Because… it’s a game (under this theory)? You should probably always assume large quantities of blood are fake unless you have some plausible reason to think otherwise, because that’s not really how bleeding works. And again, your notion would disclaim the possibility of bleeding in the dining room, so by your own theory that blood shouldn’t be there.
Also, as I’ve noted, there is direct textual evidence for the existence of a substance which is hard to distinguish from blood.
You shouldn’t. He and Jessica are among the most suspicious characters in the episode, especially when their “genuine” emotions switch on and off or they’re more knowledgeable than they should be. Also I’m sorry are you using his second-hand claims as direct evidence? You can’t do that. George could say whatever he wants. And that whole discussion is more evidence of the ludicrousness of it than evidence for it:
GEORGE: "...You know, I've been thinking. It wouldn't be impossible to stick one of those 'icepicks' into someone's chest, like in Kanon-kun's case. ...But splitting the skull and sticking them into the forehead, like in my parents' case, wouldn't be that easy." BATTLER: "You think the culprit had that kind of animal strength...?!" GEORGE: "...They probably had some kind of weapon, a device that can shoot or pound in those 'icepicks'. That handle was too short to be driven in that deeply by a human's strength alone."[/quote]
So let’s just catalog everything wrong with this conversation:
- George speaks authoritatively on his father’s wound which he never saw.
- George openly speculates that Kanon’s wound (which did not occur) is possible, but that it would be impossible for his parents’ wounds to be the result of simple thrusting. So now he’s casting doubt on that, which seems like a curious thing to say but OK maybe his follow-up to this will sound sincere and rational.
- Battler speculates, wrongly but perhaps reasonably, that the killer might be very strong.
- George dismisses this speculation and instead suggests an insane device, some kind of stake-launcher or stake-pounder, in apparent complete seriousness. I’m sorry… what? So to be clear George does not accept the argument that the killer was really strong but is OK with making up some thing that probably doesn’t exist. There’s even a gun in the room with them and the idea of a gun isn’t suggested!
- Battler immediately becomes distracted by this thought and starts wondering if it was used to kill the FT victims, and from this extrapolates that the nonexistent device could kill the four people he’s with even though there has been no rational explanation provided as to why such a device, if it did exist, would be capable of killing that many people so quickly. Beyond his jumps to conclusions, which are ridiculous.
You seem to be bad at understanding my point. More on this below.
That’s not what “direct textual evidence” is. Direct textual evidence is there’s a passage that shows the gun that the culprit used, or a gun that could be the one the culprit used. That doesn’t exist in Legend; we see one gun and it’s in Natsuhi’s possession and we know she didn’t use it for those twilights. Your argument is by inference, as apparent wounds without a source are not direct evidence to walk backward toward the idea that those wounds were caused in a particular manner. I’m not saying that inference is invalid, but it isn’t as strong as you think that it is.
He himself is not a murderer (and guess what, holding down Nanjo so another person can kill him is, in fact, murder, so that argument for that twilight’s a no-go). He does not seem to be terribly put-out about being spared in Turn. By the way I’m not sure you’ll be able to back up the claim that he helps Shannon/Kanon/Beatrice (I wish people would stop saying Yasu, Yasu is the author) with any actual murders in Turn.
So you concede the point. I admit at this point it’s more “She’d consider this too far” vs. “No she wouldn’t,” but plain common sense is on my side. Of course such a brutal scene would affect someone. The alternative is that things were quieter and cleaner, either because there was no murder or the murder was more subtle in some fashion, either of which makes more sense.
Battler convinces himself of plenty of things that take him away from an initial correct impression, and advocates for things that turn out to be wrong. Dramatic irony dogs his narration constantly. This is exactly the sort of thing the author would slip in to provide that.
But table that for a second: A better point is how the hell does Hideyoshi not know at a glance what is and isn’t real given his position. His behavior in the FT/ST makes no goddamn sense if he was that close to real corpses, especially if he was told they weren’t going to be real. Remember, if Hideyoshi is some sort of accomplice at this point (whatever form you think that takes), he has expectations for what he will see in there; Battler doesn’t, because Battler is unaware of what’s supposed to be there. And basically every possible scenario for Hideyoshi is dubious:
- If the deaths are fake and Hideyoshi knows they’re fake, then he has no reason to think anything is going to be wrong and it will probably be obvious to him that things are fine.
- If the deaths are fake but Hideyoshi thinks they’re real, surely something would give that away; but even if it doesn’t, he could be fooled just as Battler was. But it seems unlikely he’d be made aware of brutal murders and left out of the loop about the fact it’s not real.
- If the deaths are real and Hideyoshi thinks they’re fake, he’d have to be incredibly dense not to notice this from where he is and what he’s doing. And if he thinks they’re real when he was told they’re not, the worst imaginable idea is to wander off with Eva without telling everyone.
- If the deaths are real and Hideyoshi knows they’re real, Hideyoshi is a casual accomplice to brutal murder and able to retain his composure while lying to people. Quite an actor, and also apparently a complete monster. Which seems… highly out of character… for Hideyoshi.
[quote=“Karifean, post:29, topic:26”]And neither of the following two episodes’ first twilights are faked so I fail to see how I’m in any obligation to explain why “this one in particular is not”.
Sure they are. Not even you could possibly deny that Banquet’s is, at the absolute worst, 1/3 fake and intentionally staged for a particular purpose. But they are obviously fake in construction whether you believe this was used as a prelude to actual murder or not. It probably wasn’t in Legend and Turn. It definitely wasn’t in End. It only was in Dawn because of Erika. The thornier questions arise from Banquet and Alliance, but that’s way ahead of ourselves.
Also, once again, every FT in Chiru is obviously fake and every FT is much more theatrical than the deaths that follow them. This is a hint. You cannot just ignore this, nor can you ignore the rather obvious conclusion that follows from it (which you can disagree with, but I won’t allow you to without a supportable reason).
Eva then goes right back to calling it makeup, the third-person narration uses it for Kanon’s death (which even you believe is fake), it is used again for Natsuhi. Every character in the narrative sure falls back on a single exact metaphor every time in Legend and doesn’t do so later!
Supposing that I told you that, after Legend, “makeup” appears a good 20+ times and never once is used to refer to murders? It’s not like it disappears from Battler or Eva’s or the narrator’s vocabulary, but it’s never again employed in the context used in Legend. And it’s not like smashed heads disappear.
It’s. A. Theme.
You might have a point in isolation but your argument is inadequate when all evidence is considered. And unlike an episode-to-episode comparison, we can be reasonably certain that intra-episode information used in a consistent fashion probably hints at something.
I don’t think you get to make that claim as though it’s simply a premise. Why do you accept that these ridiculous, absurd, straight-out-of-a-mystery-novel murders are real? Because you want them to be real? Why do you insist on shutting out wholly plausible interpretations? Even Battler and Knox doubted whether Beatrice intended everything to be a mystery, and Knox is the embodiment of a set of rules that govern that genre!
Try seeing things from my perspective. Just try it. Choose for the sake of argument not to accept that they’re real and convince yourself that my position is not possible with the evidence provided. I don’t believe you’ll get that far. Not saying you’ll believe it, but I didn’t reach this position by just wanting it to be true and I have looked for arguments that completely demolish it. There are none, just a lot of things that make it seem that way, and I believe this is by authorial design. Again, I’m not denying that the “solutions” to the “game” are as the mystery layer answers suggest, but some of the logistical improbabilities can be resolved if we take some of what is happening as fiat rather than actually happening.
Innocent until proven guilty. Before we look for the culprit, let’s prove the crime. One of the unique things about Legend is we cannot easily do even that.
I’m sorry… what? That doesn’t even make sense. I’m not letting that slide. That claim cannot be made without some kind of support as to why changing the authorship of in-universe fiction between two individuals with different backgrounds and knowledge bases is “trivial and unimportant” when such a thing is practically the definition of an important detail. Featherine straight-up says this on top of everything else.
This isn’t a matter of interpretation, you are simply wrong if you consider that detail inconsequential.
That really isn’t a problem, depending upon when everyone is brought into the fold. The most plausible time to do something like that is in the evening on the 4th. We have no way of knowing the exact point this happens, in exactly the same way we have no way of knowing the exact point any given accomplice is recruited in a true-murder theory, but it’s largely irrelevant until something has actually happened. And even then we have cases like Alliance where recruitment (or defection, but that’s another issue entirely) could potentially happen during events.
Plus, POV issues generally. It’s a bit hard to explain this without opening myself to inaccurate claims that I’m “dismissing” stories as irrelevant simply because I don’t believe them to be in the text because they’re literal truth, but it’s also not material to the argument. Like, I can doubt the George/Shannon arbor scene without saying that George and Shannon weren’t in some kind of relationship. Doubting one does not entail rejection of the other. Scenes can have all sorts of purposes and being part of the literal physical narrative need not always be one of them.
[quote=“Karifean, post:29, topic:26”]Not to mention we actually get a scene narrated from her perspective where she “tries to convince Kinzo” which goes entirely against the idea of it all being a script, unless you reject literally everything about that scene.
Not true, one can accept the reason that scene exists in the story without in any way damaging the overall narrative. It does establish some degree of unreliability to Natsuhi’s POV, but the point is not to reject the scene but to understand why Natsuhi is adopting the role that she’s adopting.
[quote=“Karifean, post:29, topic:26”]This quote in particular indicates to me a fundamental difference in our understandings of how Yasu’s mind works.
You don’t legitimately believe her – that is, “real”/Prime-Yasu, not any avatar of herself that might exist in her stories – to have been capable of really killing anyone, do you?
[quote=“Karifean, post:29, topic:26”]First off, I think neither of the two claims you paraphrase are bullshit. Secondly, what does she want to be “stopped” from, exactly?
What is hard to understand about my rejection of those claims?
- “She chooses her victims at random” is bullshit because we know that is factually untrue. The text has her say such several times and then later it’s very obviously not so, especially looking at things like the EP2 FT. Also what was the plan (if the murders are real) in the EP1 ST if Eva and Hideyoshi don’t leave? Who were the other two who were close that were the fallback, or was she just gonna be hosed? Setting that aside, Yasu-as-author wrote the stories, so obviously she picked who died on a higher level for the purpose of creating a particular narrative. It’s demonstrably not true on multiple levels.
- “She didn’t care who stopped her” is bullshit because we know Battler is what matters most to her on this particular weekend of 1986. His return was a crucial factor. Beatrice’s game is with Battler alone. The Love Duel is about Battler, Jessica, and George, not “anybody.” All her pining is for Battler. Battler is consistently and constantly held up as the thematic core of her desire. Battler alone can (and does, sort of) free her from the cursed island.
[quote=“Karifean, post:29, topic:26”]Or better yet, what was her most basic goal in the first place?
In “real life?” Almost certainly not to murder anybody in cold blood. There was something she wanted to see if Battler would do or could do. Something may have gone wrong with it, but that has no bearing on her goal.
Meta-Beatrice’s goal? To make Meta-Battler understand the big picture. I don’t think that’s terribly controversial considering just getting at answers didn’t satisfy her in EP4, and that what seemed to upset her most was Battler not even trying for a broader perspective.
[quote=“Karifean, post:29, topic:26”]Thirdly, does the motivation of (Meta)-Beatrice align with Yasu’s game board motivation in your interpretation?
Is there a particular reason that it must or should? For that matter, how do you know what Piece-Shannon/Kanon/Beatrice’s gameboard motive was?