View Single Post
Old 2010-11-17, 18:10   Link #18879
Join Date: May 2009
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
Though in general the idea is totally awesome and I like most of these points, but I think the "Battler is Asumu's son, but the Red can't be said because he's imaginary" thing would be a total copout that would be just as bad, if not worse, than using Shkanon to dodge death reds.
To play the strict Devil's Advocate here: How so?

Red can be used to discuss two different things with the same name; Battler advances this very idea in the same episode and it has yet to ever be specifically countered other than specific instances of "this name is exclusive to x." We have a clear instance in which we are told the following information, roughly:
  • Someone named Ushiromiya Battler was born from Ushiromiya Asumu.
  • An individual presented as "Ushiromiya Battler" cannot say he was born from Ushiromiya Asumu.
There are only a few conclusions that can be drawn from this:
  • There were two Ushiromiya Battlers (the common "baby swap" theory). This gives us a "floating" extraneous Battler who we've never seen mentioned and we must deal with it.
  • The person we are seeing in the meta-narrative is not "Ushiromiya Battler."
  • The person we are seeing in the meta-narrative is a different "Ushiromiya Battler," one not "born from Ushiromiya Asumu."
There really aren't a whole lot of other options there. The insinuation that the "baby swap" is the more plausible explanation for the contradiction actually, in my opinion, flies in the face of lex parsimoniae. Much easier to believe either that BATTLER is not Ushiromiya Battler or that he is an "Ushiromiya Battler," but not the one Beatrice is talking about in that particular instance. In either event, and indeed in any event, it is clearly supported that she is talking about a different person.

We don't have to like that, but Beatrice makes it plain as day that it's possible to use red to discuss different people, and if so, the only reason we've come to believe that "Ushiromiya Battler" is not Asumu's son is because the one we actually see isn't. But we've never seen a Battler who isn't BATTLER or fiction-layer Piece Battler. Logically, none of them are the "real" Ushiromiya Battler, in the sense of a flesh and blood person. Accepting that, can we readily call Usagi's interpretation a "cop out?" Ryukishi would point to it is from Ushiromiya Asumu that Ushiromiya Battler was born and say "I said it right there plain and obvious; it was your misinterpretation, not my evasiveness, that led you to that conclusion."
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
The story wouldn't make any sense if Battler didn't go back. EP7 outright states that the real tragedy happened because Battler came back and not because Battler forgot his promise.
Similarly playing Devil's Advocate...

Counterpoints: Battler asks Beatrice if the murders would have been prevented had he never returned; Beatrice clams up and is evasive. Bernkastel suggests to Lion and Ange that the murders would happen in a world with no Yasu and no returned Battler. You're right that contradictory evidence is presented (and it's even stated that Battler's timing for returning could have affected the outcome, which would seem to make no sense if he didn't). However, that suggestion is itself met by suggestions to the contrary.
If Battler didn't actually come back, then in Rokkenjima prime there's actually no tragedy at all! Or the whole deal of "Battler came back = tragedy" is nothing but Yasu's delusion, which would make me wonder what the hell is the point of the metaworld if it's totally disconnected from the real world.
Thematically, one could argue that the message bottle stories are Yasu's faintly dimming hope that Battler will return in time to stop the tragedy, but when he "arrives," he proves no help and she gives up (represented in the surrender and "death" of Beatrice).

One could read this as "if Battler came back... if... but he's not, so I'll finally resolve myself to cause the tragedy I wanted him to save me from."
Your points do not seem very sound to me, I'm not going in details, but how the incompetent Battler became an idealized Battler?
Battler's incompetence is endearing because it arises from his high moral standards. He is clearly shown in the stories to be brilliant, almost unimaginably so when he puts rubber to the road. Actually, it'd be hard to argue Piece-Battler is incompetent at all. If Piece-Battler is the only one in the stories, Usagi's point stands. Meta-Battler's incompetence could arise from simply not being the person that Beatrice expects him to be.
I won't deny that Battler has many good points, but it's only to be expected from the main character. He has however a lot of evident flaws, if you don't see them you have a biased perspective.
Most of his flaws are inherently forgivable, even tragically noble. This contrasts heavily against some characters viewed in a much less favorable light.
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote