Talk:How the 'A' Stole Christmas/@comment-86.50.119.230-20141127201059

I'm a little bit confused by the flashbacks. Are we seeing the flashbacks the way the person remembers and tells them (subjective perspective)? Or are we seeing them from an objective perspective like all the other scenes, simply from a third person omniscient point of view. It's the misleading and deceptive flashbacks, for example when someone is lying that could change the whole story and mix everything up. Perhaps that's what the real plot twist is about, not some twin-theory. It's the deceiving flashbacks that are hiding the truth and protecting it from us, and until someone unmask and expose them we are kept in the dark.

We believe that the flashbacks are true, because in some way the whole story is built upon them. But what if it's really a grey area? Meaning that there are more false and misleading ones than we expect and are aware of. My theory is that some of the flashbacks are real and objective showing the events that really did take place. While other flashbacks are shown the way the person is telling or remembering them. Those are the ones that tamper the truth, by some times not showing us the whole story and where the person could leave details untold and eventually also has a possibility to make things up and lie too. This means the objective ones are telling the truth and the subjective ones are more or less deceptive depending on each situation and who the storyteller is. Just in the same way people tell things and stories that take place in Rosewood in present time, sometimes they are telling the truth and other times lying and deceiving details.

So there could practically be six different perspectives from how the plot and a particular scene is told; a) authentic objective flashbacks, b) deceptive subjective flashbacks, c) a hybrid subjective flashback with some truth and some lies, d) authentic stories in real life, e) deceitful stories also known as lies in real life and f) a hybrid in real life with both truth and some lies. The lies can of course be divided in white lies and lies. The conclusion is that there are without doubt more plot holes in the story's already many plot holes than we are aware of at the moment and in other words, there are more pieces missing than the ones we already know are missing.

In short, how do we know for sure that they (the narrator of the particular flashbacks) aren't lying and changing the story in some of the flashbacks to the person they are telling their story to? No one can exactly prove them to be neither authentic nor deceptive, only the writers have that privilege =)