[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It's not comparable to Erika at all. She just drops out of fucking nowhere and everyone does what she says, no questions asked, for no reason whatsoever, because she basically has magic powers.

Shimada Kiyoshi's reason to be in the mansions in Ayatsuji's Suishakan and Meirokan is basically accident and not connected to an already occured murder. Kyôgoku's Kyôgokudô is just a priest who has some reputation for being knowledgable during the first case but nothing serious whatsoever, still everybody trusts him. Hell, Kindaichi Kôsuke basically just drops into some of his first cases by accident and decides to take them on because he knows somebody who was involved or sometimes just because he's intrigued.

That is the deconstruction...or I'd rather call it stripping down the detective to it's very basic core: A vessel for the power to bring order to a place of chaos. A detective does not need character, he doesn't need past, present or future, he just needs to be the detective.
We are not even supposed to take Erika at facevalue...she is what she is, a plot device, the same that a detective is in the end. And in that position she succeded as a deconstructed archetype character, because her order was basically returned to chaos at the end of her story. It's the same as releasing an afterword to a famous story by Carr and proving Dr. Fell wrong by showing that there was never anything in the baskets at all.

Did you ever read anything from the pool of modern Japanese detective fiction? I'm not trying to say your opinion has no worth, I'd just like to see how deep your insight actually is.

Frankly, it's not important; a single deconstructive character does not make a Deconstructive Work.

I never said so. I wouldn't say that Umineko was created as a deconstruction of the whole mystery genre and meant to be a milestone in history, Ryûkishi himself didn't even say something like this. And I know you don't like what he did with Umineko, but personal bias aside, Umineko proposed some questions and critique that aren't even half bad. If it was done on purpose is another question...so no, I'd say it was a Deconstruction, but it might very well be a work with deconstructive tendencies.

[AuraTwilight]

That is the deconstruction...or I'd rather call it stripping down the detective to it's very basic core: A vessel for the power to bring order to a place of chaos. A detective does not need character, he doesn't need past, present or future, he just needs to be the detective.
We are not even supposed to take Erika at facevalue...she is what she is, a plot device, the same that a detective is in the end. And in that position she succeded as a deconstructed archetype character, because her order was basically returned to chaos at the end of her story. It's the same as releasing an afterword to a famous story by Carr and proving Dr. Fell wrong by showing that there was never anything in the baskets at all.

That's not what deconstruction is. Erika may be playing with the trope, but she's not realistic enough to qualify. She's a fictional character commentating on the conventions of her trope and abusing the chit out of it. That's not deconstruction, because ultimately she just reinforces the negative aspects of what she represents and exaggerates them to a silly caricature.

Did you ever read anything from the pool of modern Japanese detective fiction? I'm not trying to say your opinion has no worth, I'd just like to see how deep your insight actually is.

Sherringford essentially forces me to read everything he mentions to me, and we all know what a mystery buff he is.

I never said so. I wouldn't say that Umineko was created as a deconstruction of the whole mystery genre and meant to be a milestone in history, Ryûkishi himself didn't even say something like this. And I know you don't like what he did with Umineko, but personal bias aside, Umineko proposed some questions and critique that aren't even half bad. If it was done on purpose is another question...so no, I'd say it was a Deconstruction, but it might very well be a work with deconstructive tendencies.

I'll give you that, but Wanderer is the one who called Umineko a deconstruction, and he was who I was initially talking to.

There's critiquing aspects of Umineko, and genuine playing with tropes, but he's not really deconstructing anything. I wouldn't even say it has "tendencies". Deconstruction as a literary term has been greatly misused. I blame TVTropes.

[Jan-Poo]

Let's say that I've never seen the term deconstruction being abused as much as this late times (I blame Madoka Magica).

"Deconstruction" doesn't mean a story that accurately analyzes a genre and explores it in the fine details.

Let's take as examples "Don Quixote" and "Watchmen". They are respectively the epitomes of deconstruction for the "chivalric romance" and the "superhero comics".

The thing they have in common is that they show a completely disillusioned world opposing the world filled with idealism and romantic spirit that is proper of the genre they belong. Don Quixote and Watchmen destroy the perfect image of the "hero" by bringing it in a real world scenario where idealism and romanticism do not exist.
That is what deconstruction really is about.

