|
ZiegeDame posted:So you're saying literally everyone still alive is in on the conspiracy then? There's still plenty of time for everyone in the cousins' room to end up dead except Kanon (who would then be mysteriously missing again), so there would be no one left to claim he was there. I also really don't like the S=K hypothesis, as it seems to cause more problems than it solves, but it's not technically dead yet. (Also, whew, finally caught up with this thread...)
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
I feel obliged to point out that if you feel that there's already sufficient evidence supporting S=K --- for example, if you want to use the narrative conceit arguments from this chapter, like Zepar and Furfur's genders or the cups and coins puzzle, or the fact that Shannon and Kanon refer to themselves as "furniture," a term that has been pretty firmly established to mean "a witch's imaginary friend whom she uses to cope with unpleasant reality" --- then you can use the fact that some other character nevertheless seems to acknowledge them as separate people in a circumstance where it would be impossible to be fooled as evidence that said character must be an accomplice, rather than the other way around. That said, the "furniture" bit can just as well be taken as a reference to the way Sayo and Yoshiya use Shannon and Kanon, respectively, and I think Zepar and Furfur and cups and coins provide equally good support for another hypothesis I remember someone mentioning earlier in the thread, namely, that Sayo/Shannon and Yoshiya/Kanon are two separate people in two separate bodies but Yoshiya/Kanon was presenting as female six years ago (whenever the event that Battler forgot occurred) and is now presenting as male. That possibility seems to be satisfactorily consistent with what we know without having the plausibility issues of "there are two people running around in the same body and literally 15* other people confined with them in close-ish quarters are either oblivious or bribed." The big thing I'm still not satisfied with is what the conditions of the love trial mean, whereby only Shannon or Kanon or Beatrice can get what he/she wants. I haven't come up with a good non-S=K=B explanation for that one, and the only non-magical explanation the game has given us is rank bullshit. *16, if you count Erika, which I wasn't. Confused Llama fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
...Did we just get an entire update scolding authors for sloppy retcons? Also, I don't see exactly how this works. Rather, I understand the rule, I just don't understand how it's supposed to be enforced. The witch side has to be playing a fair game, so the situation has to be solvable using human tricks, but at the same time, the witches' goal is still to present a situation that the human side fails to solve, i.e., concludes to be impossible. Who is the arbiter who determines when a "logic error" has occurred? If the human side can just go screaming "logic error" when they can't figure out the puzzle, and that's good enough, then the game is rigged and the witch side can never win, because they also can't present the "human" solution that they've concocted as proof that the game was fair because they'll destroy their own illusion in the process.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:It automatically results in a logic error when it's physically impossible to perform the trick, and I assume from how they described it, the game fuzzes and implodes on its own. Probably into a wedding chapel. Okay. So what happens if the witch side gets flustered and accidentally provides enough red that neither player can see a valid human solution, but there actually still IS one, it's just that neither one is smart enough to see it? Does "the game" (now operating as an independent entity, in a sense) give the witch side a pass because a solution technically still exists, or does the witch player have to have at least one valid human solution actively in mind for the game state to remain legal? (I have no idea whether this question is actually relevant to the story; I'm just chasing thoughts in random directions now.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
bman in 2288 posted:Oh, also figured out how Erika catches Battler: she uses the red of how how everyone is either in one room, or another, and uses clues to figure out Battler is the one dropping the letters. But how can he be dropping the letters if he's supposed to be in the room where everyone else is? I don't think this works. At the time of that red, she also got confirmation of the victims' locations, so they aren't included in "everyone." It doesn't matter for this whether they're actually victims or not; she's just talking about bodies, living or dead, as she explicitly confirms. So either way, at that time, Battler is already confirmed to have been in a specific place other than the cousins' room. ProfessorProf posted:
Arguably, this makes it a little tricky for ANY of the "victims" to be not dead and running around dropping letters, but getting around that just involves playing games related to the exact timing of when the red applies, as has been done before. So if Battler hasn't already accounted for that, he's more incompetent than we thought.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 20:29
|
|
"When I check the characters' locations as I am about to, I am not concerned with whether they are alive or dead. Think of it as the location of their body. And of course, I'm referring to the current point in time. Here we go."
