2010-12-14, 12:08 | Link #19741 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: United Kingdom.
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-12-14, 12:56 | Link #19744 | |
Thought Being
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
|
Quote:
Are there any other stories with the level of meta complexity? Because I would love to read them.
__________________
|
|
2010-12-14, 14:13 | Link #19747 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-12-14, 14:33 | Link #19748 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
the "too obvious" argument didn't prove to be successful so far.
In my opinion it only works for what is actually apparent. If something is apparent (i.e. outright stated by some character) and yet not 100% confirmed then yeah it's most probably false. But if something is just hinted, no matter how heavily it is hinted, if it is just hinted then it's probably true.
__________________
|
2010-12-14, 15:34 | Link #19749 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Several things are outright stated by Eva (and possibly others) in ep1 which have turned out to be strongly suspected as true. Granted, their context is off, but you have things like "Shannon in a dress posing as Beatrice," "Father had a mistress," "a secret child of Father's mistress," etc. just blatantly sitting there in ep2. But that speculation is largely the only direct evidence of the thing itself. Is that a hint, or a "too obvious" throwaway? It'd be like if small bombs were confirmed true. Was that "hinted" just because Battler said it out of nowhere? It certainly wasn't backed up by much more than flimsy logic.
__________________
|
2010-12-14, 19:31 | Link #19751 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
However this just counters my statement that outright stuff are false (I said "most" though), but it provides yet another argument for the non validity of the "too obvious" argument. It's something that you can't really tell. Maybe Ryuukishi can completely twist a certain fact, but you shouldn't go with the assumption that he will definitely twist an obvious fact. Actually so far... it seems that he's been going with the most obvious explanations for several parts of the mystery.
__________________
|
|
2010-12-14, 23:13 | Link #19752 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
|
It seems to me that he wrote them down as after-the-fact proof of his plan from the beginning. i.e. he dropped the foreshadowing as a way of showing that he had that plan since at least the time of the foreshadowing.
So it's not really meant to be clues for us to use. By the way, I was thinking of the earlier discussion on Battler's birth circumstances. Exactly HOW did Beatrice get this tidbit of information? In fact, how did *anyone* get this information? Supposedly no one knows; not even Battler, right? The only one really in a position to know is Rudolf, and the one in a position to suspect is Kyrie. How on earth did this information go from Rudolf to Beatrice? (or, Yasu.) I suppose Yasu could've just 'bought off' Rudolf and made him say it; but how did anyone even know to ask? Does anyone go around normally suspecting that someone, but not everyone in general were switched babies at birth? So I'm thinking there must be something else mixed into this that will let another party be privy to the secret... |
2010-12-14, 23:18 | Link #19753 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
Considering the whole "roulette" theme, and the fact that we've been told that the pieces will only really be themselves in their actions, I dont think anybody's personality changed at all, and the various differences come down to coincidental changes (Maria gets slapped in front of the cousins vs. Marai gets slapped while alone), or outright whims (the First Twilight victims keeps changing, Jessie attacking Kyrie just because she saw her first). I think if someone shows a sudden change in character, they havent really changed, youre just seeing another side of them. Like, "I want George to be happy!" Eva versus "My George-kun shall not be stolen by that lowbred hussy!!" Eva. <_< |
|
2010-12-15, 01:07 | Link #19754 |
Thought Being
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
|
I've started reading through EP1, and I'd like to hear what other people's thoughts are on some of the situations.
First of all, based on my vague recollection of EP1, I had always thought we were being shown Natsuhi's thoughts directly. Then after the reveal in EP5 I just assumed we'd be able to go back and reread EP1 and have it all fit. But it seems a little off, like we're being given Natsuhi's thoughts through an interpretive filter. I find it amusing that this is almost exactly what Featherine and Ange's conversations were about, but I still find it strange. It's like instead of being shown exactly what she thought, it's how she would be thinking based on the illusion she's trying to present with Kinzo. I know Author Theory can handle this, but are there any other ideas about this? This leads into my second observation, Kinzo. How do people interpret the scenes with him, such as when Kanon, Shannon and Genji are 'with Kinzo' in his study while the others are knocking on the door? Is it just Genji and Yasu talking there, for the sole purpose of perpetuating the illusion? How do people interpret the conversation between Nanjo and Kinzo that explicitly have to do with going down to dinner and such, just simply a scene from the past or something? Something I did realize was that the illusion that people have created about Kinzo is very similar to the illusion of Beatrice. They are almost exactly the same actually. Then finally, Kanon. I guess we can take him to be another side of Yasu, which I'm fine with. What I have trouble understanding is when Shannon will leave the room to do something, Kanon with stay behind and Genji will talk with him. How do people interpret these scenes? Is this Yasu sorting through him/herself emotionally? Then why get Genji involved? I'd love to hear people's thoughts.
__________________
|
2010-12-15, 01:44 | Link #19755 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
|
Quote:
Scene with Nanjo and Kinzo (the one at the very beginning) I believe to have happened earlier, when Kinzo was still alive. I haven't really reached the point when Kinzo appears again yet though. (I'm slow as I olny read on my break at work) The one confusing scene was when Kanon and Shannon talked with Genji after Shannon served tea. The problem is - who is the observer there or at least the narrator? Unless Genji was OK with Yasu's multiple personalities the scene looks weird. Btw, can anyone remind me : was it confirmed that Kinzo died exactly one year prior to 1986 or was it stated that he was dead for at least a year by the time? Looking at a lot of things that happened it seems that he died not one but two years ago. The same time that redeveloping of Rokkenjima occured (would he EVER allow this to happen?), Gohda joined and portrait was hung in the hall. Speaking of portrait btw : it is clearly stated that it was painted 2 years ago. And... you know, portraits are normally painted with the model present... but Kinzo obviously didn't know about Yasu at the time or he would've immediately announced succession changes (imho at least). So, is that possble that the whole epitaph ploy is not his doing? P.S. Was Krauss born before Kinzo met Beato? I remember him saying that he got a family by this time (at least a wife). But if so - why foreign name? At this point he clearly could not be planning anything yet... |
|
2010-12-15, 04:54 | Link #19757 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
I've read as much of the manga EPs as I can and all the spoilers I found about the story, and I am still really confused with all the worlds and what really 'exists' and what doesn't. What stuff being shown even happens or if its all just created?
I have no idea what the direction of the story is, is it just a bunch of battles or is there really a truth to what happened during the incident? Can someone spoiler tag me like, the general basis of the story and what's going on? Spoiler:
|
2010-12-15, 05:59 | Link #19758 |
18782+18782=37564
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
|
Spoiler for just some rambling:
Also, even though it is now heavily hinted that yasu-shkanon is true, I kinda remembered that one of the reasons shkanon was hard to accept is that the person behind Shkanon must be a ninja as much as s/he is nuts... After reading Zekses' notes...I need to replay the past eps... I'm forgetting too much already.
__________________
|
2010-12-15, 06:28 | Link #19759 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-12-15, 08:46 | Link #19760 | ||||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rudolf is a little trickier to determine. But if he wasn't born already then he did shortly after. I think only Mousoka here actually believes that Bern's tea party is the truth. So the general consensus is that the real culprit is someone else, or perhaps just Kyrie. As for Yasu I'm not sure if we can consider her a new character. It's a character that has always been there although masked as someone else. And it's also a character whose existence has been hinted since EP1. One can also say that Yasu is basically Beatrice. Quote:
So it would still be off by one letter. Also the correct transliteration of Trillion is: TO-RI-RI-O-N so it's even more different than TO-RA-I-A-N
__________________
|
||||
|
|