[Renall]

I'm responding to what he's actually saying, not necessarily to what he's basing it upon. If he is making mistaken assumptions, that's his problem. What I'm reading between the lines seems to be a desire to excuse poor execution with novelty or the insinuation that somehow the work just "isn't for" the people who find fault with it.

I try not to rip overly hard the people who just say "I dunno, I liked it overall, I thought it ultimately worked out," even though I disagree with their conclusion. It's this undercurrent that somehow nothing is wrong and that some select group can "get it" that is bothering me.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Red is factual belief. Gold emotional belief.

It's impossible for Henry to be the culprit, because he was with me all night.
It's impossible for Henry to be the culprit, because I believe in Henry; he wouldn't do such a thing.

Note that this is just an assumption, but honestly, Wanderer and Kealym's ideas are more concrete than anything the author actually gave us.

I think subjectivity = objectivity was kinda the point. Beatrice could think of Battler as being "born" from Asumu metaphorically, but she just doesn't. Call it convenient, but that's how subjectivity works.

But... what possible reason does she have to have that subjective belief? And what is her basis for the factual foundation of it? It doesn't even make sense if you assume it's one of Touya's internalized conflicts.

And I'm not trying to defend Beatrice on this point, just the logical consistency of Red. Using Red in the way she did in this particular instance was a cheap, mean, and abusive trick which she used because she was mad at Battler.

True, which is one reason why I'd be willing to forgive a cheap trick in that instance. The problem I have is with the foundation of it. That is, I have no idea how Beatrice knew that to make such a snipe against Battler's psyche.

I realize I have said before that Beatrice intentionally mislead Battler with S/K is dead, but perhaps I should rephrase. She didn't intentionally mislead, but she said things she was aware would be misinterpreted.

That's what intentionally misleading means. When you say something that could be misinterpreted, and don't correct a person's mistaken assumption, you've misled them. If you know in advance their assumption will be wrong, and still mislead them, you've done so intentionally.

That's exactly what Beatrice did.

Of course you're free to call it a shitty riddle, and I wouldn't really argue with that. But it's different than lying.

A poor lie is just a shitty riddle whose solution is "You're an asshole."

He's a very good subjective perspective writer. Onikakushi-hen was especially brilliant in this regard, IMHO.

I was targeted in my criticism. He does some things well, I agree.