2011-02-02, 23:24 | Link #728 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
It doesn't even explain "how this was done." It just sort of explains the situation which exists (Battler not seeing the two together) by being its own reason for that situation. And giving an excuse for laser sword fights with goats I guess.
__________________
|
2011-02-03, 06:48 | Link #730 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
What of the in-story Shannon, by the way? Her significance is becoming an avatar for author-ShannonYasu. Shannon wants to speak with Kanon on an equal level, but as an author - as an omnipotent witch - she cannot. Her avatar is a device to allow this. (This could very well be what Battler realized, and the explanation of the "error" in later message bottles. In his games, Battler turns away from the mystery, and makes them more and more of an introspection of Shannon into herself. Once Battler is the gamemaster, Shannon is no longer restricted to the role of "Author", and can exist on an equal level with Kanon without qualms. Battler allows the contradiction of "Kanon being alive" in the games since his realization, to allow the two to confront each other on an equal level. This can be used to understand some scenes. For example, remember the Will-Shannon chessmaster scene in EP7? Here's one explanation. Kanon being an actual person, able to be confirmed alive in red, is a complete contradiction to the mystery. Revealing this to Will would cause a logic error, as Will, having solved the mystery from the perspective of the first four gameboards, understands Kanon's limitations as a fictional character, in part that he is not allowed to live or die. What we must keep in mind is that this was, originally, a very subtle process. Before Battler comes into the scene, this part of Beatrice's games is very well hidden, unexposed. Their function as an introspection is overshadowed by their function as a mystery. She does not expect anyone to understand her inner conflict, no matter how much she wants them to.) How's this? If we're going for this explanation, it's actually very in-line with Shkannon. Actually, it is Shkannon, except the distinction is drawn between author and character (I am not saying real-world Shannon has a different personality, or that she is literally acting like Kanon. The Love Duel is intended as a metaphor for a very secretive, inner conflict she has, as well as a ritual for overcoming her grief). I simply think this is a more human explanation than Shannon literally acting out an imaginary servant's role. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by witchfan; 2011-02-03 at 08:08. |
||||||||
2011-02-03, 15:52 | Link #731 | ||||||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Kanon and Shannon both being accepted as real is a premise of the Gameboard. The Red Truth is "absolutely true", but it's a premise that has to be accepted; there's nothing really prevented text from being colored red, because it's not actually a magical phenomena. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||||||
2011-02-04, 14:54 | Link #732 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
If we assume the more extreme variant, I still won't go as far as saying she will believe entirely "Kanon is alive and inside of her", that she will act like Kanon in the open -- at least convincingly enough that no-one would suspect something and lock her in a hospital. She might harbour such thoughts deep inside, though, which eventually express themselves in writing. Of course, I am not talking about "actual Shkannon" here, because if we assume she writes fictional Kanon to be alive - it would take a very ill mind to write something about her and Kanon being the same person. One that, certainly, can't think straight enough to reveal the truth in her stories (this, by the way, is related to a complaint I have about Shkannon - but that's not important). Quote:
Assuming she believes Will would be walking himself to a checkmate - we need to ask "why?". Let's assume Shkanon is true, for a moment. Even if we assume it's true, I'm not sure there's a Logic Error here - Shannon would simply have to admit she's been tricking everyone. So I think it has to be something different, but still something that is strictly related to Shannon and Kanon. This is the first thing that comes to mind, and, if you assume the theory is true, I think it fits pretty well - again, especially because Will was going to use his Spectator Authority. Quote:
() About preconceiving Kanon: Can you tell me what point of the story we're talking about? I mean, I remember they *talked* about a 'little brother' and a 'servant' before he arrived, but I don't remember they actually designed him in detail. If they did, though, we'd have to see if we should take this at face value: maybe, for example, Yasu overheard Genji talking about a new male arrival, and she simply came to believe that ClairBeatrice - the all-powerful witch - revealed this to her in her dream (remember, the story doesn't have to be entirely accurate - recall the red guts scene, or Kinzo's confession. It's simply what the person telling it came to believe). () About a collective that can be swapped out for Beatrice: I'll have to ask which point of the story we're talking about, since this is slightly ambiguous. Can you give an example of several events where this happened, and in what way? () About Kanon's backstory, and when he died: I honestly have no goddamned clue. Perhaps it's something mentioned in the story, but perhaps it isn't. If we think about it, Kanon's backstory is not really integral to the story. We may never know who he is, what's important is what he means. This is interesting, because we might be able to say here that Kanon's background is intentionally not detailed - in part, to conceal the 'lie', and in part, because we are supposed to assume he and Shannon are very close (so she feels no need to talk about him). Quote:
Quote:
But, let's discuss red text for a moment. What can we say about it? We know it's no more than a contract - a contract between the reader and the author. At the same time, we understand that, if we trust the author, we must take red text to be the objective (if ambiguous) truth of the gameboard. But we can say more than that - we can say some red texts discuss universal themes, such as Kinzo's death or Battler's parents. Because of the nature of the games - because we assume they contain the truth - once we see a red that discusses the past before the conference, unless stated otherwise, we assume it is a universal, objective truth, across the entire game set. This may or may not be true. But, if you assume it's true, and you agree to take this one step further - that is, assume such red text is also true for the hypothetical R-Prime, you can surmise most of my theory. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by witchfan; 2011-02-04 at 15:10. |
