I pitched it as a theory, based on a line of dialogue which I may certainly be reading too deep into. So your "point", that my point is probably wrong, should go without saying. But why don't you engage it directly, and offer an alternative to my take on David's writings?
I did. Twice. I pointed out that there is nothing particularly surprising about David's possessiveness towards his mom and sis, given the circumstances he grew up in. It was just the three of them and he was basically the man of the house from the time he was four. That, perhaps along with a flair for melodrama, are all the horses one needs to account for the hoofbeats of possessiveness you hear in what David wrote; no incestuous zebras are needed.
I believe the word you're looking for is "redundant", but yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting: by committing the same actions, Sterling more or less becomes his father, first by fucking his sister, and then by fucking Ophelia. In my opinion, this would be consistent with the central themes of this whole game.
Sterling's boinking anything with tits would indeed be consistent with the central themes of the game. It is a harem game, after all. I don't see what that has to do with the notion that David was Lucia's father, though. Sterling fucks Mallory, Eva, Aliza, and Tiff, too. Are you suggesting that David is their father as well? Is he Amber's and Sumiko's father, too? What about the hotel clerk lady?
The absent father trope is there for one simple reason: to make Sterling's mom and sisters sexually available to him. Lucia doesn't need that, any more than Mallory et al. do. It's not that deep, bro.
Did you complain this much when Oedipus fucked his mother?
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Yes, the journal was a surprise and made us have sympathy for David, but do you still feel the same amount of sympathy after finding out he was cheating on Ophelia with Drew?
Empathy for David isn't the argument. My point is that the journal's contents are presented as a momentous reveal. It's a payoff that had a big honking buildup, starting with the first mention of David's will. Your idea turns that momentous reveal into a "wah-wah" anticlimax, for no discernible benefit.
If you're just not feeling my idea, that's totally fair. I'm not trying to say my idea is the "right" one, just that it's "possible".
I assume you've seen the teaser where Sterling shows Ophelia something on a laptop which cause her to cry?
No, I don't pay much attention to teasers.
I'm just guessing (as I've tried to convey throughout these posts, if you could just see the forest for the trees) that this being the reveal of the affair might be too obvious. I also want Drew to stick around longer. But hey, maybe it is exactly what it looks like, and Drew leaves, or doesn't, whatever?
I don't see why Drew couldn't stick around longer, even if Ophelia knew about the affair. Among other things, you underestimate Drew's ability to manipulate and shade perception. She's already getting her hooks into the family; it is perfectly plausible that, even if Ophelia found out about her and David's affair, that Drew could frame David as the seducer and herself as some sort of victim. Ophelia is probably more primed to assume the worst of David than of Drew at this point.
And don't forget that Drew is as much her sister as Aliza is. How would Ophelia react if Aliza were revealed to have had an affair with David. O would get mad, sure. But would she kick Aliza out of the story?
There's also the point that Drew is under Hunter's wing, and Hunter is paying the bills, which limits Ophelia's freedom of moement and caps Sterling's ability to neutralize Drew just by showing Ophelia information.
Finally, even if Drew did "go", she might pull a fake disappearing act much the same way Hunter did, only to reappear unexpectedly at Aliza's house, cock at the ready.
In short, your idea "solves" problems that don't really need a novel solution.
Are you this trusting in real life? David's credibility has been called into serious question due to the affair. That doesn't mean what he wrote is untrue, just that he may have chosen not to write about everything.
It's not a question of trust; it is simply a question of horses versus zebras. If a writer presents a narrator expositing that x happens in a story, my default assumption going forward is that that's more or less what happened, until a compelling reason to think otherwise appears.
Why does there have to be "blame"?
You tell me. You're the one trying to link Lucia's mental health condition to something David did wrong.
I'm just trying to "connect the dots", something I enjoy with mystery stories. Lucia is clearly different (mentally), and I thought this could be a "Chekhov's Gun" scenario where there would be a narrative reason for it. I'm not passing judgement on anyone, and I'm too told to give a shit about getting credit for my sensitivity, but I am starting to wonder about your brain, given how focused you are on this particular topic. If I hit too close to home, then I apologize. If you're moralizing to me, consider you're on a porn forum. If you're just being an obtuse contrarian, F off.
Perhaps you should calm down and stop trying to personalize this.
