Quote:
Originally Posted by naikou
Eh. I don't think having an open-ended story is too abusive. I wouldn't accuse Christopher Nolan of being lazy by giving an Inception an open ending (because that is the point of Inception's ending, you can't be sure of reality). Umineko is going for a very similar effect.
|
Ah, I'm not referring to Ange's ending. I'm referring to all the locked rooms and games we've seen. He left them ambiguous while leaving us with some idea of what the answers were(which is something I've already ranted about) and I consider his lack of a proper summation to be a bit of an abuse of the interpretation clause.
Proper mystery or not, if you are going to say that the games had an author who wasn't quite dead(thematics aside, Beatrice was quite alive when she made them) and had intentions behind it, you better explain them. Otherwise it feels like you are afraid of how they'll seem, even if possible, rather shaky once you explain them in detail.
It feels that way even though he only gave us very summarized lines!
"That was one risky game," says Will.
That was his way of saying "yes I made a character do something many of you would consider a bit 'whaaaat' as part of the plan." He was preemptively defending himself from the reader, despite not even laying the truth bare to us.
For example, Benson Murder Case. Van Dine reveals not only the solution, but how Vance's thought process that allowed him to solve the case as early as chapter 5 was made. He didn't leave anything to hide. We saw everything. To show without hiding, in a mystery, is considered pride.
The ambiguous nature in the ending was something I was perfectly fine with. What I wasn't fine with was with the ambiguous summation. There is where I think he abused the concept of multiple interpretations.