/jp/ - Otaku Culture

my waifu

>>13617073
(Not that poster, but I'll answer.) Episode 5 and 6 show the problems of approaching the story as a mystery; in episode 5 cold hard logical mystery solving is used, rendering a solution that may technically be irrefutable but is very unsatisfying. The message was that you can't just solve the mystery by following every objective fact to its logical conclusion. In episode 6, the meta equivalent is shown to be problematic; although the game can technically be 'won', it's not meant to be won. Erika abuses the fact that it's a game and plays it like a game, which again is not how it's supposed to be solved.

From this point on I disagree with the poster you replied to. Episode 7 followed the style shift in the story by focusing on what is really needed to understand the story: the personal circumstances of the characters involved. It ends with a harsh message in the form of the Tea Party (one that has been foreshadowed since ep5): Discovering the truth may not be a positive thing, and may in fact only cause grief if the truth is sufficiently awful.

Episode 8 then follows that to its logical conclusion by having the message that it's better not to know the entire truth; you know the circumstances that caused the incident, you know the troubles that the characters went through, and who actually committed the murders is not important. Finding the truth would only hurt Ange and all the people she's trying to uncover the truth for.

This all ties in perfectly with the original 'deconstruction* of mystery stories' theme the series starts with. As the series progresses, it increasingly defies the standards of the mystery genre, and at the end it defies the most fundamental law of mystery stories by positing that the mystery does not need an answer.

* Let's not argue over semantics. I know the proper term is 'parody' but 90% of people would take that to mean 'humoristic derivative'.