#fable theory

[terrymelody]

FABLE TRAILER FABLE TRAILER FABLE TRAILER

WE WON GANG AND I ALREADY HAVE A THEORY.

My friend and I had a rant after we saw the trailer cuz she is the only person I know who likes the game. And I was rewatching the trailer for the 10000th time and I noticed something. Every npc that the player talks to speaks in some way. All except one, the guy who puts his hand on the hero’s shoulder when Humphrey says ‘chancers’.

Now.

I might be being delusional. Or too in love to accept anything else. But I KNOW THAT PRETTY BROWN HAIR. I KNOW THAT NOSE. And I am CONVINCED that that mf has to be my boy Reaver.

He is the only npc that doesn’t speak, even the player speaks. Reaver has the most recognisable voice in the entire franchise (Therese being closely behind) thanks to the goat that is Stephen Fry. If Reaver was in the game they wouldn’t show any voice lines, they’d wanna have a semi big reveal like they did in Fable 3. Leaving hints throughout the game before they introduce him into the story.

And with this game being set before 2 (the guild being very much alive and very much not burned) this potentially being Reaver means that’ll be before Oakvale burned. MEANING WE MIGHT SEE IT.

And the hand on shoulder? The look? THE SUNSET? ROMANTIC MUCH?

WHAT IF???? JUST WHAT IF???? The ‘her’ that Reaver talks about in his diary entries in Fable 2 is the hero we play as in this game. It’s not as likely mainly because we don’t know if the hero will be strictly female, we may get a gender selection. But imagine!!!!! I will take any excuse to romance reaver! Even if that means I’ll be killed in a town spread fire after he sacrificed me to stay a pretty boy forever!

REAVER! I SEE YOU!

[queerfables]

There's a story of questionable veracity about Harry Houdini performing an escape in which his wife passes him a key with a kiss.

I keep thinking about this story when I think about the kiss Crowley and Aziraphale share.

For me, it comes down to this: the fight between them is real. It has to be, because handwaving such an emotional scene as "for show" would be deeply unsatisfying. On top of that, it's consistent with the flawed beliefs that each of them carry. Crowley wants to run away to the stars, Aziraphale wants to Speak to the Manager about Heaven. There's no reason to think the scene is a lie, because if they were both telling the truth, that's what it would look like.

And yet. In a season that's all about misdirection and performance, I can't help but think there's something more going on. I haven't been fully convinced by any theory I've come across yet, including my own, but I do think there's an undeniable sense of waiting, of watching for the twist.

If the fight was real then where is the performance? Could the kiss have been real, and still misdirection? It's all an appeal, Crowley begging Aziraphale to stay, but maybe it's something else too. Maybe it's, stay, please stay, but if you won't, at least hold onto a way back to me. I'm not gonna pretend I know anything for sure. I just keep thinking about Houdini's wife kissing him, and slipping him a key.

As for what Crowley might have given Aziraphale, all I have is speculation. I've thought about this a lot and I can't come up with anything obvious placed earlier in the story that might help. But if I were going to guess? I'd say Crowley gave him the same thing he asked Aziraphale for back in 1862.

Insurance.

[ya-boi-haru]

As an enjoyer of those hour/s long ramble/facts/explaining videos, I think Fable fans (and creators) should make some based on Fable.

Give me *all* your headcannons, all your thoughts, give me your essays on characters, plots, arcs

ALL THE CONTENT-

[ratcandy]

☝️question. Do we see any assassin bugs/stink bugs in Bug Fables. As “lesser” bugs or NPCs either works

[panpanix]

Spoilers for fable smp s2 I guess

so I just learned Rae is the child of Enderian and Sherbert is the child of fable. Since Athena is the child of nethrum I think that Luce is Allerion AND that Will is his child since I guess the gods are all simps. Also dam I never thought I would like c!Centross at the beginning but god damnit he’s growing on me tbh

[tangleslime2]

okay so Bugaria is radioactive

Let me explain.

