2012-01-16, 12:56 | Link #27061 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
I guess it's possible, but given the fact there is absolutely no hint of that nor a good reason as to how they instantly managed to spot Battler's attempt to eavesdrop them, that's still a pretty dirty trick.
If you consider this from the perspective of a sleuth that is trying to figure out the truth, there were pretty much no reasons to think Kanon and the others were playacting because they noticed Battler was listening. Given the information at disposal that was a very low probability. I'll make again a comparison with the riddle of the three boxes. It is a given that you cannot deny the possibility that the prize is inside the box that has the lowest chance of having it. But seeing as how we can only think in terms of logic and probabilities, punishing or not rewarding those who made the most logical choice (albeit not 100% sure) doesn't really fares well in the contest of a "game". What else would you reward then? Instinct?
__________________
|
2012-01-16, 13:04 | Link #27062 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
If it doesn't actually work that way, both the reader and Erika were lied to, for no apparent reason. And if Erika lacks perfect access to her piece, the very notion that her observations are accurate is laughable, as someone regulates when she has access and when she does not. That someone - be it Lambda, Bern, or Battler or whoever - essentially controls all information that Erika has. She literally cannot make independent observations at all. She's just misled into thinking she can when, in fact, she can make only those observations she's permitted to make. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2012-01-16, 14:09 | Link #27063 | |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
I'd agree that your example would be unfair, but that's not remotely what happened here, is it? The servants were actually killed after they faked their deaths, so the proposed theory was founded on a bad assumption and was only a small piece of the answer anyway. And, the adults then discarded the theory because they mistakenly connected two unrelated crimes. Preying on bad assumptions to make you discard possibilities is one of the foundations of the mystery genre, so I don't see any problem here. Our Confession has a bit where Beatrice explains that she likes to attack that trope by having her accomplices deliberately accuse each other. Would you consider that to be cheating too? Here's a question. Where was Maria during that conversation before she surprised Battler? Since she came by herself, it seems like no one was closely supervising her.
__________________
|
|
2012-01-16, 19:39 | Link #27064 | |||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, an exception or two to my "thesis" (which I intended as more of a general emotional assertion than a precise and literal one) doesn't really change much because I just meant to say that being 100% certain about things is the exception for us readers, not the rule... so then what's the big deal if players like Meta-Erika face the same difficulties? Quote:
I can't agree with your assertion that either Detective Authority is a "flagrant sham" or that there is some force that can "turn it on and off at will". I see Erika's viewpoint as reliable in the sense that it's exactly as reliable as the player's interpretation of her reported observations is accurate. I think that what we see on the game board are the conclusions that a player comes to based off of the information they get through their piece's observations. However, this is still useful information for us because it can only diverge from "the gamemaster's truth" within the realm of possible interpretation. If the gamemaster says "Kyrie's head has been cut off" then there's pretty much no player who wouldn't interpret that to mean Kyrie was dead. Thus, assuming if the piece reporting the observation is trustworthy, the player can reliably say she's dead, and then we can reliably do so. Unless... It's actually a lot like Red Truth. Whatever observations the gamemaster feeds the player's piece can mean one thing to the gamemaster and another to the player. You know, like Kanon is dead.? That statement was supposed to be 100% reliable, right? Well, it was wrong (at least based off of our original standards of viable interpretation). However, did that lead to us completely rejecting all Red as useless? No. It's similar for a detective's observations: Sometimes they are misinterpreted, but usually they are interpreted accurately. Thus information from a piece with a "reliable viewpoint" is still usually reliable. Like it or not, I think this "Interpretation Theory" is the answer. I can understand why you wouldn't be satisfied with it; after all, it reeks of all the bullshit that comes with "Kanon is dead.". But on the other hand, the fact that it parallels 'bullshit Red' is highly suggestive that it's exactly what RK07 had in mind... Either that or Kealym has been right all along. And one more thing (because I see people get this wrong so, so often): Erika's observational powers, such as her perfect photographic memory, are innate abilities of hers which have nothing to do with Detective Authority. There is no rule that detectives can't misidentify things (with the exception of corpses), even if they have a "reliable viewpoint". In other words, it is not Detective Authority that dictates Erika would make correct observations, but her own innate qualities. Last edited by Wanderer; 2012-01-16 at 19:50. |
|||
2012-01-16, 20:10 | Link #27065 | ||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
The entire crux of the ep5 parlor scene - the part you seem to be intentionally avoiding - is that there is an apparent discrepancy between what Erika should have observed and what information Erika actually makes use of. You cannot wish this away in the fashion you have attempted to advance. You're basically trying to ignore that this is a contradiction by simply stating it isn't. What exactly is your basis for believing this? Incidentally, you also have advanced no basis for why Erika's interpretation isn't being moderated if she and her piece don't share all information. If some information is not shared, then either it's a coincidence (which is ridiculous) or there is some rule or regulating force that governs when she does or doesn't get access to her piece's observations. You've stated you think there is some degree of information sharing, so it can only be one or the other. There either is some reason she doesn't always have information or there isn't. You can't disagree with all possibilities forever. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2012-01-16, 20:33 | Link #27066 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
My response to that, in layman's terms, is that Kanon's distinct personhood over other beings of questionable existence™ has always been an arbitrary decision by Beato / author-on-however-high-a-Meta-level-you-choose-to-venture, because it was important to her/them, as an author. In other words, it's a dissonance that existed in the story already, whether my theory about Kanon's body is true or not. Is there a further / alternate rebuttal? |
|
2012-01-16, 21:15 | Link #27067 | |||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes. I was just saying that Detective Authority's role in this is constantly misidentified. |
|||
2012-01-16, 21:19 | Link #27068 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2012-01-16, 21:33 | Link #27069 | |
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-01-16, 21:41 | Link #27070 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
Ergo PieceErika didn't know that everyone was supposed to be in the room. As she couldn't know it Lambda, if pressed, could have used as excuse that she never said PieceErika was in a position from where she could see everyone at the same time and MetaErika never asked for her piece to move in such a position so this translated in... Kanon (or Shannon) could have been everywhere, actually the both of them could have been missing but since MetaErika trusted Battler's perspective that everyone was in the room and never had her piece check this info or doubt it, her piece didn't bother to observe the room she was in and take notes of who was in and who was not... basically creating a situation similar to the one in which Battler sees Kinzo while Erika is giving his back to him... ... which logically can work... however seems pretty out of character for piece Erika never notice Shannon and Kanon are never together as she's supposed to be the detective and we would expect the detective to check things. Maybe Ryukishi thought it could say he warned us that Erika didn't check things and swallow Battler's narration as it is because Erika refused checking the bodies. It still feels like a dirty trick so you're welcome to come up with a better explanation. ... and now that I think at it, did Erika came up with mystery explanation for how the letter was placed in front of the door? I can't remember it but, if I'm not wrong, to destroy Beato's illusion she was supposed to solve all the riddles... |
|
2012-01-16, 21:42 | Link #27071 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
With that kind of set up Wanderer proposes, the paradox of Erika seeing Kanon and Shannon at the same time would make sense. Because what Meta-Erika would probably do is ignore all the fantasy BS that the gamemaster feeds her, just skim through the crime scenes and alibis, then makes her theory.
But if there were such a complex mechanic in play and we're supposed to realize this, the rules of the game should have been stated explicitly. I don't like the idea of having to guess all this arbitrary stuff...that would be like a mystery novel that you have to use a spy cipher to read. A much easier explanation is that Erika is just like that, whether it's in the meta-world, the gameboard, whatever. She collects everyone in the parlor just because that's what a detective does when about to reveal the solution. She doesn't check whether everyone is in the parlor because the detective authority forces them to be there. And from there she's too busy mentally raping Natsuhi to care about anyone else. Yeah, I call that the Jaden's Razor: When something doesn't make sense, add more insanity to the characters.
__________________
|
2012-01-16, 22:07 | Link #27072 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
Also, I'm not suggesting my theory is the only one that works (that was disproved a long time ago), it's just the logic I can swallow the easiest. Side note, a bit of issue I have with your "interpretation of reported observations" solution is that you can take it to a sort of ... riduculous place, and say Nobody was in the parlor besides Erika and Natsuhi. The same logic that allows Kanon to not be in the room could potentially allow any other person, and any number of people, to not be in the room as well. Or at least, that's how it sounds off the top of my head. |
|
2012-01-16, 22:17 | Link #27073 | ||||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2012-01-16, 22:23 | Link #27074 | |||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Good luck. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even with all this, your hypothesis is extremely wobbly and unsupported. Most of your arguments seem to be built on semantics and sophistry instead of providing any actual reasoning for why we're supposed to conclude that this is the nature of the game, especially when it contradicts how we're told things operate by (comparatively) reliable sources.
__________________
|
|||||
2012-01-16, 22:39 | Link #27075 | ||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2012-01-16, 23:16 | Link #27076 | ||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't really mind if you disagree with me, but I feel like you're trying to be competitive rather than constructive, which is not a track that I want to follow. |
||
2012-01-16, 23:20 | Link #27077 | ||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Your theory is seemingly "the reader is stupid and made a mistake of perception, it's not an error, the characters aren't mistaken." Except some readers are not stupid, some wouldn't make that mistake, the characters appear to be making mistakes, and all readers are being apparently misled. Your entire notion of the structure of the game being a two-way street falls apart miserably when you then turn around and say that Ryukishi basically assumed the reader would make an idiotic decision about who he or she believed would be in the parlor and then wrote ep5 such that all readers will see the result of that idiotic decision. If you stand by this argument, you also stand by Ryukishi patronizing his entire audience with assumptions about what they would believe, or you're filtering the audience's perception through the mistaken assumptions of a higher-order character with absolutely nothing to distinguish what we're supposed to believe and what is higher-order "reader tricks." Nothing you say is doing anything to dispel these issues, which suggests to me that you should revisit your theories and ask why you came to believe them. I'd start with actual facts and evidence contained in the text, and not vague assumptions about Umineko being a two-way process when it demonstrably isn't. What you have right now is a vague idea of a theory, not an actual workable theory. You need to support it with evidence, evidence which clearly demonstrates that your assumed definition of what a "reader" is and what it does - a definition you have never adequately supported or defined. What are these rules, and how do they resolve the apparent differences between what Piece-Erika perceives and what Meta-Erika observes? You believe in this so strongly that it seems you don't actually know why you think it's true. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2012-01-16, 23:26 | Link #27078 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
"Bern: ......A Reader miko can use her own voice to embellish or distort the tale."
It's very clear what is being said here, that a 'reader' can distort the tale. The only thing left is to figure out what the metaphor of 'the Reader' means. But, I think that was a huge theme of Umineko with the Witch Hunters, wasn't it? People put their own spin on the truth, attaching what is essentially their opinions onto the actual truth, to make it seem like what they say is the truth too. i.e. (I was reading Miracle on the Andes, about that plane crash where the survivors ate the dead to survive.) There were newspapers that accused the survivors of cannibalism, intimating that they were doing it because they loved eating human flesh. The truth was that there was cannibalism, but the newspapers opinions that the survivors were doing it because they loved it was an opinion spun so that it seemed like the truth. With Erika, she definitely had an agenda to frame Natsuhi and she may have tunnel visioned on this one theory, discarding everything else. I don't know exactly what Bernkastel said is exactly what Erika was doing; distorting the tale, though. But it is an interesting idea. |
2012-01-16, 23:29 | Link #27079 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-01-16, 23:30 | Link #27080 | |||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
This is all significantly different from anything you're suggesting, and it's all stuff completely absent from Bern's game because there's no narrative framing device, just characters spouting off facts like puppets with no expository prose or descriptors. Quote:
You know, Battler had something to say about that way of thinking as early as EP1... Quote:
By the way, Readers and Players are not the same thing in Umineko. The only time that any characters were described as Readers (ANGE and Clair), they were not serving as Players in any capacity. Any supposition that a person can be both a Reader and a Player is 100% fanfiction. To say nothing of the Readers not being involved in a Game. Nothing Clair does is a Game, and Ange isn't involved in a Game. She is reading a story ABOUT a game.
__________________
|
|||
Thread Tools | |
|
|