2010-05-24, 18:12 | Link #10581 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-05-24, 18:18 | Link #10582 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
For example in episode 3. Beatrice summons "Lucifer" and has her duel with Kanon. This is impossible to interpret as a real scene unless we assume more than 4 people were in Kinzo's room or that Kanon was literally having a fight and a conversation a with paper weight. There are also the barriers and swords that we have to find representations for. How do I interpret this? Is Krauss as the oldest sibling getting in a gun fight with Kanon? I don't even want to think about the implications that could bring. It's just easier to claim it never happened like Battler does with the magic fight that happens later. I don't consider the intros to the games as fantasy scenes because they set up the plot for the game. I don't even deny that Beatrice was talking to Shannon because her existing before the two days in october doesn't affect the fact that she doesn't exist during those two days.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-24, 18:26 | Link #10583 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
In addition, casting Erika as "the desire to concoct a seemingly plausible scenario in which to entrap Natsuhi as a murderer" shifts those scenes directly into the magic=lies camp anyway. So really, it is pretty much the same thing. |
|
2010-05-24, 18:28 | Link #10584 | |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
1. Oliver's theory: Erika doesn't have an actual body on the game board, so her "existence" requires her perspective to be mediated by one of the metas. Although she's forbidden to lie about her own perspective, her mediator is allowed to lie to her about her perspective in order to insert her into the story. 2. My theory: An exact reading of the red text forbids Erika to become a culprit by lying about mysteries, but she can still lie about something that isn't a mystery, namely something that all of the players already know about. In that situation it's less of a lie than a house rule. Erika has motive to lie about being alive on the game board because she doesn't want to be dead, and all of the players were conspiring to allow it (except Battler, who was sitting out and therefore doesn't matter).
__________________
|
|
2010-05-24, 18:50 | Link #10585 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
|
Quote:
Also, for the flat-out magic scenes in EP2 and EP3, that can be explained as long as Battler was convinced by someone that magic exists. He does have a motive. In EP2, it's because he can't bear the thought that one of the people close to him is a murderer, and in EP3, it might be because piece-Beatrice used her North Wind and the Sun strategy (not the trick at the end, the strategy itself). In EP4, we're even clearly shown who convinces him. Quote:
I don't know, it just feels a bit too easy for me.
__________________
|
||
2010-05-24, 19:00 | Link #10586 | |||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
2010-05-24, 19:25 | Link #10587 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
|
@Renall:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2010-05-24, 19:28 | Link #10588 | ||||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
2010-05-24, 19:37 | Link #10589 | ||
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again the scenes at the end of games are not an issue pertaining to the culprit. They don't need to be explained because they stand on their own while reality is degrading.
__________________
|
||
2010-05-24, 19:59 | Link #10591 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Also when does this happen in episode 4? The only time I am aware of a story being told to Battler like that is in episode 2. I don't know what your talking about.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-24, 19:59 | Link #10592 | ||||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
First Twilight: Either all the adults are in on it (which makes absolutely no sense and is ludicrous), or the deaths were faked and people were killed off at the last second by a straggler, for which there is no evidence that Eva was the straggler and indeed it seems very unlikely she would be as Hideyoshi was with her almost the whole time. Second Twilight: Possible. Fourth/Fifth/Sixth Twilight: Impossible. She wasn't even there, and one of them wasn't dead and would never be killable by the time Eva was capable of doing so (under Battler's supervision). Seventh/Eighth Twilight: Possible. Ninth Twilight: It does appear she killed Battler, but she was also quite crazed at the time and is hardly culpable. And nothing says she killed Jessica at all, or if she even had the time or knew where to find her. Oh, and she's gonna kill George? Nnnnnot likely. Quote:
Spoiler for Some sorta web or something...:
Quote:
|
||||||
2010-05-24, 20:06 | Link #10593 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
I don't deny the possibility of Shkannon but I don't necessarily think that just because it's a conspiracy that it MUST be the cause of the murders. In the same way that EP5 has shown us that there's a conspiracy with Kinzo's death and the person running that conspiracy isn't the cause of the murders. There is at least one other conspiracy from the servants trying to fake Beatrice and the first twilights but that too doesn't necessarily mean that they MUST lead to murders. I think there exists a few people here who are trying to argue that Shkannon automatically includes the idea of murder. And the two ideas are irrevocably bound. I don't think that holds, logically speaking. |
|
2010-05-24, 20:08 | Link #10594 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
I absolutely agree with you. The same is true of Shannontrice necessarily including Shkanon. These three theories are entirely independent, and they should stand and fall separately. That is, if Shkanon isn't true, it doesn't mean Shannon isn't Beatrice, and it doesn't mean Beatrice isn't the killer... on the other hand, one or both of those could be false as well, or one or both could still be true.
|
2010-05-24, 20:08 | Link #10595 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Spoiler for more web:
__________________
|
|
2010-05-24, 21:01 | Link #10596 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
To get off the Shkanon and Erika debate for a moment.
Something I've gotten interested lately is Battler's theory about himself as the culprit. And how his theory is that he's basically a chronic liar that causes the murders to happen. The important distinction here is that Battler is saying that it's possible to commit a crime and not murder anyone as long as he can intentionally lie. His theory really seems like it would be anti-mystery from Dlanor's point of view. So what I want to see is if maybe I could use that theory and apply it to the previous episodes since Erika said she was going to do the same thing with her Natsuhi theory. Do you think I'd get very far with an anti-mystery perspective like that in the question arcs?
__________________
|
2010-05-24, 21:06 | Link #10597 | |
Blick Winkel
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
|
Quote:
But in the Question arcs, our narrator is Battler, who is implied to be the detective. So, if the Knox Decalogue is to be believed, Battler cannot be the culprit, nor can he lie. |
|
2010-05-24, 21:08 | Link #10598 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
Really the only reason I'm asking is because it's something we haven't experimented with yet and it might be interesting to see where that key fits and where it doesn't.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-24, 21:12 | Link #10599 | |
Blick Winkel
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
|
Quote:
If they are "fair-play" mysteries, then a problem arises, because the narrator=the detective. In the Core arcs, the narrator =/= the detective, so Battler, the person whose perspective we see most of the time, can lie or withhold information from us. |
|
2010-05-24, 21:19 | Link #10600 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
The problem with Battler-as-culprit is his alibi thing cuts both ways. He's with other people too much to go off and murder, though I suppose you could make the claim that he's the First Twilight killer in a few episodes, if only on the basis that nothing proves he can't be.
I don't think you can get far with this. However... |
|
|