Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaenyin
She had disappeared on board a submarine with a ludicrous amount of gold that just vanished into thin air. If I were her I'd be VERY scared of the italian government coming after me, and that's if it really was even just legitimately Italian gold(which, as Nanjo speculates when mentioning the one-winged eagle's origins, it may very well NOT have been).
|
You are assuming that they know that she is implicated in the embezzling of that gold and that they'd have the power to get her. That's not very realistic to make such an assumption.
You need to consider that when she departed from Italy the "government" was the Salò Republic, and they probably made it all in secret. Even if some document existed they'd probably burn it.
The government formed later didn't exist before, so it's very unlikely that they'd be aware of the secrets of the previous one.
In fact it is a well known fact that a lot of gold (some sources claim
119 tons) vanished from Italy after the war, but as far as I know it was never recovered, and no one was ever put on trial for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaenyin
Of course it's interpretation. [...]
I'm just saying the ep7 explanation makes logical sense
|
I don't think it's correct to make that reasoning. You either make an interpretation as a theory or you explain why a story makes sense.
There are several problems implicated in making an interpretation that assumes stuff never stated in a story and then use that as a way to explain that "everything makes sense".
1) With enough fantasy and skill you can make sense out of almost every story, but that would be
your story as you rewrote it that'd make sense not the original.
2) By making up stuff in order to "fix" something you might fail to notice an inconsistency that is supposed to give the reader the ability to understand that it's false. For example if someone in the past tried to make sense out of "magic" in umineko regardless of all the blatant inconsistencies, he would have just wasted his time in an attempt to deny the obvious.
I'm not sure I can explain it well... but basically when you say "it makes sense" you are making a judgement about a story or a part of a story. A judgement should be impartial objective and devoid of biases.
You can make theories, but you can't use your theories as an argument to claim that a story makes sense, even if your theory actually fixes every plot hole! What do you know? Maybe you got an idea that the author himself never had and never intended to be true.
At any rate the very definition of "plot hole" is the lack of a clear explanation about a certain fact in the story. It matters not if you can come up with an explanation. The story requires that such explanation must be given, and if it wasn't, it's a plot hole.
For example Character A calls Character B by name even if they just met and they never introduced each other. That would be a no brainer to fix this, you'd just need to imagine that they already met in their past. But how do you even know if that really happened or if that's supposed to have happened? It wasn't mentioned, it wasn't hinted, it wasn't implied then you simply conclude there is an unexplained inconsistency.