You can say that "normally" a story sacrifices realism for the purpose of storytelling. In order to create a compelling story filled with positive sentiment the author creates a situation that often defy what you can really find in the real world. For example the clear distinction between good and evil seen as black and white is typical of the heroic narrative or the fairy tales. A deconstruction breaks that by showing only various shades of gray. A deconstruction removes the irrealistic figure of the perfect hero with a more human and realistic figure with all the flaws that come with it. But it does more than that, by making the hero act as if he is in the ideal world typical of the genre it shows how pathetic it is in reality and how embarrassing are his slogans and attitude.

The epic is removed and replaced with the grey reality: that is deconstruction.


Now Umineko is the total opposite of that. Rather than bringing the genre a step closer to reality, it brings it a step farther by the mean of a metaphysical representation. So Umineko sacrifices realism in favor of epicness whereas a deconstruction sacrifes epicness in favor of realism.


Now before you say that Umineko is a deconstruction because it shows the evil side of the "detective role" through Erika... this is called "subversion" not "deconstruction".

Don Quixote and Watchmen are not about evil heroes, they are about pathetic heroes. When a story subverts the natural order by showing an evil hero and "good" enemies, you have a subversion.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

If Ange jumped off a skyscraper and survived, wouldn't that be on the news? It'd be easily verifiable.

It's verifiable, yes, but not verified. I just had an argument with my boss on this very matter.

That is, it should be easy to check if Ange ever really did this in R-Prime because that would be on the news. It has, however, never actually been checked as far as we know.

This is part of what annoys me about 1998. 1986, okay, I get it, no obvious survivors and Eva won't talk, it's a mystery. But don't fuck me around with stuff I could learn in a library in R-Prime, Ryukishi. "It's a mystery because no one took ten seconds to Google it" is not an enigma.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Let's take as examples "Don Quixote" and "Watchmen". They are respectively the epitomes of deconstruction for the "chivalric romance" and the "superhero comics".

Well, Don Quixote was written that way. It actually has come around to be viewed in exactly the opposite sense (c.f. Man of La Mancha).

Now Menard's Don Quixote, of course, is far deeper and could potentially serve not merely as a deconstruction of the chivalrous story, but of a dozen literary traditions Cervantes never knew existed.

[Jan-Poo]

This is part of what annoys me about 1998. 1986, okay, I get it, no obvious survivors and Eva won't talk, it's a mystery. But don't fuck me around with stuff I could learn in a library in R-Prime, Ryukishi. "It's a mystery because no one took ten seconds to Google it" is not an enigma.

Hell yeah! that's what pissess me the most. There is no excuse for not disclosing informations easily accessible from outside the catbox.
Or rather, that is acceptable as long as you are in the middle of a story, for example it was acceptable for him not disclosing informations about the explosion up until EP6, but once the story is ended...
I understand his will to not give "a solution that can be copypasted", I understand that albeit I don't agree with it. However not disclosing vital easily accessible informations is not acceptable.

To give a more concrete example of what Renall said, it's as if I wrote a mystery where any idiot simply looking at the scene would understand clearly at first glance how the victim died, while making it impossible or hard to solve by a reader simply omitting to describe the relevant particulars.

Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of trick that was used both in Ange VS Beatrice and Battler VS Erika in EP8. In both cases the solution was something that could be immediately understood by being in the crime scene.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by haguruma

I never said so. I wouldn't say that Umineko was created as a deconstruction of the whole mystery genre and meant to be a milestone in history, Ryûkishi himself didn't even say something like this. And I know you don't like what he did with Umineko, but personal bias aside, Umineko proposed some questions and critique that aren't even half bad. If it was done on purpose is another question...so no, I'd say it was a Deconstruction, but it might very well be a work with deconstructive tendencies.

To be more specific I would say that episode 5 was definitely a mystery genre deconstruction. The other episodes, not so much.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's not what deconstruction is. Erika may be playing with the trope, but she's not realistic enough to qualify. She's a fictional character commentating on the conventions of her trope and abusing the chit out of it. That's not deconstruction, because ultimately she just reinforces the negative aspects of what she represents and exaggerates them to a silly caricature.

Erika being unrealistic is the fucking point. She's not realistic because trope detective fiction is itself not as realistic as it makes itself out to be. Detectives are always way smarter than everyone else, somehow never miss a clue, and basically are able to dictate the rules of the story. To have such a person exist in a realistic context, she would have to be a genius, have a perfect photographic and audio memory, and ironically have some kind of supernatural assistance, like Dlanor with Knox's Decalogue, to ensure the world follows her rules. (Ryuukishi himself actually spoke at some length on this particular point in his "Anti-Mystery" interview, so there's your "intent"). Using Erika, Ryuukishi shows that trope detectives have a bunch of contrived advantages; and Erika being aware of what advantages she has (as any intelligent detective should) and actually using them to their full extent is putting trope detectives into a realistic context and taking the situation to its logical conclusion, therefore it's a deconstruction.

As for her personality, her ego comes from knowing she's far and away the smartest person in the world (basically by a trope detective's definition). And as for why she's fucking evil, I think it's built off of how trope detectives are always solving murders, but rarely actually preventing them. The most extreme examples are in episodic series that have detectives constantly finding murders wherever they go (Murder, She Wrote; Detective Conan). Realistically, our genius detective would have figured out this pattern long ago and done something about it; only an "intellectual rapist" would actually allow a murder to occur just so that she can show off by solving it.

Originally Posted by Renall

It's verifiable, yes, but not verified. I just had an argument with my boss on this very matter.

That is, it should be easy to check if Ange ever really did this in R-Prime because that would be on the news. It has, however, never actually been checked as far as we know.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

If Ange jumped off a skyscraper and survived, wouldn't that be on the news? It'd be easily verifiable.

Why do you guys assume it would be on the news? It would require witnesses to reach the news. People aren't exactly on watch for random girls falling from the sky in the middle of the night (could be 4 A.M. for all we know), so the chances of someone seeing her while she was actually falling is very low. Someone may or may not have been nearby to see her land. And if they were, would they suspect that she fell from the very top? Of course they wouldn't; that's ridiculous. And on top of that, any witnesses who actually were somehow certain enough that she did fall from the top would also have to feel the need to report it to the media... who may or may not find the story credible enough to even listen to.

Some Witch Hunters may have fun with the idea because it can't be denied (it's a devil's proof), but I don't think the Umineko world's readers are expected to really believe it, much like the Rokkenjima forgeries. And of course neither are we.

[Cao Ni Ma]

I dont like spending time quoting every single post but here are some views on the issue.

An important element in umineko is how and when you suspend your disbelief on certain scenes. You can claim that falling off a building and surviving is impossible and I'd agree with you. Then again, surviving a drowning incident without another person intervening is impossible as well. Once your lungs get filled with water and you go unconscious you will most certainly die. Even if someone gives you CPR, the chances of you surviving are against you. Getting shot in the face has a similar level of mortality.

So if I where to be strict applying my suspension, then I would be wary of Tohya's. There is no way he could have survived something like that, so he's lying. Battler culprit theory wins again.

As for what RK07 stated in his interview here is the excerpt

K Do you think that having this many different theories in that certain range is better than denoting one truth?

R Of course. Because I wanted to leave this margin. I never had the intention to give just one answer, like in Bern’s Trial. But I made it in a way that, if you investigate deep enough, you will get an answer that is beyond doubt.

K So is it that there is only one truth, like you just said?

R Of course there is only one, but because by telling it I would have limited the scope of ideas, I made it a bit looser. I was designing a concept that expected a little bit more effort from the reader side. Depending on whether the pivot leg is Beatrice or Ange, many parts of how you look at the story change.

I interpreted this as being able to reach the answer from both points of view. Their point of view being Ange's desire to find the truth and Beatrice/Battler's desire to hide it. I also dont think that "A girl goes partially insane because of love pressures and decides to write a night of murders and it might have happen (or not)" is that one truth.

Here's what I think, if we are to create a venn diagram that includes the people that Beatrice/Shkanon would most likely protect and a diagram of the people that would cause Ange to freak out ala "one truth" scene. The elements would be like this

Beatrice - Battler, Maria, George and Jessica
Ange- Battler, Maria, Rudolph, Kyrie

Battler culprit is again the most likely choice. Hopefully we get more of evil Battler in the extra stories. Imagine a faux denouement with evil Battler describing how he committed all the crimes. He'd make a great character!

[Sherringford]

I don't see Umineko as a deconstruction. I would say it plays with the genre and its conceptions, especially of Japanese fiction. But just playing around with the genre and its conventions does not a deconstruction make. Something like Trent's Last Case is a better deconstruction.

The word deconstruction is thrown around too often nowadays. I think the lack of agreement here comes from the fact that people have different definitions of deconstruction rather than different ways of seeing the novel.

Originally Posted by Renall

This is part of what annoys me about 1998. 1986, okay, I get it, no obvious survivors and Eva won't talk, it's a mystery. But don't fuck me around with stuff I could learn in a library in R-Prime, Ryukishi. "It's a mystery because no one took ten seconds to Google it" is not an enigma.

"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

With that in mind, let's take this to its logical extreme. Ryuukishi is pretending 1998 as a mystery. If people just google the Ange incident, it won't be a mystery. Therefore, the only logical answer is that people can't google it. I propose that google has covered up all info on Ange and the Ushiromiya.

Now, we have established that google covered up 1998. Where does that leave us? Why would google cover up 1998? Why, google had an interest in it of course. I propose that the Ushiromiya family controls Google and the attempts on Ange's life were done in order to gain control of Google.

This leads to the inevitable conclusion that google+ is Ange's way of trying to find any remaining survivors of the Ushiromiya disaster.

Either that or maybe we are overthinking it.

[DukeLawliet]

Yo. Im in. Whats todays argument?

[Jan-Poo]

Recently I've been reading Higurashi translated by Mangagamer, there are a lot of interesting things that I was able to notice, recurring thematics that were later reused on Umineko and so on. This experience is helping me a lot in better understanding R07 and how much he changed through the last years.

In "Higurashi kai" he started writing his final comments after the story is finished, he said some very interesting stuff, but the most interesting is the one he wrote after Minagoroshi.

There it can be clearly seen that he was very reticent at writing the solution of the mistery, from his words you can clearly notice that he thought it was a sad thing because once the mystery is solved you can't speculate anymore.

HOWEVER



What made him forget that it is necessary for a game to have a proper ending?
Of course it's always a bit sad when a game ends, but that's nonetheless a necessity that must be faced. What he wrote there shows that he perfectly understood that, but then why he changed his mind? Those are his own words, and that's basically what I've been repeating for the past two years.
I'm really saddened to see that in the beginning he understood all that but that he just decided to ignore it in the end.

[Sherringford]

Well, it's commonish for certain mystery novels to not have the culprit revealed. I don't particularly like those novels as much as I like traditional Great-Detective-Mansion-Culprit-is-You novels, but I still enjoy them more than say fantasy. He could have read one of those(fairly big subgenre in Japan if I recall correctly) and changed his mind.

Umineko's issue is that it spawned 8 novels while giving the impression at times that it would have an ending only to reveal it didn't. That made readers feel letdown rather than simply appreciate it for what it was, which is often the case with other no-ending novels. I can't recall another no-ending mystery that lasted that long(but I'm sure there must have been a few). The length is what involved the readers so much to cause that sense of betrayal some people felt, I think.

I wouldn't say his idea of simply going for a no-ending approach was wrong, I'd say the way he executed that idea was wrong. He mislead the readers for way too long.

For example, if someone hides your keys for a few minutes then reveals it was inside your car all along, you'd smile, laugh and remember it as a "wacky friend" moment. But if someone hid your keys for an entire day, then that's when the joke overstayed its welcome.

A single book, or even a series of 2 or 3 novels is something I feel is fine to end with no-ending. But something of Umineko length and more importantly with Umineko's execution just feels a bit disappointing. I wasn't left marveling at what really happened, like great no-ending novels usually end. I was left honestly not giving much of a damn.

Now that said, I agree with the screen you posted. I prefer stories to have an ending. No-ending stories feel like a gimmick to me. But...I can more or less see what made him change his mind. I just don't agree with it at all and think that for something like Umineko, an ending would have been much better than an ending without answers.

To sum up, I think no-ending mysteries aren't wrong by definition. I think they are boring. But I can't say something sucks because it doesn't fit my personal taste. And Ryuukishi's reaction probably came about because of criticism and literary influences, I think.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

I dont like spending time quoting every single post but here are some views on the issue.

An important element in umineko is how and when you suspend your disbelief on certain scenes. You can claim that falling off a building and surviving is impossible and I'd agree with you. Then again, surviving a drowning incident without another person intervening is impossible as well. Once your lungs get filled with water and you go unconscious you will most certainly die. Even if someone gives you CPR, the chances of you surviving are against you. Getting shot in the face has a similar level of mortality.

Thing is, I'll give him the improbable castaway thing. I'll even give him the amnesia, despite it being ludicrous. And I'll certainly give him jumping off a building and surviving.

I just won't give him doing that and nobody being able to find out if it's true. My suspension of disbelief is broken when an extraordinary story is reduced to obscurity. In ep4 it's acceptable; Okonogi knows about it, it seems to have been a publicized kind of miraculous thing. As we retreat from that view, we become uncertain if the event itself ever happened... but if it did, we should easily be able to find proof, and if it didn't, we should be able to find voluminous testimony from aides, bodyguards, and so forth that no incident of that sort ever happened when they were on duty.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Why do you guys assume it would be on the news? It would require witnesses to reach the news. People aren't exactly on watch for random girls falling from the sky in the middle of the night (could be 4 A.M. for all we know), so the chances of someone seeing her while she was actually falling is very low. Someone may or may not have been nearby to see her land. And if they were, would they suspect that she fell from the very top? Of course they wouldn't; that's ridiculous. And on top of that, any witnesses who actually were somehow certain enough that she did fall from the top would also have to feel the need to report it to the media... who may or may not find the story credible enough to even listen to.

You ever watched TMZ? The heir to a recently-deceased rich old biddy who may have murdered said heir's parents attempting suicide and surviving is the stuff celebrity gossip rags are made of.

The scene itself has witnesses actually already in it: the bodyguards. If such an event ever happened, it'd be hard to believe one of these guys didn't rumor mill it to the press. People have sold out way more inconsequential stories for a pittance.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Here's what I think, if we are to create a venn diagram that includes the people that Beatrice/Shkanon would most likely protect and a diagram of the people that would cause Ange to freak out ala "one truth" scene. The elements would be like this

Beatrice - Battler, Maria, George and Jessica
Ange- Battler, Maria, Rudolph, Kyrie

Battler culprit is again the most likely choice. Hopefully we get more of evil Battler in the extra stories. Imagine a faux denouement with evil Battler describing how he committed all the crimes. He'd make a great character!

Oh so we're just casually ignoring Maria Culprit huh.

Who's the only one who they thought they could confirm deceased? By the laws of fiction, the one body you can forensically identify is the one who didn't die. As to how she faked her own jawbone... I dunno, maybe she's got a robot jaw now.

[DukeLawliet]

Yeah, but then how did she survive?

At the end of each game, Rokkenjima explodes. That much we know. There is no indicator that Maria knew the location of Kuwadorian


But, to play devils advocate here, anyone whos read FMA knows dental records can be faked with enough planning. Is Rosa confirmed dead? Maria would do anything for her dear mother, now wouldnt she?

Also, the jawbone is on R-1, not R-Prime. SWISS CHEESE!! THIS ARGUMENT IS SWISS CHEESE!

[Cao Ni Ma]

Maria culprit theory will always be number one in my heart

I already gave a theory that could explain the jawbone issue. The government wantesd bury whatever information that would incriminate them in selling an island full of explosives to a deranged man. Thats why we dont have evidence of an explosion, no bodies except for the convenient jawbone from the supposed person that sparked the second investigation to happen trough letters addressed by her. It also explains why they wanted the island back and why Krauss kept getting his permits denied despite everything being in order.

Also Renall didnt you say at one point that the you found the letters/diary writing comparison suspicious? Saying that the only information that you could get from it was that it was written by someone else? Same thing applies for the jawbone. The only information that you can get from it is that Maria is dead.

Its also hilarious in hindsight, there are a lot of scenes that are pretty funny if you think Maria has a hand in whats happening. Like the very first twilight, the narrator mentions something like "Maria returned their stare with a dubious look, but when she realized that they weren't trying to blame her for anything, she returned to watch tv.". Also the whole "Can't you see her Battler? Beatrice is in this room"

EP2 had the whole scene where Beatrice humiliates Meta Battler by calling him incompetent and telling him to kneel and surrender to the witch. Story Battler then kneels to Maria and accepts Beatrice. Maria telling Battler that as long as he held her hand she promised nothing bad would happen to him or anyone else for that matter and that witches keep their promises. Shortly after being evicted from the room we can imagine that he blows up in the explosion or is killed by Genji. Rosa in the chase scene goes into first person mode, tells us what a terrible mother she is.. She then tells us she cant hold her daughters hand cause she has the gold in one and the rifle in the other. Shortly after this she trips and screws up her ankle.

