2012-08-30, 04:46 | Link #30261 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2012-08-30, 04:53 | Link #30262 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
I would also point out that none of the humans is really shown to undergo a huge shift in character over that stretch of time (except Maria and Ange, who were still growing into having a character), and that despite his importance to Yasu, Battler tends to play a relatively small role in forgery narratives (that is, considering that the magic narrative grew pretty substantial after Legend). I must admit that there is a mention of difference she makes between "the Battler I believed in" and "the Battler George and Jessica kept telling me about", but, I mean, I really wouldn't doubt Battler's presentation in the forgeries any more than I'd doubt Jessica's, or Krauss's, or Kumasawa's. :-/ Quote:
Or maybe just to give Ryu an avenue to feel like basing Young!Kinzo on Battler wasn't cheating at all. |
||
2012-08-30, 06:20 | Link #30264 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
|
But in terms of facial expression, she is described as being emotionless. Though I suppose she is meant to freak out in other scenes, I haven't gotten too far into the PS3 graphic games and so can't comment on if she ever changes facial expressions in them at all.
Also since only the first two were written conclusively by Yasu alone, the baby-switch could have appeared in Game 4 as Tohya may have remembered it. That certainly would give you a meta crisis, if the person you are supposed to be but don't remember being may have actually not been who they think they should be... |
2012-08-30, 07:37 | Link #30265 | ||||||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
It would work only in the case there was some kind of relation between Ikuko and Battler, but they are on respect to each other two completely random persons. Sure Battler later became famous, but Ikuko is still a completely unrelated individual. and this story is still a story about Battler among all the rest. It's as if you read a story about Michael Jordan and you claimed it's not realistic because a random individual meets Michael Jordan. Someone is bound to meet Michael Jordan unless he decides to become a hikikomori. A coincidence requires that two particular factors coincide. And if by any chance you are claiming that it is an unacceptable coincidence that amnesiac Battler met of all the people someone that crazy to take him home rather than to an hospital, then you'd need to admit that Stephen King's Misery is equally unacceptable. But let's compare the two cases: A) Ikuko=Yasu & Tohya=random person B) Ikuko=random person & Tohya = Battler There is absolutely no difference in the improbability of these ecounters. In both cases the particular person related to Rokkenjima encounters a random person. Except the random person of case A possess more convenient peculiarities than of case B. What's more peculiar? An amesiac whose mind is completely moldable, that is casually looking enough like Battler, that casually remembers to be 18 years old and whose background is generally compatible to that of Battler or... A weird and bored rich person with low morality? Quote:
Quote:
So it's not a random place, it's a place that can be reached directly by boat traveling from the approximate position of Rokkenjima. Quote:
But exactly how my argument is a circular logic? I think you don't quite grasp the concept of "circular logic". Quote:
Of course I'm arguing against your Yasu=Ikuko theory, but I'm also arguing against your Battler=random amnesiac theory. And if we assume Yasu=Ikuko, Tohya=random amesiac is as much probable and grounded on facts than Tohya=Hired actor. I do not support either theory, I'm just pointing out that when a theory is so little grounded on facts it is as good as a plethora of others. Quote:
And it also looks very odd that Eva would write such diary. She spent her whole life trying to protect that secret, and then she just let a random stranger to find it? I think it somehow could make sense if she made it so that truth would reach Ange when she was older, but then why she didn't ensure it would actually work? The big question here is why Ikuko among all people would get that diary and how? What kind of relation is there among Eva and Ikuko? None that we know of. And there's yet another problem. Eva died in 1998. Are you telling me that Itoikukuroreigonamu's forgeries never existed before 1998? that doesn't seem likely to me. In fact it wouldn't make sense, because it is implied that Ange already knew about those forgeries by that time. But then that would mean that Ikuko obtained the diary before Eva's death. How the hell did that happen? You'd need to come out with some sort of explanation that has absolutely no basis whatsoever.
