2010-05-21, 19:26 | Link #10441 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Separating the two threads just briefly, it is worth noting that it's entirely supportable that Umineko is in fact not a mystery, but a romance. The best evidence I have of this, aside from the obvious "without love..." stuff and romance elements in the story, is the Kyrie/Battler conversation in ep1 where Kyrie suggests a romance is harder to solve than a mystery.
|
2010-05-21, 19:37 | Link #10442 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-05-21, 19:39 | Link #10443 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Battler asks if Knox's rules apply to Beato's game. The answer is evasive. Obviously, if Beatrice's game wasn't a mystery, dodging the question begins to make sense.
This isn't to say Lambda and Battler's games aren't mysteries, however. That could be the difference between WTC3 and Chiru. EDIT: It also doesn't mean Knox's rules can't apply. Though, Van Dine's sort of can't, what with the "no romance" rule. |
2010-05-21, 19:40 | Link #10444 | |
Endless Witch-Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Quote:
But I don't know how that's going to help us find the truth.... |
|
2010-05-21, 19:45 | Link #10445 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-05-21, 19:50 | Link #10446 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Inasmuch as Umineko would be a "romance with mystery elements," it would be free to employ rules of thumb that apply to mysteries. It would, however, also be free to subvert them in favor of genre conventions more specific to romances.
|
2010-05-21, 20:07 | Link #10447 | |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
Spoiler for Rebuttals, long:
__________________
Last edited by LyricalAura; 2010-05-21 at 20:23. |
|
2010-05-21, 20:08 | Link #10448 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
I think we have to define what kind of romance it could be though. There are loads of different kinds. There are the "fantasy kinds" with magic and unicorns, and there are the "tragic ones" like in shakespeare, and then there are the ones that say that "love can beat anything even fate"! George and Shannon seem to be a reverse Romeo and Juliet or maybe "Titanic". But we might also get something like Macbeth where both of the protagonists that love each other are murderers.
__________________
|
2010-05-21, 20:14 | Link #10449 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
If Umineko is styled after a particular genre of romance, it's going to be Gothic Romance, since that genre incorporates a lot of the things Umineko already has in it, such as mystery, strange settings, and the supernatural. Of course, older "romances" weren't exactly "romantic" at all, and to the extent that Umineko draws on the more obvious (and later) relationship-focused romances, I couldn't say. I don't even consider myself particularly good with mystery conventions, do you expect me - or anyone really - to know how a "good" romance is supposed to be written?
|
2010-05-21, 21:22 | Link #10450 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Meta-TSAB
Age: 34
|
Quote:
"Kanon did not die in an accident!" But anyway, it seems I'm actually giving you the argument of the Kanon in the Boiler room. I'm not saying yours is right, in fact I believe it's wrong. But I first argued my point only looking at the list of red text, but I checked back in game and saw the white that accompanied this red. ""Very well, next! Kanon was killed in the boiler room, correct? I shall add to the red truth. All of the survivors have alibis! Let us include the dead as well!! In short, no kind of human or dead person on the island could have killed Kanon!" Alone, that red does not in anyway look to support your specific Ep1 Twilight5 Theory. But with the white text, I can see some merit in there. Although again, I still don't agree. But I guess it's a little valid now? (Unless someone can correct me, that red statement still doesn't allow Linkin's Twilight5 Theory.) --- Okay, now to retort to your counter argument on the other point. So your belief of the reason for Shannon needing to die pre-Fourth Game is: "Since Beatrice was going to kill everyone before the first day was over = George wasn't going to get the chance to propose to Shannon, She allowed Kanon to live instead." Correct? Now, your counter argument just opened more questions. 1) How did Beatrice know George was going to propose on that day? (This one may have been plausible, I forgot who knew of his plans.) 2) Why does she not let Kanon live instead on the first 3 games? He could spend quality time with Jessica. (If we trust fantasy scenes, in EP 2 + 6, he was going to/had told Jessica his real name.) 3) What's the point of saving Kanon this time? She let him die apparently in the first 3 games. Wouldn't it have been easier to just keep Shannon alive again? 4) Why did Beatrice end the game before the first day was over this game? (What changed to make her decide this?) 5) What's the point of waiting the extra day on the first three chapters to allow George to propose? Since she kills everyone eventually, what does it matter? Yes, Questions 3+5 are really just turning the chessboard over on 2+4. In actually though, the only thing I got out of your answer was: "During the games which lasted 2 days, She wanted Shannon alive so she'd have the chance to meet George." Which practically answers nothing. It doesn't address my basic question of "For what reason does Beatrice choose to kill Shannon?" The rest of what you put: "She wanted to kill everyone before midnight, so she spared Kanon" It's only you changing the situation, there's no reasoning involved in this. I asked for the reason Beatrice changed the situation, not how can you change the situation to make it fit into your theory. |
|
2010-05-21, 22:37 | Link #10451 | |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
...Ah. I think I just understood something. "The detective's POV isn't allowed to show false scenes"... When did we decide this was true?
