Hyouka - Episode 11 Discussion / Poll

[Hyper]

Originally Posted by joeboygo

snipped

I wrote a long reply, and then the airport's wifi just cut me off.
Let me give you a short summery of my lost brilliant () respond to your ideas.

I disagree on both.

1. I saw everyone in this forum and beyond agree that this arc is two-layered mystery. One is in-movie, another is the outside. It's just that a lot decided to focus on the in-movie one first. By the time we reached episode 10, almost all of us were too focused on solving the in-movie mystery, which is indeed unsolvable, as noted by Houtarou at the end. All the evident are there for the outside one (Irisu's explanation, Eba's description of her friend, inconsistency problem in production, etc.) Some people actually did solve it before they see episode 11, from what I see around the web.

2. I had a discussion with FlareKnight ~page 2-3 about exactly that. I think we agreed that it would conflict Mayaka's personality to say the least. If she suspect that Irisu is lying, she will not wait any second saying so. She'll probably do it in her face actually.

My problem with what you presented is I don't see the connection between "know that Irisu only want Houtarou, not the whole club, to (supposedly) solve Hougou's mystery" and "know that Irisu is lying." They all know and realized the first, but that does not mean they know the second.

Tarot symbol, short version: Satoshi referred to Houtarou and Eru or Tomoe. Houtarou did not realized that, from a third person point of view, he is controlled by them. Once he realized that there are more than one way to look at things, he also realized that he should approach this mystery from another angle too, not just the one Irisu fed him.

[joeboygo]

I was not expecting any response, but since you have been diligent, I owe you the courtesy of a clarification.

On the mystery vs thriller thing, if you can actually enjoy it as a mystery, then don't let what I say ruin your pleasure. Personally, I find it a piss poor mystery because it does not solve any of the puzzles it lays out (it does not even pretend to try) and it does not give the reader all the necessary informaton for a fair chance at deducing the solution. Anybody that claims to have "solved" anything here is writing a new story because in both of the unsolved puzzles (Hongou's ending & Hongou's situation) Houtaro outright declares that there is not enough evidence to support any conclusion one way or another. All we get are best guesses, and poorly detailed guesses at that. Although the story contains mysterious elements, it wasn't meant to be a mystery itself. The real pleasure we derive from this story does not come from the solution of the mysteries, but from the unfolding of the battle of wits and will between Irisu and Houtaro.

On how Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru know that Irisu is lying: you can approach it as a process of elimination - whatever works. Here are the undisputed facts known to all three:

1. Irisu assured the entire club they were not going to write an original ending. They will merely reconstruct one already written by Hongou.

[Edit: I skipped a step here: 1.5. Houtaro proceeds to "deduce" the ending of the Movie]

2. After seeing the finished movie, Satoshi, Eru and Mayaka realize immediately that Hongou did not write the ending.

3. Satoshi, Eru and Mayaka also know that the ending could not have written itself. There are only two possible choices. So if Hongou did not write it, then Satoshi, Eru and Mayaka understand that the only other person who could have written the ending is Houtaro.

4. If Houtaro is the only person who could have written the ending, then Satoshi, Eru and Mayaka realize it is an original ending by Houtaro.

5. Satoshi, Eru and Mayaka all remember Irisu tell them and Houtaro that she would not ask them to create an original ending. But lo and behold, we have an original ending by Houtaro.

6. Hence, Satoshi, Eru and Mayaka could not help but realize that Irisu lied to all of them and Houtaro.

"Irisu only want Houtaro" does not figure at all into the logic. Don't let extraneous details clutter your vision. If you notice any gap or unjustified leap in the above chain of reasoning, identify the step by number and show me why it's wrong or unreasonable.

Please do not be offended by the seeming oversimplification. I am not patronizing you. I was trying to deconstruct the logic for my own benefit as well.

As for Mayaka: Japanese, to begin with, are extremely tactful, but Mayaka has additional incentives to watch her mouth:

1. Irisu is one of the most popular people in school, comes from a socially prominent and wealthy family, and is an upperclassman. Do you really think tiny freshman Mayaka will risk offending and starting a feud with such a person by calling her a liar?