Crystals are wild. They do all sorts of stuff, like powering things and giving bugs magic powers if they're exposed. And what is an excellent source of power and frequently gives superpowers in stories? Radiation.

The Mother Crystal, as said in the lore book of the same name, has an aura that "protects Bugaria from the outside world's great perils". Presumably, this line is referring to the Dead Landers, which might be less resistant to radiation than the inhabiting bugs. Either way, Bugaria's radioactive. (This could also be in reference to the eternal spring, but I don't like the eternal spring so I'm ignoring it for now.)

But there's more. In the lore book "Bugarian Honey", it says that the honey likely behaves the way it does (turning into monsters is also a thing radiation does in fiction) due to crystal fragments in the plants. These fragments would pass from the plants to the honey to, based on all the places honey drops are found, the majority of the citizens. Even those that don't eat honey would still be eating the plants, or the animals that eat plants. Anyone who eats enough Bugarian food is radioactive.

It's okay though! Sorta. Various studies have shown that insects are more resistant to radiation than mammals, and some plants and fungi are radioresistant as well. So our heroes and the world they live in are probably safe. They've lasted this long!

Probably not great for tourism though.

Final note: most crystals glow blue. So does radiation (sometimes).

[blossomingtree]

I'd like us all to think about Sparrow for a minute. When she received the vision where Theresa told him one of her children would save Albion, she probably understood that both of them were doomed. In different ways, but both condemned. Just like she was.

She also tucked them to bed, cared for them, everything a loving mother does. She viewed them as her children because that's what they were, but the world viewed them differently. Crown Prince, heir, Princess, potential future heroes, saviours as well, etc etc. And above them, pain and suffering was hovering all along. Still, she took care of them.

It makes me think of Mary with her son (I'm not Christian by the way, so I just view the holy books as stories). People viewed him as their saviour and things like that, whereas she viewed him as her baby boy, but she knew what fate awaited him. It makes me think of many mothers in Hellenism as well, who lost their children to war, whom knew them to be doomed simply because of the bloodline they came from.

That trope is so bittersweet. I can't quite say if I love or hate it, so I just wanted to highlight it.

*side note: I headcanon that Sparrow was chosen to be queen when Logan was a toddler, or a young child. And both had lived peaceful years (in Oakvale) between the end of f2 and Sparrow's crowning. So it's even worse.

[lemonduckisnowawake]

Over the Garden Wall is SUCH a fascinating show to me for a myriad of reasons. But one of the things that stuck with me was the symbolism of the Woodsman and his lantern. TW for discussions on grief and unhealthy coping mechanisms (that I might get wrong, just as a warning).

I'm sure this has been said before, but to me it's just such a fascinating representation of how we unintentionally keep despair alive by clinging to our overwhelming grief of those we lost. Maybe I'm misinterpreting something or looking too deeply into it, but it's just. The lantern that the Woodsman keeps lighting in the hopes that his daughter's soul will be kept alive through it is, in actuality, keeping the Beast alive. And in a similar way I've read tales and actually studied grief theories about how people keep the memory of their loved one alive; at first, it's a good thing, and it can take however long or short you need to it be since grief seems to be something that generally never really goes away.

But there can come a point where all you live for is the dead, which is what the Woodsman was doing in laboring day and night to keep the lantern alive. And in doing so, you start to poison yourself and, rather than keeping the person you lost in living memory, you start to keep alive the despair and darkness. You start to keep alive the Beast rather than the soul of your daughter, in other words. Sometimes, it's intentional, though. "If I let go of this despair and anguish of mine, doesn't that mean I'll forever lose that person I loved?" And sometimes, it's unintentional.

The conclusion of it is that you have to let them go...you have to let that despair (not grief, but the poisonous and hopeless grief) go. Maybe, like Wirt did, through unflinching practicality and sheer knowledge rather than emotion. Or something else. But maybe, then, you'll find that when the lantern of your despair is gone, it'll be dark at first but you'll slowly start to see a grander light. And maybe, you'll find that your daughter is still alive anyway, in the light rather than in the darkness.

[jvstbrokenglassss]

maybe Fable never actually cared about bringing people back to life. at least not in any emotional way. He created humans. it's his fault they're mortal. the Aether was a safe haven for the departed souls to go to. but it was away from the overworld, and away from Fable's domain. it was never about grief. maybe it was always just a need for control

[burnt-outtransgender]

What if the wack is Icarus, not Quixis

Hear me out:

When Icarus burned the Ominous banners, it reminded them of Ominous bane, making the banners appear.

When they apologized to Rae, orchids appeared, the symbol of their connection.

Icarus can’t do what Fable does because they don’t have control of their powers.

In Sherb’s CMV “gold”, Quixis takes their hands away from the colorful wall and suddenly Icarus falls out of the sky with their wings changing.

I think Quixis is holding back Icarus’s powers until they figure out how to use them properly and/or so Fable can’t weaponize Icarus or so they don’t hurt themselves. (Maybe because that’s what Quixis wished someone did for them)

[queerfables]

A dash of nutmeg...

Look I feel a bit like I'm throwing soup at a dart board and calling it analysis, but I have some thoughts about Aziraphale's magic words in episode 4, and it's going to kill me if I don't share.

The thing is, these words have been nagging at me since I heard them. They sounded familiar, and I've been trying to figure out why. Today, it finally clicked.

Banana. Fish. Gorilla.

Those initial three words are all key words from Crowley and Aziraphale's drunken conversation about Armageddon. It's right at the start of things, when Crowley convinces Aziraphale to help him stop the world from ending.

We'll start with the fish, because they come up first.

"The point I'm trying to make," [Crowley] said, brightening, "is the dolphins. That's my point." "Kind of fish," said Aziraphale.

Their entire exchange here is hilarious and iconic but I'll try to keep this to the point. After some banter about the difference between fish and mammals, Crowley argues that dolphins don't deserve to be caught in the crossfire when the kraken rises and the seas boil. Which conveniently brings us to:

"Same with gorillas. Whoops, they say, sky gone all red, stars crashing to ground, what they putting in the bananas these days?"

Banana. Fish. Gorilla. It got me curious, so I searched for other places these words show up in the book. There's nothing I think is really significant: a couple of things are described as banana flavoured, fish show up in rains that herald the impending doomsday, gorillas aren't ever mentioned again. If I'm on the right track at all, I think this part is here to signpost a connection between this string of words from the show and the specific moments in the book.

If that's true, it must be pointing to something. What's left? Shoe lace and nutmeg.

Shoe lace.

The word "shoelace" isn't actually in Good Omens. Neither is "shoe lace" with a space in between. There's a couple of unremarkable descriptions involving shoes, and one miraculously conjured lace handkerchief, and then - and then. Right at the very end of the story, we have Adam, grounded by his parents, being described as "a scruffy Napoleon with his laces trailing, exiled to a rose-trellissed Elba". It's tenuous. I could dismiss that as nothing. Except Adam's laces show up again, and it's the very last passage of the book.

If you want to imagine the future, imagine a boy and his dog and his friends. And a summer that never ends. And if you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot . . . no, imagine a sneaker, laces trailing, kicking a pebble; imagine a stick, to poke at interesting things, and throw for a dog that may or may not decide to retrieve it; imagine a tuneless whistle, pounding some luckless popular song into insensibility; imagine a figure, half angel, half devil, all human . . . Slouching hopefully towards Tadfield . . . . . . forever.

I'm not ready to say much about what I think the significance of this passage might be. But an allusion to the book's ending does feel significant, doesn't it?