"'The six first twilight victims are located at the places where they were discovered. Natsuhi is in her room, Eva is in the VIP room, Kyrie is in Krauss's study, Rosa and Maria are in the parlor, and you are in the guest room!'"
"..."
"Don't tell me you're already going to refuse?!"
"...Don't worry. I acknowledge it."
|
Cyouni posted:By that logic, you're forced to admit that Kyrie saw Eva BEATRICE and fought both stake sisters and rabbit soldiers with magic arrows. Or that we can just assume George, Jessica, Shannon, and Kanon are the killers this time around and call it a day. Or that Kanon came back to life and instantly cut both Nanjo and Kumasawa's throats before vanishing into golden butterflies. Not everything we're presented with is exactly as seen. Well, look, as much as the game claimed in this last update that ProfessorProf posted:Ironically, this also proves that magic doesn't exist, but out of respect for the witch's game, let's call it making the game solvable and fair for the human player. I actually disagree. If a "magic trick" can later be retconned to have a different human solution than the one that was originally intended --- and indeed it can: ProfessorProf posted:In actuality, the candy had been put in the cup while Maria's eyes were closed. However, if, when Erika saw through that, Maria had used the red truth to say that the closed room of the cup had been preserved... The witch would have to rush and revise the scenario to a new trick that 'still worked logically' after that new red. Revising the scenario is an unfair move that would never be allowed in mysteries. However, the very act of revising the scenario takes place inside the witch's head, which is an unobservable world. So, if she claims that she'd been using the trick with the fake-bottomed cup 'from the beginning', no one could deny that. --- then obviously the mundane human explanation WASN'T true in the first place or there would be only one correct answer. It wouldn't be able to change. So a witch drat well DID do it, exactly as she said she did, she was just obliged to leave a loophole whereby a human COULD have done it or it wouldn't work. By the exact same token, though, as soon as some human says "No but here's how you ACTUALLY did it" and is sufficiently convincing about it, then the "magic" collapses and, in exactly the same way, the human trick solution has NOW been true 'from the beginning,' even though it wasn't before. I feel like this applies doubly to any so-called illusion scene that doesn't leave behind any result more tangible than witness testimony. So yes, Kyrie fought stake sisters and rabbit soldiers with magic arrows, and George made EVA the Teenage Witch's heart explode, and Krauss superpunched Goat-kun... until someone comes up with an alternative explanation that everyone accepts as the truth, like Kyrie was held at gunpoint and threatened into calling the guesthouse to spin a false story about magical antagonists; and George either had a nasty argument with his mother over his engagement to Shannon or he just had to make peace within his own mind with breaking out from under his mother's thumb and becoming his own man, it's not entirely clear, but she does appear to have ended up dead somehow (or maybe not); and sometimes Ryukishi07 just likes to toss some comedy in with his postmodern literature. What I'm saying is that witches and magic are totally real, but that's no excuse for not denying them, because if you deny them hard enough you'll be retroactively correct.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Okay, so Lambda's the one making the final call concerning whether a logic error exists. I... don't know how to feel about that, but at least the question's been answered?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:Remember, Her goal [..] isn't to have revenge on someone. I've been thinking about this in the context of the love trial, for which one can conclude that all of the "murders" are symbolic, whether or not the victim has actually ended up physically dead. (More on that below.) What if that's true for everything we've seen so far? What if none of what we've seen to date reflects the way the Rokkenjima Incident will have "actually happened" by the time there's a clear victor to write the history? What if all of these murders that we've seen are purely symbolic, and in the end, none of the Ushiromiya family or their servants and friends actually ends up dead (except Kinzo, who already is)? What if this whole story is a metaphor for Beatrice confronting parts of herself that she sees reflected in all of these people, which she sees as holding her back in some way, and overcoming them within herself so that she can step forward into a new phase of her life? It's hard to imagine someone committing strings of bloody serial murders without seeking revenge, seeking to cause fear, or being clinically insane... unless the murders are metaphor, rather than physical fact. There had already been some discussion in the thread about the meaning of the six murders of the first twilight in this episode and the matching between murderer and murderee, but I don't think the discussion was ever comprehensively resolved. (I apologize if it was and I missed it.) So what's below is a combination of summary of what the thread has already discussed and some of my own thoughts. 