2. It's not just Irisu's reputation on the line. If word gets out that her class appropriated the work of an underclassman to finish the class project, without giving him proper credit, then the entire class will be embarrassed. Would Mayaka risk feuding with an entire 2nd year class?

3. I think the approach chosen was best: gently allow Houtaro to slowly figure things out by providing him with strong hints. The situation was embarrassing enough for him without Mayaka shoving the ugly truth in his face. Those who care use the soft touch. Eru even walked him to the river.

Finally, on the change of perspective: At first he refused to accept that Tomoe, Eru and Erisu were "controlling" him. See Episode 11 at 11:55. Impliedly, after the change of perspective, he sees that in fact they are.

If you say "approach mystery from another angle" and "not just the one Irisu fed him" then first, identify the mystery, describe the angle Irisu fed him, then describe the new angle, and then the result. Otherwise I won't know what you are talking about.

Of course, I am guilty of the same vice, so let me make amends by laying things out. The object of Houtaro's analysis was his relationship with Irisu. For me, Houtaro's original point of view was distorted by the flattery and seduction (more on this later) laid on him by Irisu at the teahouse. Houtaro was the only one that received this treatment from Irisu, and it clouded his judgment, such that he could not objectively evaluate the way Irisu was interacting with him. I believe his change in perspective involved disregarding the crap Irisu fed him so that he could see himself vis-a-vis Irisu the same way as Satoshi, Eru and Mayaka, who did not get the same teahouse treatment. Once he did, he finally saw that Irisu had misused him, a fact that Satoshi, Eru and Mayaka had already figured out the previous day.

If that's not it ten I'm open to suggestions. I'm happy to have found something that forced me to think.

[Qilin]

Originally Posted by joeboygo

On the mystery vs thriller thing, if you can actually enjoy it as a mystery, then don't let what I say ruin your pleasure. Personally, I find it a piss poor mystery because it does not solve any of the puzzles it lays out (it does not even pretend to try) and it does not give the reader all the necessary informaton for a fair chance at deducing the solution. Anybody that claims to have "solved" anything here is writing a new story because in both of the unsolved puzzles (Hongou's ending & Hongou's situation) Houtaro outright declares that there is not enough evidence to support any conclusion one way or another. All we get are best guesses, and poorly detailed guesses at that. Although the story contains mysterious elements, it wasn't meant to be a mystery itself. The real pleasure we derive from this story does not come from the solution of the mysteries, but from the unfolding of the battle of wits and will between Irisu and Houtaro.

That's certainly a valid position to take, but I'd say that it all depends on what you think the mystery is. I mean, if we focus on the question, "What was Hongou's intended ending?" then I'd agree that it remains largely unanswerable. However, if we focus on the question "What are the circumstances behind Hongou's sudden withdrawal?" I'd say all the necessary clues were presented. It's all a matter of perspective in the end, though I would say that the former question was sort of a red herring when we were supposed to paying attention to the latter.

The mistake most people made here is in viewing each mystery as independent of the other when they were in fact one and the same. Each half is incomplete without considering it in relation to the other half.

[rulfo]

I'm quite happy this thread had more discussion. Seriously sometimes it's a shame that during this ep aired, more interesting discussion were done in /a/ and MAL.

[Hyper]

First of all, no worry about offend me. You're not even close to it. And I'm enjoying every moment of this thread. Too much, actually. Should have spend more time on other things.

Originally Posted by joeboygo

On the mystery vs thriller thing

I can only repeat myself. I agree with you about the in-movie mystery. That much is clear. The circumstance around it, however, is different. I saw abundance of evidences laying around for the viewer to figure it out. Of course, if we're being mathematicians about it, you could say it's not conclusive, but I think as a layman there're enough.

Originally Posted by joeboygo

On how Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru know that Irisu is lying

I think 5 -> 6 is leap of logic. His three friends realized, after seeing the finished movie, that it is not Hougou's intended story. It is what Houtarou think is Hougou's. Why would that implied they know Irisu is lying? They know Houtarou has a wrong answer. They think Houtarou tried to reconstruct Hougou's script, but got it wrong. Of course, that automatically make his wrong answer his original. That, however, does not imply they know that it is exactly what Irisu wanted: his original.

