TheServant said: "No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right," again, it's not met. Because those two things are what exactly happened in the last episode of Rokka. The rule seems dubious in the first place (especially given that RnY is not only a detective story, but an adventure story as well, and adventure heroes are entitled to a big dose of luck), but it's the application I disagree with. |
TheServant said: flannan said: The rule seems dubious in the first place (especially given that RnY is not only a detective story, but an adventure story as well, and adventure heroes are entitled to a big dose of luck), but it's the application I disagree with. Yes, but does it have a mystery? Yes. So of course we can assess whether the mystery is fair play or clueless. And no, not every protagonist in an adventure anime has a big dose luck. Maybe the bad one does, but definitely not the good one. So you disagree to the rules, yet you still feel the need to convince me & yourself that it's a fair play mystery? Why can't just we accept Rokka does not have a fair play mystery but still an enjoyable anime? I certainly can. I have every reason to think Rokka no Yuusha is a fair play mystery in that the protagonist (who is a "detective") is not given any advantage over the viewer in the solving process. Even if RnY doesn't agree with some commandment, and that somehow denies it "classical detective" status. I also dislike agreeing with things that are wrong. Here, have a picture: http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4727480/2+2+5/ |
| Even though I often can't solve fair play mysteries, I like having them because you can put the pieces back together after the solution gets given. |
| By the way, you made me re-watch Rokka no Yuusha anime a bit, and |
delija9091 said: Zefyris said: It was a fairplay mystery with every clue given. What wasn't fairplay was the werewolf game, which is fine. The mystery (IE, how was it done and how do you prove the MC innocent?) completely followed every important detective story rules. Can't be fairer than that. Pulling two stone tables out of your ass that singlehandedly provide the solution for the mystery and are not mentioned anywhere in the story beforehand equals providing all the clues now. I guess, you learn something new every day. Sorry, but you're completely missing the point. That's why that work is such a waste for most anime watcher used to shut down their brain when watching anime, whatever There was 3 component in the storytellign of that arc. the two that matters to us here is the jinrou game (IE, who is the traitor) and the detective enigma (here, it is NOT who did it (because that's the jinrou game's point in that arc) but how it was done and where are the proof that MC is innocent). The detective part doesn't need the stone tables to be solved. BEcause it is ALREADY solved before they are used, by the end of episode 11. Episode 12 cover the solving of the jinrou game. Which doesn't require fair solving. As most peoples, you're unable to see the difference here. RnY regularly use both jinrou games and detective story, BUT the only time where the perpetrator of the detective part is also the goal of the Jinrou game is the first volume. Which leads to peoples misunderstanding where is one and where is the other. If it was just a detective story, the whole Adlet running around purchased and all the suspicion /infighting would be unnecessary. RnY is coupling several genre, the how was it done was the detective genre, whereas the who is the traitor was the jinrou game/psychological genre. I like how peoples unable to see something that simple are looking down on a work which outsmarted them completely. Just to say, the author even took the time to make us understand where was the end of one thema and when was the other. If you look at the story telling, the detective solves how and gives all the proofs. THEN, when asked who is the culprit, even though you could conclude WITHOUT the stone tablet as he's doing afterwards thinking back of the event in the forest, he is unable to conclude at all. This points out that the detective part is FINISHED, and that the detective already accomplished his role. What remains is solving the jinrou game, which is done after inserting that "I don't know from Adlet, in order to clearly show to the reader what rules the author is following. TheServant said: Zefyris said: It was a fairplay mystery with every clue given. What wasn't fairplay was the werewolf game, which is fine. The mystery (IE, how was it done and how do you prove the MC innocent?) completely followed every important detective story rules. Can't be fairer than that. It was. Sun saint was mentioned several times and her power was mentioned once. Like I said, the mystery in Rokka does not meet the requirements to be a fair play one. "No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end," it's not met. Because