Dlanor said, regarding the first twilight: Be that as it may, you were in the cousins' room and confirmed the presence of the bodies, which could not be misidentified…! Do you claim that that was a lie? …Knox's 7th Commandment, it is forbidden for the detective to be the culprit!! Knox's 8th Commandment, solutions using clues that have not been presented are forbidden! You were the detective in all of the previous games! Was it ever shown that you were no longer the detective, but an observer able to mix in personal opinion?! So long as that is not the case, you do not have the right to falsify your point of view! The basis of Dlanor's objection was that "the detective isn't allowed to be the culprit". If Battler were the detective, he wouldn't be allowed to falsify that particular scene because that would be helping to construct the mystery of the first twilight, which would make him one of the "culprits" of that mystery. In other words, we could restate Knox 7 as "the detective is not allowed to construct mysteries." Constructing mysteries is the witch's job, after all. But wait a minute, isn't that different from what we started out with? Because we can restate it this way: The detective is allowed to falsify scenes so long as it doesn't construct a mystery. Which is sort of reminiscent of something Ryuukishi said about EP5: Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-05-21, 23:10 | Link #10452 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Well, if you're referring to the infamous ep5 parlor scene, you wind up with a problem logically.
Assume it's true that Erika is the detective and, existing or not, she is permitted to falsify scenes not relevant to the mystery. If Shkanon is false, then portraying Shannon and Kanon as separate isn't a falsification; she's just showing everyone who is on the island in the same room. If it's true, her falsification would bear on the mystery. Somehow. Unless you refer strictly to Erika altering scenes in such a way that she is speaking with people, which is supportable enough I suppose. Nothing she suggests is really something somebody else in the scene wasn't already saying (Battler) or doing (Eva with the seals). EDIT: Poirot and Columbo are detectives famous for using lies, manipulation, and falsified expectations to investigate crimes. They just (generally) didn't involve themselves in the crime itself that way. Last edited by Renall; 2010-05-21 at 23:27. |
2010-05-22, 02:48 | Link #10453 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
However, if Erika does not actually exist on layer 1 and has no eyes of her own on the board, she can be presented to her meta-self by the gamemaster with any amount of falsification the gamemaster wishes to show.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-22, 11:47 | Link #10454 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Battler says the detective has to have an impartial perspective, but I'm wondering if that's actually true. Impartial to what, exactly? People lie all the time. Heck, Battler lies all the time in ep1-4. He just generally doesn't lie substantially or within his personal narration. But is that because he can't, or merely because Beatrice wouldn't let him and it's generally within his personality not to bar extraordinary circumstances (such as ep6)?
As I was discussing with LyricalAura elsewhere, why are we shifting the goodwill of the detective to Erika when Battler had to earn it by actually being trustworthy in his investigation and narration? If they moved the detective perspective tomorrow to a random character (Eva, Gohda, whoever), would we suddenly be exactly as trusting? Why? Because Battler says a detective has to be objective? That's his opinion, isn't it? What if he's wrong? It's not like there's never been a lying detective. Dlanor's just saying he can't be the culprit. |
2010-05-22, 11:52 | Link #10455 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Actually if you reread the tea party he was pondering whether he could solve a mystery written by an impartial observer. He was wondering whether he could solve the mystery when it breaks the basic rule of a mystery novel that it should be written from the eyes of god. He was referring to the person who wrote the story as an impartial perspective not the detective's perspective.
EDIT: Oh wait maybe I have it mixed up. I think maybe he was wondering whether he could solve it because the observer wasn't impartial sorry about that.
__________________
|
2010-05-22, 12:02 | Link #10456 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Well, yes, and we know Beatrice's game was created to be solved. However, we don't know it was solveable because it has an impartial observer. Maybe Battler isn't impartial in ep1-4? That doesn't necessarily mean the mystery can't be solved.
Perhaps it's time to reexamine some of Battler's thoughts. |
2010-05-22, 12:58 | Link #10457 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
Giving that principle up leaves us with nothing to step on to proceed, but mind you, that does not mean that Battler's own words to other characters should be trusted implicitly. Neither it means that what he thinks is not a mistake. But if beside the red text there's nothing, the mystery cannot be solvable. Or rather, the only mystery that can be solved only with red text and nothing else is 'did anyone survive?' and the answer is usually 'no', that's not very interesting.
__________________
|
|
2010-05-22, 13:21 | Link #10458 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
I'm not sure if that's actually true, but I do agree that Battler's narrative perceptions should not be lies if only because that would make no sense (when I think to myself, I usually don't attempt to deceive people who happen to be randomly listening to my thoughts, as those people don't exist).
However, the idea that Battler can be mistaken or wrong is clearly important. There are plenty of examples of this:
|
2010-05-22, 13:59 | Link #10459 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Well rereading the tea party I noticed that Lambda and Beato make a lot of references to stories I've never heard of.
two of these are western films not mystery novels and one of them is a manga. I'm not aware of Battler saying the detective is impartial anywhere though. I mean he lies himself in the first episode to Maria. So he can falsify his point of view in the game if he wants to apparently. So I'm not sure what your talking about when you say "Battler said the detective's perspective is impartial". Or in other words that that the detective is unbiased and has no personal opinions. I don't see him saying that anywhere. Is this what you mean by the impartial thing? Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Judoh; 2010-05-22 at 14:18. |
|
2010-05-22, 14:20 | Link #10460 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
Me, I'm not saying anything beyond a direct quote from the text.
__________________
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|