AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-06-24, 16:38   Link #11561
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
And all the gold in the Golden Land already belongs to this child, who has no use for it...
Yes, in a quite literal sense, apparently. I can't think of another way to transfer Kinzo's assets to a as of yet unknown specific descendant. If the descendant were known, he could put the shares in a trust -- but I don't think trust law allows shenanigans like the inheritance test for grandkids anywhere.

The other interesting bit is that unless Eva managed some deviously clever scheme that invalidates the deal transferring the shares to this executor, one of the two things has to have happened:
  • The shares were actually transferred to her by the executor when it was all over.
  • The executor died as well, and Eva became the legal inheritor. That involves Eva somehow managing to pay the astronomically high tax for the shares...
Either makes things highly complicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
This probably very off topic, but I found an occult society that Beatrice 1 and Kinzo may have known of if Ryukishi did any real research. I was wondering what your opinion on it might be. Since it basically fits a lot of what we've been told about Beatrice and Kinzo. it might just be a coincidence in the name.
Golden Dawn is basically how we imagine magic has to look now -- the single biggest influence on anything that came afterwards, in particular any kind of fantastic art, anywhere. Even if Ryukishi did not mean Golden Dawn specifically, he would not escape it's influence, because of how ubiquitous it is. I must say, though, that there are no examples of magic in Umineko I could attribute to Golden Dawn occultism. The seals and the demons are all from the Keys of Solomon, which is older than Golden Dawn and is actually one of the bigger influences on it, in turn. The interpretation of magic delivered through Maria matches nothing that calls itself "a tradition of magical practice", though I see people do it now and again they are usually self-taught and are not part of a community more serious than an online forum. Things Kinzo is actually shown doing are much closer to chaos magic teachings which became popular after Lorenz and his butterfly effect became a prominent influence on magical thought.

So I wouldn't pay too much attention to that, though you might find a parallel or two.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 16:49   Link #11562
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Actually, Eva paying the inheritance taxes would explain why she has assets but still would have to auction Kinzo's books. 1998 evidence suggests most of her wealth was re-built after she escaped the disaster. Certainly the money Ange has inherited is not the wealth built by Kinzo or his children, but the wealth built by Eva herself from the ashes of those things, just as Kinzo built his fortune from what remained of his family's assets after the Kanto Earthquake.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 17:18   Link #11563
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Actually, Eva paying the inheritance taxes would explain why she has assets but still would have to auction Kinzo's books. 1998 evidence suggests most of her wealth was re-built after she escaped the disaster. Certainly the money Ange has inherited is not the wealth built by Kinzo or his children, but the wealth built by Eva herself from the ashes of those things, just as Kinzo built his fortune from what remained of his family's assets after the Kanto Earthquake.
There are probably credit institutions specialising in lending money for the purposes of paying this particular tax, so Eva could come into possession of the shares immediately after the death of their previous owner was legally established. But immediately afterwards, she would have to sell off pretty much everything not nailed down to pay the loan off, getting a fairly bad deal on the remaining 30%.

But the interesting consequences on that branch don't stop there. Beatrice has to be an Ushiromiya legally written into the family register, otherwise, Eva cannot inherit the shares at all.

Which means that unless Kinzo actually managed to do that to Shannon or Kanon without anyone else noticing, -- and Battler, who returned to the family after Kinzo died, would have to see the full list while at it -- neither of them can be 'that child that the gold of the Golden Land already belongs to'.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 17:24   Link #11564
Sentou
Ace Detective
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MIA
In a purely legal sense, the heiress to the Ushiromiya family fortune is Jessica.
And she indeed doesn't care about the fortune either.
Meanwhile, contrast this with Piece-Beato, who quite clearly through her letters and staking shows interest in getting the epitagh solved.

Although really I don't know where to begin and where to end with Jessica....
Sentou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 18:07   Link #11565
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
A person who wants the epitaph solved may do so because they consider themselves ineligible for it (either because they were responsible for helping Kinzo create it, aren't Ushiromiya family members and don't believe they count, consider themselves unworthy of it, don't want it). After all, if the gold has with it responsibility over the Ushiromiya Group, it's not at all unbelievable there'd be people who just plain don't want it.

Jessitrice, for instance, could want somebody other than herself saddled with the responsibilities of the family head. What better way to dodge that bullet than to simply have someone else "prove" they're the better choice in Kinzo's eyes? Likewise Shannon/Kanon may not actually want to be family head, even if they've solved the epitaph. So they actually do want someone to solve it, and will help them, but they try to make it sporting so the "best" choice rises to the headship.

Or Genji and Kumasawa are behind it, and neither considers themselves an appropriate choice. They may not know that Shannon or Kanon has already solved it, of course, if they have.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 18:22   Link #11566
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
There's actually an interesting trace in Ep5 where Battler sees Kinzo when out treasure hunting. Kinzo narrates that he has won a bet with Beatrice now that Battler has solved the epitaph.

That fake scene could still be interpreted to mean that Beatrice is the actual designer of the riddle, and Kinzo literally made a bet that one of his descendants will solve it. The bomb may actually be the equivalent of his stake in that bet.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 18:26   Link #11567
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
A person who wants the epitaph solved may do so because they consider themselves ineligible for it (either because they were responsible for helping Kinzo create it, aren't Ushiromiya family members and don't believe they count, consider themselves unworthy of it, don't want it). After all, if the gold has with it responsibility over the Ushiromiya Group, it's not at all unbelievable there'd be people who just plain don't want it.
That's probably not it. We have three different reds saying "This child/Beatrice has nothing to gain from the epitaph being solved". I don't think it just means financial gain it means circumstantial gain too. Jessica or whoever themselves probably might have something to gain, but it doesn't work the same way if we add "trice" on the end of their name.

If anyone has something to gain from them not solving the epitaph though they probably plan to leave the family and make their own family fortune (Zaibatsu) on their own, which would mean the executor holding the assets has everything to gain by not cooperating with Eva or whoever the head is and handing the assets over.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 18:47   Link #11568
Sentou
Ace Detective
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MIA
Well, with the fortune of the Ushiromiya family, the most likely candidates are Jessica, Shannon, and Kanon.

Jessica because as I previously pointed out, the fortune is legally hers, but she really could care less about it. If the epitagh was solved, she wouldn't mind, and it wasn't, she wouldn't mind either. Granted, we have an example where Erika wanted to humilate Jessica, so I suppose the epitagh COULD matter to her, but in such a case that was more or less because she didn't want her father to be humilated.

With Kanon and Shannon, being "furniture", money doesn't mean much, and indeed if they were Beatrice it fits them perfectly.

The issue with this is that we have to assume they're Beatrice from the get go, which Shannon is highly likely to be, but at the same time, it's a theory that relies on circular logic.
Shannon is the child because the child is Beatrice and Shannon is Beatrice.

Episode 7 cannot come soon enough, as whenever we have any theory applying to Shannon, Jessica, and Kanon, things get fuzzy as heck.

But I'll propose the following I suppose: Piece Beatrice is out to save everyone or something that doesn't involve mass murder, and there is someone who is at the same time exploiting the legend and killing in her name. In a sense, there are two culprits who adhere to the Beato mythos. But there is only one Piece Beato.
Sentou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 18:53   Link #11569
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
If anyone has something to gain from them not solving the epitaph though they probably plan to leave the family and make their own family fortune (Zaibatsu) on their own, which would mean the executor holding the assets has everything to gain by not cooperating with Eva or whoever the head is and handing the assets over.
Actually... If Beatrice is the said executor, she is the effective current owner of everything owned by the holding company. Only Kinzo's instructions prevent her from keeping it all to herself.

In Jewish communities, a similar problem exists -- during the Passover, a religious jew must not own any chametz, that is, any fermented grain product. Not consuming it during this period goes without saying, but not having any in the house or owning any is also a major religious issue. Consumption of fermented grain products is not forbidden at other time, and is normally desired. It is relatively easy to rid one's home of all remains of chametz one planned to consume, but if you're a baker, you have a major problem -- because you can't get rid of stock without losing money, or sometimes, simply killing your business.

To solve this, a practice evolved where a trusted non-Jew receives nominal ownership of the chametz within a business by purchasing it for a nominal sum, and then it is purchased back after the Passover. But the contract of that sale must be legally binding, or it's not religiously valid! While doing that is sure to destroy all possible trust, cases of market prices being asked for the repurchase are not unheard of at all. The jew who sold the chametz essential to his business to someone is at their mercy, because the contract is legally binding or there's no point in signing one.

In a similar fashion, for Kinzo to successfully dodge the inheritance law, Beatrice has to be a legal, not just nominal owner of Ushiromiya Group, and whether Kinzo's instructions are legally binding for her is an open question. Even if they are in any way binding, Beatrice has everything to gain from nobody solving the epitaph, as her conditional ownership of Ushiromiya Group will in this case become unconditional.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 20:37   Link #11570
TTR
受話器持って魔女・エアトリーチェ
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
IIRC She never had anything to gain at all.

She has no gain from making them solve the epitaph. If they solve it, Beatrice has nothing to gain. If they don't, then she also gains nothing.

She has no gain from doing a plotline murder. The murders aren't set up to scare anyone, to take revenge, or to fulfill a desire to kill. If everyone dies, Beatrice gains nothing. If everyone lives, then she gains nothing?

Wasn't that the message of EP5?
TTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-24, 22:27   Link #11571
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Yeah he's right you can read it that way.

Whether the epitaph's riddle is solved or not, this child stands nothing to gain at all.

Regardless of whether the epitaph is solved or not, Beato has nothing to gain.


Just more reasons for me to suspect Beato is furniture. Or in other words a pawn of the mastermind with no real goals of her own. Or we could just drop the whole Beatrice thing altogether.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 04:10   Link #11572
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Yeah he's right you can read it that way.

Whether the epitaph's riddle is solved or not, this child stands nothing to gain at all.

Regardless of whether the epitaph is solved or not, Beato has nothing to gain.
This does not forbid "Whether the epitaph is solved or not, Beato stands to lose regardless." and may actually imply it. It does not mean that she loses everything in the same way in either case. If Beatrice is the current owner of the Ushiromiya Group, she loses it if anyone solves the epitaph and she transfers everything to the new head. If nobody solves the epitaph, the bomb goes off, and she loses her life. Beatrice has nothing to gain from any actual murders and no desire to participate in them, but that's nothing new.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 08:22   Link #11573
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
The mere fact she herself has nothing to gain from the epitaph being solved likewise does not preclude desiring that someone solve it or not solve it. Unless you're going to count some sort of personal satisfaction for meeting her goals to be "something to gain," she can easily come out of the situation in the same position as before, but still help someone solve the epitaph. Arguably, doing it as a favor for a friend, or to help someone else with no expectation of being rewarded, could constitute "nothing to gain."

Alternately, she has nothing to gain, but solving/failing to solve the epitaph causes her to lose. In the case of one scenario causing loss and another not, she can express a preference despite lacking a possibility of gain. Arguably, however, "avoiding loss" can be said to be "something to gain."
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 13:24   Link #11574
TTR
受話器持って魔女・エアトリーチェ
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
My point exactly. If we assume she's already the head of the family and wants to keep it, then someone solving the epitaph is technically a loss. If someone solves it, then she doesn't keep the headship. If no one ever solves it, then she keeps the headship. If the case that she wants to keep the headship, she has something to gain from someone not solving it. Thus that motive and situation must be ruled out.

If we assume she's already the head of the family and wants to get rid of it, then the epitaph being not solved is technically a loss. Some solution outcomes as before, but this time the gain and loss is flipped.

The only time this not an issue is if she either doesn't have the headship OR she does have it but neither wants to give it away nor keep it.

Thus, Jessicatrice is impossible because she HAS technically a favorable outcome. She, in earlier Episodes, has expressed a will to not be the next head. She has clearly told George that she would prefer if he became the next head. She would have a stake in someone solving the epitaph.