6. Game Master Battler kills Piece Battler. This is the most straightforward. Battler abandons/"kills" his incompetent, literal-stupidest-man-on-earth self who couldn't understand what Beatrice was seeking from him. 1. George kills Eva. The second most straightforward, or even tied with Battler vs. Battler. As much as she may have been awful about it, Eva is George's mother and has been undeniably instrumental in raising him into the person he is now. But he can't move on and become his own person without "killing" that connection and committing to moving forward in life on his own. 2. Jessica kills Kyrie. Jessica and Kyrie have an extensive conversation about being driven by jealousy. Jessica has acknowledged that her feelings for Kanon are, at least initially, largely founded on her jealousy of other people's relationships rather than an explicit connection between herself and Kanon. If their relationship has any hope of growing into a healthy one, she has to reject jealousy as her primary motivating force ("kill" Kyrie, the personification of jealousy as a motivating force) and find a new, more stable foundation for their love. Now it gets harder because there's less to work with. If I take the three instances above as sufficient evidence that it's sensible to try to seek a similar meaning in the remaining three, though, this is where I end up: 4. Shannon kills Maria. No big long conversation here, so all we really have to go on is what we already know of the characters. For Maria (actually, MARIA here), her strongest defining characteristic is that she clings to witchcraft and the occult to create a view of the world around her that won't crush her with misery. Shannon, similarly, has been shown to rely on Beatrice's magic to support her hope of becoming "human" (i.e., just enough self-delusion about the possible consequences to give her the courage to pursue her relationship with George), but now that that's within her grasp, she needs to abandon that crutch and, like George, move forward under her own power, seeing her life with clear eyes. 3. Kanon kills Rosa. Similar to the Jessica vs. Kyrie scene, we get an extensive conversation elaborating on Rosa's feelings concerning events we already knew about, in this case, the circumstances of Maria's father leaving. She took pride in her self-sacrifice at letting him go, which she now regrets, but she still can't give up on the possibility of getting him back (which, by the way, also seems to provide a little more context for why she seems to keep sabotaging her potential relationships with new men, for which she then turns around and blames Maria --- as a surrogate for her father, maybe?). Perhaps, then, Kanon has a similar event in his past that has been haunting him, but unlike Rosa, he wants to be able to let go of it and move forward to seek a future with Jessica. Battler's sin/departure? Seems consistent with the idea that Kanon was the one with whom Battler broke a promise. 5. Chick Beatrice kills Natsuhi. This one is hardest for me to get a grasp on, largely because we still don't know for sure who Beatrice is. There's also a thick layer of metaphor here, and it seems to have something to do with the difference in significance of the spiderwebs vs. the spirit mirror. The spirit mirror is from Natsuhi's family and thus from her past as a scion of Shinto priests; the spiderwebs are from the legends of Rokkenjima specifically. One thing we know about Natsuhi is that she initially came into the Ushiromiya family unwillingly, but she eventually threw away her previous self to seek what fulfillment she could find in her new, unasked-for life (kind of the exact opposite of Rosa, in a way), which then eventually became a point of enormous pride for her, more so than for any blood family member. The spirit mirror vs. spiderwebs thing seems to suggest that what threatens Beato about Natsuhi is who Natsuhi once was, rather than who she is now... but that's as far as I can get.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Whoa, wait. How could Gertrude and Cornelia give red that the seals in the guesthouse were unbroken? Why wasn't it a valid move for Battler to say "Okay, you win this point, the seals on the guesthouse rooms are broken and everyone is gone"? If the murders this time were all supposed to be a prank on Erika, then the only reason that everyone had locked themselves up in the guesthouse in the first place was for verisimilitude. They could easily have decided to leave the rooms once Erika had gone. Hell, Erika hadn't even physically gone back to the guesthouse to check.witchcore ricepunk posted:I don't think the text has confirmed this outright, but because I like the premise of this post I'll throw in my thought that Sayo is probably the child Natsuhi discarded. How does that color your analysis? I'm not ignoring your question, I'm just still thinking