Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo
I don't think it's correct to make that reasoning. You either make an interpretation as a theory or you explain why a story makes sense.
There are several problems implicated in making an interpretation that assumes stuff never stated in a story and then use that as a way to explain that "everything makes sense".
1) With enough fantasy and skill you can make sense out of almost every story, but that would be your story as you rewrote it that'd make sense not the original.
2) By making up stuff in order to "fix" something you might fail to notice an inconsistency that is supposed to give the reader the ability to understand that it's false. For example if someone in the past tried to make sense out of "magic" in umineko regardless of all the blatant inconsistencies, he would have just wasted his time in an attempt to deny the obvious.
I'm not sure I can explain it well... but basically when you say "it makes sense" you are making a judgement about a story or a part of a story. A judgement should be impartial objective and devoid of biases.
You can make theories, but you can't use your theories as an argument to claim that a story makes sense, even if your theory actually fixes every plot hole! What do you know? Maybe you got an idea that the author himself never had and never intended to be true.
At any rate the very definition of "plot hole" is the lack of a clear explanation about a certain fact in the story. It matters not if you can come up with an explanation. The story requires that such explanation must be given, and if it wasn't, it's a plot hole.
For example Character A calls Character B by name even if they just met and they never introduced each other. That would be a no brainer to fix this, you'd just need to imagine that they already met in their past. But how do you even know if that really happened or if that's supposed to have happened? It wasn't mentioned, it wasn't hinted, it wasn't implied then you simply conclude there is an unexplained inconsistency.
|
That's true, but I'm attempting to set a distinction between an "unexplained inconsistency" and an unexplained contradiction, as people have stated Kinzo's behavior to be. There's a difference between someone taking actions that can make sense within reason and someone taking actions that are just flat out contradictory. I'm simply making a point that Kinzo's actions are the former and not the latter.
Just because he did something that is not explained doesn't mean that he did something that should be discounted as impossible simply because of the lack of explanation. That's the whole point of theorizing. If you don't make "What if"s then you're not going to get any closer to a solution than someone making incorrect "What if"s.