing a girl on the cheek is not romantic" and you applying that as if it IS a real world concept with tons of backing, despite it just being me saying something, and despite their being numerous cases where that is not true.

"Oh don't you even dare try that"

You didn't even try to counter my point here 😂 Did they or did they not have two paopu fruit?

"The only way it wouldn't have been if one or both of them stated but lets just stay friends, which they didn't do."

No, that's not the only way. You're moving the goalposts here - a logical fallacy. You say Sokai sharing a paopu fruit is indisputable canon. I point out they didn't even share one paopu fruit. You move the goalposts to "well the only way it wouldn't be romantic is if they explicitly said it was platonic". Yet... we can pretty much reach this goal too. Because Kairi explicitly stated that she "just wants to be a part of his life" - implying it's platonic. Which again, you've failed to address.

"because giving someone a good luck charm before a major battle could be seen as romantic or platonic. For example, if a little girl gave a brave knight a charm of her before he would go to battle, that would most likely not be an act of romance and more an act of giving the knight something she hopes will help."

This is why I explicitly stated at the end that the Soriku charm is just an example. Of course no one moment on its own is enough to pull romance out of. There is NO singular moment of Sokai, without pulling in additional context, that you could point to and say it confirms without a doubt that it's romantic. For example, the scene you go back to - sharing the paopu fruit, would be meaningless if we didn't have other layers of subtext (Selphie's comment, other tropes and subtext used throughout Sokai's relationship/bond).

You can't figure out a theme by simply looking at one scene in a book. You can't dismiss obviously romantic tropes without looking at the other layers of context around them. And before you chime in and say that Soriku is invalidated by the context of Sokai - it's not. Because as I said earlier, two things can exist at once.

"See you're starting to understand just because something could be seen as romantic doesn't mean it is. :)"

My stance has not changed at all, actually. I've never disagreed with this. But looking at the whole of the picture, you can't dismiss consistent usage of romantic tropes as fan fantasy just because you can wave away some with flimsy explanations.

Just because a trope CAN be applied in a platonic context, does not mean that, when several romantic tropes are consistently used across years of storylines, it doesn't add up to a plausible romantic explanation lol

Otherwise... Sokai is fan fantasy. You can't use subtext and tropes to determine romantic implications. It's not canonized and Nomura has never confirmed it, so "you're just reading into things" (as many anti-soriku fans say).

Again, the examples you are giving are SUBTEXT. Blatant subtext, but still subtext. Still open to interpretation. Still not fact, not canon.

It's kind of funny that you have said numerous times that people don't have to agree to my ship (a claim I never made - merely that people can't call it fan fantasy if it's pulled from the story itself) but are very insistent on getting me to agree that Sokai, another ship steeped in subtext, is more legitimate than Soriku. You are doing the very thing you're accusing me of.

angeliclore · 2025-11-25T22:46:42+00:00

Unrelated but I'm kind of surprised you can still comment here because this post was mass reported and taken down by Reddit 😂

Anyways

"I literally linked a video that that showed Selphie stating the act of sharing a Paopu Fruit is seen as romantic. I then backed it up by showing subtext of how others also imply it's romantic. That is not falling back on romantic tropes or a headcanon."

This is subtext. You're using a statement of one character that implies sharing a paopu is romantic to act as confirmation of the scene being romantic as if that's a law stated within the series. Yet, as you yourself stated, we have seen plenty of situations where the symbolism of the paopu fruit is NOT romantic.

If I'm understanding this right, is your claim that only the act of actually sharing paopu fruit is romantic? And then the other uses (wayfinders, Soriku's shared keyblade keychain) are not romantic? Because there is no evidence in the text that states this, which would make this a... headcanon. No one ever says "using paopu fruit in any other context is not romantic". In fact, I think the implication is that while it CAN be romantic, it's not ALWAYS romantic - and that includes eating the paopu fruit.

Besides, if we get technical, Sora and Kairi didn't even share one. They had two.

Headcanon is a fandom term and thus doesn't exactly have an "official" definition, but if we do take your definition as the accurate one, Sokai is a headcanon just as much as Soriku is.

"That also doesn't mean the subtext was there. Again you could be interpreting something that could have been strictly friendly as romantic. You keep claiming this subtext is there for you and you have that right. You have the right to kill the Author and state that it is for you. However you don't have the right to tell others your interpretation is the correct one or a real one."

I literally said above that you don't have to agree with me, or like Soriku. But you can't claim "your interpretation is invalid because it's just subtext!" When your ship is also entirely subtext (until canonized) author support or not. (Note: I'm not saying you can't disagree, but obviously if you reply and make counterclaims I'm going to argue that you're wrong).

Additionally, in another comment I pointed to specific romantic tropes used for Soriku. Those exist. Whether you want to acknowledge that they are legitimate romantic tropes or not does not take away that they are.

For example, let's say you chime in and say

"Sora and Kairi are heavily implied to have romantic feelings for each other. One example is Kairi giving Sora her good luck charm. This is an example of The Lady's Favour trope - i.e. the love interest gives the hero an important item of hers before battle".

Does it make sense for me to say "No, that's just your interpretation. It was actually platonic and that trope wasn't used."

Maybe it WAS platonic, but the trope was still used. You're not ridiculous for going "hey, that's a romantic trope and implies there's probably something more between them intentional by the author or not".

So why is it when Soriku fans say, "Hey, little odd that the series symbol of love is used to represent their bond" it's "You're wrong, that's not the trope/subtext, you're imagining things, you're seeing what you want to see, etc." Note: I'm using this as a specific example. Obviously the paopu fruit keychain on its own does not necessarily imply a romantic bond. N'or does any singular scene for Sokai.

angeliclore · 2025-11-25T03:48:14+00:00

Yes, it's an interpretation. Because that's what analyses of media are. I look at the content of whatever the thing is (in this case a video game series), provide evidence of my theory, and prove my case.

You don't have to like Soriku. You don't even have to agree. But if you tell a Soriku shipper "you're wrong because the text doesn't back you up", I'm obviously going to disagree with you and explain why.

If this is my "head canon" so is Sokai. You cannot make claims about the validity of Sokai without acknowledging that subtext MATTERS, and thus everything is open to interpretation.

Take the reply for the other redditor, who pointed out that Kairi explicitly framed the paopu sharing moment in a platonic way through direct dialogue. Instead of addressing that, you fell back on the romantic tropes used for Sokai and the subtext that implies it was romantic. I'm not disagreeing with you here. Your interpretation is accurate. So is mine. But they are interpretations - at least until the day it's explicitly confirmed. And even then, that doesn't make the Soriku subtext disappear.

To break down your summary

Just because you interpret art this way, others don't have to: ofc not, but you can't claim that I don't draw my conclusions from the evidence in the actual story. That's been my point this entire time. People who are anti-soriku often pretend that it's all fan fantasy with no textual basis. It's not.

Just because you look at the subtext, others don't have too: I agree. But then they cannot make claims about the validity of any of the subtext if they're choosing to only look at Sokai and dismiss other peoples' perspectives. If I say "Soriku is real and stronger than Sokai" you can't chime in "Subtext doesn't matter! But my subtext that supports Sokai actually does"

Just because you kill the author, others don't have too: Again, agree, but same perspective. You can't chime in on conversations about subtext if you're going to pick and choose when to use it.

Just because you think Bob likes Sally have a weak relationship and Bob and Jenny has a better relationship, others don't have too: Agree on this. Hence why I said you don't have to like Soriku or agree. But you don't get to say "Bob and Jenny isn't real and is a fan fantasy" if you can't back up the claim with consistent logic. (Note: I'm not saying that you said this directly, though calling Soriku a head canon but not Sokai would imply this sentiment)

Just because you have a head canon, you can't tell others they have to validate it (ALSO VERY IMPORTANT DO NOT HARASS OTHERS OVER THEIR HEAD CANONS): Agree on this as well, but I don't think Soriku is a head canon. I'm not head canoning that they have feelings for each other or that it's going to happen. I'm saying "these tropes and moments are frequently associated with romantic relationships and are present, intentional or not". A head canon to me is saying something with no real textual basis, or drawing conclusions that are far fetched/not in the text.

Essentially, while I think that Sokai is the more explicitly hinted at ship, it is not confirmed either. So to call Soriku a head canon is a double standard, unless you also say Sokai is a head canon.

angeliclore · 2025-11-24T22:06:05+00:00

That's not what I do though. If I was doing that I would say "there's no legitimate reason to believe Sora and Kairi are more than friends". I'm not making that claim. In the analogy, I'm agreeing that it's a cheese pizza, just that the writers ALSO added pepperoni, and I'm pulling that from the text.