about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:Because that's like "why wouldn't the corpses start holding a little party in the dining room after people leave because why not". If you're trying to trick someone, you don't do the exact opposite of what you're pretending to do in the random hopes that you're not going to be caught. Literally all that would need to be done to get caught would be "the door to the room Erika's in opens". How about because pranking people is no fun if you can't see their reactions to the prank? It's not so unbelievable that someone in a room without Erika in it would start to get antsy and start to take risks or otherwise make an excuse to go check out how Erika was reacting, and since BOTH rooms now don't have Erika in them, the likelihood that at least one person would get reckless is that much higher.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Another point to consider: If Battler lets the duct tape seals on those doors be broken because people just wandered out, then Erika will already have the answers to every mystery on the board, and the game would end in her victory. Only if that's where he leaves the board state. He could still continue to kill people off and pose new riddles through the later twilights, especially since now that Erika has ACTUALLY killed a bunch of people, he's got presown seeds of distrust to work with for motives. Unless Erika just straight up announces she's the murderer, I guess, which does seem most likely...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:That's specifically the line I'm leaning on here. It says blue truth, but there are other kinds of truth. In fact, blue truth is mostly a tool for the human side, not the witch side. In theory, the witch side should know the answer already. Sure, but that doesn't seem to be the intent. If it were that easy, then there would be no need for the "move" that Featherine refers to, the one that "can never be used again." It would just be some variation on "Hideyoshi, George, Shannon, Kumasawa, or Nanjo was not in the next room over when Erika was fighting with the guest room shower" in red, boom, done, and all that really accomplishes is to hand the human side an answer, anyway. For the sake of argument, can anyone think of a way that S=K actually gets us around all current red plus intact window seals on the next room over taken as red? Because the S=K hypothesis is certainly consistent with a move that "can never be used again," since once you've pulled that trigger it won't fool anyone again, but I can't see a way it actually helps here. Edit: Oh, wait, actually, I think I have it. Because the "Everyone else is in the cousins' room" red leaves room for Kanon to not actually be in there if S=K (and in fact that's required if S=K because we have red placing Shannon in the next room over), you can just use red to state that "Kanon was not in the cousins' room when Erika was fighting with the shower". Then you're not explicitly using blue to say anything about the windows in the next room over, even though the legality of your move depends upon Shannon having been able to leave through the window, and you're setting up a suitably witchy mystery in the process with Kanon "disappearing" from the room that's been confirmed to be sealed. Gaap's choice to use Kanon as her example in this update even supports this being the "correct" answer from the perspective of narrative convention. Confused Llama fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:Okay, then let's suggest a few moves into the future. Let's say Shannon=Kanon, and jumps out the seal-broken window to be available to switch with Battler. Let's say then at that point Erika responds in blue with "Shannon and Kanon are the same person, and jumped out the seal-broken window, and switched with Battler". This blue is then denied as incorrect because of narrative convention, despite being 100% accurate. It's not ~narrative convention~ that would prevent Erika from doing this, it's the ridiculous technicality that her own side just set up here. They wouldn't tell her that her blue was incorrect, they would tell her it was invalid/illegal, which is not the same thing. It would be basically the same reason she lost the skirmish over Kinzo in the last episode, despite being 100% correct that he was totally dead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:You also miss that the whole thing related to Kinzo was due to the fact that another blue truth could be presented where he wasn't dead. Only because of a technicality, which was my point. ProfessorProf posted:
Essentially, what you're complaining about here has already happened. We have already seen someone lock off an apparently valid line of play because it would be more dramatic that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 22:03
|
|
"Boom. That's checkmate. Why didn't that girl use that trump card...?"
"I don't UNDERSTAND. All of a sudden, in that instant, use of that trump card became FORBIDDEN. Once we lost that, your victory was GUARANTEED."
"...The Game Master, Lady Lambdadelta, probably interfered."
