![]() Dream Sans and Nightmare Sans were created from the light of a mystical tree, which is, again, not like canon Sans. In ReaperTale, a work where various Undertale characters are gods, Sans and Papyrus were made from a black hole. ![]() K.O., monsters’ natures differ so much in O.K. In fact, even if he were a “monster” or class of monster within the world of O.K. It’s bizarre to assume a DNA test would reveal he’s identical to Sans, as his physiology differs so much. Therefore, to say than two Sanses are the same because they have the same genes only makes sense if identical twins ‘count’ as the same person, or variations thereof. Though they may have the same DNA, the way that DNA is expressed (such as through epigenetics) can differ, and the differences can magnify over time. Indeed, as time goes on and their environments diverge (e.g., not going to the same school), they come to differ more from each other. Identical twins, despite having the same DNA, do not count as the same person. In works where a character obviously can’t have the same origin, DNA, or material composition as canon Sans that character cannot “count” as Sans. For this to be a valid interpretation, a “Sans” would need to have the same parent(s) or source as canon Sans, whatever that may be. (say, being a plucked duck, or a plucked duck whose legs are missing).īy this logic, an individual who is genetically identical to Sans is Sans. If a particular animal’s DNA matches a duck, it’s a duck, regardless of whether it looks really weird. When it comes to living things, essences are generally conflated with DNA. By definition, essences cannot be measured, only the things that are presumed to be manifestations or signs of it. People often ascribe “essences”-something invisible from which recognizable traits arise-within living beings. isn’t “a Sans” called Coffee Sans? 1 After all, if a “Sans” can differ drastically from the original’s looks, relationships, and role, what would disqualify Joe Cuppa?ġ. Indeed, canon timelines alone sometimes show the malleability of characters’ identities.Īs a point of illustration, what’s to say Joe Cuppa from O.K. Complicating the matter, it’s impossible to say how far Sans can change while still being himself. ![]() Yet, supposedly, they are “Sans”, or “a Sans”, rather than Sans-like characters. Some of these Sans-es look and act drastically different from the canon one, from lankier interpretations of Gaster-Sans to the hyperactive Underswap-Sans. Indeed, Sans is so disproportionately popular he’s practically a subfandom in himself, what with the many Sans-centric works or creative works or worlds which only feature Sans and Sans-oid characters.īut which works’ characters “count” as Sans, and which do not? There are multiple ways in which one can define “What is Sans?”, and each definition has various problems. Some of them count as Alternate Universe works, where the work’s very premise is altered, and so do not, but many of them feature distinctive versions of or interpretations of Sans, or Sans-like characters. ![]() The Undertale fandom has many, many works called “AUs”. As such, mentions of various “AU Sanses” should be assumed only broadly correct. The Bottom Line: Suggests classic in its fusion of fruit and chocolate, but the inclusion of a natural-processed Central America coffee in the blend adds a newer-style, high-toned fruit note that is especially pretty in milk.Is Joe Cuppa Coffee Sans? Or: Who is Sans, Anyway?Ĭaveat: It is impossible to reference every “AU”, or even every permutation of “major” (common on the Undertale Tumblr tag) “AU”. Established in 2010, Red Rooster is an organic-certified micro-roaster focusing on socially conscious coffee, high-quality coffee. This coffee is certified organically grown and certified fair trade, the latter meaning it was purchased at no less than a minimum price determined by the certifying agency to be economically sustainable for the farmers. A blend of both washed and natural-processed coffees from Central and South America. Notes: This coffee tied for the second-highest rating in a tasting of “classic” espresso blends for Coffee Review’s June 2019 tasting report. This blend sings in milk, elevating notes of both cherry and chocolate in lasting vibrancy. Full, satiny-smooth mouthfeel flavor-saturated finish driven by chocolate and stone fruit notes. ![]() Dark chocolate, dried cherry, fresh-cut fir, almond blossom, molasses in aroma and small cup. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |