2011-01-25, 11:52 | Link #21701 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
Quote:
I said that the Historical Method was a way for Historians to repair history that has been destroyed, not rewrite it. If you think they're 'rewriting' history when they do that then perhaps you don't really understand it. And maybe this is why you can't see it; it's the same with Umineko. The story goes that the particulars of the incident has been lost. The whole story reeks of this theme, like from EP1. Quote:
I can easily see that Aura meant there won't be answers regarding the particulars to Rokkenjima Prime but that there will be answers to the Mystery that Beatrice proposed. <snip> on your accusations of his lying or what not, since it seems like you're just trying to slander in order to win your arguments. Why don't we just accuse him of crimes against humanity? I have to agree with Aura... argue your points.. but honestly... maybe you should keep your hatred off this board. |
||
2011-01-25, 12:04 | Link #21702 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Maybe you should stop assuming things about people. I'm not sure where you got onto this latest kick of attacking me personally. Yeah, I'm being really harsh on Ryukishi. Yeah, I'm accusing him of lying. Because, as it turns out, I am of the opinion that things he has said do not match things he has done, and consequently I think that he has lied about some things.
Why exactly you feel the need to leap to his defense and become personally upset by my accusations is baffling. Why you further feel inclined to mischaracterize people's motives and arguments I further do not entirely grasp. musouka's point is "You think things weren't done well; I agree on some points and disagree heavily on others and think those parts were done well." That's a perfectly rational argument, in spite of the saber rattling between us. My personal belief is to the contrary, and I even go so far at times as to claim one shouldn't be satisfied, but he's free to stand there and say "Yeah well, I still think it was fine, and I don't think it's necessary to judge this particular thing by that particular standard, since I don't believe it applies here." That's just a difference of opinion. I won't accept condescending appeals to "calm down" from people who don't even know me. I just argue rather aggressively. As far as I can tell, no one here is breaking any rules. Aggressive and contentious clashes of interpretations are certainly to be expected, as this isn't a "reviews" thread but an "interpretations and overall opinions" thread. We can disagree. But I don't appreciate backhanded appeals to be silent. If you don't appreciate that there can be negative interpretations or highly critical - perhaps even excessive - standards applied to a finished work, then I don't know what to tell you. Make the argument that one can't be critical of one aspect or another for some reason. Also, I can't "win" here because I have nothing to gain here. I don't get a prize ribbon if everyone agrees with me, as far as I know.
__________________
|
2011-01-25, 12:18 | Link #21703 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
It's very simple. You haven't actually proven that he lied to increase his sales, which is a pretty serious accusation. So, that's a rather out-of-left-field statement to me. I seriously doubt you can prove his intent too. So, it seems like you're using your hate against him (since I doubt that you can prove he lied with intent, and thus it'd be anger) in order to argue with us.
A personal attack? Honestly, you think that you going overboard in accusations and arguing with US (rather than Ryukishi) vehemently and then the calls for you to calm down are personal attacks? You said you like to argue aggressively? I didn't say you were breaking any rules.. but how is that relevant? I can simply ask you to argue with a little less aggression, if you so please. Or do you really feel like you have to push it all the way to the rules? Honestly, back on topic. Why I argue back with you is because you seem to only approach this story from one perspective. Yours. I am merely telling you that I have read this story, and with support from the very beginning, EP1, read the clues. The clues made me expect the ending in EP8. Take that as you will... but, this is the reason I can't agree with you at all. Because I reached the answers. Why I respond back is very simple. You haven't really seem to understood what I said, with the mistake about "rewriting history." Or the bit about not understanding why there are no answers yet EP1-4 is solvable. I guess you may not have caught all the messages that have been flying back and forth but... You know what I meant about how certain histories are lost, but that they can be partially reconstructed from secondary and tertiary sources now, right? I don't think Ryukishi had this metaphor in mind, but it was something that I found was very similar to the Rokkenjima Incident and the successive message bottles. With this though, the original incident is still lost and it's not 100% recoverable. This has been the theme of the story from the beginning, ever since the EP1 ending scroll. |
2011-01-25, 12:42 | Link #21705 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
My keyboard saw fit to eat everything I said, to to summarize:
__________________
|
2011-01-25, 13:15 | Link #21707 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Classified
|
Quote:
How can we even be certain that there was a cat in the catbox in the first place (Bern doesn't count)? |
|
2011-01-25, 13:41 | Link #21708 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Someone over at a certain Golden Age board I go to summarized it quite nicely.
"This is a series about an author who feels like no one can beat him at his game if only because he won't let it get to its conclusion." Ryu's rape of the mystery genre felt very condescending and frankly, very badly done. You know why? Because you need to prove you know a genre because you attempt to talk about it, or else there is no way anyone will respect what you say. Murder of Roger Ackroyd had a great impact not only because it was done well, but because it was done by an author who knew very well how mystery readers thought about solving novels. It was a new take on the genre that expanded it to a point where people came to love it and still do. Spoiler:
John Dickson Carr's The Burning Court is very different from most mystery novels due to a certain part on its ending. It worked and readers did not feel cheated because JDC had earned their respect, not only from previous novels but from the burning court itself. I decided to let Umineko end to see if Ryu deserved my respect and as such the right to lecture me about mysteries. My conclusion is that he does not. He does not know the first thing about mysteries. "The fun in a mystery novel comes from thinking about it, not demanding an answer." Oh great, who the hell do you think you are again? Right. You are the guy who makes lectures about mysteries while being completely incapable of writing one. Mysteries are a game. Congratulations, you have read JDC's essay about it. You know that. But you know what else Ryu? The game isn't about whether the reader can think of how the murder was committed. That's a fun winning condition if you want to handicap yourself, but that isn't what it is about. Quote:
Ryuukishi ran away from that final step in the duel. The traditional handshake between writer and reader at the end of the novel, no matter the result, just didn't happen. Because he didn't show up for the last showdown. "But," you argue in a high pitched voice, "Ryuukishi said it wasn't a mystery!" Yet he treated it like one and directed it like a mystery. He made us think it was one. Moreover, he constantly addresses the mystery theme, regardless of whether this work in particular is a mystery or not, and keeps beating his ideas of the genre onto our heads over and over again. Ideas that are frankly, very misinformed. "Mysteries ignore the HEEEEART!" ...Agatha Christie, Ngaio Marsh, Sayers. Find me one novel by any of them that ignores the heart. Van Dine had a colder approach, but it wasn't the heart he ignored. He ignored the motive, the suspect and even the method. That was his signature style. He focused on psychology and human reactions. It was distinct because it was different not because it was the norm. "Mysteries always have the detective show up and start imposing on everyone. No one ever minds ever!" Yes and the butler is always the culprit. Wait, that cliche just doesn't happen. The detective is always either friends with the victims before the murder happens, or he is hired by someone, be that someone a family member or the police. Not many detectives follow that cliche. "The joy in mystery novels comes from guessing the truth, not demanding an answer." Way to miss the point. So, do I hate the guy? God no. I'm sure he is a nice human being. But I don't like his writing much. In the end, it came out as extremely hypocritical. Reading Umineko is like watching a con artist talk about medicine while pretending to be a doctor. He uses a bunch of jargon to make it seem like he knows what he is talking about, but once you are in the surgery room and see him removing your kidney when you have appendicitis it's pretty clear he doesn't know what he is doing. Which is pretty sad, because I was hoping he would turn out to be that amazing con artist that not only wasn't a doctor, but performed surgeries perfectly well like he was one. |
|
2011-01-25, 13:47 | Link #21709 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
I'm more incensed by the notion that the non-answer is a good thing. Bern often behaved in an intensely questionable and cruel manner and absolutely needed comeuppance for that, but just because she had the wrong motive for dragging out the truth (or perhaps "a" truth, it's hard to tell with her) doesn't mean there cannot be a right one.
