Comments on: Room 14

By: vewatkin

vewatkin — Wed, 24 Sep 2025 13:06:32 +0000

10 is the best door, you’re right!

By: vewatkin

vewatkin — Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:23:39 +0000

Mine is, thanks for thumbshaming me.

By: sp

sp — Tue, 23 Sep 2025 21:51:13 +0000

It’s the foot of a chair/table, yet it’s a hand. This is clearly and inarguably an allusion to the Ten Monkeymen of Moldova who are extremely well known for wearing long sleeve shirts which is what this looks like. Because they are celebrated and well known on Wikipedia, Google, and Grok, there is no way anyone could refute this evidence. If you dare question my judgement I will ask you if you have a better solution.

By: Inolien Kiki

Inolien Kiki — Tue, 23 Sep 2025 21:23:58 +0000

The thumb is actually what I’m concerned about. Nobody’s thumb is attached that closely to their fingers like that.

By: vewatkin

vewatkin — Tue, 23 Sep 2025 21:02:28 +0000

The fingernails too seem distinctively human–or simian, at least? You’re not the first person to remark that it isn’t human, though I don’t know what else to read it as. I’m not aware of a version of griffins or harpies or other popular bird monsters that have human hands.

It looks to me like the beginning of a thumb extends behind the ball, and if there’s a pinky it’s hidden from view; I assume it’s relevant to have three fingers on display here. But I’ll allow that it might not be human. I just don’t know what it’s meant to be otherwise.

By: ritz

ritz — Tue, 23 Sep 2025 17:47:19 +0000

Those are certainly human-looking knuckles, but because of the scale/feather looking designs above the “hand,” I always interpreted it as some gryphon-like creature.

By: ritz

ritz — Tue, 23 Sep 2025 17:44:14 +0000

(Moving it here)
The World is healing, Vincent is getting to craft fun theories! But… are we sure that is a human hand? I never interpreted it that way. Are the other fingers wrapped around the ball out of view?

By: vewatkin

vewatkin — Thu, 18 Sep 2025 14:22:40 +0000

What we see is low to the ground, but we’re seeing the underside of the furniture only. If this were, say, an armchair, it would be normal for the underside to be this low to the ground, with a wooden structure extending up a little more, and a cushion on top of that. The height of the furniture seems like a good indicator that is a chair, one that I completely overlooked.

That said, it could be a footstool just as easily I just think that in the absence of any details that would distinguish the two, it’s more plausible to think “chair” than “footstool.” Kind of like the variously-worded sayings about hearing hoof beats and thinking “horse” rather than “zebra.”

By: Kiki

Kiki — Thu, 18 Sep 2025 06:03:51 +0000

Because it’s a footstool.

By: ritz

ritz — Thu, 18 Sep 2025 02:58:21 +0000

Honestly, I think it looked bizarrely low for any kind of furniture. Look at it next to that outlet, or the paperclip. Maybe not the point, though