Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym
Well, keeping in mind that the rules of the Meta are pretty inconsistent, at that specific time the reasoning was "You must make that claim objectively. ... You require concrete proof that Kyrie changed her mind." The 'ad infinitum' problem was avoided quickly by stumbling upon a motive that couldn't be refuted, presumably because it was true. It was weird, though - I'd call it tonge-in-cheek even if it went farther, since the Van Dine list explicitly calls that solution cliche and "a confession of the author's ineptitude and lack of originality."
|
It's just silly to ask someone to prove objectively the mental state of a fictional character. You can't do it. You can't even
begin to do it. The only thing Battler could do is exactly what he did, which is why it was stupid to begin with. What
else was he going to come up with?