|
In an author-theory-wise perspective the "detective" is nothing but a role embedded to a certain character in the story. It's more or less like saying "main character" in a mystery novel.
Basically the "detective" is the character in the story who needs to solve the mysteries and, therefore, is the only one who can move the plot to a true solution. Any other character is either totally clueless, an accomplice, the killer or one of the killers, or someone who knows everything but keep himself silent for various reasons. And even in the case a secondary character, who actively tries to solve the mystery, do manage to find something or the whole scheme, it usually doesn't bring a true advancement in the story. Most of the times such a character gets "silenced" by the killer before he can tell his discoveries to the world (but he might leave an important clue).
So if this perspective is right, there's nothing wrong with Battler being the detective in EP1-4. narratively speaking there are very little reasons to doubt that. The same goes for Erika in EP5 (though EP6 is dubious...).
As for the narrator, it has nothing to do with the "detective". In mystery novels the narrator can be an impersonal voice of the author, the detective himself, the "Watson" of the case or any other character. Sometimes you can even find the murderer as the narrator!
So the fact that Battler isn't always the narrator of EP1-4 doesn't bring any point against the theory of him being the detective.
This brings us to a dilemma: "Even acknowledging that the detective can't see fake scenes, if the narrator is someone else, wouldn't it then be possible for the narrator to tell us that the detective saw things that aren't real even if he didn't?"
Technically I think this should be possible. However when the narrator is the detective himself (and most of the times Battler is the narrator in EP1-4) this shouldn't work.
|