The one thing I will say, for people who may not know, is that this passage is riffing on a line from Orwell's 1984. The line it's playing on is a lot darker: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever." I think it's probably relevant that this is referencing a book about a totalitarian regime. I also think it's probably relevant that it's taking that reference and twisting it into something much sweeter, more optimistic and empowered.

I'm still thinking through all the connections and implications, though.

Nutmeg.

And that brings us to "nutmeg". I have to be honest, I wasn't hopeful. I didn't remember any references to it and if I were betting, I wouldn't have put money on it appearing in the book at all. But the word does show up, and it shows up exactly once. Crowley is reminiscing about a cocktail he had once, made out of fermented date-palms. It's part of a conversation with Aziraphale, where they discuss losing the Antichrist. And here's the really interesting part:

"You said it was him!" moaned Aziraphale, abstractedly picking the final lump of cream-cake from his lapel. He licked his fingers clean. "It was him," said Crowley. "I mean, I should know, shouldn't I?" "Then someone else must be interfering." "There isn't anyone else! There's just us, right? Good and Evil. One side or the other." He thumped the steering wheel. "You'll be amazed at the kind of things they can do to you, down there," he said. "I imagine they're very similar to the sort of things they can do to one up there," said Aziraphale. "Come off it. Your lot get ineffable mercy," said Crowley sourly. "Yes? Did you ever visit Gomorrah?" "Sure," said the demon. "There was this great little tavern where you could get these terrific fermented date-palm cocktails with nutmeg and crushed lemongrass-" "I meant afterwards." "Oh."

Book Aziraphale differs from his characterisation in the show in a few ways, and this is the big one. In the book, Aziraphale is much more cynical about his own side, and much more aware of heaven's flaws. Here, he's convincing Crowley that the threat heaven poses is just as serious as any threat from hell.

If I'm right about any of this, if these nonsense words mean anything at all, I think they are saying that heaven and hell are two sides of the same very nasty coin, and more to the point, that maybe Aziraphale is more aware of it than he seems.

I need to think about this more, still. I'm not sure if I really think this connection is something, and if it is, I'm still figuring out what sorts of conclusions we might draw from it. But if the script is trying to point us to these three sections of the book, maybe there's a deeper analysis to be had here.

I do think it's interesting that the last two words each only show up in one section of the book. It's not like I'm skipping around trying to decide which passage involving shoe laces is most relevant - it shows up twice, only in the last few pages of the book and only in relation to Adam (and in particular, humanising Adam. He's Napoleon in exile, but he's a kid with trailing laces. His future isn't a boot stamping on a human face, it's a sneaker with those same trailing laces - and a stick that his dog can choose whether or not to chase).

I could talk myself in circles on this point, so I guess I've got to open it up to the floor. Am I making something out of nothing with this? Or do you think there could be something here?

[nagarashi]

Oh my gosh, that sounds great..... I want it to be true.

Imagine seeing the same Reaver still so-- alive, not violent, soft. And then to see his heart die with "her" in the fire... * theatrically holding her breath*.

Most likely our hopes will be shattered by reality, but... suddenly.

FABLE TRAILER FABLE TRAILER FABLE TRAILER

WE WON GANG AND I ALREADY HAVE A THEORY.

My friend and I had a rant after we saw the trailer cuz she is the only person I know who likes the game. And I was rewatching the trailer for the 10000th time and I noticed something. Every npc that the player talks to speaks in some way. All except one, the guy who puts his hand on the hero’s shoulder when Humphrey says ‘chancers’.

Now.

I might be being delusional. Or too in love to accept anything else. But I KNOW THAT PRETTY BROWN HAIR. I KNOW THAT NOSE. And I am CONVINCED that that mf has to be my boy Reaver.

He is the only npc that doesn’t speak, even the player speaks. Reaver has the most recognisable voice in the entire franchise (Therese being closely behind) thanks to the goat that is Stephen Fry. If Reaver was in the game they wouldn’t show any voice lines, they’d wanna have a semi big reveal like they did in Fable 3. Leaving hints throughout the game before they introduce him into the story.