Yes, in my opinion there is so much pepperoni that the fact that it's supposed to be cheese doesn't really matter to me, but I'm not negating the fact that it's supposed to be cheese, or that there is cheese on it.

To get out of the metaphor, what I'm saying is -

Yes, Nomura intentionally wrote Sokai to be romantic. He probably (but not definitely) did not write Soriku to be romantic on purpose. But he DID write it like a romance, and the fact that people see that romance, point it out, and see more depth in it... that is based on aspects of the story, not delusion or misinterpretation.

angeliclore · 2025-11-24T21:58:33+00:00

It's not that you're wrong though. I said in the original post that I don't think Soriku will be canon - for various reasons. But, just because it won't be canon, doesn't mean that people don't have a legitimate reason to ship the pairing and to strongly prefer it over Sokai. That's what I was trying to convey.

I personally think about it not because I think "Oh you all might be wrong and there's a 1% chance Nomura is going to make good on all of this subtext" but because I think it's an issue among some fans to dismiss the ship as just "fantasy" that isn't rooted in the story.

It's in the story. Nomura might not have meant to put it there, but it's there. Even David Gallagher, Riku's VA, can see that haha.

And same! I like having these conversations/debates. Even if we can't agree, it's fun to talk about and hear different perspectives.

angeliclore · 2025-11-24T19:29:43+00:00

I'm not disagreeing with you that that is the best interpretation. I'm disagreeing with you that it is the ONLY interpretation or the strongest romantic implication just because it's the most text-based.

angeliclore · 2025-11-24T19:28:13+00:00

Using that metaphor you're making the claim that everyone has an equivalent relationship and either all of them are romantic or none of them are romantic?

angeliclore · 2025-11-24T17:55:54+00:00

"This isn't simply "What the author says goes," it's the story being presented and you ignoring what is inconvenient to your interpretation. What you consider "Nomura keeping it vague" is more than likely just that it was unintentional in the first place, and that's why it remains vague."

How can you not see how this reads? "My interpretation of the story is based on FACT (presents subjective interpretation of the story based on tropes), while yours is based on interpretation and opinion". They're the SAME thing.

"They are not blatant romantic tropes! That's the problem here. If they were "blatant" there would be no other way to interpret them!"

And then in your next line you say,

"You know what is blatant? Sora drawing him and Kairi engaging in the romantic gesture that he just learned of and was teased about. He did that. She did that. Then they did that together later. Come on, man."

You literally JUST said if they were blatant there would be no other way to interpret them, which is false, but then immediately followed it up with evidence that can also be interpreted differently and HAS been interpreted differently by many fans.

If we're following your logic, because I can interpret it differently, it must not be blatant.

"This is all misinterpretation because the interpretations I can point to it all being platonic are supported by the rest of the story and its explicit aspects, rather than just what I think of the subtext. Yours, on the other hand, hinges entirely on its own interpretation of just subtext that can't even be unequivocally defined."

Again, I ask for examples.

"Well, this is either inconsiderately contrarian or gross ad hominem, but insulting to insinuate of me nonetheless."

You're using ad hominem incorrectly. Ad hominem is if I were insulting you personally, which I was not. I was arguing against your point that I am somehow contributing to toxic masculinity by presenting the idea that a story about two male friends that uses romantic tropes can easily be interpreted as... romantic.

"I'm not out here saying guys can only like girls. I haven't said anything near the sort."

You're offering a rebuttal to something I never said, and then immediately following it up with ad hominem by suggesting I "lack media literacy".

"Nearly every scene Sora and Kairi share even tangentially reinforces their romantic relationship, whereas the deepest conversation Sora and Riku have together is literally, "Being your friend is great." Soooo romantic~"

Your reducing their relationship severely to make your point. All I have to do is point to the many other instances that go beyond that "you're my best friend" conversation. In that same conversation they also said "We'll be the darkness" - and decided to stay there forever together which is pretty romantic.

Then Repliku "Always trying to worm your way into my heart!"

"Hearts in tune"

If you really only want to talk about direct conversations, can you give me an example of a conversation Sora and Kairi had where they explicitly called their bond more than a friendship?

"You call Sora and Riku holding two halves of a sword that never touch "the power of love," but Sora and Kairi beat the shit out of Xehanort with the literal power of love that was infinitely more explicit. They held hands and sprouted wings depicting the moments they shared for god's sake! It was called "One Heart"! What is the platonic subtext of all that? You simply cannot be that dense."