of the Sun Saint power. That rule isn't part of the rules to be followed to make a fair detective story. There's a lot of great detective story using a scientific explanation to solve it. so that rule is BULLSHIT. using science is fair because that's knowledge available to anyone who want to research it, not something that the author is hiding. If the author knows of that scientific explanation but the author does not, it's not the fault of the author and will never be. BTW I've read several very well known rules set for a detective, and never saw that one, so I don't even know where it came from but that's definitely not relevant to make a fair detective story. TheServant said: "No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right," again, it's not met. Because those two things are what exactly happened in the last episode of Rokka. The way he found it wasn't a fluke, and he even explained it. Where you looking at another direction than the screen? The tablets don't have anything to do with the mystery solving, you're confusing it with the jinrou game solving. CF the answer I made above to another user making the same basic mistake as you. Guessing is fair. As long as you prove your guess. This is called lateral thinking. He followed through with logical thinking to prove his guess, so that's fair for a detective story. Lateral thinking has NEVER been considered as unfair in a detective story. Again, you're pulling things and rules out of your ass, basically deeming as "unfair" anything you don't like just because you don't like them. |
ZefyrisFeb 2, 2016 10:50 AM
 |
Zefyris said: delija9091 said: Pulling two stone tables out of your ass that singlehandedly provide the solution for the mystery and are not mentioned anywhere in the story beforehand equals providing all the clues now. I guess, you learn something new every day. Sorry, but you're completely missing the point. That's why that work is such a waste for most anime watcher used to shut down their brain when watching anime, whatever There was 3 component in the storytellign of that arc. the two that matters to us here is the jinrou game (IE, who is the traitor) and the detective enigma (here, it is NOT who did it (because that's the jinrou game's point in that arc) but how it was done and where are the proof that MC is innocent). The detective part doesn't need the stone tables to be solved. BEcause it is ALREADY solved before they are used, by the end of episode 11. Episode 12 cover the solving of the jinrou game. Which doesn't require fair solving. As most peoples, you're unable to see the difference here. RnY regularly use both jinrou games and detective story, BUT the only time where the perpetrator of the detective part is also the goal of the Jinrou game is the first volume. Which leads to peoples misunderstanding where is one and where is the other. If it was just a detective story, the whole Adlet running around purchased and all the suspicion /infighting would be unnecessary. RnY is coupling several genre, the how was it done was the detective genre, whereas the who is the traitor was the jinrou game/psychological genre. I like how peoples unable to see something that simple are looking down on a work which outsmarted them completely. Just to say, the author even took the time to make us understand where was the end of one thema and when was the other. If you look at the story telling, the detective solves how and gives all the proofs. THEN, when asked who is the culprit, even though you could conclude WITHOUT the stone tablet as he's doing afterwards thinking back of the event in the forest, he is unable to conclude at all. This points out that the detective part is FINISHED, and that the detective already accomplished his role. What remains is solving the jinrou game, which is done after inserting that "I don't know from Adlet, in order to clearly show to the reader what rules the author is following. Hindsight is always 20/20. The author uses a deus ex machina solution for who the traitor is. There is no denying that and you liking the story so much that you see proofs where they are not does not change that. But if you are so adamant about it, please give us all some precise examples instead of pretending to be smarter than everyone else. |
  |
delija9091 said: Hindsight is always 20/20. The author uses a deus ex machina solution for who the traitor is. There is no denying that and you liking the story so much that you see proofs where they are not does not change that. But if you are so adamant about it, please give us all some precise examples instead of pretending to be smarter than everyone else. I disagree with your claim that howto tablets were a deus ex machina. And Zefyris really is smarter than you, delija9091. You can't even explain what kinds of proofs or examples you are looking for. |
