View Single Post
Old 2011-12-21, 08:07   Link #1293
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
I want to add my input about the whole discussion about the tea party of EP7.

In the first place providing a solution in the end with something that was never hinted isn't narratively satisfying. It's not just a Knox rule, it simply doesn't really work well in narrative, that's what the layman calls "asspull". You can tell that the whole accident was caused by aliens or by a meteorite or by an international secret organization that was developing an atomic bomb. Anything could "work" if you have the freedom to come up with stuff that was never mentioned not hinted in any way, but that's completely lame and the readers won't be satisfied.

Even if a character has an hidden side there should be some hint or some reason to think that side exists. Now that Kyrie could be a murderer that was hinted well enough, no problem with that. But that Kyrie is completely stupid? Definitely not.
And here you can't talk about "sides". You are either an intelligent analytical person or you are dumb. What the EP7 party shows is a Kyrie that can't reason past the surface of things, which is totally at odd with anything we knew about her.

Naturally of you think Kyrie had other reasons, or that the part where she acts stupid are false scenes, that's a different matter. But then you need to provide an explanation.

Lastly I would like to express my opinion on the matter of "madness" as a movent for a culprit. While "mad" people exist and therefore it isn't unrealistic for a crime to be committed just out of pure madness, it's yet another thing that doesn't really work in narrative. If we are supposed to think about a movent (and Ryuukishi himself made a point about that) then it must be something worth our efforts. It must be something that can be deduced by logic and difficult to be obtained. "Madness" is an extremely easy and trivial answer to that question. Madness stands to whydunit as magic stands to howdunit: there is absolutely nothing you cannot explain with it. I'm not saying that the culprit shouldn't be mad, but the culprit needs to have a reason other than simply madness.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote