2011-07-09, 21:27 | Link #23141 |
Senior Member
|
I have no idea about the Krauss's murder. Hideyoshi's murder was a hoax; most everybody was in on it. And yes, I think piece-Erika was involved but meta-Erika didn't have a clue. She doesn't know what her piece was doing when off-screen any more than meta-Battler did.
__________________
|
2011-07-09, 21:29 | Link #23142 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
I actually believe meta-Erika does see the scenes her piece goes through. When I first started posting on this thread, I asked a lot of questions about whether or not Erika sees certain Fantasy scenes, and after re-reading EP 6 a little, she in fact, does. She asked Battler if the ''deaths and locations of the corpses matched up to that ridiculous fantasy scene a minute ago''.
So I'm pretty sure Erika does in fact, see everything, even the things her piece does not see. |
2011-07-09, 21:40 | Link #23143 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-07-09, 22:08 | Link #23145 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2011-07-10, 09:06 | Link #23146 |
Senior Member
|
Her perspective is reliable; everything we see from Erika's perspective is accurate. She did indeed say she duct-taped the windows, but she was lying when she did so.
When he tried to declare Rudolf's "I want to talk to you ... I'll probably be killed tonight." as a clue for "Battler is MF19YA.", I lost a lot of trust that he had any understanding of clues.
__________________
|
2011-07-10, 10:22 | Link #23147 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: United Kingdom.
|
I believe there was a scene in EP 5 where Natsuhi and Krauss are at a festival and Krauss shows here a particular snack which makes his mouth look all bloody.
What if the problem wasn't just that Krauss would never join them, but that he would notice the faked bodies due to recognising the snack, looking back, there weren't many chances for him to be alive long enough to be able to catch this out. Alternatively, since the murders are faked by an alternate party, they may have used these snacks instead. That's not the only alternative, considering the sea of possibilities. On another note, if my seconf paragraph, sentence is correct; that is so subtle that most people wouldn't probably dispute it if the later part of the episode hadn't told us of the faked murders. Damnit Ryukishi! Also, let's take into account that Natsuhi found what Krauss did to be disgusting, this means at least one character found the trick believable, sorry if I'm stating the obvious |
2011-07-10, 14:44 | Link #23148 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
DETECTIVE'S AUTHORITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. THE RULE ABOUT RELIABLE PERSPECTIVE MEANS THAT THE DETECTIVE CAN NEVER DECEIVE THE READER IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE DETECTIVE IS HIMSELF ALSO BEING DECEIVED. EVERYTHING THEY SEE AND SAY IS TANTAMOUNT TO RED TRUTH.
__________________
|
|
2011-07-10, 14:52 | Link #23149 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
|
In some episodes Rudolf tells Battler he has to tell him something about his family. But he also says he'll be killed or so he says, everytime he says this. I have an idea of what he's going to tell Battler but don't understand why he'd be killed.
|
2011-07-10, 14:59 | Link #23150 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
I think the consensus on this is that you shouldn't take the line literally. You've heard people joke about someone killing them for saying something that could upset someone right? It's an expression implying they'll be angry. The fact that he does die later doesn't necessarily mean he was killed for this reason.
__________________
|
2011-07-10, 15:20 | Link #23151 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Quote:
Spoiler for Spoiler about that comment:
Also, yes, the detective cannot falsify their perspective. Battler used this as proof that he wasn't the detective against Dlanor, by ''seeing Kinzo'', Dlanor said it was based on the 9th(exclusive to Umineko), however Battler said he had ''lied about seeing Kinzo'', thus it became known that he was not the detective, because the detective is not allowed to falsify their perspective no matter what the reason is.The only way around this is to deceive a detective. |
|
2011-07-10, 21:51 | Link #23152 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
A detective lying to deceive the villain is a fairly common device in mystery fiction.
__________________
|
|
2011-07-11, 00:28 | Link #23153 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Again, since we aren't sure what's in the actual text or what Erika actually saw, since she almost never narrates within ep5, what exactly she can or can't be in on is questionable. I'd hold with the idea that Meta-Erika can't be willfully deceived by anything Piece-Erika actually saw or presumably would have seen.
Piece-Erika could therefore only lie within the story if Meta-Erika was fully aware of it, and if that deception would already be known to a reader of End of the Golden Witch (that is, the actual text). Of course we haven't the slightest idea if End was narrated by Erika (and my guess is that it was not; it was probably still narrated by Battler). It's possible it was something of a Roger Ackroyd played on Erika at some point. But I don't know. Meh.
__________________
|
2011-07-11, 00:36 | Link #23154 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
The territory is probably murky, but it probably plays out like this: Battler is the detective. He sees a sheet in the breeze. He can lie and say "I saw Kinzo", but the reader / Meta-characters know with certainty that he only saw a sheet, and chose to lie OR Battler is not the detective. He claims to see Kinzo. Perhaps he is lying, perhaps he is not. Also, Umineko violated Van Dine ALL OVER THE PLACE. So much so that it's pretty much the consensus that Will lost his EP7 fight with Bern because he didn't want to shatter Beatrice's Game with all the glaring inefficiencies it has when held up to his rule set. |
|
2011-07-11, 03:48 | Link #23155 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Holy shit, people really need to understand these goddamn rules, it's not difficult. Quote:
For instance, the rule forbidding "A servant being the culprit" doesn't mean that a person that is a servant can never be the murderer. What the rule actually fucking means is that the culprit can't be an expendable, effectively emotionless character that can be tossed under the guillotine without any real drama (would anyone really give a shit if the culprit turned out to be Genji or Gohda or something?) Meanwhile, someone like Shannon would not fall under this rule. Yes, they're a servant. But they're also a major love interest, a significant character full of drama, emotion, and perspective value, and are at the crux of everything even if you don't posit that they're a murderer or an accomplice. Shannon being a murderer is valid in Dine Rules without ever having to go to "She was only pretending to be a servant as the Head."
__________________
|
||
2011-07-11, 11:56 | Link #23156 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-07-11, 14:58 | Link #23157 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
But your response doesn't really hit the core of what I said anyway. The point is that people vastly misunderstand the Knox and Dine rules to the point of embarassment.
__________________
|
||
2011-07-11, 16:43 | Link #23158 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Didn't you guys say earlier in an interview that Ryu didn't ''follow every Van Dine'' rule? Kind of hard to violate something you don't follow, I figured that would've been why Will lost against Bern(that or if she really is supposed to be based on the internet, anonymous sort of kicks the ass of any truth out there).
Besides, didn't Battler ''learn the truth'' after only using the Knox rules? Finally, I really cannot fathom how Erika would even dream to take part in some sort of prank, scheme, or ''fake detective mystery'', she doesn't want to be a pretend detective. |
2011-07-11, 16:53 | Link #23159 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
It was never even explicitly stated that Beatrice followed Knox. Battler asked Dlanor and Virgilia and they were evasive on the matter. Conventional wisdom would seem to be that Beatrice "respected" rules such as Knox and Van Dine without explicitly holding to them as absolute rulesets.
__________________
|
2011-07-11, 16:58 | Link #23160 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|