| Just to be clear a fair play mystery needs to follow Knox's Decalogue right ? 1. The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow. 2. All supernaural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course. 3. Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable. 4. No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end. 5. No Chinaman must figure in the story. 6. No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right. 7. The detective must not himself commit the crime. 8. The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader. 9. The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader. 10. Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them. |
SodiumChlorideFeb 2, 2016 1:27 PM
| Wohooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |
flannan said: delija9091 said: Hindsight is always 20/20. The author uses a deus ex machina solution for who the traitor is. There is no denying that and you liking the story so much that you see proofs where they are not does not change that. But if you are so adamant about it, please give us all some precise examples instead of pretending to be smarter than everyone else. I disagree with your claim that howto tablets were a deus ex machina. And Zefyris really is smarter than you, delija9091. You can't even explain what kinds of proofs or examples you are looking for. They appear out of nowhere to solve the mystery for the braves. In addition to that they where also found by accident without anyone knowing that they existed in the first place. Also, there were no restrictions that were established for their powers in the beginning so that they could use it however the plot needed them to use it. If this is not deus ex machina or at the bare minimum a complete overuse of plot convenience I don't know what it is. Because of that I simply disagree with Zefyris and you that it was not a clueless mystery. But hey you can pretend to be smarter than a random person on the internet, so you got that going for you wich is nice. |
| |
TheServant said: Exactly, but it seems some of the Rokka fans have their own understanding of what fair play mystery is, which is unfortunate & saddening. I've been using this definition from the start of the discussion: TheServant said: ibear said: When you say "fair play" are you talking about a mystery that the viewer can solve on their own using the same information that the characters have? Exactly. So, which one do you prefer? It is a lot shorter and to the point than Knox's Decalogue. And more useful, too, as Rokka no Yuusha breaks some of the detective guidelines simply by virtue of being an epic fantasy story. In particular: 2. supernatural and preternatural are known to exist and take an active role in the incident. 4. Magics with long explanations abound. 5. Demons aren't from China, but their thought process is, nevertheless, quite alien. 9. There is no stupid friend of the detective in the first place. Narration typically follows Adlet, who is a "detective" in this story. TheServant said: Thank you. So the power is definitely mentioned, but the way it's mentioned so early in the anime making it so hard to recall. The writer did not even take viewers' attention span to consideration. The power should've been mentioned(or being mentioned again) in the 2nd half of the show.. Rokka no Yuusha as a whole is quite hard to solve on your own, and likes messing with the viewer's perceptions. The characters took turns being super-suspicious, vital clues are thrown in before we even know there's a mystery to solve... There's no way it's so nice as to take into account the viewers' attention span. |
| @TheServant First of all, I'm not going to go and do a whole lot of research just for your entertainment. I take words at their face value. TheServant said: So you're using the simplest form of explanation of what fair play mystery is? That's not good. You have to use the complete explanation. I was using the definition provided by the topicstarter. Not whatever a dead englishman coded out hundreds of years ago - he has written it before fantasy genre appeared in the first place, and as I said above, it was inapplicable to RnY in the first place. TheServant said: You can still have fair play mystery in a fantasy anime. You're thinking like this because you do not understand what fair play mystery is. I do understand what a fair play mystery is. A fair play mystery is a mystery one can solve like a puzzle, keeping up with the detective. That's why I see that Knox's commandments are badly outdated, and only meaningful to other ancient englishmen like him. 2. "Demons" are pretty supernatural, if you ask me. And saint powers - even more so. As a scientist, I can tell you that demon powers in this work aren't natural, only based upon a layman's understanding of natural. 4. At no point did the magic actually make the mystery unfair to anybody familiar with the anime concept of elemental powers. At least, Adlet had Fremy to provide magic expertise to debunk his magic-based theories. TheServant said: 5. What are you even talking about? Please read this to understand what chinaman trope means --> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScaryMinoritySuspect Do you mean Fremy/Flamie Speeddraw? She is quite present in the show, inarticulate and suspicious as hell. Also, from the description and examples, it seems obvious you took the wrong page - chinese just aren't large, dark and swarthy enough. The TVtropes' note for this point was more useful in explaining stuff. |