Spoiler for Long post, read for my crackpot theory on motive:

Last edited by TTR; 2010-06-25 at 13:38.
TTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 13:59   Link #11575
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
I'm positive by now that the epitaph solution does not in any way rely on the murders happening. It is possible to solve before anyone even pretends to die (ep5), and Eva's ep3 solution did not appear to rely on the fact that anyone had died at all. The murders provide an impetus, but it was Eva's memories and the hints she got from Rosa that allowed her to solve it. And Battler (+ Erika) appears to have solved it through pure reasoning.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 14:13   Link #11576
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTR View Post
This, Jessicatrice is impossible because she HAS technically a favorable outcome. She, in earlier Episodes, has expressed a will to not be the next head. She has clearly told George that she would prefer if he became the next head. She would have a stake in someone solving the epitaph.
Somehow, I never mentioned Jessica in this sequence of posts detailing inheritance law and practices, and didn't even think much about her, yet everyone immediately thinks of her as soon as I say it can't be Shannon.

'Technically' is the key word. Should we understand the red about "nothing to gain" in the widest possible sense, (accomplishment of any possible goal), "nothing to gain" regarding a very specific goal that is defined in such a way that both options are losing, or should we use the concept of a material or emotional gain instead? Why pick one over the other? I don't think the question of the proper interpretation of this particular red is settled.

I may be avoiding driving forces, however, one thing remains true -- Eva cannot inherit the Ushiromiya Group from a dead Beatrice unless Beatrice is in the Ushiromiya family register. If Beatrice was not in the family register but named Eva specially in a will, the law would have to stop for years to search for lineal ascendants of Beatrice who have a reserved portion of 1/3. I don't think that works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTR View Post
Her motive in both the epitaph riddle and the murders is really hard to figure out, but we can't reason about who Beato might be and set rules for her identity without bringing up what kind of motive she has.
So we can do it with all the murderers but can't do it with Beatrice? Why?
It's not about what Beatrice wants to do, yet, but about the opportunity to do what only Beatrice can do, being 'the child that Golden Land belongs to'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTR View Post
If we apply a motive or anything to develop that blue any further, it'll crumble under the weight of the red because losses of any kind usually has a mirror "gain" to it.
There's lots of lose-lose situations under the sun, so, not necessarily. For example, if Beatrice's goal is to destroy the wealth of Ushiromiya family, someone solving the epitaph is a loss, because the wealth remains, and nobody solving the epitaph is also a loss, because the wealth still remains with Beatrice. That's just off the top of my head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTR View Post
The fact that the epitaph murders is happening doesn't result in a gain to Beato. The fact that the epitaph solution could happen or not doesn't result in a gain to Beato. What DOES result in some kind of gain is the fact that the murders and epitaph are being juxtaposed in the first place.
The simple way to overlay them is that one happening permits the gain from the other to occur which would otherwise not happen. For example, to gain from someone solving the epitaph, one specific person needs to be dead, otherwise they are the one who gains "it".

...that reminds me about that feud between the girls behind Battler's back. Battler solving the epitaph is only a win if the other girl dies. That works if Battler promised both Jessica and Shannon the moon... well, something that he can only do if he's the head, that is -- and without the other girl dying in the epitaph murders, him being the head doesn't matter. Without him being the head, the other girl dying doesn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTR View Post
One of the reds Virgilia gives us in EP5 relates to the murders. They aren't done to set fear into Battler's mind. Therefore the plotline murders can't be fake deaths because that would make Battler fear death and make him run/solve the epitaph faster/any motive that could exist out of fake deaths.
Then there is no pre-prepared "Fake first twilight" plot at all, because only someone holding the entire family by the testicles, pardon the term, can reliably instigate it every time, and the fake first twilight, when it does happen, is always an improvisation of one group or another.

Which probably means that the letters have nothing to do with the murders, which complicates things even more.

EDIT: P.S. There's a relevant joke, a bit misogynistic, but pardon me for that. Three desires of a woman are said to be, in order of increasing preference:
  • To get married.
  • To get married to someone she wanted to.
  • To get married to someone some other girl wanted to be married to...
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 14:18   Link #11577
TTR
受話器持って魔女・エアトリーチェ
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Still, what Virgilia says about the murders and connecting to them to the epitaph still bugs me. I think that point isn't being emphasized enough...

On the same train as that, it seems that even if people DO solve the epitaph, murders will happen anyway. EP3 proves that and EP5 prove those same points. Even though Eva and Battler solve it, people still die after.

However, don't the letters always say that she gives up her "rights to the headship" if someone finds the gold? In EP3 you could argue that it is possible Eva never found the gold, but that same trick doesn't work in EP5 because Erika is detective and she finds the gold with Battler. The gold is real and it does get found in EP5. Then why do people still die? Maybe this is hint towards multi-tiered culprits (i.e. once the gold is found, the culprit suddenly becomes someone else and people die for a different reason then what did before. Kind of like how in Higurashi if one set of conditions were avoiding, you ran into another set of conditions with other people dieing?)
TTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 14:32   Link #11578
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTR View Post
However, don't the letters always say that she gives up her "rights to the headship" if someone finds the gold? In EP3 you could argue that it is possible Eva never found the gold, but that same trick doesn't work in EP5 because Erika is detective and she finds the gold with Battler. The gold is real and it does get found in EP5. Then why do people still die? Maybe this is hint towards multi-tiered culprits (i.e. once the gold is found, the culprit suddenly becomes someone else and people die for a different reason then what did before. Kind of like how in Higurashi if one set of conditions were avoiding, you ran into another set of conditions with other people dieing?)
I have, actually, always been a proponent of a multi-culprit approach, and I am doubtful about the possibility of a single mastermind who somehow forces others to murder. I think all of the murders within any given episode are not committed by a single person (in some cases I think it's even impossible) and I don't think Beatrice has anything to do with any actual murders. What I think we have on our hands is multiple people, willing to kill multiple other people for very varied reasons, the fake murders giving them the opportunity to start, and further murders continuing because they are now permitted as everyone hopes to blame them on someone else.

That Beatrice might not even be connected to the fake murders, though, is a possibility, but that brings us back to the questions we started with:
  • If the first twilight isn't fake, who does all the corpse moving, (heavy, unwieldy, raining) of the first twilight, and how do people end up in the theatrical and grotesque situations we find them in? Fake First Twilight answers this by 'they are coerced or enticed into a theatrical situation where they aren't supposed to be dead and then someone else comes by and kills them', and that's the only serious answer we have.
  • What is it that one really needs to kill six alert, active and alive people in a short span of time, and often, in a single room, and do we have any characters capable of that at all?

I'm afraid that the fake first twilight is still the best explanation, and to be honest, the red about fear still allows multiple interpretations. "[Beatrice's] Her goal is not to make someone experience fear." It does not necessarily mean that if someone might experience fear, Beatrice didn't do it. It is quite possible that fear inevitably results from her actions, but is not within her goal -- like, if I shoot a gun at a butterfly flying next to your ear, I might make you experience fear, but my goal is to shoot down the butterfly.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 14:39   Link #11579
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTR View Post
Maybe this is hint towards multi-tiered culprits (i.e. once the gold is found, the culprit suddenly becomes someone else and people die for a different reason then what did before. Kind of like how in Higurashi if one set of conditions were avoiding, you ran into another set of conditions with other people dieing?)
That's basically how my Rule Z works. It's like rock paper scissors. Group A Defeats> Group B Defeats> Group C defeats> Group A.

I personally beleive there is a manipulator at the top of these three groups and that there are different accomplices in each episode (to make sense of why people die in so many inconsistent ways), but he doesn't have to exist if you don't want him to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
I have, actually, always been a proponent of a multi-culprit approach, and I am doubtful about the possibility of a single mastermind who somehow forces others to murder.
You have to admit it has a lot of foreshadowing though.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-25, 14:46   Link #11580
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
You have to admit it has a lot of foreshadowing though.
All shadows are by nature fuzzy, particularly those that go backwards in time.

It's not the existence of people who want to be masterminds that I doubt, mind you. I doubt their capability to control people effectively enough to make them murder all the time, every time. There should be breaks of control somewhere, and that essentially amounts to there being no single mastermind.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.