Dont remember much about EP3, she was surprisingly hush (dead). Well other than making a promise off not talking anymore if her mother went with her to see the flower. I guess she kept that one as well

EP4 had her knowing about the conversation between Kyrie and Battler. Telling Battler something like "Didn't she tell you to believe in the witch?" shortly before Beatrice calls.

EP5 or 6 had dont remember which had a similar scene to EP1 "Beatrice is here". Maria is describing Beatrice to everyone and then does something like "Isn't that right Shannon?!" and Shannon frets all over.

Battler culprit is still the most logical one and a pretty fun way to troll the fanbase. But Maria culprit would be the crowned king of all of them!

[Wanderer]

Maria is too obvious. I say it was Gohda.

[Sherringford]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Sherringford essentially forces me to read everything he mentions to me, and we all know what a mystery buff he is.

Wait just read this. Hang on now, I try to force you to read everything I mention. Not once did I ever succeed.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Also Renall didnt you say at one point that the you found the letters/diary writing comparison suspicious? Saying that the only information that you could get from it was that it was written by someone else? Same thing applies for the jawbone. The only information that you can get from it is that Maria is dead.

Actually, the only information you can get out of that is that some kind of dental or medical record said to be Maria's positively matches a piece of bone found at the scene. It doesn't actually confirm her death. It makes it a very likely inference, but at its base level all it really confirms is that the record matches the jawbone.

You would, of course, have to demonstrate why the record is or is not reliable to demonstrate to a sufficient degree of reasonableness that the subject in question is dead. And even then you could argue she's wandering around somewhere without a jaw.

[DukeLawliet]

....Im now picturing half feral jawless Maria living in the Rokkenjima woods, absolutely out of her gourd.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by DukeLawliet

....Im now picturing half feral jawless Maria living in the Rokkenjima woods, absolutely out of her gourd.

Ange-...Maria?!
Maria- uuuuurgh~ *lunges*
Ange- And thats how I died in Rokkenjima

[AuraTwilight]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

The thing they have in common is that they show a completely disillusioned world opposing the world filled with idealism and romantic spirit that is proper of the genre they belong. Don Quixote and Watchmen destroy the perfect image of the "hero" by bringing it in a real world scenario where idealism and romanticism do not exist.
That is what deconstruction really is about.

A deconstruction can also occur the other way around. There are deconstruction stories where the hero doesn't go through the hoops and just shoots the bad guy in the face from the get go, or super geniuses like Reed Richards publish their inventions and improve the human condition pretty much infinitely.

To be more specific I would say that episode 5 was definitely a mystery genre deconstruction. The other episodes, not so much.

Subversion. An arguably poor one. It is a deconstruction of the attitude most of his readers were taking with the story, but that's totally different.

Erika being unrealistic is the fucking point. She's not realistic because trope detective fiction is itself not as realistic as it makes itself out to be.

Then she's a subversion, not a deconstruction. She is 100% not a deconstruction.

Detectives are always way smarter than everyone else, somehow never miss a clue, and basically are able to dictate the rules of the story. To have such a person exist in a realistic context, she would have to be a genius, have a perfect photographic and audio memory, and ironically have some kind of supernatural assistance, like Dlanor with Knox's Decalogue, to ensure the world follows her rules. (Ryuukishi himself actually spoke at some length on this particular point in his "Anti-Mystery" interview, so there's your "intent"). Using Erika, Ryuukishi shows that trope detectives have a bunch of contrived advantages; and Erika being aware of what advantages she has (as any intelligent detective should) and actually using them to their full extent is putting trope detectives into a realistic context and taking the situation to its logical conclusion, therefore it's a deconstruction.

If it were a deconstruction, Erika would try and fulfill the Detective archetype and either fail or make a mess of things. She wouldn't be a superhuman.

Wait just read this. Hang on now, I try to force you to read everything I mention. Not once did I ever succeed.

Yes you do. I just don't tell you in order to make you mad.