flannan said: Do you mean Flamie Speeddraw? She is quite present in the show, inarticulate and suspicious as hell. Suspicious you say? Yeah, to the other characters maybe. But to the viewers? When she revealed what she really was, I immediately thought "Hmm, yep. It's definitely not her. One suspect down." |
delija9091 said: Zefyris said: Sorry, but you're completely missing the point. That's why that work is such a waste for most anime watcher used to shut down their brain when watching anime, whatever There was 3 component in the storytellign of that arc. the two that matters to us here is the jinrou game (IE, who is the traitor) and the detective enigma (here, it is NOT who did it (because that's the jinrou game's point in that arc) but how it was done and where are the proof that MC is innocent). The detective part doesn't need the stone tables to be solved. BEcause it is ALREADY solved before they are used, by the end of episode 11. Episode 12 cover the solving of the jinrou game. Which doesn't require fair solving. As most peoples, you're unable to see the difference here. RnY regularly use both jinrou games and detective story, BUT the only time where the perpetrator of the detective part is also the goal of the Jinrou game is the first volume. Which leads to peoples misunderstanding where is one and where is the other. If it was just a detective story, the whole Adlet running around purchased and all the suspicion /infighting would be unnecessary. RnY is coupling several genre, the how was it done was the detective genre, whereas the who is the traitor was the jinrou game/psychological genre. I like how peoples unable to see something that simple are looking down on a work which outsmarted them completely. Just to say, the author even took the time to make us understand where was the end of one thema and when was the other. If you look at the story telling, the detective solves how and gives all the proofs. THEN, when asked who is the culprit, even though you could conclude WITHOUT the stone tablet as he's doing afterwards thinking back of the event in the forest, he is unable to conclude at all. This points out that the detective part is FINISHED, and that the detective already accomplished his role. What remains is solving the jinrou game, which is done after inserting that "I don't know from Adlet, in order to clearly show to the reader what rules the author is following. Hindsight is always 20/20. The author uses a deus ex machina solution for who the traitor is. There is no denying that and you liking the story so much that you see proofs where they are not does not change that. But if you are so adamant about it, please give us all some precise examples instead of pretending to be smarter than everyone else. It isn't a deus ex machina. If you think it is, then you clearly either don't understand what is a deus ex machina or don't understand what RnY's author did. Let me list the place the characters searched for clues/hidden passages and the like on screen as well as where we were told they did if not on screen. Now lets me check the different Areas bigs enough to hide something that were SHOWN to the viewer/readers several times. What Hans basically did about the tablet out screen. Note that the same play exactly can be done one episode earlier with the place the corpse was found. Your reaction to you and TheServant : AHHHHHHHHH it comes out of nowhere! Deus Ex Machina! this is bad, bad, BAD! BAD ! Well, my words to you on this. A deus ex machina in both case would have been to find the proofs in a place not shown to the viewers until now. Like, a cavern somewhere in the forest that we never saw/heard about. Yes, that would have been a deus ex machina. But, characters listing the places they checked and listing the place they should have checked and comparing the list to see if there's anythign they missed ISN'T a deus ex machina. Lots of mysteries have similar gimmick. Basically, the author leaves a black box to hide a clue right under the nose of the viewer and character, yet psychologically no one think of that possibility right under the nose of everyone. This is a very used and very clever trick. "To hide something, hide it right under the nose of the peoples searching it". That's what was done here. Let me tell you this. If you watched the anime, you saw hundred of times that Altar. Yet, you never ever thought that it was like a huge container that