View Single Post
Old 2010-04-28, 02:49   Link #9385
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
I'm trying to prove that she is likely innocent. And as far as I can find it is impossible to prove (without pointing out the real killer) that she didn't kill her siblings.
By the way, this is a bit of a separate discussion than what you were talking about but I thought it's necessary.

In terms of 'proof' for a detective novel, we will never be able to come up with and solve using proofs. This is because what is presented are clues, rather than proofs and sometimes evidence.


I'm putting forth the idea that when Ryukishi gives us an 'answer' he gives us 'evidence.' Evidence like the word 'explosion' in Erika's tips or evidence like the statement that 'everyone choose a room to lie down in.' in EP6. But before we are given this evidence/answer, what are we given?

I'm thinking we are only given 'clues.' Clues like, Ange not being able to find the dock or the remains of the house. Or clues like the Battler saying 'murder means it wasn't a closed room.' And these clues are very easy to 'explain away.' I propose that if we are arguing away too many clues that our thought process is not proceeding down the correct path.


If we take a case example, the 10th Twilight Explosion, we can see that the clues provided:

- EP1 body parts were found rather than whole corpses
- EP1 only Maria's jaw being found
- EP2 Rosa feeling the need to get off the island no matter what on 10th Twilight
- EP3 Eva surviving by being 2km away from the mansion
- EP4 The murders being referred to as 'incident' and not 'murders' by police
- EP4 Massive geological changes when Ange visits

Now before the 'answer' was provided in EP6 these clues existed and maybe a lot of people agreed that it was possible... but no one took the clue and used it as a basis for other theories. There was a lot of arguing back and forth (and still was in the EP5 thread.) I don't remember what it was but there were a lot of arguments against the clues, especially the last two.

Ok, after the 'answer' was provided, I think we've all come to think this is true. Certainly we're coming up with theories on the idea that it's a rigged explosion of some kind. Although not everyone's accepted it and still attempt to explain away the EP6 TIPs. (Not here though. Especially not after that Ryukishi interview.)


So what I'm getting at is we'll never have proof. We can still argue away Ryukishi's blatant 'evidence' or 'answers' too. But if we start thinking once we have an 'answer' then really we'll have to be spoon-fed all the answers until the final answer is obvious.

So, no, I think the only method we have if we want to get anywhere is to base our ideas off of clues. It will be like being presented with half-played chessboard and imagining up the entire tree of possible outcomes.


Just food for thought. Not like I'm saying this will be easy though..
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote