2012-09-06, 21:26 | Link #30401 | |
Human
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Crime Scene
|
Quote:
1) Battler's stupid amnesia sure thing is stupid. I'm not defending it's use. But is something that happened, so no use getting mad about it. 2) We are "applying greater realistic scrutiny to something not inside the box" namely, Battler's survival in EP8. Or at least, I'm asking we do that for the before mentioned points. --Someone tried to disacredit his survival to make room for 'Tohya=random' calling that red line "Battler's dead!" and then saying that 'personality death' applied to real Battler is bullshit because his case didn't follow the rules that Yasu's personalities had to follow. Aura supported that. --I countered that Yasu's 'personality death' definition has no great impact in Battler's case, because they're at different sides of the catbox lid. I also wrote that I feel a personality death less crazy if applied to an amnesiac than to an actor, talking about it as the resourse Ryuukishi tried to use in his twilights. Where is the incoherence? Stop being so defensive, I'm not bashing your friend -just telling him/her that s/he's being agressive-. I'm trying to be a levelheaded goat here, and Aura's being a little too brusque with a simple point.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-06, 22:37 | Link #30402 | |||||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
That being said, I don't really care about how I sound. It shouldn't have any impact on the merit of my statements. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||
2012-09-07, 07:39 | Link #30403 | |||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
In addition when you doubt them, you'll also create the condition in which not just your theory but a lot of similar theories become equally valid. So you can't say that your theory is better than another, you'll have no ground to state that since you disbelieve it. Quote:
When you consider the scenes seen through the eyes of Tohya and Yukari, she is never arrogant the same way Featherinne is, as far as I remember. Since this difference is quite apparent as you've also notice it, I believe that scenes where Ikuko isn't talking about "child of man" and the like, are scenes that actually happened. Quote:
However evidence suggests that Ikuko doesn't live in Niijima. Because after being visited by Ange and Amakusa in EP6 it is said that they needed to take a ferry. There's no ferry leading to Rokkenjima, therefore they needed to take a ferry TO Niijima. Which is why it is believed that Ikuko lives in Shimoda or near it. Naturally that whole scene never actually happened in prime, but if fake scenes aren't completely random, at least the location where Ikuko lives should be true. So what I'm trying to say is that Battler in order to survive should've arrived to whatever shore faster than the debris, probably using a motorboat (as it's suggested). It's really difficult to imagine how else he could have survived that long drifting in the middle of the ocean, especially if he was mentally impaired. A maniac specifically looking for Rokkenjima debris could only know about the location to search in only after debris where spotted. It's almost impossible to foresee where they would end up without specific knowledge about the ocean currents (and I doubt they would divulge those). If Battler ended in Shimoda as it's suggested, the area would be pretty wide. the other option is that he ended in Niijima or a near island and that the maniac that adopted him specifically went there (even if she didn't live close). But I'd expect a lot of rescuer around in those days, I'm sure there's been squads looking for survivors. If Battler somehow managed to slip through the searches it is more probable that he ended up far from the site of the incident.
__________________
|
|||
2012-09-07, 10:26 | Link #30404 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
|
Once again with the Kanon thing, that is because you view him as a social construct. From my view that Ryu intended him a separate person, even if that barely makes sense, then even if you can't tell the difference between Kanon and someone pretending to be him HE STILL ISN'T THE SAME PERSON. It is hard to prove the difference between you and you pretending to be you, but I think Kanon is truly meant in the answer to not be Yasu. As Ryu said, that was the whole point of the red that "a servant cannot be the culprit". A ridiculously good impersonation of Kanon is still not him, just as a robot programmed to act like Kanon in every way would not be him. This would be cheating if Yasu could create a Kanon persona that was essentially Kanon's clone but not him, but i never got the feeling that is what was happening. If kanon was declared dead and then his double walked around the game, that would be cheating and wrong. But my feeling was that Kanon's resurrection for Jessica would not really have been capable of that, as it was just a voice to say some comforting things to her. If this actually ever even happened, it may not have even had Kanon's memories or personality.
Quote:
Also remember when Ryu said people complained the reds left too many gaps to be able to tell what happened, and that he didn't understand why they didn't fill the gaps? Well even if the way (rather possibly sloppily) Ryu did write his reds allow you to kill off all 18 characters in a way that leaves just their alter egos, why not do it. If you can reach a clean, clear and sensible conclusion to the Beato mystery using that method then good for you, if not maybe it is possible but likely not correct. Quote:
Also after mainlining that dose of newly translated manga into my veins, I am interested to see how they managed to avoid showing Erika or Natsuhi actually see Kanon and Shannon together in the parlor scene at the end of Ep 5. They did however gloss over Erika not questioning their appearance or lack there of there. Seriously, what was Ryu thinking with that scene. He had to have noticed as he was writing it (otherwise he easily could have had them both disappear (I mean Krauss did, and no-one suspected him for it). Heck, he could have written a thematically interesting scene where either Shannon or Kanon is held hostage too. So I can either assume he is using some amazing trick that is going over all of our heads, they will address it later in the manga, or he made such a stupid stupid blunder that they had to follow it in the manga so that he can pretend it was deliberate. It just seems difficult to miss such a huge error, he wrote a whole game around keeping them in separate rooms.... |
||
2012-09-07, 10:36 | Link #30405 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
Age: 27
|
Here is what I think of parlor scene of EP5. First of all We dont have any murders in Ep5 right? That means we have crimes without a coprse, We have no crime , therefore we do not need a detective. Then The difference the way people treat erika, in Ep5 they love the shit out of her and in Ep6 they hate her, What if Adults aproached Erika and she is also on the sheme to make Natsu reveal Kinzos death? She knows everything because she is reading the script which adults wrote, Her motive is as she said, She loves to reveal stuff that people hide. The reason for her not seeing Shkannon is the same as other adults. Detectives authority does not work, Because in a tale with no murders does not need a detective. I answer the Parlor scene with this, What do you guys think?
__________________
|
2012-09-07, 11:08 | Link #30406 | ||||||||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
Quote:
Actually, now that I look at it, this whole argument you made here is demonstrably circular: Quote:
Quote:
In other words, it's a wash. You haven't established anything. You're argument based off a pattern fails so long as every crow you show shares the same common quality that my crow lacks. By the way, while we're talking about crows, I'd like to point out that this quote: "A well defined formal fallacy, logical fallacy or deductive fallacy, is typically called an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is argument that may fail to be rationally persuasive." Can be analogized into "Crows A and B are black. Crow C is shiny." Taken in its context of normal language, this patterns typically indicates a contrast. In other words, it suggests that, unlike crows A and B, crow C is not black. So in fact, not only do these two quotes not support your argument at all, but one of them actually supports mine. Quote:
Quote:
And what's with you pulling a logic-related definition after claiming you're not using logic-lingo? Quote:
Quote:
There are two ways I've got at the moment to approach the issue: 1) An appeal to the theme of miracles. 2) It's not a coincidence (as in, Yasu-as-Ikuko knew where Battler would be for some reason). By the way, what do you think Ryuukishi was doing with the 19ko pun? Quote:
I'm interested in seeing how the manga handles it too. Maybe I can find a physical raw somewhere (since I live in Japan now). It got her into the cousins' room, apparently. And there's also that red about Krauss being killed. Last edited by Wanderer; 2012-09-07 at 23:21. |
||||||||
2012-09-07, 11:53 | Link #30407 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
If we presume in the stories Shannon and Kanon are being affected by Beatrice, then really they only exist when Beatrice needs to interact with somebody as Shannon or Kanon. We also know she is capable of interacting with people as Beatrice, because the stories explicitly show her doing so (Turn or Alliance) or implicitly suggest it (any time she hangs out with Maria). So the question becomes... what does she think of herself when there's nobody else around? There is no need to create the impression that she is Shannon or Kanon, because there would be no purpose to doing so. Our Confession seems to make very clear that, when acting alone, Beatrice pretty much operates entirely under her own objectives without variation or hesistation unless she needs to interact with someone. So what we know for a fact is that the only verifiable appearances of Shannon or Kanon are the ones before Battler, and the only presumed appearances are the ones reported as having happened by other characters... but only if those characters are not accomplices, because Our Confession strongly implies that "Beatrice" reveals herself to her chosen accomplices when striking a deal with them. "Shannon and Kanon" by their nature seem to carry with them the appearance of ignorance of Beatrice's plans, so when Beatrice is interacting with her accomplices she's presumably dropping that act. Philosophically, a Kanon who is aware (or correctly speaking acts as if he is aware) of Beatrice's machinations is not really Kanon. Thus, the only time Shannon or Kanon exist in the stories is when Beatrice interacts with someone who recognizes them as such. Which suggests that all that characterization stuff that happens to them happens independent of the "board narrative" and is closer to meta-level narration (which makes sense, as unlike fantasy narrative it has series continuity). In other words, Shannon and Kanon are solely meta-level characters, because the instant Battler leaves the room Kanon was in, Kanon isn't there anymore. Interestingly, I guess this can provide an explanation for the Logic Error: Shannon was in the next room over because she was being observed by other individuals, forcing Beatrice to act as Shannon (and thus perceived as Shannon, Shannon existed). Upon leaving the next room over, Shannon disappeared (as she was no longer observed) and reverted to being Beatrice. However, Kanon was able to rescue Battler and enter the room because once Battler perceived Kanon at the door, Beatrice became recognized as Kanon and Kanon was present. Kanon then entered the room under Battler's supervision, making the red true, and Battler left. Once Battler left, Kanon was unobserved and ceased to exist, meaning Beatrice was in the room. Erika never observed Beatrice before the Logic Error was declared, so Kanon did not exist in the room because he was never observed. There you go: The Quantum Kanon Logic Error Solution(tm).
__________________
|
|
2012-09-07, 12:23 | Link #30408 | |
Human
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Crime Scene
|
Quote:
2) Yeah. His redefinitions and twists are bizarre, forced and kind of ilogical. Then again, the execution is enterely experimental and is trying to break the ordinary way of see a game/mistery. So maybe it didn't work terribly fine, but the premise was good enough to make this monster topic of theories and debate. So a lot of his anwers tried to be so unheard of that they ended up being mad, and anothers were so obvious homage/inspiration of things that at the end it was seen as 'And Then there Were None' and 'The Green Murder Case' remake with fanservice. Yeah. There's some serious problem with the red. I always said it, and people started quoting Ryuukishi that 'I should trust the writer'. So I believed that the red was made in a way to make it possible to twist in the better way to create the most possible variety of 'tecnically correct answers'. I can see why he did it. I cannot like it enterely. 3) How am I supposed to react when someone starts to sneer at what I was saying? Should I ignore watever you say? Because I wouldn't like it, I'm pretty sure that in a debate ignoring counters invalidates half if not all your points and not defending a theory is giving up way too soon in something that can be polished to maybe make some kind of stake. And calling me condescending? I just try to make the less conflictive approach and read and hear what people has to say, but since you are just taking what some people like to call polite conversation and turn it into condescending, I'm gonna go rude on you. I should go browse some cursewords and ways to make everyone feel like I'm bitting them trough net? And just to make it clear, the above paragraph wasn't 'Condescending'. I was being offensive. Since I come from an enviroment were talking back to a heartless jerk can throw me to the streets, forgive me if I feel so strongly about your way of post demeaning things to others. I think is pretty obvious that english is not my mother language too, and that this is of topic, so for the sake of mental peace, let's just call it a misunderstanding and drop it. PD: I messed with your post to answer it in one quote and one answer. Sorry about that.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-07, 14:36 | Link #30409 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
Age: 27
|
"It got her into the cousins' room, apparently. And there's also that red about Krauss being killed. "
Was time of death said in the red? I don't remember, If not than Lambda just cheated with reds , Explosion happened and Whoever turned it on , Killed the rest of the people
__________________
|
2012-09-07, 15:27 | Link #30410 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
Gameboard Battler usually always die so the red is valid on the gameboard... and Meta Battler also sort of die as he drown himself to follow Beatrice so that red is also valid in the meta world. So that red doesn't even have to refer to personality death in the real world but to a Piece/Meta character's death. Bern is awesome at trolling Ange leading her into believing that a truth that's not of the real world would apply in it also. |
|
2012-09-07, 15:44 | Link #30411 | ||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Quote:
If that's not what you intended to say, then I'm sorry, but that's what your word choice led me to believe, just like you misinterpreted me as being aggressive or angry. It seems like you're the one who's starting to get angry though, given that you were the one who kept bringing personal and emotional points into the argument. Try taking a step back and cooling off. Quote:
Quote:
2) That wasn't Meta-Battler.
__________________
Last edited by AuraTwilight; 2012-09-07 at 19:36. |
||||
2012-09-07, 18:19 | Link #30412 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Admittedly, it was very "in passing" sort of line.
