2010-09-25, 08:37 | Link #4707 | ||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also those who believe in the ghosterika claim she is in fact the usual culprit under the guise of an inexistent Erika. However I don't particularly like that theory because from the metaworld perspective fake personalities are considered to be separate entities just like how Maria makes clear distinctions between her mother and the black witch. So the statement "Erika killed them" shouldn't be valid neither from a real world perspective (where no Erika exist) nor from a metaworld perspective (where she is a different person).
__________________
|
||
2010-09-25, 10:53 | Link #4708 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
A thornier question is how Erika could be the culprit if the Dawn of the Golden Witch existing as a story in higher-order fiction doesn't contain any of the meta-world scenes. It's only in those scenes that any of the nonsense about the red, the room sealings, the Logic Error, and Knox even come up. So either Erika wasn't the detective in the story even though she appeared to be (which would make ep6's writer kind of a hack), Erika wasn't in the story (which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense), there was evidence of another person being the detective that we never got to see (it certainly wasn't Battler), the killer wasn't Erika after all (but in this case it's got other issues), or meta-scenes do appear in the text (which would be a disaster of massive proportions for reasons I am not going into at this time). EDIT: Actually, it works for Erika not to have been the true killer if ep6's author intended to frame Battler as the culprit. This is one of Meta-Erika's objectives anyway. That is, in Dawn of the Golden Witch the higher-order fiction fiction (yeah, I know), Battler was the killer. The Logic Error plotline is a meta-world story which would be an author/reader clash over something in the text that isn't believed (such as... Battler being a killer).
__________________
|
|
2010-09-25, 13:33 | Link #4709 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
I say that this is the same as claiming it:
"......You told me I could make the detective proclamation whenever I wanted, right? ......Well, unfortunately, ...I am no longer capable of making that proclamation." Erika here is referring to what Battler told her earlier, about not listening to Bern and use her detective authority anyway, however here she specifies that she actually cannot use it, regardless of Bern. If this doesn't mean she isn't the detective anymore what else it means? Plus everything after this is consistent with the idea of Erika != detective.
__________________
|
2010-09-25, 13:55 | Link #4710 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
What she's saying there is "You told me I could still claim it at any time. I have not done so up to this point. Additionally, I am no longer capable of doing so, because <etc.>" As I understand the sequence of events, it works as follows:
EDIT: Also note that if Battler has any access to the "true fiction" of Dawn of the Golden Witch, then Genius Battler must be true, because he would already know Erika is the culprit in Dawn and thus incapable of claiming to be the detective. This assumes a lot, of course, like that Erika is the culprit in the "true fiction" of Dawn.
__________________
Last edited by Renall; 2010-09-25 at 14:07. |
|
2010-09-25, 14:55 | Link #4711 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Even if you put it in a different way you are implying the same thing.
Considering that Erika was the designated detective, you could say that at the start of the game she was indeed the detective. But then she never took that role and she made it clear in the middle of the game, with Battler telling her that she could retake the role whenever she wanted. A small change in the story but it doesn't change the fact that Erika could decide to be or not be the detective at will.
__________________
|
2010-09-25, 14:58 | Link #4712 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
|
Quote:
Even if it isn't stated in red, both affirm that she is. So does Erika's supposed disqualification come from the possibility that shes the culprit? Or what? |
|
2010-09-25, 15:30 | Link #4713 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
The way I interpreted that affirmation from Beatrice is that she intended to "respect" Erika as a detective even if she wasn't.
That means Beatrice gave her the assurance that she didn't use tricks that would not otherwise work with a detective.
__________________
|
2010-09-25, 15:34 | Link #4714 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Let's look at it on several levels:
First, let's assume "Furudo Erika" and Meta-Erika are different entities. This is not to imply that they are not both Furudo Erika, just that they're distinct in the same fashion as Meta-Battler/Sorcerer Battler and Piece-Battler. Ep6 certainly does us no favors to blur the line in that respect, but it seems sound enough. Next, let's ask who Battler meant when he offered "detective" authority.
Do note however that if Dawn of the Golden Witch is an independent fiction, the notion of "changing the story" is patently impossible, which means either that Erika was the culprit all along or Erika wasn't actually the culprit in Dawn of the Golden Witch. That's not to say that in ep6's version of the story she wasn't, necessarily, though that starts getting layers-upon-layers.
__________________
|
2010-09-25, 16:02 | Link #4715 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
You are basing your arguments on concepts whom I do not agree with, Renall.
There are things that quite apparently seem to be working for both the piece and the metaworld counterpart. There are too many things that do not make sense if you think otherwise. The "detective" status must be one of those things that applies to both the piece and the metaworld version. That's because apparently there is a direct link of informations between the piece and its owner. Otherwise it makes no sense that Meta-Erika knows stuff that even Battler (the GM) can't know (or isn't supposed to know). That definitely means that Meta-Erika has a source of information about the gameboard other than the GM himself, and that can only be her own piece's perspective. That inevitably means that the absolute perspective of a piece is automatically transmitted to its metaworld counterpart making it "de facto" a detective. To this I would add that "detective" is a label that has always been attached without any distinction between piece and meta-version.
__________________
|
2010-09-25, 16:14 | Link #4716 | |||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And there is almost no narrative from Erika at all. If it exists in the higher-order fiction of Dawn, then we've very specifically not been shown more or less any of it. So yes, it's possible that Erika had access to the Erika Furudo narrative thread of Dawn where others did not and knew what happened. Or was reading ahead in the story. Or was told by an outside entity (such as Bernkastel). But we can't actually be sure. She just comes out with her claim and nobody contradicts it or asks how she knows this. There's also the "problem" (not really a problem) that if Battler knew it all along, he probably had access to the same narrative and simply played with Erika's expectations on it. At that point we're back to square one because we don't know where Erika got her information and we have no idea how much information Battler actually had. And even if it did, it proves nothing. Because so what? It doesn't make them the same character. In fact, it proves they're not. Meta-Erika has more information than Piece-Erika. Therefore, they apprehend different levels of comprehension. Ergo, they are different entities. The best counter-argument you could really raise to this is that Meta-Erika seems to be taking over at random points in the story, but when she does so the story appears to violently reject her behavior. Meta-Erika does not belong in that particular story even if Piece-Erika does. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
2010-09-25, 16:51 | Link #4717 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Renall, you are just playing dumb if you claim "we don't know where Erika got her informations".
There is an obvious and clear explanation for that. You are appealing to trivial matters to further a quite improbable theory of your. All the things that Meta-Erika said clearly implied that she had witness in first persons the events she describes at the time she killed everyone. If you don't understand that then you can't "get a clue" and you need stuff to be told you as if you where a machine before you can understand them.
__________________
|
2010-09-25, 16:56 | Link #4718 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-09-26, 03:50 | Link #4719 |
Voyager Witch
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Otowa, Australia
Age: 32
|
Heheh, man. Watching you guys debate points like this, it's almost too much for my head. You guys have had heaps of time throwing theories back at each other, I'm just a newcomer to the community who's been pretty much relying on his own deductions. There's a lot of terminology you're using that goes way over my head, aha.
But, if I may comment, I'm not sure it's healthy to be placing such a strong distinction between Erika and Meta-Erika. They both come from the same source, and are conceptually the same person. Sure, some distinction can be made, but I wonder if you're looking into it too much? That said I don't really have any authority to comment just yet, but I thought I'd share that regardless. eheh.
__________________
|
2010-09-26, 10:32 | Link #4720 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
You could probably apply the same logic to Beatrice and whoever she is on the board.
__________________
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|