Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrellord
I don't think Metaphors work. I think what is said in Red is the actual LITERAL truth. However, it's not a collective, all encompassing truth. There are two worlds vying for control, the Anti-Fantasy and the Anti-Mystery. In the Anti-Fantasy world, a human is the culprit, and the red truth reflects that. In the Anti-Mystery, the Witch is the culprit, and the red truth reflects that.
Basically, when Beatrice says anything about herself in red, she's only talking about the Anti-Mystery world.
|
Wouldn't this violate the integrity of the red though? If red can apply to Anti-Mystery without applying to Anti-Fantasy, then Beato can throw out a bunch of bogus statements to support her version of events, and Battler has no way of distinguishing these from Anti-Mystery truth. The fundamental assumption underlying the red text rule is that it's a limited observation of the "reality" that Battler and Beatrice are both trying to explain. It has to constrain both Battler's AND Beatrice's theories or you can't reason with it. Your example of "
The letter I gave Maria" is explainable under Anti-Mystery by the idea that meta-Beatrice represents several people on the game board. Even if there isn't a real Beatrice, you could say that at that moment, Rosa or Natsuhi or whoever is acting as Beatrice.
Also, we've been given this idea that there's a dichotomy between pure Anti-Fantasy and pure Anti-Mystery, but it's not like there's only two possible theories. It just seems that way because those are the positions that Battler and Beatrice have officially staked out. Nothing is stopping Battler from adjusting to a middle ground position that permits supernatural elements so long as he can still achieve his goal of proving that a witch didn't commit the murders. Beatrice has actually been shifting between "I committed all the murders" and variations of "Some of the murders were mundane, but I did this one" even within the same game.