I personally think that other points is kinda irrelevant to my concluding opinion, so I'll put it in spoiler

Spoiler for Details:

Originally Posted by joeboygo

Do you really think tiny freshman Mayaka will risk offending and starting a feud with such a person by calling her a liar?

Would Mayaka risk feuding with an entire 2nd year class?

I think you exaggerate the effect of (2), but yes and yes. That is her good point. She was the one who told off a 3rd year sempai in his own clubroom earlier that she wanted and had a right to search it. With her friend being lied to like that, I don't think she'll hesitate.

Originally Posted by joeboygo

3. I think the approach chosen was best: gently allow Houtaro to slowly figure things out by providing him with strong hints. The situation was embarrassing enough for him without Mayaka shoving the ugly truth in his face. Those who care use the soft touch. Eru even walked him to the river.

Put it in the way of earlier discussion, she is sugarcoating it, but she speak the truth nonetheless, precisely because she care. If she only want to give him hints, she should stop with just "What about the rope?" and walk away. However, she did go further say her honest opinion: he is wrong. If she know more than that, she'll do the same thing: sugarcoat it, but she will not avoid speaking it out.

Originally Posted by joeboygo

Finally, on the change of perspective: At first he refused to accept that Tomoe, Eru and Erisu were "controlling" him. See Episode 11 at 11:55. Impliedly, after the change of perspective, he sees that in fact they are.

My point is he does not have to realize all three of them at once. He can realize that about Tomoe and Eru first, then think about the current situation and then reach the same conclusion about Irisu.

Even if Houtarou does realized all three at once, that does not imply Satoshi also did all three in one go and know right away that Irisu is lying. Just Eru alone is enough to assign Houtarou to a Strength. There is no need to assume that he included Irisu or even Tomoe.

Moreover, realizing that Houtarou is used doesn't implied he is lied to. All of them probably know by the time they see Houtarou working on it alone that he is used, that might even including Houtarou himself. However, it does not mean they know he is lied to.

Originally Posted by joeboygo

If you say "approach mystery from another angle" and "not just the one Irisu fed him" then first, identify the mystery, describe the angle Irisu fed him, then describe the new angle, and then the result. Otherwise I won't know what you are talking about.

Is "the entire situation of unfinished movie" narrow enough as an answer? Before that, he tried to think "what does this first part of movie imply," because he fellows what Irisu fed him. It is an unfinished movie. The writer can no longer continue. She needs someone to continue writing it. But after his realization, he view the same thing, the unfinished movie, from another point of view. He begin to ask why it is unfinished, why the writer can no longer continue, why ask for his help, why there are so many inconsistencies in the production, so on and so forth. He basically started to question what Irisu fed him. The result is he can only come to one conclusion that can explain every new questions: Irisu fed him lies.

Summery of my opinion on this matter: They all think he is used, but as a detective. What they don't know is he is lied to, thus he is actually a writer.

[joeboygo]

Originally Posted by Hyper

I think 5 -> 6 is leap of logic. His three friends realized, after seeing the finished movie, that it is not Hougou's intended story. It is what Houtarou think is Hougou's. Why would that implied they know Irisu is lying? They know Houtarou has a wrong answer. They think Houtarou tried to reconstruct Hougou's script, but got it wrong. Of course, that automatically make his wrong answer his original. That, however, does not imply they know that it is exactly what Irisu wanted: his original.

Thank you for your input. You raised valid points that allowed me to refine my analysis. After thinking over what you said, here are my revised thoughts:

1. Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru know that Houtaro believes he merely reconstituted the lost ending of Hongou.

2. Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru also know that what Houtaro created is not Hongou's idea, but his own original work.

The question now for Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru is, why does Houtaro believe he acted as a detective, when all three of them know he was actually being an author?

Obviously, we the viewers know why. It's because Irisu told him so. But Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru were not there when Irisu told that lie to Houtaro. I think I failed to fully account for that, and I would not have seen this error if you had not proferred your constructive criticism, so I thank you once more. Let me now share with you the additional analysis you provoked.

