View Single Post
Old 2011-03-09, 17:38   Link #6
Slashy Slashy!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Age: 29
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
I really don't get why this discussion has emerged in the damn "translation thread", either. Please drop the offtopic for now.
Come now, it's at least marginally related, right? The main topic at hand is Ryukishi's incredible writing speed, and how it affects his writing style. That's a topic that's naturally related to the translation itself, is it not?

And by the way, it's a testament to the Witch Hunt team that Ryukishi's style is a topic of discussion in the first place! If we were talking about MangaGamer's Higurashi translation, I think we'd all have to assume that Ryukishi was a near-illiterate bumpkin.

Originally Posted by VladD
Actually, the writing process is only difficult for the people that only read books, and dream of writing one. If you are totally committed to an action, like writing, it becomes not only easy, but fun.
Beg to differ. The vast majority of the best writers had a difficult time with their work, and revised their writing endlessly. Tolstoy, for instance, was known for rewriting his novels 50 times! Fitzgerald, Joyce, and Dostoevsky are similar.

Originally Posted by Sherringford
Christie(very much so during the Marple books, not so much with the Poirot ones) made the victim sympathetic a lot. With Poirot she was more of a fan of the "make the victim a jerk so that the murderer is sympathetic" approach.

Strangely, And Then There Were None did make the victims sympathetic while remaining terrible people.
This is just personal experience, but I have never been attached to a character in an Agatha Christie novel. Her formula seems to be: "Introduce as many hairpin twists in the plot as possible!" Once you realize this, you'll either guess the twist miles in advance, or you'll stumble upon a twist which makes no sense in the context of the story. See: "Postern of Fate", "Thirteen at Dinner", and "Murder on the Orient Express".

And for my money, Christie is even worse at writing romance than Mr. Ryukishi.

Originally Posted by Sherringford
Be careful, some of Queens novels weren't actually written by him but by people he allowed to use the Queen penname. Those aren't really worth reading unless you really love Queen.
I was under the impression that Queen was a pseudonym for two different authors who jointly wrote most of the novels. Are there even more than those two?

Originally Posted by Sherringford
Umineko talks about a bit too much, and some of Ryu's analogies make me cringe sometimes. Hempel's raven, Devil's proof, and the poor schrondinger and his cat box had its meaning basically redefined.
Hempel's Raven and Devil's Proof are mostly accurate. But yeah, Schroedinger's Cat Box is not really the same thing as the quantum mechanics term. It's doubly bad, because the Cat Box explanation was itself a ridiculous metaphor to explain why the Coppenhagen School of Thought doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Sherringford
Ever read Carr's essay on the mystery genre? To me, it seems like it's what Ryu based it on. Either that or they are similar by accident.
I have not, I'll look it up.

But, I would actually be surprised if Ryukishi hadn't read Carr. He seems like a very well-read person in general, and a fan of the mystery genre in particular.

Originally Posted by Sherringford
Then there is his lecture about the Knox rules in episode 5, where he says that using them is like magic, despite the fact that many mystery readers don't even know about them. They are something writers use to limit themselves a bit, and not all writers do that. I got his basic point about how Erika was an undesirable kind of reader, but it still felt a
I've always found the Knox rules to be, well... blatantly obvious. Every rule (except the "no chinamen" one) is basically a general case of "We cannot reason about that which we do not know." It's more of a guide for mystery writers than readers. Van Dine's set of rules are the same, except with more emphasis on mystery cliches.

As for Erika, I found her to be pretty hilarious, personally. But eh, different tastes.

Originally Posted by Sherringford
The genre is still popular in Japan(which is...ironic considering Umineko) and the cozy mystery genre has been slowly coming back from the dead.
They've been saying that for 50 years. But part of the problem is that classic mysteries were never considered art in the first place, even by the authors themselves. They were high-class games, intended for high-society (hence why mysteries nearly always feature wealthy characters).

Mystery novelists today have to struggle with the old formula, but also create something which is more than just a game, something which can be called art. It's a difficult task, and rarely pulled off well. Most modern authors prefer to bend the genre into something new.

Forgot to comment on this
Spoiler for Episode 7:

Last edited by naikou; 2011-03-09 at 17:50.
naikou is offline