2011-09-23, 22:21 | Link #24541 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2011-09-24, 00:25 | Link #24542 |
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
The difference is that we and Erika need to "cheat" by using things like red truth etc. because the puzzles of Umineko are not solvable without them. This particular aspect of Umineko is meant to reflect murder mysteries realistically. In real life there is no guarantee whatsoever that the necessary clues to solve the case will even be available. Ergo, to play "the detective always solves the case" completely strait, she has to cheat.
|
2011-09-24, 00:47 | Link #24543 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Atleast Will actually TRIES, and he interviews people and takes their testimonies without running it through the Red Repeat-o-meter. He's a better fit for the Classic Detective than Erika has ever been, or has even ever attempted either on her part or on Ryukishi's.
__________________
|
||
2011-09-24, 04:59 | Link #24544 | ||||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The corpse thing though. That is a legitimate point. It really makes me think she knew exactly what was going on was intentionally facilitating it. Quote:
She did a shit-ton of information-gathering work; arguably way more than a typical detective would. The main difference is that it was done off-screen because she wasn't the viewpoint character. The Decalogue notwithstanding, Erika worked for nearly every single red she got. Reds were mostly used to confirm that the information her techniques gathered was accurate, or that testimony she gathered was true; or it confirmed things that were impossible for her to investigate, such as Krauss is not the culprit. |
||||
2011-09-24, 07:45 | Link #24545 | ||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Wanderer I think at this point in order to get an agreement with me you'd need to argue two points:
The first is that Erika respects the trope and doesn't alters it by exaggerrating it. A deconstruction isn't supposed to "make up" a trope and then deconstruct it, it must be an already existing trope. If you think that Ryuukishi meant Erika to be the iconic detective (and I don't think so) I'd have to conclude that he grossly misunderstood the trope and he made a grotesque caricature of it. The fact that Erika goes to the point of killing people herself is a clear example. The second point you'd need to argue is where the trope clashes with realism to provide a decunstruction? Where is the logic connection between the supposed trope of the detective being able to defy the laws of logic, physics and reality itself in order to gather clues and the apparent lack of any interest about finding the real culprit? How can you argue that this is the logical realistical consequence? Why if Erika really has this great power you think she has doesn't use it to find the real culprit and to get to the real solution? That apart some answers to what you said: Quote:
By comparison if at is you said that the trope of superhero is that "he saves the world destroys evil and makes everyone happy". If that was true Watchmen would be a subversion and not a deconstruction. In reality the trope here is the figure of the superhero itself, not its impact on the world. You should think the same about your case, else you lose your argument from start. Quote:
There is no realistic explanation on how Doctor Manhattan could achive his godlike status and there's no realistic explanation on how Ozymandias could gain his superior abilities simply by training hard, there is also absolutely no realistic explanation about Night Hawk possessing superior technology. Alan Moore didn't even try to deconstruct that because it was impossible, he kept the unrealistic tropes giving the best possible explanation that he could find, he then operated his deconstruction by placing these unrealistic tropes inside a realistic environment. If I understood correctly you claim that in the case of Erika the Author tried to realistically imagine how to justify the often unrealistic abilities of a detective. However I deny the claim that your assumed explanation is realistic in any way. How do you explain Erika's impossible abilities? Superior metaknowledge? How is superior metaknowledge realistic in any way?
__________________
Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2011-09-24 at 09:59. |
||
2011-09-24, 12:01 | Link #24546 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: United Kingdom.
|
Hi guys, I just reached a breakthrough last night, it is intensely spoilerific; but I am aware of what this thread is for. After figuring this one out, the rest of Umineko almost fell into place.
I have figured out Battler's sin. It will also give insight to the mind behind the culprits of the Rokkenjima disaster (If there was one) I am very excited, perhaps too much. I got stuck somewhere else, but I have had so much fun that I am giving you the opportunity to catch my starting point and have some fun too. If you still want to figure out Battler's sin for yourself; then skip the next spoiler. I believe I have almost figured out the meta scenes as well (or I believe so, but I don't want to argue about them right now untill I have figured them out to a certain extent; this may be impossible for me since I have yet to read EPs 7 and 8). If the moderator wants to delete this post, he can do so as well. Spoiler for Battler's Sin:
As for the reason I have not reached episodes 7 and 8? I don't think that story is worth my time. This thread, the writings of all the posters are far more entertaining than any of Umineko; and so I thank you all for that. That said, the great thing about Umineko is that you can paste any truth onto the game as long as you understand the heart of it, but that is for another time. My post probably shows I do not understand the heart yet. "In some ways, genre is a marketing tool." Last edited by Uberzaki; 2011-09-24 at 12:02. Reason: spelling |
2011-09-24, 12:40 | Link #24547 | |
lorem ipsum dolor sit ame
Artist
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: CA, USA
Age: 29
|
Quote:
I'll just say you're on the right track with the first part. Though, I have to ask since my memory is very fuzzy, wasn't Battler put back on the register when he returned?