1. When Houtaro presented his theory to Irisu, in his mind it was HIS theory .

2. Irisu liked his theory, so she told Houtaro his theory is exactly the "lost" ending Hongou had previously written - a LIE.

3. From that point on, in Houtaro's mind, it was no longer HIS theory; it had become Hongou's lost ending.

I now believe this lie was the pivotal deception in the entire story. Remember a few posts back I noted the highly unusual act by Irisu of shaking Houtaro's hand? I think I finally see its true significance. The traditional bow would not have cut it. Irisu probably determined that physically touching Houtaro would further impair his ability to think objectively and see through her deception.

With this new insight, let me propose the following adjustments to my earlier hypothesis:

1. Irisu told two lies (well, more than that, but only these are germane to this discussion). First, "we do not intend to make you write an original ending, but simply to reconstruct Hongou's lost ending." Second, "That's it Houtaro! That's Hongou's ending."

2. Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru were present to hear the first lie, but not the second.

Here is where I stumbled. Although they were aware of the first lie, Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru could not conclusively determine that Irisu misled Houtaro about the true nature of the ending because they were not around to see her do it.

3. But even if they did not have all the goods on Irisu, Satoshi Mayaka and Eru had enough to suspect she had done something wrong, because: a)they were aware of the first lie; b) they knew Irisu to be extremely manipulative; and c) they were aware that Irisu had managed to somehow motivate Hotarou to break character and go out of his way to work on the ending.

4. Reasonable people can disagree on how much Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru managed to figure out based on what they had. But if we assume average intelligence, they knew enough to be deeply suspicious that Irisu did something to Houtaro, although they did not know its specific details.

5. I conclude therefore, that Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru knew Irisu deceived Houtaro, but they did not know exactly how. Due to the incomplete evidence, and given the grave implications, they could not explicitly accuse Irisu of lying. So instead, they tried to point Houtaro in the right direction, and hoped he would connect the dots himself. And that's what he did.

Anent the "change of perspective": Scratch everything I wrote previously. This is what I now propose:

1. The mystery is Hongou's ending.

2. The initial, "flawed" perspective is that Houtaro's deduction and Hongou's ending are one and the same.

3. The new perspective is that of Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru, who see Houtaro's deduction and Hongou's ending as two very different things.

4. The result of the changed perspective is that Houtaro sees that the only reason he believes his solution and Hongou's ending are one and the same is because Irisu falsely told him so.

Although I was not initially looking for feedback, I'm now grateful you actually bothered to take the time to respond. Any further thoughts you may wish to share with me will be appreciated. The more I think about this story, the more impressed I am at how well constructed it is.

Edit: I forgot to address an important point you raised concerning Irisu's intent. You do not believe Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru could have perceived that tricking Houtaro into writing an original ending for the movie was Irisu's master plan from the start.

I think that's a fair objection. But that's not what I'm claiming. All I'm saying is that Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru figured out that Irisu ripped off Houtaro at least one day before Houtaro did. They did not need to know she meant to deceive Houtaro from the get-go. They just needed to understand that she was currently deceiving Houtaro, and he had not yet noticed.

I think the real problem people may have with my idea concerns whether Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru could realistically accept that Irisu sincerely believed Hotarou's ending was what Hongou originally intended. If that's what Irisu truly believed, then there was no malicious intent to deceive. In that case, Houtaro is being robbed of due credit, but at worst, it was an honest mistake.

Somehow, that doesn't feel quite right, but I will have to give it some more thought.

[Hyper]

Originally Posted by joeboygo

2. Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru also know that what Houtaro created is not Hongou's idea, but his own original work.

The question now for Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru is, why does Houtaro believe he acted as a detective, when all three of them know he was actually being an author?

I'm not sure why you equate "his three friends knowing that it was not Hougou's lost ending" or "it's a Houtarou's original works" to "Knowing that Houtarou is being an author." Those are not the same thing. His friends still think he is a detective. They just know he got a wrong answer. Houtarou thought he was a detective who came up with the right answer. His friends thought he was a detective who came up with a wrong answer. No one knows he was fooled to be a writer. If I come up with a theory of gravity and Newton know I am wrong, would you say he knows I was fooled by nature to be a god writing something for a new Universe? That does not make sense to me.

To me, your later arguments are based on this, so I cannot comment on the rest.

It seems to me you are arguing that it is possible for his three friends to figured out that Irisu lied before they warned Houtarou. If that is the case, let's look at this from a different angle. Do they have to realized that Irisu was lying to start telling Houtarou he was wrong? My answer is no. They only had to realize that Houtarou was wrong to start telling him so. They sugarcoated it, but that was exactly what they did.

On the other hand, it is very hard for me to accept the theory that his three friends knew Irisu was lying when they warned Houtarou. As I mentioned, I cannot explain why they did not just tell Houtarou that Irisu was lying. This is their best friend being lied to by a sempai they barely know*. There is no reason for them to care about Irisu. For Houtarou, the truth won't hurt anymore than telling him he was wrong. In fact, it might help; he was wrong because he was fed with false information. Mayaka once again deserve a special attention here. She told a 3rd year male sampai that they had every right to search his clubroom for something they needed. Why would she be afraid of accusing Irisu of lying now?

*This is not true for Eru, though I'll argue she will tell him all the same.

[joeboygo]

Originally Posted by Hyper

No one knows he was fooled to be a writer. If I come up with a theory of gravity and Newton know I am wrong, would you say he knows I was fooled by nature to be a god writing something for a new Universe? That does not make sense to me.

Nature has no school reputation for being a manipulator.

There is ample evidence to support the conclusion that Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru strongly suspected Irisu had lied to Houtaro. Consider this:

1. The movie screenplay is still being sold as Hongou's solo brainchild, and no credit for its creation is shared with Houtaro, who upperclassmen are still hailing as the great detective ("meitantei"). This is the official version of reality Irisu's class has adopted. Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru know that this official version of events could not have been adopted without the consent and active participation of Irisu, who had assumed overall responsibility for the project.

2. The movie had a "twist ending." The appeal of a twist ending is the element of surprise - the audience does not see it coming. For this reason, a twist ending, by definition, cannot result from a reverse-engineering of the plot. If you can deduce a twist ending by studying the other parts of the story, then it's not a twist ending. You may make a lucky guess, but until the the author confirms it, you can never be sure that that's exactly what she was thinking (actually, even then you still can't - how could you know whether the author didn't just just steal your ending right there). In this story, even after the movie is completed there is still no access to Hongou. If you listen to Mayaka's first comments after viewing the movie ("was this what you had in mind when we last spoke?"), she's alluding to the twist ending.

The fact that Houtaro's twist ending was so clever and successful makes it particularly unlikely to have been a mere reconstruction of the author's original intention. Compounding all this is the fact that Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru all knew that Hongou was a novice writer with no mystery background. In fact, Satoshi and Eru both point out to Houtaro that the quality of the ending was beyond Hongou's meager gifts as a writer.

And yet, the official version of events gives Hongou full credit for the masterly ending. Her classmates, who should know her better than Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru, are all silent about this obvious discrepancy. This is why although Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru all assured Hotarou that they found the ending fantastic, they all felt something so ominously wrong about it that they could not discuss it with him while others were around.

3. On top of all this, Hotarou's ending is inconsistent with the available evidence. Specifically, it does not mention the rope. In fact, Haba the prop guy vented his displeasure at the screening. Irisu also knew about the rope. Yet this inconvenient detail appears to have been swept under the rug - the official story of the upperclassmen remains that Hongou wrote the movie, and Houtaro the detective does not appear in the credits.

4. Therefor, unless they are abnormally dense, to Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru, the official story adopted by the upperclassmen should stink of an official cover-up. And since Irisu was in charge of the project, she would be the first person they would suspect for masterminding the disinformation campaign. For good measure, the author threw in some reputational evidence in the end to support this interpretation. Tomoe was not even there to see all that Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru had seen. And yet, from half a world away, she easily knew Irisu had pulled a fast one on Houtaro. Eru and Tomoe both knew Irisu personally, while Satoshi and Mayaka were both aware of her reputation.

If you can't accept this interpretation, how do you account for the wierd directorial choices by Kyo-Ani?

