2011-02-05, 02:42 | Link #742 |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Idle thought: maybe Yasu pitched her first two mystery drafts into the ocean because she realized that they were too over-the-top to inflict on the real Battler? She wanted to make him remember her, not traumatize him, and ideally he should have realized it was a game right away, so making a horrific bloody mess everywhere would be counterproductive even if it was fun to write. That would make her story development process roughly parallel Meta-Beatrice's character development starting in EP3.
__________________
|
2011-02-05, 03:41 | Link #744 |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
This is pure speculation, but since Beato called Land her masterpiece, I think it was either her most extreme work before she decided to dial it back, or one of the final drafts prior to the version she actually ran at the conference.
Even though Ryuukishi lowered the difficulty with Banquet, it seems unlikely that he would have significantly altered Beato's character arc too, so I'm inclined toward the latter idea. We probably could have expected something similar in tone to Banquet's first twilight, which was technically clever without being grotesque. She did say that the closed room ring ended up being her favorite.
__________________
Last edited by LyricalAura; 2011-02-05 at 13:18. |
2011-02-05, 09:41 | Link #745 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
This my first post here, but I have a theory about the whole Shannon/Kanon/Beatrice/Kinzo thing that makes some sense anyway. I'll try to keep it brief.
Spoiler for spoiler tagged for long theory.:
I apologize in advance if this is a bit of a captain obvious post. Last edited by Zeroxy; 2011-02-05 at 09:45. Reason: Putting a spoiler tag for a long theory |
2011-02-05, 13:16 | Link #746 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
The part about the red truth being completely subjective is not captain obvious, but the assumption that when we talk about gameboard death in red we don't have to be referring to an actual person or to a (fictional or real) physical death is, as I understand it, the base assumption behind Shkannon.
|
2011-02-05, 14:53 | Link #747 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
# You are incompetent[!] # hi-hhihihhihihihihihihihihihihi[!!] # Come on, Ushiromiya Battler, kneel # If you accept me, all of the riddles will be resolved # With my power, any kind of closed room can be created or destroyed[!!] # I'll make you my favorite furniture # I'll love you so much, and make you my toy until you turn to ashes # *cackle*cackle*cackle*hihihihihihihihihihihyahyahy ahhahhahahahaha-hhahahahhahhahhahhahhahhahha Six years ago for me, no person called Beatrice existed. The sin I am now demanding that you remember is not between Ushiromiya Battler and Beatrice. No one escapes, all die. I am the Golden Witch, Beatrice. This is my Golden Land Come home quickly, Onii-chan!! Don't leave me all alone!!! I beg you, come home quickly! # Finish her...!! # Then, take your family back!! # And then, .........come home to me......!!! I re-killed all of them. For your sake, I cut out everything possibly Shkanon-related. All of these Red Truths either have no inherent truth value and are either subjective opinions, commands, or use metaphor. Of note is that Beatrice is treated as a real person in the red, and she had "personality birth" six years ago. But the opposite can't be done? Yea, bull. Six years ago, for me, Beatrice did not exist. THIS IS INHERENTLY SUBJECTIVE. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE GODDAMN TEXT. THIS CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE DIEDIEDIEDIE <DIE THE DEATH> <THE DEATH IS THE GREAT EQUALIZER!>
__________________
|
|
2011-02-05, 15:10 | Link #748 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
I'm not going to get into this again, but I'll just say that your definition of completely subjective truth appears to be different from mine (I am going by the classical philosophical definition - you can read some literature on the subject, if you like, say search the article on Wikipedia for names of notable works).
Last edited by witchfan; 2011-02-05 at 15:24. |
2011-02-05, 15:53 | Link #749 |
The True Culprit
|
sub·jec·tive
/səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show Spelled[suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA –adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. 4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience. 6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential. The definition I'm using is valid. You can't get out of this by buying time and telling me to go research.
__________________
|
2011-02-05, 16:12 | Link #750 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
First off, there is a difference between a subjective statement and a subjective truth. A subjective statement - as some might call it - or a subjectively stated statement, can be objectively true. Second, I told you what definition I am using and I pointed you to literature on the subject - if you think a dictionary can give you an accurate definition of this term you are dead wrong. Unless you too have a philosophy degree I think it is safe to say that, at the very least, my opinion is more credible than yours on this subject. Except I didn't even question your definition of subjective truth, I merely told you mine and yours are different. By my definition, the statements you gave are for the most part subjective statements, but they are either too devoid of content to be true or false, are ambiguous and objectively true, or are straightforward and objectively true.
|
2011-02-05, 16:16 | Link #751 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
AuraTwilight thank you for providing the definition for the word subjective. I do actually mean that non sarcastically. We don't need a semantic/what-word-means-what battle going on. Especially since the in-story Gamemasters seem to enjoy twisting the a word's definition for their own needs. I think most people have the general idea what subjective means, does there really need to an argument about it?
Quote:
I think this was majorly hinted at when in EP6 when the family and Erika are trying to solve the cheese riddle. Since the riddle does not define what shape the cheese was in, Erika and Battler could exploit the rules of the riddle to get a better answer than the one that was given in the riddle book. Without a definition of what some words actually mean a red truth, can be no better than a half-truth. If I'm incorrect about anything though, please say something.. Last edited by Zeroxy; 2011-02-05 at 16:26. Reason: gist |
|
2011-02-05, 16:22 | Link #752 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
I never said you are incorrect, Zeroxy, only that it is not obvious (and I also meant that you are not necessarily correct). The statement was not levelled at your theory at all, just at what you were saying about it being a captain obvious post.
|
2011-02-05, 16:31 | Link #753 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
witchfan I didn't believe you said I was incorrect. What I meant was the examples I was using for my reasoning in that specific post. I'm not 100% sure that definitions for the words death and person were not given. That's what I meant. But I'm almost positive that that is the case. But thank you.
|
2011-02-05, 17:13 | Link #754 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2011-02-05, 17:16 | Link #755 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
For all the shit you start when I tell you to stop being stupid, you sure know how to act like an arrogant fuck. You are the one telling /me/ my definition is wrong, despite being completely unread on the subject. If some shoddy trolling gives you your daily satisfaction, have fun with it, but I really hope nobody thinks you actually have a point here.
|
2011-02-05, 17:28 | Link #756 |
The True Culprit
|
I'm not telling you your definition is wrong, I'm just saying that the definition I proposed is completely valid. You're the one sitting there going "No, it's not, because I use a different definition. Therefore your idea about the Red Truth isn't valid."
__________________
|
2011-02-05, 17:33 | Link #757 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
I just don't know why I'm wasting my time on this. I never questioned your definition. I said it was not the classical one (or the only correct one), which is entirely correct. You are the one who responded to my post telling me how wrong I am.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2011-02-05, 17:35 | Link #759 | ||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2011-02-05, 17:41 | Link #760 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Did I talk to you when posting that? Did I have you in mind? You're the one assuming that. I didn't even read your last post in our argument (I was too eager to get it done with) - and having read it now, I don't think it is remotely correct, but how is that even related to anything? I am free to use my own definition (which is not idiosyncratic by any means) and the only thing I said was that Zeroxy did not say something obvious. I have no idea why you're assuming what I wrote was even remotely addressed at you, or whatever definition of subjective truth you might have.
|
|
|