"That bastard... So in the end, that whole fight was a farce in the palm of Lambdadelta's hand. She made 'us' play out that entire act according to her script."
|
Cyouni posted:Use of the red, which is a very different story. You can do tons of stuff if the red isn't allowed. Locking off the correct answer with "you're not allowed to use this blue" is literally just "you're wrong, no matter what you say", and at that point you throw the game out because that's bullshit. I don't actually disagree with you there. Locking off blue because of a bureaucratic technicality completely smacks of cheating. However, it's the human side that did it; the proposed use of the red to say that Kanon isn't in the cousins' room isn't cheating on the witch side, it just lets the witch side turn around and use the red to make the human side's cheating bite it in the rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:All I can honestly say about this scene is that the manga version is even worse. Huh, that's interesting. I was taking it at least partially as a metatextual nod to (or grimace at, rather) the common association between VNs and hentai games, but that wouldn't necessarily so much apply to the manga version.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Maybe it's just me missing social cues again, but is anyone really finding this as anything other than something disgusting and horrible? Well, I laughed, but not in a "this is actually funny" way, more in a "I see what you did there, Ryushiki07, and that's nasty" way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
EagerSleeper posted:But I felt that scene might have been written as if to allow those who don't care about anything other than 'hey, finally some action' or use word of mouth to bring sales. I get what you mean. Upthread, POOL IS CLOSED mentioned the old Nasuverse VNs, which I actually suspect of being guilty of both having and eating their cake in this respect; those sex scenes are way too absurd to not be trolling, in my opinion, but they're also way too extensive to not be at least a semi-serious attempt to appeal to the H-game market. This one, though, I think was just enough to get the point across.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:Battler, when asked what kind of girl he like, immediately responds with "my cousin." resurgam40 posted:This family, my god. Well, hey, that's not totally fair. This is 12-year-old Battler we're talking about. A 12-year-old boy saying "yeah, if I were ever to date someone, I'd like it to be someone like my cousin Jessica 'cause she's totally awesome to hang out with" seems completely reasonable to me. Then the nascent hormones adding "and while we're fantasizing, it would be cool if she also happened to look like a Playboy model" also seems pretty realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Qrr posted:Also, this whole "furniture have fragments of a soul" thing is interesting. What does that mean for all the rabbits and goats and demons and so on? And why is only piece Beatrice furniture? Seems like by that definition every Beatrice should be. Don't forget that Beatrice appears to be a special case in that the legend of the witch, and whoever or whatever inspired it, already existed as the concept onto which/whom Sayo (or whoever the root person there actually is) projected 'her' Beatrice, and there has been at least one separate real human being calling herself Beatrice, whom Rosa, at least, has seen. Which actually makes me wonder how you reconcile that, and the portrait, and the fact that Rosa says the woman she saw was the same woman depicted in the portrait, with the fact that the appearance of Beatrice as we see her in the game now appears to have been informed by 12-year-old Battler's fantasies (which couldn't have been shaped by the portrait of the 'real' Beatrice, because it wasn't hung until after he left the family, unless he saw a picture of her in Kinzo's things at some point before he left the family). ZiegeDame posted:All hype aside, some things were said that got me thinking about furniture. Furniture cannot act without their master's orders. And if furniture means the same thing when referring to Ronove or the stakes as it does when referring to Shannon, Kanon, and Beatrice, who is the master in the latter case? 'Sayo' seems like an incomplete answer, because we have no evidence that the diction between Shannon and Sayo is any greater than that between Kanon and Yoshiya. And when Kanon took a bullet to the face Yoshiya died right along with him. So there's gotta be something more going on here. Yeah, this seems like a very relevant question.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:
So Kanon is not simultaneously Shannon and/or anyone else here?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:40
|
|
"I acknowledge it. From the time you entered the room to the time of the logic error, you, Battler, and Kanon were the only ones who went in or out of the guest room."
