[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

~~~

I haven't commented on it until now, but all this psychology stuff has been very interesting.

So, I was thinking about how strange a coincidence it was that Battler got such a similar form of brain damage as Yasu. Then I wondered if maybe it wasn't a coincidence. What if Ikuko was Yasu and she somehow inflicted it on Battler on purpose? What if Battler wasn't even a victim but volunteered to become that way?

Pretty ridiculous, I know, but it actually makes a lot of things... fit.

Anyway, just some wild speculation...

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The "No Reader = No Falsehoods" thing is complete bullshit if only on the grounds that Bern's Game totally has falsehoods.

Toku already pointed out your error here before I could, so it's your move on this one.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Tools-Who-Are-Not-Persons do not have a subjective viewpoint with which to corrupt and distort the telling of a story.

What a tool does is determined by the tool's user, who has a subjective viewpoint.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

And you are choosing to interpret "distort" in a very specific, unsupported, and personally preferred way that isn't even metaphorically analogous to how readers work in every other medium of life and fiction, which is a direct contrast to how you argue the usage of terms such as Piece, Player, Gameboard, and the like.

You are technically right that a reader could "distort" a story without changing the text. However, this leg of my argument is mostly about the attitudes of all the characters in the discussion. The fact that Bern is not using a Reader comes as a big surprise to all. Lambdadelta seems alarmed; she seems to think it makes Bern practically defenseless; Battler seems exited by Bern's head-on challenge. If all a Reader does is emphasize certain words and sound effects with their voice then considering the voiceless format of Umineko why the hell is so much attention drawn to a Reader's potential effect on a story? Why do they care so much? Why should we care? Is Bern afraid of a few extra commas and dot-dot-dots added to the written text we read?

The terms point is a fair one, but I believe that's RK07's double standard, not mine. He has likened reading and writing to a competitive game between reader and writer before.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Totes did that, see above.

Who is Totes?

Originally Posted by Renall

Okay, except... none of that has anything to do with your theory. Your theory is about Readers, which don't exist in the "game" scenarios. There is no indication that the "distortions" applied by a Reader, even if able to misrepresent the very character of the story to an individual who has supernatural confirmation abilities and a perspective present in the actual story - please stop dodging that, it's getting aggravating, address it - apply in any way to the Game Master/Player dynamic.

But Readers, whatever they may be, seem to have affected the narration of every story except Bern's game and maybe Our Confessions. They can be either the Game Master or Player, or alternatively they could be some vague invisible 3rd party, which, based off of some of your earlier criticisms, I imagine you would find unpalatable.

Originally Posted by Renall

Saying "she assumed they were separate so it was depicted that they are even though her piece would not have seen that" is something which has never happened during a game. Battler made a lot of false assumptions in ep1-4, but they didn't suddenly become true because he did so. We know this because we have independent confirmation.

But those assumptions were often depicted as true. Suppose the "assumption" mechanic I am suggesting helps create the scenes that depict something false. To put it another way, the "assumption" mechanic plays a part in unreliable narration.

Originally Posted by Renall

For example, Battler assumes the chapel is locked in ep2. He never actually confirms that it isn't. By your reasoning, the chapel became locked as a result, or would have actually been locked on a replay of the same events to an observer of the game. Except Will says the answer is "it wasn't locked" (in so many words)

The chapel would, and did, become locked on the Game Board, but The Truth is that it was never locked. This is because what happens on the Game Board is not necessarily The Truth.

Originally Posted by Renall

. And Our Confessions makes clear that Beatrice has intended solutions to each of her tricks. So even though Battler can interact in some way and she can improvise in some way, she can't make the chapel suddenly be locked if the whole trick was "make a big show of giving the key to Maria, then don't actually lock the chapel door." The chapel door will never be locked, Shannon's body will never be in the ep1 shed, and if the adults posted a guard at every room they checked in ep3's First Twilight Kanon would never be found in the chapel. The only difference is whether Battler actually confirms it by being present through his piece and doing something.

Game Boards aren't static. They are worlds shaped by embellishment and interpretation. The creation of a Game Board starts off with a set of certain facts (mystery-related events) that comprise an incomplete story then embellishments and interpretation (fantasy, unreliable narration) are incorporated to fill in the rest and form a complete story. Thus, some things that happen on the Game Board are The Truth; some things aren't.