1. Why did Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru all wear kid gloves in telling Houtaro that his solution was "wrong"? Is there any proof from anything we have seen thus far that he had such a large ego investment in his detective skills that pointing out errors would devastate him emotionally? Was that really all they were woried about? In, fact, we have plenty of evidence that Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru did not think Houtaro's self-esteem was dependent on his detective chops. For example, near the beginning of the arc in Episode 8, in a conversation with Satoshi, he asserts himself to be a regular guy in response to Satoshi's comment about whether Satoshi believed Houtaro to be especially gifted. Later on, in Episode 11 although Satoshi concedes he is a bit envious of others' detective skills, he states that there are cooler things to aspire for in life.

2. Why was it so important to tell Houtaro about their doubts? The movie was a hit and the empress was pleased, so what point was there in pulling Houtaro aside to point out certain inconsistencies? The movie was not going to be re-shot in any case.

3. Finally, I'm not alone in noting the extra dramatic level because other commenters noticed the same thing when Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru were talking to Houtaro about the ending. Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru were clearly not speaking in their usual relaxed tone. There was a very distinct agitated edge in their delivery. I don't think this aspect was discussed thoroughly enough on this thread.

[Hyper]

Originally Posted by joeboygo

*snipped*

You raised a lot of points about why one who watch the show would be able to solve this situation and figure out Irisu's true intention. They actually are in conflict with your own opinion that this arc is not a mystery, actually.

However, I think you did not say why only his three friends and not Houtarou should be able to figure it out. Houtarou knew everything you just said. He heard exactly the same number of facts and the same number of lies. Do you think he's too dense then? The only explanation you seems to imply is he is blinded by Irisu's charm. If that's the only one, then I have to say I simply disagree. He is much matter at doing this than his friend. If you want to argue that this is easy enough for three people who are not good at it to solve, then I'll have to say Houtarou should be able to solve it even half-blinded. Tomoe, on the other hands, may know even more than us. She talked directly to Irisu, and she probably know about her more than we're shown. On top of that, the author implied that Tomoe is even better than Houtarou. I'm not surprise she can do it.

Edit: I'd like to add that he's not even that charmed by Irisu. For him to be that "bad" he would have to be head over heals for her.

Originally Posted by joeboygo

If you can't accept this interpretation, how do you account for the wierd directorial choices by Kyo-Ani?
1. Why did Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru all wear kid gloves in telling Houtaro that his solution was "wrong"? Is there any proof from anything we have seen thus far that he had such a large ego investment in his detective skills that pointing out errors would devastate him emotionally? Was that really all they were woried about? In, fact, we have plenty of evidence that Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru did not think Houtaro's self-esteem was dependent on his detective chops. For example, near the beginning of the arc in Episode 8, in a conversation with Satoshi, he asserts himself to be a regular guy in response to Satoshi's comment about whether Satoshi believed Houtaro to be especially gifted. Later on, in Episode 11 although Satoshi concedes he is a bit envious of others' detective skills, he states that there are cooler things to aspire for in life.
2. Why was it so important to tell Houtaro about their doubts? The movie was a hit and the empress was pleased, so what point was there in pulling Houtaro aside to point out certain inconsistencies? The movie was not going to be re-shot in any case.
3. Finally, I'm not alone in noting the extra dramatic level because other commenters noticed the same thing when Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru were talking to Houtaro about the ending. Satoshi, Mayaka and Eru were clearly not speaking in their usual relaxed tone. There was a very distinct agitated edge in their delivery. I don't think this aspect was discussed thoroughly enough on this thread.

Their closed friend is showing the whole school a wrong answer. Why would they not concerned? They also ask him before if this is what he think is Hougou's idea. He said yes, and he has enough confident about it to show the whole school of his result. How can they be so sure that telling him he's wrong won't hurt him? They do not care about the movie. Whether or not Irisu is satisfied or the movie is a success does not concerned them. They do, however, care about the fact that Houtarou make a mistake, show his wrong answer to the public, and seems to have no idea about that.

I'm wondering why you cannot agree that his three friends are as clueless about Irisu's intention as he is. From what I see, there is nothing pointing out that they're aware of it prior to Houtarou figuring that out. Why you cannot agree that they think Irisu simply believe Houtarou solution are correct?

