Is Gosho Writing Good? (Chekhov Confesses, Gosho held Prisoner in basement)

[ranger]

Conan is the reincarnation of Jackie Chan.

so ah le le = bad day?

[sonoci]

So to answer your question let me ask a question. instead of putting an axe to the tree, she is only allowed to put a red flag on it. Is it still fair, if the author enters the forest and puts say one hundred red flags on the trees , or it that cheating?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm guessing red herrings. To answer you: no it would not be fair. Why? That would be like adding a new rule without consulting the "players". How would she know if the tree she has is right if that happened either? What's the criteria to win? What does the red flag mean? Does it mean she thinks it's that tree? All fine and dandy, but how is she told she's right? And, if Gosho were to come in and put flags everywhere, how would she know if her choice was right when it's been tampered with?

Translation: If Gosho writes as if my theories are true, he is a good writer. If he doesn't, he is a bad writer.

While you might say that and I think I understand why, I would not. All I am looking for is him to hide his clues better or have a lot more red herrings. Back to my earlier question. Is the writer a good writer if after say 10 chapters of an 100 chapter book, you know the killer, the method, some of the red herring and why are fakes, and where the treasure is?

I'm sorry, this confuses me: do you think Chek is right? That's what it sounds like taking the "hide his clues better" part. If that's not the case and you're referring to your theory...then the "clues" are extremely "well-hidden" and there are a lot of "red herrings" in the way of "Bourbon" and "Okiya-Akai".

As for the 10 chapters part, I've been over this: moderation of clues. If there happens to be smart people like Chek, however, it's not the end of the world if someone picks up on the correct theory and continues to pick up the hints. In fact, if there are enough clues for someone to pick up on it and theorize the correct conclusion, that shows effort and hard work. It is EXTREMELY difficult to integrate clues into a story while still hiding them. Clues that add up to a conclusion show that the end result has been decided on and is being planned for

Pull something out of nowhere, the chances are it was literally pulled out of nowhere. That's not good writing 

Lastly

Silly ranger, that's Shinichi



There we go 

[sstimson]

So to answer your question let me ask a question. instead of putting an axe to the tree, she is only allowed to put a red flag on it. Is it still fair, if the author enters the forest and puts say one hundred red flags on the trees , or it that cheating?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm guessing red herrings. To answer you: no it would not be fair. Why? That would be like adding a new rule without consulting the "players". How would she know if the tree she has is right if that happened either? What's the criteria to win? What does the red flag mean? Does it mean she thinks it's that tree? All fine and dandy, but how is she told she's right? And, if Gosho were to come in and put flags everywhere, how would she know if her choice was right when it's been tampered with?

Translation: If Gosho writes as if my theories are true, he is a good writer. If he doesn't, he is a bad writer.

While you might say that and I think I understand why, I would not. All I am looking for is him to hide his clues better or have a lot more red herrings. Back to my earlier question. Is the writer a good writer if after say 10 chapters of an 100 chapter book, you know the killer, the method, some of the red herring and why are fakes, and where the treasure is?

I'm sorry, this confuses me: do you think Chek is right? That's what it sounds like taking the "hide his clues better" part. If that's not the case and you're referring to your theory...then the "clues" are extremely "well-hidden" and there are a lot of "red herrings" in the way of "Bourbon" and "Okiya-Akai".

As for the 10 chapters part, I've been over this: moderation of clues. If there happens to be smart people like Chek, however, it's not the end of the world if someone picks up on the correct theory and continues to pick up the hints. In fact, if there are enough clues for someone to pick up on it and theorize the correct conclusion, that shows effort and hard work. It is EXTREMELY difficult to integrate clues into a story while still hiding them. Clues that add up to a conclusion show that the end result has been decided on and is being planned for

Pull something out of nowhere, the chances are it was literally pulled out of nowhere. That's not good writing  :-\

Lastly

Part one. Here I must disagree with you. The author has the right to put out at many red Flags as they wish, they created the forest, and as the story is not does yet can add to it. Chekhov might still know where her red flag is, but the author has the right to write the story as they see fit. Chekhov, In my option should not spell everything out, because if right could remove the fun from the other clues hunters. So I think adding red herring before finishing an arc if you wish is completely fair, after all they are the writer and the reader is not suppose to be smarter then the writer.