Is leaving the box closed romantic? Oh absolutely. What a touching and bittersweet ending for Battler and Beatrice. Is leaving the box closed moral? It's about as evil as things come. Condemn innocent and guilty alike to the eternal torment of uncertainty. I hope that the love between a man and his witch was worth sending 16 other people to Hell. Hey wait, this sounds a lot like somebody else... Yeah, evil won. Even if it was all an accident, evil wins. So much for love! Without it, it can't be seen. With it, it shouldn't be seen. There's your "moral," folks: love is mutually exclusive with justice, and if one person seeks to expose the truth for the wrong reasons, everyone who seeks it must be on the same side. If she weren't still a cruel jerk, I'd be half inclined to apologize to Bern.
__________________
|
2011-01-25, 14:26 | Link #21711 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
And it'd be George's fault.
__________________
|
|
2011-01-25, 14:58 | Link #21713 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
"Well, hey, I tried. Nice work kid."
__________________
|
|
2011-01-25, 15:54 | Link #21716 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Civility is always to be commended even if forced. God knows we humans already have enough aggresive destruvtive instinct in our very nature of being. Famous last words. |
|
2011-01-25, 16:04 | Link #21717 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Ahhh so ur politically leanings r more on julian asange side. Rights of individual over rights of majority. Spiritually im with u, but fact is the world works the other way. BTW u got evil n good mixed up. Good=winner, majority views. Evil=Losers who went against winners. Rukishi made good money, he's fetted by the japanese, he has a few real games n anime made with his 'direction' (ookami kakushi is boring though imo) LIAR u woulda been kowtowing on bended knees already. |
|
2011-01-25, 16:22 | Link #21718 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
Second of all, CONGRATULATIONS! My sociology professor wants to talk to you, as does my Philosophy professor among others. You alone know what constitutes evil and good, being able to tell us as much and correct us when we are wrong. No, good is not comprised of winners and evil isn’t comprised of losers. That’s not how the world works. See? I can make absurd absolute statements too! By that logic, would you think Will and Lion are evil because they lost in episode 7? Would you think Jack the Ripper is good because he didn’t get caught? Good=Majority view is a limited view, and most philosophers refute it, as it requires the assumption that human beings aren’t capable of understanding morality. That would mean that slavery would be considered a moral thing for the rest of eternity. However, someone eventually stopped to question slavery and went "wait a minute, this is stupid." People began to share that belief because when they stopped to think about it, they were convinced by his logic. Anti-slavery was not a very popular thing at the time, yet the people in it still thought they were truly good. That sort of challenges your assumption. What the holy name of guacamole does Ryuukishi making money has got to do with…anything? It doesn’t even connect with the rest of your argument. |
|
2011-01-25, 16:33 | Link #21719 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
People are free to disagree with me on a moral standpoint; heck, I'll even accept if you say "Look, it might have negative consequences, but on the whole I think the act can be justified." I do hope, at least, that you have a comprehensible ethical standard to back up your disagreement, however. Just guiding principles, you know?
Stop and think for a second: Put yourself in the shoes of Gohda's mom. Your son dies when his employer's home literally blows up. The police are not inclined to provide significant details. He gets very little media attention because he wasn't rich or famous like the people he worked for. And some asshole teenagers on the Internet, goaded on by irresponsible jerks like Professor Ootsuki, start spinning nonsense about he was a witch, no he was the killer, no he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time! Is the grief of Gohda's mom and the desire for closure and some kind of understanding of the truth of what happened to her son and whether he did anything wrong subordinate to the personal satisfaction of Ushiromiya Battler and Ange, just because they're more important fictional characters? Is it really a matter of "Well Gohda's mom doesn't exist in the narrative but Battler and Ange do so it's more important to discuss what's moral as relates to them?" That is messed up in my mind. Won't somebody please think of Gohda's mom?
__________________
|
|
|