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Hyper

Their closed friend is showing the whole school a wrong answer. Why would they not concerned? They also ask him before if this is what he think is Hougou's idea. He said yes, and he has enough confident about it to show the whole school of his result. How can they be so sure that telling him he's wrong won't hurt him? They do not care about the movie. Whether or not Irisu is satisfied or the movie is a success does not concerned them. They do, however, care about the fact that Houtarou make a mistake, show his wrong answer to the public, and seems to have no idea about that.

I'm wondering why you cannot agree that his three friends are as clueless about Irisu's intention as he is. From what I see, there is nothing pointing out that they're aware of it prior to Houtarou figuring that out. Why you cannot agree that they think Irisu simply believe Houtarou solution are correct?

I would say, at the very least, they think "something's fishy". Normally, Houtarou is the one to catch them on all their small oversights and come up with the most accurate theory/deductions. But here, he seems to have some blinders on; he's overlooking some rather major things, which is unlike him. They continually say that they don't know what the answer is, they just know that Houtarou's answer is wrong, and I personally would guess that also extends to the reason behind Houtarou's oversight. They may have various suspicions as to what could be going on, but I doubt they had enough evidence to make a firm conclusion. So, at least in my view, I would say that's the reason they were apprehensive; they've uncovered a second mystery of why Houtarou believes he's solved the first "mystery" even though he didn't. It's only when Houtarou has been made aware of the second mystery ("how could I be so wrong?") that he was able to figure everything out.

So, my opinion is basically that the three don't necessarily know that Irisu deceived them (at worst they might have vague suspicions that she's been withholding something or leading him on a bit), but they're sure that they haven't uncovered the whole truth yet. I think the reason they're being considerate is simply because of the contrast between how confident Houtarou seemed to be in his solution (as you say, enough to present it to Irisu and the whole class/school), and the obviousness of the evidence he missed. He made "stupid mistakes", even though they thought his ending to the movie was clever enough.

[joeboygo]

As usual, nobody is persuaded in the end, but a fun mental exercise all the same. I think I'll move on now to the more controversial issue of what to make of Irisu.

However, before anything else, a brief note on my apparently anal-retentive approach to KyoAni appreciation. After the chattering masses have moved on to the latest hottest thread, and things have quieted down, I feel there ought to be room for a calmer but more exacting dissection of KyoAni's labor of love that gives proper respect to the great pains taken in its creation. Here's why:

To start, each original manuscript of the Koten-bu series of novels went through several edits by the publisher Kadokawa before it saw print. Then, the already lean text was further cut down during the adaptation by KyoAni - compare the novel sections with their counterparts in the anime script to see how much had to be gutted. There are artistic and practical reasons for this but that's a whole other thread. On the visuals, every shot and frame had to be painstakingly storyboarded, drawn and animated in KyoAni's trademark denser-than-industry-average frames per scene. Again, I won't veer off-topic on the finer technical merits of animation being showcased, but bear in mind all this costs extra time, money and effort.

My point is, it's not enough to say that every scene, frame or line of script in the anime serves a purpose. I think the more accurate understanding is that each such detail was retained because it couldn't be taken out without unduly compromising the story and/or the director's artistic conception. Thus, a proper appreciation of the story, I feel, must, as much as possible, account for every detail Kyo-Ani went to great lengths to keep. Anything less would be casting pearls before swine.

Now about that Irisu...

[CrowKenobi]

If you are going to discuss Irisu, I think a more appropriate thread would be the Hyouka - Character Discussion - Fuyumi Irisu thread instead of an episode discussion thread.

[joeboygo]

I will abide by your suggestion and take my mental dump there instead.

[Mirrinus]

Yeah...I've been super behind with this series lately, but after seeing this episode tonight my inner Agatha Christie geek just went haywire. The whole narrative trick deal that Satoshi brought up? I was screaming it to my computer screen during the previous episode, because I knew it was a Christie device (even remember which stories she used it in) that a Holmes reader wouldn't be familiar with. And the title of the arc...it's a reference to Why Didn't They Ask Evans? I'm sure.

Yeah, it's not every day that my obscure knowledge of Agatha Christie brings me this much excitement, but there you have it.