Part two. If Chekhov is right, then Gosho without question does need to hide those clues better. Otherwise it becomes predictable, and those kind of stories lose the reader interest. The writer is (Most of the time{qualifier for ABS}) trying to keep the reader in suspense not knowing what is going to happen next. Let me use the thriller an example.

Spoiler:

Remember the story where the Fan (It might even be Chekhov) had gotten the writer tied up and we wonder if they will be rescued or killed? Well how good would that kind of story be if the Police were watching through a window and waiting while the events inside happened.

That to me might explain how a mystery writer who puts their clues in such plain sight that all see them and there is not question what will happen next. As most of my theories are either of the surprise kind, or are too simple to be believed, I admit I would not mind seeing them happen, because it would bring back suspense to his works and people are Chekhov would maybe not fall as fast for the red herrings.

Part three. If there are too many clues, I think it does the reverse. IMO one clue and only one major clue is needed. Any clues after that should be or look like red herrings so the reader does not pay them the attention a reader later after the story is done will.

[kkslider5552000]

major tl;dr but I am starting to think the stupid Gundam naming scheme is to blame as all it does is absolutely confirms stuff without needing any other proof oncesoever and kills a decent amount of interest in a 4 year long story arc to make it easier for the young audience that are the ones most likely to never get the reference.

Spoiler: Arkham City spoilers

It would be like if fake Joker renamed himself "Jokerface".

[sonoci]

Part one. Here I must disagree with you. The author has the right to put out at many red Flags as they wish, they created the forest, and as the story is not does yet can add to it.

What you're saying here is that the "game" should be one without any ground rules...that the creator can change the rules anytime as they see fit. While I agree with that in a sense, I'd agree fully if the changes were made and told to the players. I don't know if you would, but I know that I wouldn't play a game that someone made if it were a "Oh yeah, I can change the rules anytime I want without telling you". A game is supposed to be fun, it's something that you can usually have a chance at winning at, that you can understand. If the rules can be changed at will without players knowing, it's a high chance players will not play in the first place.

Chekhov might still know where her red flag is, but the author has the right to write the story as they see fit.

Again, the point is brought up to you: how is Chekhov in anyway affecting how Gosho writes? It is getting to the point of frustration the amount of times this has to be repeated. The point you're making is very far out there and without proof that Gosho has read Chekhov's theories, it remains far out in the stratosphere.

Chekhov, In my option should not spell everything out, because if right could remove the fun from the other clues hunters.

Do you know what this is, down to the bone, saying? Do you realize what this says? It says "Chekhov shouldn't be able to play this game because she's too good at it and it takes the fun out of it for other people" Solution: Don't play with her. AKA Don't read her theories

.. after all they are the writer and the reader is not suppose to be smarter then the writer.

...Where did this come from. Do you...know what editing is? An editor reads over a writer's work and makes corrections and such. So...essentially, they're usually smarter than the writer. And...Gosho is not some super ultra brainiac god  If you're predictable, you're predictable. If you're not predictable, but people pick up and predict things, then they're smart. All readers are not of average thinking, you know. There are some brainiacs that like to read.

Part two. If Chekhov is right, then Gosho without question does need to hide those clues better. Otherwise it becomes predictable, and those kind of stories lose the reader interest. The writer is (Most of the time{qualifier for ABS}) trying to keep the reader in suspense not knowing what is going to happen next.

There are many ways to make suspense, my friend. You can be predictable in some areas and suspenseful in others. Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself

Just because Chek finds the clues does not mean they're not hidden well. It just means she's good at finding things. The reason you don't think they're hidden well is because they've been found. It's way too easy to say "Pft, that was so easy" when the mystery has already been solved. And consider this: almost anything that has been read and watched...there are theories and analyses out there. Their existence isn't what makes things seem obvious, it's reading them that makes everything "obvious".

