2012-09-04, 17:03 | Link #30361 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
The why it can't wasn't exactly something I've added to the definition... so for me the fact that Tohya can't manage to make his Battler personality show up it's a fair personality dead even if said dead doesn't depend by his will but it's due to his amnesia. In short, he didn't kill his Battler personality as it was done for Shannon and Kanon, his Battler personality merely died for other reasons. |
|
2012-09-04, 17:50 | Link #30363 | ||
Detective, Witch, Pirate.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ruins of the Golden Land
|
Quote:
Either the death of that personality comes from being murdered by the dominant personality or just "erasing" all of its data from the brain's disk, the personality is "killed". The cause of the death is irrelevant. Of course, the problems this creates aren't that 'apples can also be oranges so Ryukishi can cheat', but the fact that we can't distinguish them. For example, what if Kinzo's composed and dignified personality is 'Kinzo'and the madman screaming 'Beatoriiicheeeee' is 'Goldsmith'? So Kinzo is already dead at the start of each game does not tell us whether 'Goldsmith' is also dead. The same can be said for 'Rosa' and the 'Black Witch', even 'Maria' and 'MARIA', I believe that's a more serious issue than twisting the rules to match the plot's needs. Of course, with a bit of common common sense we can see which character is likely to have multiple personalities (Yasu/Tohya), the big problem is, there's so many of them in Umineko that it gets messy, so technically, no, we can't. Quote:
Then again that's just me.
__________________
|
||
2012-09-04, 18:05 | Link #30364 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
If Kinzo is dead, I can just say Kinzo passed on bis name to Yasu along with the headship, and is now Goldsmith, who is still physically alive. That's what Renall and I are both complaining about. You can justify it however you want, but there's a slippery slope created here that makes all speculation about Umineko absolutely meaningless and futile.
__________________
|
||
2012-09-04, 18:11 | Link #30365 | ||
Detective, Witch, Pirate.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ruins of the Golden Land
|
Quote:
Quote:
If anything, it creates a logic gap. (And perhaps interesting ideas for Forgeries?)
__________________
|
||
2012-09-04, 18:26 | Link #30366 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
So yes, the word 'dead' when applied to personality as a cheaper meaning than when applied to a body (because let's face it, even if there are cases of 'resurrection' after a physical death they can't be compared to the personality resurrection). I'm displeased by how it work but it seems that's exactly how it was intended to work, at least for certain characters. Battler's death is more... permanent, yet this is probably just due to circumstances. If Battler's memory loss had lasted only few days and then he had recovered completely his memory, his Battler personality would have been dead for a few days only and then... resurrected. There's to say the whole personality dead notion is introduced not in the real world but in the gameboard which obeys to rules that are different from the real world (in which Knox doesn't work, for example) and that we learn only later so maybe the idea is we aren't supposed to use human logic. And no, I don't like it but I can't help but think that's how Umineko works. |
|
2012-09-04, 18:50 | Link #30367 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
|
Quote:
What's is called when once you start looking for something, you'll see it? It's like you're seeing it because you want to see it or you expect to see it. It's the reason why you can't really test to see if light is a wave or a particle... you do a test one way and light will act as a particle. You do another type of test and light will act as a wave. I just wish I could remember what it was...
__________________
|
|
2012-09-04, 22:40 | Link #30368 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
We're saying that nothing makes Ryukishi's offered reasoning more valid than KnowNoMore's bullshit. It's a complete guessing game because Ryukishi has no rules that he himself does not contradict in Umineko...meaning the game is broken, and every answer is valid and there are no wrong answers. You can just go with Ryukishi's explanation, if you don't mind that it's incomplete, poorly explained/demonstrated, and possibly even logically incoherent. Even if it wasn't any of those things, even if his answer was 'perfect', it still doesn't mean anything because Ryukishi invoked Death of the Author multiple times, meaning he willingly gave up his legitimacy as a creator and says 'your opinions are equivalent to mine own'. Which is fine in of itself, except this is supposed to be a battle between us and him...and there's no answer key. And he has no faith in his own answer and seemingly no respect in the fanbase's. The game's rules are broken, its themes are undermined by his own apparent cynicism (which I'm willing to give him a pass on due to the death of his best friend), and you leave the game entirely empty-handed. You can make up your own answer, but you could've done that WITHOUT reading Umineko all the way through. There is literally no pay off here, except one of pathos...which, again, he kind of undermines. And this could've all been avoided if he didn't cheat in his own fucking novel like an amateur.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-05, 02:41 | Link #30369 | ||
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
The reason you don't follow those explanations is because you're unsatisfied with them. You think those explanations are dumb so you create fanfiction, an alternate theory from the obvious one. Then you fill fake plotholes, that you created yourselves, because they don't fit with how your fanfiction works. You're not even open to the possibility that his solution could be true. And you get offended whenever someone brings up personality death. You create alternate theories and change it to things like "identity death" so it makes sense to you. When that's not what it is. He didn't get rid of his creative rights and hand them over to you. He's saying "if you don't like my answer, and you think it's dumb, feel free to write your own, because you're going to do it anyway" Quote:
The answer still isn't any less obvious. The culprit is Yasu. Touya is Battler. And apparently Ange represents you, the reader.
__________________
Last edited by Judoh; 2012-09-05 at 02:57. |
||
2012-09-05, 03:00 | Link #30370 | |||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
I didn't create the plot holes in Umineko, I merely noticed them. Such as the unaccounted for door in EP3's First Twilight, or the bringing up and unresolving of plot threads, such as Kumasawa's connection to Beatrice, or even just pointing out very wonky details, like the fact that there's no way for the stories we read to correspond to the forgeries Tohya wrote, and that there's no sensible reason to lock up the truth or for the Witch Hunters to stop speculating if they're denied the truth, or keep speculating even if the truth is revealed. These plot holes exist. You can argue their significance, but you cannot argue their existence. Renall and I deliberately create outlandish counter-examples to demonstrate thought experiments, philosophical and ethical arguments, or to elaborate on points people are not getting, but that's entirely different from writing fanfiction and bitching about it not being validated. Quote:
If you're not going to address my actual arguments, points, and criticisms, and are instead going to attack my character, credibility, and honesty, then you can get the fuck out and not talk to me anymore, are we clear? I expected better of you, Judoh. Quote:
"Yasu did it." "Who's Yasu." "She's Shannon and Kanon simultaneously in a Split Personality thing and she wants Battler's cock." "Oh, okay." If someone wants spoilers, they're going to get it. That's no reason to cop the fuck out of giving his story a proper ending where things are explained, and it definitely doesn't mean he should badmouth his readers and try and put off ignorance as a moral good. If Ange represents the readers, he shouldn't be making assumptions of what we want and what will make us happy with the story. That just makes him a smug know-it-all. I'll also point out that, again, Yasu is probably not the culprit, and even Ryukishi has admitted to that possibility himself. Even if she was, the final scenes bring up extreme doubt about what happened, implying that Yasu never put things into action. Don't tell us to think about what happened and then not reward that effort; that's just lazy. When you challenge someone to a game, you don't take your ball and go home before the score is tallied.
__________________
|
|||
2012-09-05, 05:38 | Link #30371 | |||||||
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Quote:
There's a thought exercise that asks you to prove that Aragorn is wearing pants in Lord of the rings that can be applied here. Quote:
And those plot holes are insignificant. They're not addressed because they don't have to do with "core" of the story. Except in the case with episode 3, which was addressed outside of the novel. Quote:
Quote:
These characters are given the most weight in the story for having personality death. It doesn't matter if it's possible to create a theory with another character. Because none of those character are actually being used that way in the story. There is no need to prove they're not. They're just not. If the theory doesn't fit in the gaps of logic that just means it doesn't fit. The explanation you're leading people away from might be dumb, but at least it fits with what the story says, and doesn't go into unnecessary things. Quote:
Quote:
And I may not like what he did. But I'm not insulted by it.
__________________
|
|||||||
2012-09-05, 06:15 | Link #30372 | |||||||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
The plot holes not being 'core' are irrelevant. They damage the suspension of disbelief in the narrative and undermine a lot of its core precepts. Like Renall put it very well, "Why the hell are miracles so special if they're all over the place?" Umineko is a story that puts thematics over realism, and I'm cool with that. I don't even mind Shkanon at all, I've made this clear. But in many important ways Ryukishi bungles thematic information as well, which is even more true than the red. The fact that he doesn't address these in the core isn't an excuse. That's just Ryukishi deciding "Fuck it, it's not important" and hoping no one calls him on it. That's a faux pas in the professional writing world. You know, those of us who have editors. Quote:
Quote:
The problem with that is not even the Red Truth can put a stop to this by the very nature of it, so there's no way to deny Personality Truth except author fiat with no basis in logic. Ryukishi has to just use "because I say so" without any concrete logic behind it. Why is this bad? Because Umineko was a novel to understand his universe and the thought processes at work behind himself and the characters. Personality Death and it's implications (and why Ryukishi didn't mean certain implications) can only be understood in RETROSPECT. He cheated. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If he really did intend for Death of the Author, I can forgive a lot more; but it also means he has much less authoritative weight about 'what really happened'. Quote:
So who killed everyone, and why, and how? Those are your three questions you have to answer for Umineko to be a suitable mystery. And he did advertise Umineko as a mystery, so it has to be judged by the standards of one, or, again, he's cheating and taking his ball to go home in order to have his cake and eat it too. Quote:
It boils down to two things: 1) Either Umineko is meant to be treated as a mystery, in which it is a failure by any literary standard, or 2) Umineko is not really a mystery, or the mystery is not important, then he has suffocated and harmed his true message by putting too much focus on the 'unimportant' mystery. There is no middle ground, here. It is a binary switch. There's nothing wrong with liking Umineko despite it's flaws; I still love the shit out of it and re-read it every few months. But stop pretending these flaws don't exist.
__________________
|
|||||||||
2012-09-05, 07:23 | Link #30374 | |||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy Informal fallacies of deductive reasoning contain a fundamental disconnect between the premises and the conclusion that renders the argument invalid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy A well defined formal fallacy, logical fallacy or deductive fallacy, is typically called an invalid argument Now since the issue here clearly comes from your assumption that "formally valid" = "valid logic" or "Lacking persuasive power" = "still valid" I want you to find me a single case where it is said that a "logical fallacy" can be defined as a "valid logic" and not "valid in its form but..." Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2012-09-05, 07:35 | Link #30375 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
|
Sigh, to summarise:
Re cause of amnesia: Tohya had both drowned recently (though how the doctor knew this was dubious) AND been hit by a car, the doctor can't know which caused his amnesia because he can't prove temporality of which came first. Re personality death and Kinzo: Ryu defined personality death as meaning "never to act again", assuming that applies to all games, then it is valid in my opinions as a form of death ONLY if the characters are viewed as truly separate (and I believe that Ryu intended them to be, whether that is valid or not) and it was proved that personality exists. Kanon was known by Battler to be a thing, and Kinzo was never proved separate to Goldsmith. He was also never shown to have a body which acted after his declared death in any proven fashion. As for resurrection with magic: I always assumed they were either lying about it, or someone was just pretending. If Kanon truly is separate from Shannon or Yasu, even the best impersonation is not truly him. I can paint a forgery of a painting on the same canvas, and it can be impossible to distinguish them, but it is still a forgery. This is only a valid move in Umineko because if I declare in red "This painting is destroyed" and then show it to you, you have the ability to know something is up. Besides which she never even had to look like Kanon, because blind people have no resistance to magic (I wonder if you can say in that game she stayed with Jessica until the bomb went off) As for Evatrice being a valid example of a proven personality: Yeah she had a lot of development, but by all reliable perspective she never actually existed. She was a fantasy, and therefore is not a valid part of this argument. As for Aura's comment that Umineko leaves us empty handed: It may be because I came after the end of the series, so approached solving it quite casually and didn't have months to agonise over it, and I am sure we all love parts of it, I mean we are here, but even from a mystery standpoint it didn't leave us empty handed. Yes it was far from perfect, and had many possible mistakes (plot holes is dubious as besides one retconned door the mysteries are still solvable without the plot being completely derailed) but you could reason the gameboards at least with reasonable accuracy, and that sure was fun. If anything I think you are wrong, in that there was a third option: Ryu wanted to tell a story and have a mystery, but should have been more clear about which parts were and weren't solvable. For me (and this is just opinion) part of the point was while you could solve the boards, and could work out some information for the prime world, that you can't solve the real world. After all, even the games said that the prime information was just given to help you solve the gameboards. |