__________________
Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2012-08-30 at 08:43. |
||||||
2012-08-30, 09:02 | Link #30266 |
Human
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Crime Scene
|
I'm thinking about how Battler arrived to a little island that he couldn't escape unnoticed, and met Ikuko of all the hermits. But if Ikuko lived near Niijima as Jan-Poo says, she lived near all the other nearby islands where Battler could arrive and it's less of an otherwordly coincidence that she found Tohya and believed him to be Battler when he somehow gave him enough clues.
About the Eva Diary... it was just drama, I believe. I'd be pretty weird that a hikikomori woman can go and get a diary that should've gone to Ange by right (Ange is family, whether she likes it or not). So what? She somehow got her contacts in the hospital to steal personal property of an obscenely rich woman?
__________________
|
2012-08-30, 09:46 | Link #30267 |
Detective, Witch, Pirate.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ruins of the Golden Land
|
Keep in mind Ryukishi likes gangster-yakuza stuff, so perhaps the job was done 'under the table', if you get me.
No, wait, if me memory doesn't fail this captain, some witch-hunters were the ones who found it first, and then it doesn't specify how Ikuko got her hands on it, although considering her status on the witch-hunting community it would be much easier for her to do than steal it from the hospital.
__________________
|
2012-08-30, 14:07 | Link #30268 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Now come on. Compare a 12 year old and an 18 year old. You're telling me there's NO personality differences there? At all? You're telling me someone doesn't change at all during puberty? Quote:
It sucks, huh?
__________________
|
||
2012-08-30, 18:45 | Link #30269 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-08-31, 05:06 | Link #30271 | |||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Normally we can take things as they are presented in a movie or novel at face value and treat them as something true outside of logic: In other words, we can treat what we are shown as "self-attesting" truth. In Umineko there is so much unresolved unreliable narration that we can't do that. We have no self-attesting truths, so the foundation of any argument made about Umineko must start with an assumption. It's basically the brain in a vat scenario. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2012-08-31, 07:02 | Link #30272 | ||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
But I guess it's just me. I've never come up with a theory without basis in the many years that I've been here. At best you can say that I based my theories on facts that I didn't know whether they were true or not, but that's still something. This is more like "welcome to the Umineko community" rather than "welcome to Umineko". Quote:
And there is absolutely no justification whatsoever in using logical fallacies, no matter the situation. Even if hypothetically you were to be brought to a point where you need to use a logical fallacy (even if I can't even think about such a case) it would be better to just give up any attempt to reach an explanation, because a logical fallacy can only bring to a wrong reasoning by definition. The hell... I don't even know why am I arguing against someone who claims to reason out of logic and making use of logical fallacies. In the end we can agree that your reasonings are devoid of any valid logic.
__________________
Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2012-08-31 at 09:18. |
||
2012-08-31, 11:52 | Link #30273 | ||||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Michael Jordan is indeed no more or less likely to be encountered by any random individual who happens to encounter any other random individual. If I were to say "I'm going to go outside and meet a completely random person today," then the odds that would happen are pretty close to 100% unless I just happen to live in such an isolated environment that there aren't any people to encounter. However, if I say "I'm going to go outside and meet Michael Jordan today," the odds that would happen are generally pretty low. That's true whether it's Michael Jordan or my friend Bob Smith. If I have a preexisting relationship or circumstance that makes a situation more likely, however, it's more believable because it's more mathematically probable. If I were to say "I'm going to go outside and meet Bob Smith today," and Bob Smith is my neighbor who is often in his yard when I leave the house in the morning, the chance of meeting Bob is vastly higher. What does this mean? I'll continue: Quote:
Still, the issue is not whether it's somewhat more probable when you add the Shimoda factor, but whether setting things up to allow for the Shimoda factor gives the whole thing a fakey, overly-convenient vibe. Which it does. Quote:
Also bear in mind that Tohya-not-Battler and Tohya-is-Battler are equally moldable in their amnesia, given what they originally remember. They are literally indistinguishable (you can't get around this by arguing) save that one is recovering genuine memories and the other is falsely remembering memories that appear to be genuine. Quote:
Do we know that Eva doesn't know Battler may be alive? It's at least as plausible as the diary not existing at all... which, by the way, isn't exactly implausible either absent red. I mean, if Ikuko never actually intended to reveal the contents, it might as well be blank and she's bluffing. Quote:
You seem unable to grasp the difference between a premise and an orphaned plot contrivance. Quote:
Except the people reading have no way of knowing whether this is true, and are so apparently unsophisticated that they cannot determine thematic veracity (which is a way you could declare the Hachijou forgeries more authentic even if you don't know the facts). If they actually were capable of doing what Alliance suggests they can do, they would never behave the way they do in Twilight.