no one checked. For EIGHT EPISODES. You were clearly defeated by the author in that mystery. So stop being butt-hurt about it and admit it rather than searching excuse with pre-made words like deus ex machina and the like. There was no deus ex machina here. Except in your dreams. Same goes with the corpse. In episode 5, Hans even introduce his hand in one of the corpse head to play with it. partHe introduced [i]a part of a human body inside the freaking. fiend. corpse, and in the freaking. mouth [/i of all things. The studio and author played with you all along indeed. You didn't even notice, did you. I've seen peoples saying that it insulted their intelligence, that it was dumb, obvious, that it was deus ex machina and the like. As a matter of fact. They played with you and outsmarted you on everything. So much in fact that even several months after seeing it, some peoples have yet to realize how much they were fooled and outsmarted by that show. How comical to see that kind of peoples complaining that RnY isn't smart enough or good enough for their taste. TheServant said: SodiumChloride said: Just to be clear a fair play mystery needs to follow Knox's Decalogue right ? 1. The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow. 2. All supernaural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course. 3. Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable. 4. No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end. 5. No Chinaman must figure in the story. 6. No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right. 7. The detective must not himself commit the crime. 8. The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader. 9. The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader. 10. Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them. Exactly, but it seems some of the Rokka fans have their own understanding of what fair play mystery is, which is unfortunate & saddening. Ah right right right, i completely forgit about Knox' decaloguehaving that dumb rule, mea culpa. Well, who would have thought that someone would ue Knox decalogue to determine a fair mystery though. That's quite laughable. Do you know who knox was? A simple author who wrote at that time THREE detective novels before writing his decalogie which ISN"T a list of a rules a "fair mystery" need to follow but his opinion about what are the rules a detective writer should follow (notice the subjective point here, as well as the complete absence of any "fair" word in it). As a matter of fact, Knox' decalogue was never intended by his author to be used to determine if a mystery story is fair to the reader or not (although several rules in it are indeed very important for a fair mystery indeed). The proof is that it includes rules like 'no chinaman" that are here for a COMPLETE other reason than "being fair". It's his opinion as a rookie detective novel writer of the "ten commandments" a detective novel should follow. If you look at Van Dine's 20 rules,you'll see that they don't agree on every point. They are contemporary, both had 3 novels writen at the time they wrote the rules, and both are fully clearly listing their opinion and have listed stuff that is clearly only biased opinion. In fact, they even almost contradict each other on the point you're using as a "proof" here. According to Van Din's rules, "The method of murder, and the means of detecting it, must be be rational and scientific." If it's scientific, then it may require a scientific explanation from the detective explaining the trick. It completely and utterly contradict your complaint about RnY. Weird, heh? But I said "almost contradict". Because I'm going to be nice here, and actually do like Knox' decalogue is actually a good way to determine if a mystery was fair to the reader or not (it's not, but let's forget about that point). Let's take back that rule. or any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end. Several things. There was no appliance involved here. So that rules is already respected. But let's be nice again, and say that in RnY, magic is basically appliance. For the sake of being fair until the end. Then we have an "appliance" which necessitated a scientific explanation at the end, indeed. So, is the rule broken? No. Too bad. Because it requires a LONG scientific explanation to be broken. Was RnY's scientific explanation at the end of the novel long? RnY said: That's it, really. Even by taking large, that's the length of the scientific explanation. Is it "Long" for a novel? no, it isn't. That's not what you call "long", especially since it could have been done even shorter if the author really wanted. So, is this Knox's decalogue rule broken by RnY ? The answer is no. So, I'm going to say it again. RnY's mystery was fair to the reader/watcher. Don't put the blame of you being unable to solve it on it being bad. It outsmarted you on all points, and peoples need to stop being butt hurt about it. |