Spoiler for passage:
I mean, it's not like we're shown Tohya searching through the old town hall for birth certificates, but Ryu has a tendency to "tell, not show" on such affairs, and I find it far smoother to just go along with it. Anyway, the way it's phrased does imply that he got some sort of confirmation, despite Ikuko pretty much being a hermit cat lady. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, despite your intention in describing this, it's probably the cleanest way of wording that general solution. |
|||
2012-09-07, 18:23 | Link #30413 | |||
Goat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
|
I approve.
Quote:
Spoken during the trial of illusions. Bern was sealing away any loose ends to the possibility of Natsuhi's innocence. Natsuhi was offered the chance to blame Krauss, but she refused; then Bern came out with the red to make it official. Quote:
EDIT due to Ninja: Quote:
Still, you are right that it's kind of weird to suspect these impressions when we don't even know what gave Touya these impressions. Last edited by Wanderer; 2012-09-07 at 19:24. |
|||
2012-09-07, 19:35 | Link #30414 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-09-07, 20:29 | Link #30416 |
Human
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Crime Scene
|
@AuraTwilight: Humm... Let's just stop and call it a day okay? I have to deal with enough crap on a daily basis without a rapid-fire fight about semanthics of a language I'm no master of in some anime forum. So I give my best wishes, you maybe do that too and we sign peace and continue goating about Umineko over here, ya?.
Going on general topic... I think that all that Tohya/Ikuko thing had something to do with Ryuukishi and his deceased best friend whose name I can't recall. If we analize about his tone, all that continuing the gameboard even if one of the creators is not there... that scene where 'Featherine' ends writing something and asks to the air if its allright to finish it that way. I don't know, Maybe I can see Ryuukishi's heart there, asking that lost friend if he was happy with what he wrote. That's why he says the gameboard isn't completely his and he can only especulate. IIRC, it was his friend who gave him the ideas about Higurashi and Umineko. Like Tohya firing ideas to Ikuko and Ikuko making some work that can be published... Maybe that's why all that situation feels so weird, he's picturing his own toughts without caring that much if they mesh in Umineko because for him, they do. Edit: I say 'aye' to Renall's blue stake. I feel something is weird in that but since I can't say what, I can't complain against it. At least still I rack my brains enough to see what's the weird part in it.
__________________
|
2012-09-08, 02:16 | Link #30417 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
|
Quote:
Quote:
I dunno, maybe all along Erika, or at least Bern, knew. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for another point, if we take the Golden truth to be the agreed upon opinion or some such, then that scene with Erika and the unfair relationship game with Dlanor gets interesting. It becomes both a bitter remark by Erika referring to the last game, AND basically her saying "If he couldn't prove it with certainty, why didn't he at least make me believe it" |
||||||
2012-09-08, 02:21 | Link #30418 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rokkenjima
Age: 27
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-09-08, 02:37 | Link #30419 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Also Renall doesn't despite Ryukishi. That's silly.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-08, 02:44 | Link #30420 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
|
So far in the manga, they have actually not been deliberately shown together in Erika's view. Except for the "the number of people in this parlor" page someone mentioned but I can't find (link?) we are only shown them actually together when Lamba first introduces the game, and that is likely not a real view of Erika's, since it is from the roof.
But even if we are never shown them together in her view in the manga, someone says in the GM they are both mentioned as being in the room. Even ignoring that, would Erika not notice that one of them was missing? The only logical explanation I can agree with is the one that says that when Lamba declared "the number of people in this parlor etc." and showed them both, she was basically declaring the number of people in this game is different. It is a possible move, as we know the number of keys change, and it is a move Beato would never do (because it ruins the heart and love of her game) and it is a dirty trick, but possible. Reflecting on it like this I can actually see it as a discernible move, but that is only because I am looking at it from in retrospect. Knowing that in every game before, the GM declared there were no more than 18, that in that game, there WERE 18 and that in game 6 Battler declared THERE ARE ONLY 17, this move is actually entirely valid. Dirty, but valid. However from the point of view of people reading up to ep 5 it actually seems like the natural progression of counting. That actually makes game 6 the only one which needs to be solved with SHkannon. That also means that my opinion has just changed dramatically. If you understand Beato's heart, you can see how it is a loveless game. It was hinted to be so. It was us the audience who assumed the number of people had to be the same across all games, though it was never stated so. In fact, each solvable game HAD the number of people stated separately. This is a dirty rotten move, highly despicable and I sort of love it. Then again, I appreciate a dirty but valid trick once it is explained, so maybe I am in the minority. |
|
|