__________________
|
||||||
2012-08-31, 12:33 | Link #30274 | |
Detective, Witch, Pirate.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ruins of the Golden Land
|
Quote:
For example, if you go outside and say "I'm going to go outside and meet Bob Smith", of course the chances of meeting him are pretty low, like you said, but that doesn't mean that you will never come across Bob Smith when you go out. It's absurd to assume that just because of mathematic probabity. And after all, it's not like Ikuko was any key player that her encounter with Battler was bound to bring some massive development or a deux ex machina for the story that would make it all too convenient. It may have turned out similarly if it were "Bob Smith" that discovered him. At any rate, since he had an accident and was lying in the middle of the street, someone would discover him at some point. Why is it a hell of a coincidence that it was Ikuko who did? They didn't even know each other. And there's the Shimoda factor, (as you said, for convenience), he had an accident close to where Ikuko lived. It's awfully strategic, but you put it like an astronomically small chance, one that's so damn unbelievable. I just can't understand that's coming from.
__________________
|
|
2012-08-31, 13:33 | Link #30275 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
It wasn't ever established that she lived there until she came into the story at all, essentially. The reason she's conveniently there is because a convenient contrivance happens to exist. And she happens to also be wealthy, reclusive, and secretive by nature, all of which just happens to conceal the person she has rescued instead of being Bob Smith who would just take him to a hospital or whatever.
It's pretty implausible even given everything else.
__________________
|
2012-08-31, 14:18 | Link #30276 | |
Detective, Witch, Pirate.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ruins of the Golden Land
|
Quote:
It could have worked just the same if Battler was found let's say by "Bob Smith" and taken to a hospital normally. Well, I'm okay with it, but in all fairness it is far-fetched.
__________________
|
|
2012-08-31, 14:26 | Link #30277 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
This was revealed before he met Yukari also, just after the part I quoted. Touya mentions it in his narration in the chapter "ikuko touya" and says "he rudely theorized that she hit him at first, but her front bumper was undamaged, and he dismissed that theory after". At this part of the story, where he mentions it, the accident had only recently happened.
__________________
|
2012-08-31, 15:06 | Link #30278 | ||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hrrrrm, it all keeps piling up...
__________________
|
||
2012-08-31, 17:40 | Link #30279 | |||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ikuko: "I believe you suspected that I was the one who hit you for quite some time." Touya: "Hey, I've already apologized for that......" I wonder when Touya checked the bumper for damage? |
|||
2012-08-31, 19:51 | Link #30280 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
About the Toya=Battler and Ikuko=Yasu...
Toya=Battler is strongly supported by Umineko. We could say it's part of the canon solution. Yes, it's possible that actually this is just apparence and Toya is someone else, going from an actory hired to act Battler's role to a memoryless guy brainwashed into believing he's Battler or unconsciously deluding himself into believing he's Battler or something else I can't think about. Those are all interesting solutions but so far, as far as I'm involved, none of them looked like the intended solution. Not that I like that much a solution involving the odds of Battler surviving yet reporting memory loss, reaching some place, being saved by a random rich person who keeps him as her secret pet, who incidentaly is a mystery writer and all the stuffs. It's just it feels like ShKannon or the Italian submarine with the gold or other 'canon solutions'. I don't like them much as solutions but apparently they are the intended solutions. Ikuko=Yasu isn't as strongly supported. It's not it's impossible Ikuko=Yasu. It's just there's no clear answer. It's entirely possible she's just who she says to be. It's also possible she's not... which doesn't necessary make her Yasu merely... 'not who she says to be'. I fear that for Ikuko't identity both the 'she's who she says to be' and 'she's Yasu' theory can work in the Umineko setting and that a theory might seem more or less good merely according to preference. Quote:
|
|
|
|