Quote:
|
I know you aren't being aggressive, but your posts always sound so angry.
|
I apologize; I'm just a blunt person who doesn't sugar-coat anything the slightest bit. My real life kind of forces me into that attitude so it's hard to turn it off.
Quote:
Well now, "completely". He's wrong, but a good part of his story can be explained. If he made that statement it means that at least he tried to write his story that way. To say that nothing in Umineko is properly hinted would be an enormous bullshit.
So in the end, if it is apparent, easily deducible and it doesn't conflict with anything, what is the reason to think it's a lie?
|
Look, "solvable" is a binary definition. Either it is or it isn't. If he only "kinda" made it solvable, it's not good enough.
Quote:
|
But it is. Maybe you haven't read all the comments.
|
It's not. It's a very shaky metaphor based on your interpretations of what people mean by things, perhaps, but you and I don't seem to be getting the same intentions out of people's comments and I've known you to wildly miss people's intentions before.
Quote:
|
Plot twists are never mentioned in the premise, that would defy the whole idea of a plot twist. The sixth sense, the others, the usual suspects, fight club. None of them tell you from the beginning what the story is actually about in the premise. It doesn't change that the premise of the story is entirely based on that plot twist, you just learn it at the very end.
|
Premises can be false. In literary analysis terms, the 'premise' is the situation the reader is introduced to. It is Point A.
"Battler is alive and he's an amnesiac writing stories" is not the premise; I mean, shit, it's lateness aside it's really only relevant to Ange's subplot and to point out that, yes, there is another survivor, hurray.
It's basically the ending.