ZefyrisFeb 4, 2016 4:19 AM
|
| By your definition, Detective Conan is the closest series to fair play mystery that I know, but it's not really "fair" imo, because, even if it gives you the elements, the mechanism behind the cases are usually too arbitrarily complex to be deducted by pure logic, but you can guess who the culprit is by instinct or just with the familiarity with the pattern that the series frequently uses. But that's not logic. TheServant said: Or they're trying to convince themselves that the clueless mystery anime are fair play. My point is, there is no "real" fair play mystery in anime. At least among those I know. So they're not trying to convince themselves, probably. That's just "fair mystery" being a model of perfection and, as such, a type of mystery of debatable feasibility. |
| the best fair mystery awited aime right now probably is phoenix wright ace attorney that you need to use evidence to expose the lie and discovered the truth. |
| Rokka is the best mystery series in recent seasons, gtfo Okay, jokes aside, I agree the tablet reveal was weak, but theres enough clues to deduce its that person, primarily that person's lie a few episodes in to another person. Also yeah, that Saint's powers were indeed described and not just once at that. And the way the fog occurs is solvable, albeit extremely difficult. For Danganronpa, theres enough in both anime and game to solve it about midway through the trials usually, at worst. Ive watched all the anime and games and theyre almost all fair, except maybe one or two times. For Conan, yes, its mostly fair, but theres a lot of word plays that English people wont notice and some art style things that make things harder to tell. There are some clueless mysteries with bullshit deductions, but I dont think any of these strongly fall into this categories more than a cluefilled deduction. Obviously most people will prefer clueful mysteries. Edit: Zeyfris why I am not surprised to see you in almost every Rokka thread? |
DragonFeb 4, 2016 6:12 PM
TheServant said: Dragon said: There are some clueless mysteries with bullshit deductions, but I dont think any of these strongly fall into this categories more than a cluefilled deduction. Obviously most people will prefer clueful mysteries. Edit: Zeyfris why I am not surprised to see you in almost every Rokka thread? For Rokka, it's a clueless mystery that feels like a fair play one. It's just is. It would've been better if the writer did not focus the mystery aspect so much, because it was not good. The suspense that caused by the mystery was nice, but not the mystery itself. Mostly fair in the manga, right? In the anime some clues are not revealed until the end of the case. "It just is" isn't a reason at all. IDK what manga you refer to, but Rokka is fair in its anime and LN forms, probably more fair in its LN form a little bit. There's nothing wrong with defending a series you like. |
TyrelFeb 13, 2016 4:56 PM
| Fair play mystery is better. In clueless mystery anything can happen and it tends to be less interesting because the revelation of solving the mystery loses its impact. Having the clues right before you and having the chance to solve it would be my definition to a good mystery story. If it so happens that you cant solve it, when the story starts to link together is the point where it is good. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| You must mean what i personally call "transparency". Fair play mysteries are transparent to the viewers. Yup, I prefer this kind of mystery too. This is why, I guess, Detective Conan is still selling, even though the story is episodically distracted from the main aim (catch the Black Organization). And I enjoy Detective Conan. I understand your frustration. One of the things that easily annoy me are "genius" characters that are only implied but not proved in action. This is why I don't appreciate Zankyou no Terror that much. For one, their puzzles. The video puzzles they uploaded online are too easy for the in-story reality, and yet only one detective in the world could answer? And Five's chess game for Nine and Twelve in the airport. We viewers have no clue what's going on in the game; they're just too genius. This goes not only in the detective genre, but also to the strategy genre, where audience try to anticipate the actions of the players. And this is why I love Death Note. Everything was so transparent and we ourselves can testify to the genius of the main players. Ajin is another. The audience are gradually given knowledge about the Ajin, and the characters make their moves applying these knowledge in a mindblowing and yet abiding-by-the-rules fashion. Shingeki no Kyojin is another transparent one in its mystery. What's different about this is that it's a giant puzzle in itself. The main characters themselves are just as clueless as the viewers. So it's like, the viewers are searching for answers together with the main characters. And the clues are laid out in the story, in the manga panels. Isayama-sensei won't do something out of nowhere. Everything is grounded; there's at least a clue he left somewhere. (I think the SnK fandom houses the greatest theorists. XD) |
koori_no_jinFeb 4, 2016 7:09 PM
蒼穹を舞う。  |
TheServant said: Please stop. I do not want you to ridicule yourself like this yet again just like what you did in Rokka's discussion forum. Let me just say I enjoyed Rokka & hoping for a 2nd season. How's that? Does that make you less angry? Ahahah typical. Criticizing a work, feeling superior, and the moment someone comes and show you through and through how wrong and mistaken you are, you just brush it off without addressing any of the point made, looking elsewhere. The only thing I'm concluding here is that you have nothing to answer, you know? Well, so the conclusion until further notice is that 1) Rokka is a fair mystery 2) You don't know what a fair mystery is 3) You don't have the proper attention to detail while watching/reading to actually ENJOY a fairly done mystery when it's smart 4) You're mistaking Knox' decalogue goal and didn't even research who was Knox. 5) You're misunderstanding Knox Decalogue's rules as well 6) You're seriously thinking that in a detective novel, a paragraph long explanation is a LONG explanation (you're a funny guy, you know that x) ) 7) You're unable to handle the answer made to your uninformed opinion when someone has arguments, and go in denial by pretending there's nothing to look at. I proved that that rule you cherish so much in Knox' decalogue WAS respected by Rokka's mystery. What are your proof now that Rokka isn't a "fair mystery" according to your "own definition"? According to your current answer, nothing. I see. You're just superficial talk. Nothing behind. No knowledge, no ability to argue and defend your opinion properly. Typical, indeed. |
|
| Well, then it's fine. I'm not mad. But we can't really talk with you about fair and unfair mystery if you're mainly an anime watcher since anime has indeed, like you pointed out IIRC, very few fair mysteries to begin with. Most of the detective case in anime are solved in like one or two episodes. Game of Laplace is indeed a perfect example of what isn't fair as a detective novel and was a disappointment to me. As a matter of fact, lots of anime watchers who watched Rokka thought that 8 episodes to solve a single mystery was "far too long". This shows how much anime watchers are used to unfair or very simple detective case that can pretty much be solved right away. The detective go to the crime scene, and hop! he already knows everything. Ahlalala. Seriously, don't "wait /hope" for second season. If you want fair detective stories, go read novels instead. And I'm not saying to you to go read RnY since the main point of that story isn't to be detective novels and that therefore no matter what the first volume showed, what comes next will probably not satisfy you on that point. If you're already reading a lot of novels and that therefore I've read too much in your previous sentence "I'm hoping for a second season", then ignore this point. Anyway, one last thing about RnY and Knox' decalogue that I forgot to point out above. Rule 3 : Not more than one secret room or passage is allowable. That's exactly what happened with the tablets. It was on screen all along, and it was just one. So even though as I said, Knox' decalogue isn't a proper way to judge what is a fair mystery, even that part is actually following properly Knox' decalogue. You seem to have misunderstood the reason I'm so insitant in this thread about RnY btw. You started a topic about something and used what is to me a very wrong example. I always react in those case. Peoples reading that board regularly have probably seen it a lot of times for various topic. Like for example starting a discussion about Tsundere and using Taiga as a prime example. That's the same really. If you use at a prime example something that isn't correct as an example, it shows that you're starting to talk on a subject without grasping what is really that subject. So yes, the first thing we have logically to do, is to debunk that problem. At least, that's how I do things. |
|
More topics from this board
» mal/ConfessionsNoelleIsSleepy - Yesterday |
46 |
by GuyWithoutFear
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Do you think anime has ever negatively impacted someone's life?tappioca - Yesterday |
23 |
by Serafos
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Do you guys pretend to hate anime?APolygons2 - 47 minutes ago |
9 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» Your longest record/streak ( 1 2 )Yonahim_Zz - May 9 |
78 |
by -Kugeki-
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» which antagonist is your fave and which one you cannot JUST TAKE SERIOUSLY ?ame - Apr 24 |
22 |
by TRC_Randy
»»
14 minutes ago |