2012-09-05, 08:59 | Link #30376 | |||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Also, and I just have to keep pointing this out: You can't define personality death as a personality "never acting again" or never being able to act again, because in literally every instance we have of personality death it's possible for a personality to come back and they do come back. If you can (and do!) come back, your personality isn't really dead. Dead things don't come back to life. Calling it "death" is cheapening death. "Death" is when Shannon kills her body. Shannon personality-dying is just going to sleep. At best, she's dormant and could return under some circumstances, but may not; when she shoots herself in the forehead, she's D-E-A-D. There is a difference, so it's unfair to describe both as the same thing. And it's doubly unfair to go to lengths to describe (inadequately) how Shannon/Kanon/Beatrice functions and when and how it is personality-alive or personality-dead, and then turn around and say "and also if a person gets amnesia, their original personality is dead too, even if their memories could come back and do." It's the same thing; Tohya may well be a distinct personality from Battler, but Battler isn't dead. Tohya describes his relationship with Battler's memories as if to suggest that Battler is dormant within him, not that Battler is an external force imposing himself upon Tohya. If Battler is dormant, and parts of him can resurface, and merely talking about things only Battler would remember cause Tohya psychological distress (he doesn't remember Rokkenjima on Oct. 5 1986, so it shouldn't harm him in any way), Battler is still there. If he's still there, and still capable of influencing Tohya, then he isn't dead. He might not be fully alive either, but he isn't dead. We need to use... you know... a word other than dead to describe it. But if we do that, we can't call someone dead in red. And that's ultimately the sole reason Ryukishi did say "dead:" to cheat. He could use other, better words to describe Shkanon's dormancy or Battler's amnesia, but doing so would force him to not say "dead" and give away the game. That doesn't justify misusing a word for dramatic license, and believe you me I give dramatic license a lot of leeway. Quote:
...How can you distinguish Kanon from an individual who looks, acts, and behaves exactly like Kanon, when Kanon has no individualized self to begin with? What is the difference between "Kanon" and "Beatrice dressed as Kanon using Kanon's voice," particularly when the audience has no clear way of knowing one from the other? Before you go so far as to try to counter "Well Kanon behaves differently from Beatrice-Kanon sometimes," bear in mind that I could always argue that Kanon never exists and Beatrice-Kanon just sometimes behaves differently to avoid suspicion. There's no independently verifiable way to know the difference. In the Jessica example, it isn't actually possible for Jessica to distinguish between Kanon and not-Kanon. I would argue, then, that in this case there is no distinction. Ergo, Kanon did in fact return, because Kanon is nothing more than an arbitrary social construct whose existence is solely based on perception of his existence. If one believes Kanon is present, Kanon is present. So again, it's wrong to say "Kanon can never come back to life" when in fact he does. If you turn around and say "Well it's somebody else acting exactly like Kanon under the perceptive parameters Jessica has available to her to tell that sort of thing, and the two just happen to be exactly the same but are distinguishable," I'm going to laugh at you, because there's no goddamn difference. Quote:
If you mean "was seen by Battler," you're not really making a point here because absence of evidence to a reliable perspective is not evidence of absence; that is to say, Battler's perspective alone cannot prove Shannon and Kanon are the same person, only that we can't say they're different people. However, there is other evidence which supports that conclusion and we have to supplement the one with the other. Likewise, we can't prove that a potentially criminal personality of Eva doesn't exist because Battler never saw her (except it's possible he did see that personality at the end when she shoots him, y'know), but we have evidence of all these bodies piling up and the narrative presents Eva with motive and opportunity to commit those crimes. We thus can theorize the existence of a "culprit Eva," even if it's possible that she didn't do it. In that sense, the possibility of an Eva-Beatrice is sufficient to create an alternate personality we could discuss in red, at least theoretically.
__________________
|
|||
2012-09-05, 09:03 | Link #30377 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
You can't really tell with certainty if there are plot holes in a story if you don't know with certainty the plot in its integrity.
However that goes both ways, you can't really tell that there isn't a plot hole or more. I tend to think there are a few plot holes given my understanding of the story, which of course someone could counter with some kind of theory. But since I don't recognize those theories as true and actually intended by the author, the plot holes still exist in my opinion.
__________________
|
2012-09-05, 09:19 | Link #30378 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
I don't think the story has that many plot holes. It just has plot problems.
A plot hole is "Ryukishi forgot there's another door to the basement in ep3," which was fixed in the anime and manga. Forgetting a plot thread exists is not technically a plot hole, it's just bad writing. It might be a plot hole if something should have happened based on earlier information that just didn't, but that doesn't mean every dangling plot thread causes that degree of problem.
__________________
|
2012-09-05, 09:48 | Link #30379 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-09-05, 10:17 | Link #30380 | |
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Spoiler for Yet more logic bullshit with Jan-Poo:
Quote:
My argument goes like this:
|
|
|
|