As most of my theories are either of the surprise kind, or are too simple to be believed, I admit I would not mind seeing them happen, because it would bring back suspense to his works and people are Chekhov would maybe not fall as fast for the red herrings.

First: you admit to "not minding" seeing your theories come to fruition? ...Uh, isn't that kind of implied?

Second: You're saying that it would bring suspense back if you're theories are right, but that it won't be suspenseful if Chekhov is right. From what I can gather, you're saying that if your theories are right that it'll be "suspenseful" because everyone will have thought Chek was right. Consider this: if Chek is right...who in the equation is going to be surprised?

Part three. If there are too many clues, I think it does the reverse. IMO one clue and only one major clue is needed. Any clues after that should be or look like red herrings so the reader does not pay them the attention a reader later after the story is done will.

...Mysteries are made of clues. That's why they're mysteries. That's why there's the game called Clue.

And...at this point I wonder if you know what a red herring is. If red herrings are everywhere, they lose their purpose -_-'

major tl;dr but I am starting to think the stupid Gundam naming scheme is to blame as all it does is absolutely confirms stuff without needing any other proof oncesoever and kills a decent amount of interest in a 4 year long story arc to make it easier for the young audience that are the ones most likely to never get the reference.

Yeeah, that's so true. Now people just need to go to the Gundam page to find out who people are and how they're related. That's a big slip on Gosho's part, I'll admit

[Partsu]

yeh the gundam naming scheme was and is the biggest suspense killer...
but then again...Gosho could still have something major in his sleeve...

and another thing...
good mysteries are solvable before the conclusion is told.
It might kill the suspense to know the answer before told
but the feeling that you'd beaten the mystery an' were right is amazing.
edit: and some of us like to get spoiled by those better than us in mysterysolving...aka we dummies want to know what is the right answer so we need ppl like Chekhov to tell us the best answer...

[sonoci]

good mysteries are solvable before the conclusion is told.
It might kill the suspense to know the answer before told
but the feeling that you'd beaten the mystery an' were right is amazing.

Exactly

I would've been concise like this, but I'll admit I like to practice my debating skills xD'

[Partsu]

...but I'll admit I like to practice my debating skills xD'

me too but I'm too dumb to figure things out myself...so I need others to do the deducting and I'll then like to find flaws in their theories and add some of my own before saying my theory...

but it's nice to know someone is so good that flaws are impossible to find...
it's a lot easier to be able to say "I agree with ******'s theory"
in DC's case it's "I agree with Chekhov's theory"

[sstimson]

Because of the way I think, I am of the opinion, that like wide paths that lead to cliffs or nowhere, One to needs to look for answers that others do not see or are too far out there as to make sure they get where they are going and do not go off a cliff. There is a chance they will turn out right, and be the right path. There must be some lemmings to go in other directions. After all, we are not all sheep. And while I am sure that some of Chek's ideas are wrong, as I am in the minority, I have little or no chance of convincing others. Am I wrong in trying to convince others that they might be headed for a cliff, that (Bible reference) a major rain storm is coming and to prepare now. Even though I have little or no chance, I feel I must.

Debate is healthy. How would you like a society where there is no dissent and everyone agrees, even when in the end they are proven wrong and thus a major disaster occurs? Someone must be on the other side or else there is no debate and if the worst happens, there was not one to give the warning.

I am very weary when people say things can only be one way. We are not taking known facts, we are talking theories here. You might use as an example the flat Earth before the Earth was proven round. At that time most people though the earth was flat and laughed, and at times killed those who said it was round. I sure that like Chek's ideas, the flat Earthers have lot of proof and evidence for their side. Those who said the world was round might have had no proof. They might have only had the idea. But they found a way to prove that idea and that they did. Because of those brave people we now know that we live on a round world, though a few flat Earthers remain.