|
Tired Moritz posted:went in as Kanon, transformed into Shannon. I get that, but then where did Shannon "go"? This is relevant to the argument about how Shannon and Kanon can each hold his or her own master key while each servant holds only one key.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:Didn't go anywhere, since the story stopped at that point. Had it continued, she could have either tried to evade Erika in the room or just waited to be discovered. That's not what I mean. I mean that if no one but Erika, Battler, and Kanon went in or out of the room during the specified time frame, then "Shannon" must not have been considered to be present in the body that she walks around in when that body (which apparently was only Kanon at the time) crossed the threshold.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:Okay, let's reason this out. For Erika-vision to be non-falsified, Kanon must be in the set of {George, Jessica, Maria, Rosa, Genji, Krauss}, as they were 'dead' and therefore not attending Erika's parlour party. For the red in this episode to be correct, Kanon must be in the set of {Hideyoshi, George, Shannon, Kumasawa, and Nanjo}. Looking at that overlap, one name stands out - George. Y'know, this hypothesis is weirdly compelling, considering that it's still perfectly compatible with the mutual exclusivity of Shannon+George and Kanon+Jessica. Though also non-negligibly creepy because of the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:I took a walk to consider it more and check on information. The problems with George=Kanon are primarily in episodes 1 and 2, where Battler sees him and Kanon in the same place. The biggest problem with Shannon=Kanon is in episode 5, where Erika keeps everyone constantly in a group. Let's ignore the 10th for a minute and run with this for a bit. Kanon+Jessica doesn't make a ton of sense as a literal romantic pairing here anymore, so suppose it's a metaphor for Jessica pursuing her pop-idol dreams (as eventually supported by Kanon at the school festival in Episode 2) instead. She can't do that if George marries a servant and gets himself disinherited; she'll have no choice but to succeed the headship of the Ushiromiya family, or at least get married to someone deemed worthy of succeeding the headship. Alternatively, if Jessica runs off to do her thing, George will have to step in as head like Eva always wanted him to and abandon his intent to marry Shannon, because no matter how good his intentions, that marriage won't survive the weight of the disapproval of the entire Ushiromiya family bearing down on it once George is the heir apparent. Third alternative: Beato murders everybody until somebody else solves the epitaph to make her stop, thereby succeeding the headship whether they want to or not and letting Jessica, George and Shannon all get what they want (= love revived in the Golden Land). Sure, seems legit. Congrats on the avatar, by the way. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
little_firebird posted:Please enjoy this gift from witch chat: Holy crap, I'm not sure what part of this image I like best.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:I would guess the person sitting down is Sayo, but who is the person standing up? Hm. Seems likely... although that neck jewel is green, not purple like Shannon's and Kanon's.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Omake: Well, yes, I kind of do, actually, given recent revelations/confirmations. I would think Beatrice would already know, though... or maybe that's only True Beatrice who would. ETA: EagerSleeper posted:If the jewel is Alexandrite, a gemstone that changes color depending on what light is shined on it, it could still match. The manga art has reminded me that Natsuhi also has a neck jewel, which is green like the one on the girl in the new portrait. Not sure what that means, though. Cliff Baby? Confused Llama fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jul 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:The strongest identity they have... is that of a Witch, and this identity, while it involves the trappings of femininity in big poofy dresses and ladies hairstyles, is defined mostly as "one who poses unanswerable problems in the form of closed room mystery." oath2order posted:Thr culprit's gender identity is witch. Preferred pronoun is ahaha/*cackle.* Actually, I believe that the text has explicitly associated the term "witch" with the feminine. At least, both men we've seen with equivalent statuses, Kinzo and Battler, have been called Sorcerers instead of Witches, and at the end of Episode 5, there are multiple instances where the text starts to call Battler a witch and then corrects itself. I'd thought the gender association was made explicit in one of those instances, but I'm not finding it, so maybe that was my own assumption coloring my reading. ProfessorProf posted:And yet, to think that Battler... had become a witch... a sorcerer, and capable of using red without proof!! However, she had her own Inquisitor of Heresy who could also use red without proof to counter!!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Rune Full Moon posted:According to the "Memoirs of Lady Lambdadelta" bonus update from the previous thread, "Strictly speaking, even if it's a male, you can still call him a witch. Therefore, you can't conclude that the gender of this 'person' is female by means of the speech "I want to become a witch."" Oh, good call, thanks. So maybe the Sorcerer distinction refers to something else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Cyouni posted:From what I can tell, that's just him inheriting the "Endless" bit, but not the "Golden" section, which are explicitly defined as separate in one of the Tips. Hm, I would have assumed that the ability to use the gold truth would quality him for the "Golden" title.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:In her place, Battler moved to the front of the coffin, wearing his territory lord's cape... Though the cape was supposed to represent dignity and majesty, it somehow made Battler look smaller. Goddammit, now I'm crying. This avatar of Van Dine seems pretty cool, unlike the bit-of-a-dick the real Van Dine appears to have been from some of those rules. In particular, rule 16 seems kind of antithetical to the idea of the importance of motive: quote:A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations. such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 15:41
|
|
"This way, no one will be able to defile your tale. No one can deny it, and no one can argue against it. Between just me and her, just the two of us, this is the one and only... certain truth."
