I’m not sure you’ve read nor understood anything that I said, and you seem to be attacking a position that no one took. This is not only an incredibly rude post, it’s also not arguing against the textual analysis that explains why the red should be doubted in this fashion. Not discarded; the entire point is that there exists a perfectly valid interpretation which is textually supported, and which was reached through textual analysis and not playing around with red in isolation (because the red, in isolation, is a dangerous tool of manipulation by the story’s own admission). As I have said repeatedly, attacking on that basis is not the best way to engage my argument. That was followed by everybody attempting to engage my argument on that very thing I explained wasn’t going to work or be productive. If you consider this discussion “pointless” (very classy thing of you to say), maybe try directing it back to my point?
I have made an argument proposing the existence of the very heart of the tale itself within the framework of the layers we were already aware existed, without disrupting or disturbing those layers. We were told this sort of thing existed in Chiru, so why shouldn’t we go back and look for it with that in mind? The very things you’re complaining about are the things I’m trying to tease out of discussion by making the argument.
You do understand what chronotrig is saying, right? It’s not “throw away the red,” it’s “don’t let the red be an obstacle.” Step back and look at the text as just a text. Pretend it’s a book without any colored text; that doesn’t mean don’t read the colored text, but read it as though it’s white text just like any other part of the story. Knowing what we know about the story and the way Battler reacted to it both before and after “learning the truth,” does it make any sense that he would simply have realized the solutions to the murder mystery layers of the stories? That alone does not seem profound enough to have influenced him so strongly, or to have awakened his sympathies so profoundly. Furthermore, in order to demonstrate his understanding he immediately runs a gameboard where the entire First Twilight is faked. Is Battler some kind of wimp who chickened out about his game, or is this part of demonstrating his understanding?
Now go back to the text of prior episodes. Is there any possibility of that being the case beforehand? Well uh, hrm, yeah maybe? There are quite a number of “deaths,” especially in Legend and Turn, that look kinda fake or maybe are not actually possible as physical murders even if you answer the closed room puzzles. “But the red says…” Well, we know the red can be misleading or have its rules seemingly broken, so where the red is in conflict with the overall text what do we believe? I think we have to look to the text, because the text has context and the red often deliberately doesn’t. And in the text it describes Natsuhi’s death in Legend as being arranged like a “stage,” and Natsuhi’s wound as “blood-makeup.” The FTs are in strangely dark, out of the way places (that no one would just stumble upon) where setting up an elaborate scene would be a lot easier if the “victims” were also participants. Jessica gets a super convenient asthma attack at a time where it most benefits Eva and Hideyoshi, people she has no reason to favor over her mother. There are a great many bodies Battler doesn’t get a close look at, and he’s the one to refer to blood and the like as “makeup” or “masks.” Even if he is speaking metaphorically, is the author?
Also, Will refers to every single twilight in Legend with “illusions to illusions.” Does that maybe mean something? He doesn’t do that for the others. What does he try to convey when he chooses between those two lines? Whatever it is we thought it meant before, could we be mistaken somehow? It’s not like he gave a strict definition for those things. Suppose that, in addition to giving answers of a sort, he’s also distinguishing between “the plan” and “the parts that went wrong?”