It's 3 in the morning and I'm wide awake. LOL.

Friday, 28 September 2007

Boiled Sweets

I used to have a little brother.
The only memory I have about him is when I shared with him the boiled sweets I was given for tea.
Even so my brother, who was only one month old when he died, still lives on in our heart.




(You don't know why this story is scary? Think!)

40 comments:

  1. わからない...なんで怖いの?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 弟が死んだ原因は姉にあるということです。
    死んだときは弟は生後一ヶ月と書いてありましたね?
    そんな小さいのに硬い飴(boiled sweets)をあげたりしたら、窒息してしまいます。

    ReplyDelete
  3. I only sort of understand. did the sweets hurt him? Then I would be a little creeped.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi bokuwaakuma

    Yes that's right the baby brother probably died from suffocation!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eee. Then yes, I'm slightly peturbed.
    Thank you for posting these great stories.
    I'm always too afraid to watch the videos though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Videos are alright once you get used to them. I used to be afraid of them too! :)

    Thanks for your comment it keeps me going!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not sure but I get the feeling from "still lives on in our heart." Means that she has his heart like a trasplant, though there isn't much leading to this except a way the line I quoted could be interpreted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And yes I know that a month old and transplant sounds odd and impossible but I just posted spur-of-the-moment and you don't know how old the speaker is either. Or it could be the candies like stated in prior posts/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, I get it! He choked on the sweets. Very disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. he gave to sweets to his one month old brother. you don't give sweets to an infant...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ne, Saya-sama. The baby could've died from food poisoning. Assuming that the boiled sweet was honey though.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A very good guess indeed,Shin-sama!! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  13. The poor baby!y did he give da brother boiled sweets?I bet da bro. choked n die.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The brother is a murderer!T_T

    ReplyDelete
  15. The brother is the sweets

    ReplyDelete
  16. yeah, i was thinking they killed the month-old and put him into the sweets the next time..

    ReplyDelete
  17. Uh...Poisoned sweets??But anyway,giving sweets to a month old baby is evil....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous, from October 18- That's even better thinking!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Could they have eaten the baby brother?!

    But then that's just sick, and the last line would have to be: "Even, my little brother,... still lives in our stomachs."
    heh, corny.

    ReplyDelete
  20. they put the baby in the sweets and they ate him. :) I think

    ReplyDelete
  21. so he killed his own brother... thats disturbing

    ReplyDelete
  22. well then...

    WHO WAS BOILED ?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think the sweets were poisoned and intended for the older child, but the child gave them to the little brother and he died instead.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Kinda sounds like they ate the baby. Or that's just me being weird XD.

    I just found this blog, I say bookmarked.

    ReplyDelete
  25. When I read it, I took it as they KILLED the brother, did a little Hannibal Lector, and poof, now he has clogged arteries from the brother's meat and the sweets he ate? D:

    I'm just awful, aren't I?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Maybe since they were boiled they burnt his insides. And then they put his boiled self in the tea, and the tea runs through the viens and into the herats so thtas why they live in there hearts.

    ReplyDelete
  27. i see it as this: He gave the brother his sweets, did he not? so that means they meant to poison him. but apparently he's still alive, because his little brother "lives on within".

    ReplyDelete
  28. I read it as the baby brother's ghost was being given the sweets.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ... Our heart? They share a heart? >_<

    Also, cool blog. Just sayin. =P I've read most of it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Could it be that the two are Conjoined Twins, and one of them died after a month?

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Baby wasn't even born? maybe just one month in the mother's womb when it died? So this person must be seeing the ghost of the baby and shared sweets with him. Thats what I thought

    ReplyDelete
  32. feding sweets to a one month old infant?I'd say suffocated.But It is probally true that they might have been poisoned.But they didn't poison the baby brother.
    And Then, They could of eaten the brother.Well, thats only my theory.
    Thanks for posting this, Saya!

    ReplyDelete
  33. i took it as the baby brother was the sweets.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Speaking from the perspective of a mother here: a one month old baby is incapable even of rolling over on their own or holding their head up steadily. If you give a baby a sweet at that age, that baby will choke on that sweet. No need for poison or other nonsense- just an innocent sweet choking a baby. The older brother was not aware what he did would kill his brother, but it did. It's scary because it's not only possible, it happens every once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  35. What I got was that the mother was trying to poison theolder child but the older child gave it to the month-old brother.

    ReplyDelete
  36. it says 'our heart' not 'our hearts' which i guess means they were conjoined twins, and he happened to be older by, you know, a few minutes (you know how twins and their parents say ones older). they gave one something to choke on, so they would have one, and the younger one died. thats what i think anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You guys are thinking too much. Saya-chan said so herself, THE BABY BROTHER CHOKED ON THE SWEETS.
    Geez.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi, Saya-san! I've just found your blog and I must say....I quite like it!

    (ne, the little brother was just a month old, right? wouldn't he have choked from the boiled sweets? babies can't be trusted to be left aloe for even a few minutes!)

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Evil Carbonara: My, my! Your name disturbs me, dear! Can one of my favourite Italian dishes be evil?? I would be scared to taste your dish!

    I'm glad you like my blog! :D

    And yes I agree, all babies should put be put under 24-hr surveillance!

    ReplyDelete

Please note that:
■Your comment will be checked by me first before appearing on the blog.
■I might not reply to comments at older posts.