__________________
|
|
2011-09-24, 12:57 | Link #24548 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: United Kingdom.
|
Considering they apparently begged him to come back, they might have not had time to do so; since they also couldn't foresee Ange being sick either. Although whether any foul play was actually involved is something I don't want to reveal for the (not malicious) fun of it.
Of course, I am excited enough to be watching my post like a hawk for now. |
2011-09-24, 13:28 | Link #24549 | ||
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
This is the first thing 'piece Battler thinks is his sin in episode 4. And This is how Beatrice responded.
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2011-09-24, 13:50 | Link #24550 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: United Kingdom.
|
Quote:
The fact that Yasu is covering up for someone makes me wonder who she actually is, for one thing. Battler's own wondering at who his aunt and cousin Beatrice may be is another thing. The evidence you just stated is a big help, I had completely forgotten that part and actually helps me get to what is Battler's sin is, and helps support that foul play is really involved, which means that Battler was actually aware of what he was doing. Last edited by Uberzaki; 2011-09-24 at 13:51. Reason: still excited, editing for clarity. |
|
2011-09-24, 15:57 | Link #24554 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by jjblue1; 2011-09-24 at 16:54. |
|||
2011-09-24, 16:01 | Link #24555 |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
If you look at it from a legal perspective, none of the Ushiromiyas have any right to the gold at all regardless of whether they're on the family register or not. Kinzo basically stole it from the Repubblica di Salo, so if it actually came to light that the Ushiromiya family knew where it was, it would get repossessed by one government or another in a heartbeat.
__________________
|
2011-09-24, 20:56 | Link #24556 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
I'm not sure how you'd describe that in Game Theory. It's basically a scenario where everyone loses if anyone reports the gold, and everyone theoretically wins as long as they gain some sort of benefit from the existence of the gold (even if that benefit is merely doing nothing). If the others in control of the gold try to freeze someone else out, then the rational solution for that person becomes to talk (better nobody have the gold than only me losing). Therefore, the best solution is to stop expanding the control class by not telling anyone. Of course one can also take the unorthodox measure of lowering the numbers of the control class manually. Winchester-style manually.
__________________
|
|
2011-09-25, 01:17 | Link #24557 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Sorry for replying so late. I'm currently cycling around my country and am in the middle of nowhere. With an internet connection.
Spoiler for Whoa... turned out pretty long...:
Maybe what we need aren't more 'theories' but we need some posts on "Here's the answer; now how the hell were we supposed to come up with that?" By the way... ok, unfortunately this is another theory and not an answer.... Have you guys noticed how with episode 6 and onwards the story makes extra special care not to let us know how much Jessica and possibly George knows about Yasu's plans? Or with Jessica they don't even let us know if she knows Kinzo is dead! The automatic assumption is that she doesn't based on what Krauss and the others said they would do; exclude her from knowing. But Yasu may have let her in on it. So, doesn't this smell suspicious? うさんの香り indeed... I think we need to go back and look at the story from the point that Jessica and maybe George were in on the entire plot. How does it read differently? Forget that the motive is suspicious for now; after all we can't imagine Jessica wanting to kill the entire family like Yasu yet. But how do their actions play out differently if we assume their knowledge is different? For example, could Jessica have purposely given the scorpion charm to Natsuhi? |
2011-09-25, 05:58 | Link #24560 | ||||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
The trope being deconstructed is not "the detective always solves the crime deductively", but "the detective is always provided the tools needed to solve the crime deductively". This deconstruction started the moment red truth entered the game and reached a peak in episode 5 with Erika. For Erika I will also add this: The trope "The detective is an agent of justice" is inverted. This inversion is used to further showcase the aforementioned deconstruction. Episode 6 was a bridge to episode 7, which showed a reconstruction with Will solving the case simply by using good judgment, not absolutes. Also note the organization he left and the fact that he used red while he was a part of it but not after. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The only thing that I have said was meant to be realistic in Umineko was the level of solvability of the crimes. Red Truth and metaknowledge are patently not realistic. The explanation (the meta-world's involvement) is of course not realistic either. However, the important part of my claim that you are missing is that the explanations produced by deconstruction of a trope's manifestation are not required to be realistic. What needs to be "real" is the logic behind the explanation, not the explanation itself. In other words, to deconstruct the manifestation of a trope, the trope needs a narrative device of some kind that adequately explains why the trope exists in the story's universe. Whether said narrative device is realistic or fantastic is irrelevant. If you don't like people being mad at you, then you might want to reconsider your "aggressive arguing style". |
||||
Thread Tools | |
|
|