[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by haguruma

But we can still question wether these rules are actually effective and where they do take effect.

Sorry, I probably didn't explain myself well. The point wasn't if Ryukishi used those rules. The point is the readers ended up expecting a mystery and, due to this, expected the story to fit according to some rules that are proper of the mystery genre. If Ryukishi insted on: 'No, Umineko isn't solvable. It's a horror/fantasy/dramatic story and that's all' we would have to surrender on the fact that's impossible to think.

Since he asked us to think and said it was solvable we insist in forcing his work into the mystery gender and expecting it to follow certain rules or to have a very good excuse in order not to follow them.

(For example Knox 5 says: 'No Chinaman must figure in the story' however if the story is placed in China and there are no Chinamen the story is definitely weird so Knox 5 might be overlooked)

We get 'trapped in a closed room' of our own creation if you want.
If it's solvable we want it to be a mystery, if it's a mystery it has to respect certain rules, if it doesn't it's either porly written or not a mystery but if it's not a mystery we deem it as not solvable...

Umineko isn't forced to respect Knox or van Dine or whatever else.
What I mean to say is that readers that are disappointed in Umineko as a mystery expected it to respect some rules and it didn't. Maybe they didn't even know Knox or Van Dine but still felt there are rules for mystery and that Umineko didn't fit them.

Originally Posted by haguruma

We're all on the same page, I think, when I also say that within the world of Umineko the Rokkenjima incident is an actual event. Now how can we expect for an actual event to follow the rules of a mystery? I actually think that this is also one of the points that Umineko was trying to make...reality doesn't play by rules and can't be decided upon mere logic.

The problem is again on the solvable thing. It's a perfectly good point to say that since in real life there aren't Knox or Van Dine, murders can't be solved using them. But in this case the story isn't a mystery, it's real life.

Rokkenjima Prime wouldn't be anymore a game between the writer and the reader but a dramatic story in which the reader can only read. In this case it's up to the writer to provide a solution or not but the writer can't really play a fair match against him, at best can do polite guesses.

Originally Posted by haguruma

In literature the goal that the author has in mind can be completely misunderstood and therefore people might search for something that isn't actually there. The question is, was it the author's fault for not pointing it out properly? Or was it the readers' fault for not being openminded enough?
Let's say for example you start reading something that is advertised as a horror novel, but it turns out to be not the kind of horror you were expecting. Can you then claim that it's the author's fault?

Even horror has its own rules.
'Dracula: Dead and Loving It' is labelled as a comedy with horror elements. Nobody would expect it to follow the horror style of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula'.
One can apprecciate 'Dracula: Dead and Loving It' because he's warned it's a comedy. However, if you were told or made believe this is a horror on par of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' you would complain it doesn't fit the rules of horror.

The writer isn't writing for himself or he wouldn't print his books.
He's writing something aware that others will pay to read it.
In short that's comunication.

This means the reader must have a reasonable chance to understand the writer.

Of course since not all the readers are the same some readers can misunderstand the writer completely but the most of the readers must manage to understand the writer and be satisfied with what he wrote and how.

If not the work is cruelly labelled as 'not good enough'.

Sadly it's not the writer who decides the quality of his own work but the people who read and judge it. Of course we aren't litterature critics so our judgement can be off, still, if he didn't reach the intended target, he made a mistake.

If Umineko's target was just an elite of readers, the writer might have been right, though I tend to think works for elite are more justified when they're scientifical, or historical or things like that.

Entertainment shouldn't be for elites but that's just me.

Originally Posted by haguruma

I'm not saying that Umineko is a perfect example of mystery fiction...no, not by any means. But I'm kinda tired of people claiming that, because it is not the same format as what they are used to consider mystery fiction, it is a failure in that department.

I understand your feelings. In my own way I love Umineko (although I hate not having answers I love 'mirror climbing', in shot coming up with more than one explanation for everything). But in my humble opinion I can't consider it a success as a mystery fiction.
Umineko is... something else. Something else that's good in its own way but that's not mystery, or at elast that's not mystery as I (and other people) mean it.
I can recommend Umineko for many, many reasons but I would never recommend it if you're searching a 'good mystery story'.

Names are given to objects according to a common agreement.
We all agree to call a certain object 'chair' because it presents certain requisites.
Of course today you can decide to call that object 'puropuro', but if you go around and tell people that, they'll just look at you oddly.

So, at the moment, as far as I'm concerned, Umineko do not fit the requisites to be called a good mystery.

Do someone want to call it a good mystery? He's free to do so but I'll disagree.

In the future however rules for mystery might change and Umineko might fit them perfectly and so everyone would call it good mystery in the same way a chair might end up being called puropuro.

'Umineko is a good mystery' and 'Umineko is a failure in the mystery department' are just opinions or, if you want, theories in a witches' trial.

They rise to the level of truth according to how many believe them.
I get the feeling so far the second option has more votes.
This means unless you form a majority for the first option that one feels as 'less true'. It's not necessarily true but we saw how Erika managed to corner Natsuhi in this way and how Battler presented another wrong truth but managed to win with it Erika.

In a fashion that trial is one of the coolest part of Umineko as a story, though not as a mystery.
Umineko has plenty of cool parts that don't match with the mystery genre but that are COOL in a story.

... and, hum, I got sidetracked but the point is that although I understand your point your truth doesn't deny mine and likely mine can't deny yours.

We're on the plan of personal opinions and, although they can be annoying, just because they're personal, it's hard to prove if they're right or wrong.

Do you think we can consider this a stalemate?