And with this game being set before 2 (the guild being very much alive and very much not burned) this potentially being Reaver means that’ll be before Oakvale burned. MEANING WE MIGHT SEE IT.

And the hand on shoulder? The look? THE SUNSET? ROMANTIC MUCH?

WHAT IF???? JUST WHAT IF???? The ‘her’ that Reaver talks about in his diary entries in Fable 2 is the hero we play as in this game. It’s not as likely mainly because we don’t know if the hero will be strictly female, we may get a gender selection. But imagine!!!!! I will take any excuse to romance reaver! Even if that means I’ll be killed in a town spread fire after he sacrificed me to stay a pretty boy forever!

REAVER! I SEE YOU!

[ya-boi-haru]

I used to believe (and still do) that Midas always went radio silent around Fable to spite him and out of hate.

But now mix it with a little fear...

Midas had a /pos Fable (his name slips my mind) and - like other characters- I imagine they look pretty similar. So Midas having to see a version of their father being this manipulative, evil villain and what's more so, Midas started to experience life through Icarus and having to see their dad do what he did both to others AND Icarus may be a bit scary I'd back off too

[ixtaek]

The fact Legend’s literal dream girl is noted to “resemble [his] Princess Zelda” is frankly way under utilized.

[panpanix]

new theories

so I don’t think will was the princess who fell in love with a god (I don’t know how that would work anyway, it was a stupid theory)

my new theory is that orchid (Rae’s mum) was a overworld princess who fell in love with an end god (possibly endarian lol) but then they left to a different realm (the gold/rainbow one with sherb, the blue one or the grey) cuz in notes #3 she says they won’t go to the end nor the nether and that orchid sometimes has a green aura which probably wouldn’t be weird if they were in the overworld

I don’t know what I’m doing but hey

that’s just a theory, a fable theory. Thanks for reading

[tangleslime2]

I think there are more flower gods in the Bug Fables world.

The known ones have serial numbers, as given by those accursed monitors:

M-001 "Mars"

V-012 "Venus"

P-183 "Pluto"

Discoveries can have serial numbers too, so this doesn't inherently conflict with Venus being around back when civilization was just beginning. But then, why the gap between Mars and Venus?

Well, Venus's number is V-012. All the known flower gods are named after Roman gods. Specifically, members of Dii Consentes, the Roman version of the Greek's Olympians (Except Pluto, but I'll get into that). Which there are twelve of.

The complete list of these gods is: Jupiter (king of the gods and god of the sky), Juno (queen of the gods and goddess of marriage), Neptune (god of water and the sea), Minerva (goddess of wisdom and arts), Mars (god of war and an agricultural guardian), Venus (goddess of love and beauty), Apollo (god of music, healing, the sun, etc.), Diana (goddess of hunting, childbirth, and the moon), Vulcan (god of fire and metalworking), Vesta (goddess of family and the hearth), Mercury (god of travellers and commerce), Ceres (goddess of agriculture and fertility). If I got any wrong, please correct me; my knowledge comes from Wikipedia and Greek mythology.

The one flower god we've met doesn't line up: Venus the plant is a harvest goddess, not a love goddess. There is a fertility comparison to be made, but still. Roman flower gods! At least ten more of them!

And now to talk about Pluto. I stand by my belief that they are a creation of Upper Snakemouth, but their name is significant. Pluto the god is the ruler of the underworld and the god of the afterlife. This makes sense for a game about immortality, and a facility obsessed with cheating death. Pluto is also not in Dii Consentes, which matches the plant being far younger and having a much higher serial number than its siblings. (The god Pluto is as old as his siblings, but here it's thematic.)

(Side note: according to Wikipedia, Pluto was one of the names for Hades that eventually became a name for the Roman god[s] of the underworld, Orcus and Dis Pater. I think that's what I just read. Why can nothing be easy?)