|||||||
2011-02-04, 16:25 | Link #733 | ||||||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see why Will talking to Shannon and Kanon at the same time would checkmate him in any way...UNLESS doing so was impossible. Since your theory has Kanon continuing to exist on the Gameboard as a fictional character, there shouldn't be a problem with him meeting both; I mean, it's not like Lion is actually real either. Quote:
Thus, Shannon is being forced to do something that is impossible, causing her broken robotic freak out thing. If he had forced her to get Kanon so that he was greeting both of them, under Shkanon theory, this would be impossible, and might just fucking break everything. If, as you suggest, Shannon merely has to admit she's lying, it would probably break the "Shannon" and "Kanon" characters and make it impossible for Will to gain any more information. Quote:
Yes, Yasu's testimony isn't absolutely reliable, but even if you take away the fantasy elements, we have Shannon designing another character during one of her "world revisions." She made up this new male servant and then the Shannon characters says that she heard about a new servant showing up. Quote:
Add that, before either romances even started, both characters are the only ones on the island that can talk to Beatrice (which was, personally, one of the biggest Shkanon hints to me). Quote:
Quote:
At no point, ever, is the Red Truth ever described as "objective." And being "absolutely true" and being "objective" are entirely different things. Infact many of the very valid tricks in the red rely on the Red Truth NOT being objective. Quote:
Yasu continuously exhibits a strong attachment, kindness, and empathy with the Ushiromiya family and the servants. She has no motive to kill them. She also sees herself as disgusting and undeserving of love and even living. She has every reason to take the fall for the crimes of someone dear to her.
__________________
|
||||||||
2011-02-04, 17:07 | Link #734 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
2011-02-04, 18:27 | Link #735 | ||||||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's not objective. The Red Truth is subject to the personal viewpoints of the speaker and the listener. Really, the only rule we do have for it is that the speaker can't LIE in it, and it has to be "true" (but the context of "true" is never defined). Quote:
As for the culprit? I don't know. For an example, let's say it's George for the sake of argument. She loves George. George is capable of familicide. He could threaten Yasu into cooperating. And she has motive to take the fall for him...unless Battler can understand her in time.
__________________
|
||||||||
2011-02-04, 19:23 | Link #736 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
The degree to which she's crazy is not canon.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With that said, I never stated I had all the details of the theory down to the smallest point. This may very well be implied somewhere in the story. There's no need for me to be the only person doing the thinking here - from what I've seen, you remember the story better than I do. What do you think? Is there a part of the story you think we can find some answers in? Quote:
Quote:
With that said, even if we assume this, I still don't understand why it's particularly problematic for my theory. Quote:
|
||||||||
2011-02-04, 19:56 | Link #737 | |||||||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're changing things to fit your theory, instead of the other way around. This is bad form regardless of what the idea is or how valid it may be. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||||
2011-02-04, 20:51 | Link #738 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
We've been going on for a while now mostly about a very specific issue: does the possible Author explanation I provided explain everything? While I think this is an interesting question in itself (despite being a lot less specific than can an explanation with my theory in mind explain everything), I also think you can almost endlessly raise objections and I can endlessly continue fleshing it out (or revising it), until we've covered every nook and crane of every possible question twice over, and more. In some places, I think I've even explained things with more detail than Shkannon, which has been circulating here for over a year now. But, look, while I think this is an important issue, I don't think it's where the meat of the discussion lies. As I said, even if you really are extremely unsatisfied with this explanation to the degree no revision or clarification I can give will solve the problem (which, I don't think you are, because you did say you liked the gist of it), this is only one possible explanation, not integral to my core theory in any way.
With that said, even if we go back to my core theory, I think there are tons of things we haven't covered. My question is: to what end? I'd like to remind that my purpose here is very simple: I want to convince you (also, plural you) that my theory is not utterly impossible, or completely awful. I'm not interested in whether you think it's better or worse than Shkannon, my question is, have I managed to convince it's an alternative? Consider this from a neutral point of view. In the end, I don't have the patience to continue this without a clear goal in view. I'm sure you disagree with me on many issues (like how to interpret the text), and that there are many places I have yet to clarify (many of which I'm sure I haven't thought of yet). At the same time, I want to ask whether I clarified enough that you can see I'm not being a ridiculous dumb-ass? On my end, I think you raised some good questions, some bad ones. You helped me revise and thrash several parts of the theory, as well as flesh out others. In some ways I can also see where you might be coming from about Shkannon now, although, the validity of my own theory aside, I still don't think it's the best answer we've got (despite thinking better of it now). At this point, I really want to call it a day (a week?). I'll admit I'm bored of this. I can't say the subject is so interesting that I want to spend even more time reading and responding. I want to make this one of my last posts on the subject, so maybe you can give closure on your end as well. |
2011-02-04, 21:03 | Link #739 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
|
|