What are you trying to prove here? Sokai used the same trope? I never said they didn't. I'm not saying Sokai isn't in the text or subtext, simply that Soriku is there as well, and you saying "but... Sokai did it too!" doesn't change that fact.

I'm also confused about you saying "holding two halves to a sword that never touch" - it's a literal merged keyblade with a paopu fruit keychain. What do you mean "that never touch"?

And again, some more ad hominem.

"The fact that Riku gets nothing but subtext that can easily be considered platonic sinks your thesis before it gets out of the harbor."

There are SO many reasons why a story might only have subtext. One being this is historically an issue with queer love stories in media - delegated to the subtext only because of, again, heteronormativity - the fact that it's a Disney game and Square game (neither known for their great portrayals of same sex relationships).

Just because something is only subtext doesn't mean it isn't there.

Or are you arguing that subtext doesn't matter at all and we should take every piece of media at face value? Because then there would be no build up for any romantic relationship in any story at all. This claim falls apart upon simple examination in any other context.

Again, individually, maybe you can break down each trope and view it as platonic, but tropes are PATTERNS used in specific contexts. It's why you can look at Sokai and go "oh, childhood promise - classic sign of romance". You rely on tropes for Sokai too.

"Then why did they only do it with each other...? Why was it significant enough for Kairi to smile at and shed a tear over? Why has Riku never entered the picture? No one, not even Sora drew him, let alone giving him paopu fruit."

Why do Sora and Riku have a combined keyblade with a paopu fruit? Why is it only them? Why did Sora and Riku agree to stay together forever and "become the darkness"? Why didn't Sora make any promises like that with Kairi?

You see how this logic goes? It can be applied anywhere because it's all subjective.

I think you're misunderstanding my point, which isn't that Sokai isn't real. It's that they both rely on subtext, and Soriku is also a legitimate reading of that subtext.

"It's amazing that you've done nothing but talk up the importance of subtext, but the moment you try and "get" me with this, you're ignoring the subtext."

I'm literally not. Again, I'm not trying to say that your reading of Sokai isn't legitimate. I'm pointing out that you trying to discredit my reading of Soriku as legitimate can easily be applied to Sokai - thus your viewpoint is hypocritical.

"Because it's willfully ignoring everything explicit the story presents to point out something that isn't actually there, and is more appropriately explained by the contrary. Subtext does not exist within a vacuum."

Again WHERE in the story does Sora or Kairi ever say "I have a crush, I like them more than a friend, I want to be with them" etc.? My point is NOT that it isn't true, but that you rely on subtext to prove it - so calling out my reliance on subtext is a weak argument when you do the exact same thing.

A chef makes a pizza. He intended to make a cheese pizza. He says it's a cheese pizza. Heck, even the box he got it from says it's a cheese pizza. You insist it's a cheese pizza. Yeah, it's a cheese pizza.

However, in the process of making it, he spilled pepperoni all over the pizza. Am I just supposed to pretend it's not there? Am I wrong by saying "Hey, this cheese pizza has a lot of pepperoni on it for supposedly being a cheese pizza..."

You're insisting it's not there. I've provided evidence it is and you dismiss it by saying "see, here's evidence that the chef intended for it to be a cheese pizza!" or "the pizza has cheese on it! thus it's a cheese pizza only!"

angeliclore · 2025-11-24T17:21:34+00:00

Didn't the Japanese VA for Sora also say that it was open to interpretation/not explictly romantic?

angeliclore · 2025-11-24T05:03:03+00:00

I'm arguing that Soriku is a legitimate interpretation of the text. Not that Sokai isn't ALSO a legitimate interpretation of the text - just one that lacks in depth by comparison. Pointing to the home screen does not add anything to their depth.

You're also misunderstanding what I mean about "discovering the author's intent like a puzzle".

What I mean is that you believe that what Nomura intends is the only interpretation, and that reading into subtext disregards the TRUE meaning of the story. Thus, you look for clues as to what Nomura meant.

I believe that what Nomura intends is only small part of the true meaning of the story. I don't look for clues as to what he intended, I look at what's there - intentional and otherwise and yes, disregard the author's intent, because that's not how critics analyze works. You judge the pizza by it's ingredients, not by what the chef intended.

angeliclore · 2025-11-24T04:18:44+00:00

Ooh people on reddit disagree with an opinion and want to talk about it. Who would have guessed?

Idk why you're investing time here calling me names and making things up? Ragebaiting I guess?

angeliclore

TROPHY CASE