2010-05-05, 18:16 | Link #9781 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
First, the red is still true. It has never been the case anywhere in Umineko that the red is a lie. In the sense that Beatrice's original statement of "When I speak the truth, I will use red" remains unchallenged, we can trust the red to give us the truth. The issue here is not a disconnect with the mechanism. It's a disconnect with the philosophical and semantic construction of "truth." We want to be able to trust things which are true because we believe, inherently, that true statements hold more value than uncertain statements (false statements have an equivalent truth value to true ones in some cases and a superior one in others but I'll not get into that, though perhaps I should). This is strictly a value judgment and informationally it isn't necessarily correct. A statement can be "true" and present us with almost no information at all. Example: You're driving along a road when I flag you down and tell you to stop. I warn you that "You can't cross the river ahead." How many ways can this statement be "true?"
However, Beatrice never said red existed to make the game easier, just to make it sporting. She has, in fact, deliberately used it to mislead and has intentionally employed linguistic twisting. Thus, any hope we have that the red is not being "misused" should be discarded, because it is clear that we in fact can expect it to be utilized in a fashion which confuses us. Battler theorizes in ep2 that the red is a weapon, but that it actually limits Beatrice. That isn't necessarily true, so long as no truth value is being conceded with a given statement. Example: Imagine a very poorly-phrased or conceived blue text theory (say... small bombs, or time travel). Denying this in red has no actual effect of weakening the position of the witch side. If it was patently absurd from the beginning, saying so doesn't do anything useful. For blue to be of any use it must be specifically grounded enough that defeating it with red forces a concession of truth which is, if not completely clear, at least reliably useful. Otherwise you wind up with misleading red that is too open to interpretation. In short, Battler's "shotgun" theory of the blue text is actually the worst possible way it can be used. One could argue that the blue can be used to just guess every theory that can exist and it will eventually be right. But that's wrong. It can only work if one is capable of guessing every possible theory. The red allows assumption to enter the picture, which leads the blue text user into meandering territory by making them self-eliminate possibilities that have not actually been excluded. The purpose of red is not to shorten the boundaries of the game. Intentionally expanding them is an entirely valid method. Beatrice, of course, refused to do this (hence not permitting Battler to ever claim a Person X even though this would ensure he never gets anything right). But we know that Beatrice wanted her game to be solvable and thus made it so. There is no such guarantee in Chiru, even with the presence of Knox rules. Indeed, Knox is itself a misleading thing. There is one very conspicuously absent thing from Knox's ruleset, irrespective of what Dlanor claims about the solvability of mysteries which uses it. Did you notice? It doesn't say anywhere that a solution has to exist... or that only one must exist. |
|
2010-05-05, 20:35 | Link #9782 | ||
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2010-05-05, 21:18 | Link #9783 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Thanks Renall, it seems you're on the same wavelength as I am.
I've been thinking, and I don't think Ryuukishi is meaning to create a deep complicated explanation to the red text. I've seen a lot of theories pop up on what the red text, from the guidelines of the story to a tool which allows modification of the story as it's progressing. To me, it just seems to further muddle the story by altering the definition of something which is already given to us. So, I've decided just to accept it for what it is: the truth. To me, it's simply just a way of saying, in this messed up gameboard where truth is something that is hard to find, that this simple fact is undeniably true. Ryuukishi is writing Umineko to the general otaku populace, right? That means, if we trust Ryuukishi to give us a fair game, we shouldn't need complicated philisophical solutions or abuse of twisted logic to solve the games. It's not a fun game if it isn't solvable by most of it's target audience. Even though I keep telling myself to do so, I still haven't run through the first four Episodes again with the knowledge I've gained from Episode 5 and this thread. I really need to... |
2010-05-05, 21:32 | Link #9784 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
On an unrelated note I just realized a flight accident related to the Korean war happened on 11/29 (from 07151129) in 1987.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858 EDIT: hey this is pretty interesting actually. Quote:
November 29th is also apparently C.S. Lewis's birthday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
__________________
|
|
2010-05-05, 22:39 | Link #9785 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
The red must be within the context of the story and not real life. If you take this into account then the two I've left above should be upheld by the red. Not sure about the rest though... (a bit too exhausted to think 100% clearly right now.) A lot of the anti-red arguing I've seen tries to account for the red as if it was occurring in reality. If this was the case, then no red can possibly be true. For example, you can definitely cross any river up ahead, given enough time, willpower or resources. But in the story? It's like how you play certain games; you don't act surprised when you walk into an invisible wall at the edge of the map. If the game was real, you *could* walk all the way to the province of Morrowind; but this is a game, there's nothing out there. Note that this idea doesn't require you to believe in the Author Theory or anything. We know that Beatrice in effect 'authored' the games. And so did Lambda and Battler. Speaking of Battler, I wanted to point out something else. Although he's been called the detective along with Erika, neither of them are effective at actually solving the puzzle. I don't know of any story where the detective actually failed except perhaps for "And Then There Were None." (Coincidence? heh.) But we've had 6 constant failures by the detective now. I propose that Battler and Erika, though they may be called the 'detective' are actually characters working against the reader. In other words, because they aren't part of the solution, they are Ryukishi's method of introducing incorrect theories. This is probably part of the idea Ryukishi mentioned in EP6 when the family was playing the cheese cutting puzzle. That we've been primed incorrectly and can't think of the solution because of that. I suspect that that is Battler and Erika's role (from Ryukishi, at least.) My semi-evidence for this is Beatrice telling Battler that is he 'incompetent' in red. 8) (To Battler)そなたは無能だ! EDIT: Actually, if the red holds for the context of the story then it seems to uphold: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2010-05-05, 22:44 | Link #9786 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Well, if you want to think of it a certain way, the reader is the detective and Battler is the Watson. In fact, Author Theory lets you read the red literally:
Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE! I mean, okay, yes, Dlanor is talking to Battler... but the red is true the other way too isn't it? Granted, you might say "but our viewpoint isn't objective!" Well, it actually is objective, we just aren't being shown things that are necessarily true. However, our viewpoint is not distorted by the lens of a particular character's way of thinking, so we at the very least have the ability to draw our own conclusions. EDIT: No, the statement works for all of them, just for a certain kind of "true" and a certain emphasis on words. For instance if I say "You can't go in there!" it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't able. However, the place I'm telling you not to go might be filled with poison gas, which would kill you. What I mean is that you can't go in there safely, which for certain interpretations of a red statement could be entirely true. Likewise, if I say "You can't go in there!" I might not mean that no one can, but that you personally cannot. This is harder to get away with if a line is being spoken, but for an example of what I mean, I recommend the Gene Hackman movie The Conversation. Spoiler for The Conversation Spoiler!:
Last edited by Renall; 2010-05-05 at 22:59. |
2010-05-05, 23:02 | Link #9788 | |
The Great Dine
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Quote:
Take Lambda for example, who's pretty much stated to be a neutral and impartial observer - mainly because she changes sides depending on who the underdog is at the time. This is exactly why she's chosen to be the logic error judge as well. I personally can say I'm not nearly as impartial as her, so me narrating the story would mean I would shine a light on certain characters in a more kind nature if I like them. When Lambda's the gamemaster in EP 5 she focuses more on the honest qualities of the characters and doesn't even try to blur it. She clearly shows Natsuhi's delusional state of mind, Krauss's bumbling nature, Eva's caring but harsh way of acting and so forth. Only time she seems to become bias is near the end, when it looks like she's been helping Bern to make up that story about Natsuhi being a seductress. But if she were truly bias then she wouldn't have let Battler become a sorcerer. Battler in EP 6, on the otherhand, is pretty much stated to not want to make everyone look like an evil jerk because he cares about them. |
|
2010-05-05, 23:06 | Link #9789 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Remember, ep6 appears to have no detective, and the only person who seems all that interested in what's actually happening is us, the readers. And we're really in a better position to evaluate everything than anyone on the board, meta-, or meta-meta- level in-story is. |
|
2010-05-05, 23:18 | Link #9791 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
When he initially hears the conversation he thinks it's...
Spoiler for What he thinks he hears:
Spoiler for What it turns out to be:
|
2010-05-05, 23:29 | Link #9793 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-05-05, 23:53 | Link #9794 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
What I was saying was that if you consider the red as having to work within the context of the story. Or maybe I should say it that the red has only to be true for the game/story itself and does not need to be true for 'reality.' If you take that into account then the first set of statements I listed could be effective reasons why the red is true. But then the last two won't be effective statements that keeps the red true... Quote:
In terms of why the red is true, in order of the list above: 1. The author has decided the story will not feature a bridge. 2. The author has decided the story features an impassable bridge. 3. The author has decided the character cannot cross the river due to lack of swimming ability or fear of water, etc. 4. The author has decided the story features a bridge that is sufficient to dissuade and/or deter the character from crossing. Of course there's no way of telling which one it is without the story itself... but maybe, I'm starting to think that it doesn't matter which one. At least with Beatrice's games, i.e. EP1-4. I wouldn't bet on Lambdadelta's games. Ok, with the last two though: Quote:
2. I believe the red is also insufficient in this case, so this is another way to get around the red. This is meta-gaming at its best... but then we don't call them Meta-Battler and Meta-Beatrice for nothing. 8) |
|||
2010-05-05, 23:58 | Link #9795 | |
The Great Dine
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-05-06, 00:07 | Link #9796 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Plus, if Erika doesn't exist at all, then she wasn't really "in" ep5 to begin with. Well, Meta-Erika was. But if Meta-Erika is the only Erika, then the detective is a character in a separate layer of narrative entirely. |
|
2010-05-06, 00:07 | Link #9797 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
As for the narration. You'll notice from the beginning that the narration is mostly comes from the game master Lambdadelta during the set up. The phone call with Natsuhi for instance. While other scenes have other people narrating on and off like in the closet scene where Natsuhi narrates (I did I saw) and then a person spying on her narrates (she did she saw). Erika rarely is specifically shown to narrate any of the scenes in episode 5. And we are not specifically told when the narration changes. Some scenes (mostly magic scenes) are in third person without any objective Narrations. Otherwise the people who usually narrate in episode 5 are
__________________
|
|
2010-05-06, 00:08 | Link #9798 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
Mind you, Bernkastel has it even worse. She seems to be reading the story she herself participates in and tossing out comments about the author and plot twists -- she does not actually seem to fully be 'there' even in the meta scenes.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-06, 00:13 | Link #9799 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
It seems possible for meta-characters to perceive the board directly however. Battler and Beatrice do it all the time, especially in ep2 where they're constantly pausing the events to wander around the frozen scene and talk to each other about it.
|
2010-05-06, 00:31 | Link #9800 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
Bernkastel is on level 5, but is normally seen on level 4, and never sees the board directly at all. Erika 'dips down' one level further, and is on level 3 while being seen on level 2, never actually getting down to the bare metal. Battler and Beatrice actually exist simultaneously on the first three, which is why their meta versions can interact with the board sort of directly, but Erika can't. Or some other convoluted mess along those lines.
__________________
|
|
|
|