|
resurgam40 posted:If I were to meet lion first, I would say that he was Cliff Baby, but I've always been of the proponent that ShKanon was Cliff Baby, and Kanon is here too, and they talked to each other, so it's not like we can use the "Erika never noticed them" dodge... This is bothering me, too, but it also appears to be the case that Will witnessed Kinzo at the funeral here, and he's still definitely dead (the profiles confirm as much). So it appears that the rules may be different now? Note that it's now clear that Lion has both Shannon's and Kanon's One-Winged Eagles (thigh and collar - looking back at the teaser portrait, it was true there, too, but Lion's hair was partially covering the collar so it wasn't very obvious). I think it's too early to give up on ShKanon = Cliff Baby = Lion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:The name is clearly pronounced as the western name Leon (just listen to the video). So why is the English spelling Lion, when we don't have Jouji or Batoraa? I suggest that this may be at least in part because Leon is generally considered to be a man's name, whereas Lion, not being a real name that most people actually give their children, does not have any particular gender connotations. Lyons might also have been a suitable romanization, considering that Ange's name would seem to be clearly French-derived.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:If I were Will, I'd be pretty uncomfortable about a stranger pinching my butt minutes after we met. Yeah, that's fair. I kind of expect that instead of finding it entertaining, the thread would probably be crying 'sexual harassment' right now if the roles were reversed here (as I think it's fair to say that despite the deliberate gender ambiguity, Lion does seem to 'read' more feminine than masculine to most of us at the moment, based on the predominant trend in the reflexive use of pronouns).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:man, your mind is gonna get blown when you learn about kancho. A long tradition and/or social acceptance of awful behavior doesn't make it less awful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
I have to say, it feels kind of strange for the game to still be acting so coy about Shannon and Kanon unless there's still something major we're missing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Putting these together: Could Lion be the separated embodiment of the core personality? We've in a bizarro world where Cliff Baby simultaneously lived and died? * The cat box is closed, so we've hit quantum Rokkenjima. I think that makes sense. If Lion exists as Lion, then Shannon and Kanon should never have come into being, so of course they wouldn't know each other.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:
Uh, Will, as much as I appreciate you getting confirmation of a bunch of stuff we'd already figured out and, I hope, eventually tying up the remaining loose ends, I think I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Unless Cliff Baby's parentage isn't what we've speculated that it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2017 14:55
|
|
"I won't contradict the stork. And I don't intend to doubt the depths of Kinzo's love for this woman called Beatrice. How a man shows his affection for a child who is the only living reminder of her mother is no one's business. If she grew to look more and more like Beatrice, and Kinzo's love gave rise to a new, special emotion, I find that a very human reaction."
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Robindaybird posted:Honestly I wonder if that's the point, given we know the author's previous occupation - how many times has he seen family members ignore abuse because they couldn't will themselves to go against the abuser for whatever reason and then tried to either justify the abuse or justify their lack of action when confronted. Exactly this. Honestly, I can understand the servants. Under the premise that, for whatever reason, they initially felt they had no choice but to go along with Kinzo in this (and tiistai's post above that showed up as I was previewing this one seems to indicate as much), remember that at this point they've had to basically rationalize the whole situation to themselves for decades now in order to be able to live with themselves. Depending on how willing a participant Original Beatrice was in her secret incarceration, that experience and what they had to tell themselves to go through with it may have made it easier for them to become complicit in 1967 Beatrice's abuse. I can understand it, even if I can't excuse it. I can understand Will not wanting to directly antagonize and condemn the man he's trying to get to talk to him, too. What really rubs me up the wrong way is the "How a man shows his affection for a child who is the only living reminder of her mother is no one's business" line. That's not just placating Kinzo, that's a blanket absolution of responsibility and guilt for anyone who witnesses child abuse and does nothing about it, and that is not okay with me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2017 17:41
|
|