I’d say so, yeah.
Well, yes. But you left out, say, for example, Xiaolin or Kuajo or Joon Woo. All the names you listed look at least European to me.
Well, yes, but I figured that was sort of my point: before getting told any names, I may well have shrugged and guessed something, uh, British-sounding — which I figure would put to bed the question of whether I’d expect this or that name to be Anglicized, because, y’know, there it is.
I guess I could’ve tried to be coy about this by instead putting, uh, “Lee” out there — but, again, instead of dancing around at all, I could simply list one of the names given, to see if that’s any help in simplifying things.
Which is why I was trying to ask, possibly in a confusing matter, whether you expected the names to be Anglicized and the fact that they were was why you thought they were false; because there was some reason to think that the particular people giving the Anglicized names didn’t use such names at home.
I’m half asleep, I may not have phrased it right.
Got it. So, just to make 100% sure we’re on the same page: no, I saw no mismatch between the name given and the person in question who was just doing their job — such that, had I instead met either of them in a different situation, and had they been so introduced by name (and been told they used that name at home), I’d have accepted so unremarkable a claim without question.
Would this be something like a recreation of a colonial village or a wild west town, with actors playing the residents? Anyone whose real name sounds current-day might use a name more closely associated with the period.
No, the setting was entirely modern.
Thanks. I think I’ve also got it now.
Though I most certainly don’t have the answer to the puzzle. But at least I think I’ve got that part of the explanation straight.
Well, look, I worry that I’ve been entirely too misleading with an answer or two from days ago; I believe the answer I gave then was technically accurate, but I fear that the solution could produce eye-rolling and a claim that this or that poster deserved to have unriddled all of this early on.
But — as far as I can tell — nothing I’ve said is actually false.
Very simple solution which I’m not sure has been covered.
Was the person in question an actor, and was the fake name the part that they were playing.
I suppose so. But, as I’d said: they gave instructions “like a movie usher telling people they’re required to turn off their cellphones, or an amusement-park ride attendant letting you know you can’t go down the waterslide yet, but, hang on, uh-huh, okay, you can go now.”
So the part being played was — the job they were actually doing? And the costume was — the mundane attire of an employee doing that job? Which you’d maybe figure could’ve been done under their own name — the way I always sort of figured a nametag-wearing employee in that role typically would?
If you’d like to declare victory, I guess you wouldn’t be wrong; but I guess that’d leave me with another lateral-thinking puzzle for some other time: what made me suspect they were playing a fake-name part instead of simply relaying information under their own name?
My question was whether they were literally an actor on stage. Which they apparently were not.
Do you think that the pseudonym was chosen because it was shared with some particular well known individual or entity?
Was the entertainment live?
Was the primary entertainment music?
Was the primary entertainment narrative story telling (e.g. film or play)?
Was the primary entertainment Comedy?
Was the primary entertainment Dance?
Was the primary entertainment sports?
Was it primarily a display of some other skill? (e.g. Circus or magic show?)
Was it a dining establishment (beyond concessions).
Was it an active entertainment (e.g. Laser tag, mini golf, swimming pool)
Was it a tour of the venue (e.g. haunted house, hall of mirrors, historical mansion)
Was it a museum?
No.
Partly.
I don’t think it primarily falls under any of those categories, but it’s possible that I’m being overly nitpicky; there’s some narrative storytelling, but I’d argue that it’s all there to enhance the active entertainment — only there’s no “active” component, be it firing a laser-tag gun or swinging a golf club.
In enjoying the entertainment were the patrons an audience, all viewing the same show.
Do you think the people who decided to give the employees pseudonyms intend for at least a portion of the patrons to notice and appreciate the pseudonyms, or did they intend that people think that those were the actual names of the employees?
Yeah, I’d say so.
I honestly don’t know. I guess I’d flip it around: they probably intended for a portion of the patrons to accept it at face value, and they probably figured that some of the patrons would promptly reach the same conclusion I did. But this is getting kind of speculative.
But its not like its there primarily as an easter egg for the benefit of clever patrons, like you, who get the joke.
No, not really. I don’t think there’s much entertainment value in figuring that they’re probably using a fake name; I think that, if they’d had the ability to do so, they’d have preferred to arrange things so everyone in the audience would’ve accepted the name at face value.
Was it like a murder dinner or murder on a train performances where many were the audience but a few among them were actors?
No, everyone in the audience was simply and only a member of the audience.