Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall
This would make sense, except there are scenes which have no witnesses to lie about them. The scene itself cannot exist as a construction of any conscious entity on the board other than the culprit, and if the culprit is the sole witness, her or she has absolutely no reason to speak on the matter whatsoever. Thus, there must be scenes which are at best metaphor, and Erika scenes can serve exactly the same purpose.
|
That's why I think the Battler-centric theory is needed. A scene with no witnesses exists as a cat box. Anyone can interpret it in any way they want, and
people are allowed to let their own conclusions and interpretations be heard. So, if Battler is the narrator, scenes in which he doesn't appear can be included in the narration based on his best guess at what happened in them. Something very similar to this happened in the ABC Murders, if anyone's read that (the more Agatha Christie I read, the more I realize that every single one of her books seems to have something in Umineko
).
Also, for the flat-out magic scenes in EP2 and EP3, that can be explained as long as Battler was convinced by someone that magic exists. He does have a motive. In EP2, it's because he can't bear the thought that one of the people close to him is a murderer, and in EP3, it might be because piece-Beatrice used her North Wind and the Sun strategy (not the trick at the end, the strategy itself). In EP4, we're even clearly shown who convinces him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura
There were two mechanisms proposed for Erika (unless I missed others).
1. Oliver's theory: Erika doesn't have an actual body on the game board, so her "existence" requires her perspective to be mediated by one of the metas. Although she's forbidden to lie about her own perspective, her mediator is allowed to lie to her about her perspective in order to insert her into the story.
2. My theory: An exact reading of the red text forbids Erika to become a culprit by lying about mysteries, but she can still lie about something that isn't a mystery, namely something that all of the players already know about. In that situation it's less of a lie than a house rule. Erika has motive to lie about being alive on the game board because she doesn't want to be dead, and all of the players were conspiring to allow it (except Battler, who was sitting out and therefore doesn't matter).
|
For 1, that means we need to accept that a scene witnessed by everyone on the island can be falsified for no human reason. In EP5, it would mean that we are never shown a non-meta scene with very few possible exceptions. In other words, we are never shown the game at all, just the commentary. Since it's a replay, it still works out, but that's what this theory seems to imply.
I don't know, it just feels a bit too easy for me.