Other theories are needed. I know I am thought of as crazy since I like those people who thought the world was round do not have much evidence, just theories. You can give lots of proof and evidence for a mistaken idea. The dreamers are needed to see what the majority will not or refuse to see. The minority does exist and is the failsafe to possible prevent a dictator from taking over. Another lesson from history,
Hitler at the time seemed to be the answer to Germany problems, but we all know how that worked out.

And using one of my theories as an example, how would this be cheating? The theory that Bourbon does not exist. After all there is a lot of evidence that Gin and possible other BO members believe Akai is alive. So the question was asked why is Kir still alive? Again why would you allow a possible spy to learn some of your important secrets? But if that so called secret is reality test, then it makes a lot more sense. And I will allow that even as a test Bourbon could exist, not likely but possible. I see this as a great twist and not seen by many, and showing the Conan at times can be wrong and does at times overanalyzed things. The first thing I think he should have checked is has Kir been outed. Because if she has, then everything changes.

You do not think, just by the way some of the questions that are asked, that some of Chek ideas do not enter Gosho's mind. A good example is Gosho Joke about Gundum. Does anyone beside me think maybe, just maybe he finds it a joke and he named certain things that way just to mislead?

Do you know what this is, down to the bone, saying? Do you realize what this says? It says "Chekhov shouldn't be able to play this game because she's too good at it and it takes the fun out of it for other people" Solution: Don't play with her. AKA Don't read her theories

Well it is next to impossible not to read her theories without reading ANY threads as they are everywhere. And beside remember the thing about debate, it is easier to debate if you know something about the other side. Again what I meant was not said very well. Let me try again. She should not go into such detail to prove her theory unless someone request that and even then that should be done in a PM. That way some of the secrets are possibly still secret.

. after all they are the writer and the reader is not suppose to be smarter then the writer.

Again I need to explain what I meant here. The writer knows all about their story. What I was trying to say is as far as the story, the writer should be smarter then the reader. I did not mean general knowledge.


For the next part, again that crazy warning of mine. Beware of things that the writer give you in the clear, there is a very good chance they will be red herrings. One in my opinion should keep to the story and not use what they think the writer is doing outside the story. All necessary clues should be in the story, and to use a word you used, to do otherwise would be cheating.

Second: You're saying that it would bring suspense back if you're theories are right, but that it won't be suspenseful if Chekhov is right. From what I can gather, you're saying that if your theories are right that it'll be "suspenseful" because everyone will have thought Chek was right. Consider this: if Chek is right...who in the equation is going to be surprised?

If the majority is right, who is surprised? That is basically your last statement. The answer to that is possibly no one. It is after all what all expect and know will happen. Now it the Minority is right, then yes a lot of people with be surprised, right?

Do you concern AC to be a great writer? A lot of people do. There are good reasons why she is called Queen of the Mystery Genre. And yet in some of her books there is only one real clue. Sometime that one clue is even harder, because it is a what was not there kind of clue, and yet she still has the queen title. Is she cheating in not leaving more clues?

And...at this point I wonder if you know what a red herring is. If red herrings are everywhere, they lose their purpose -_-'

And I might ask you the same question. It goes back to our forest of trees. In a forest of say 100 clues, i think it a better mystery if only one of the clues is real and the other 99 are fake leads, or clues. I see a red herring as something to both hide the real clues, and to lead the reader down a fake path to the wrong conclusion. There should be a lot more red herrings then clues. Lets for a moment turn it around just for you. In this forest, every where you look are real clues in fact 99 of them. Do you even care which one of the 100 clues is the red herring?

The detective with fewer clues, like the only clue being a button should be a better detective that the detective who has thousand of clues and little or no false leads. Even Genta with 1,000 of clues could say the murderer is ... Conan (He killed a goldfish by over feeding it). But if the only clue to the crime was that the feed box for the goldfish was 1/1000 less then it should be Genta could not solve it. Fewer clues give our great detective a chance to show off. More clues make their job easier, and there might be a point where there are so many clues they wait for the Genta to solve it. It is the same way with the reader detective. Those who can solve the button clue are few. Those who can solve it with a lot more clues are many. Maybe I should ask, are you saying you need more clues then one because your not in the Yusaku class, but the Ayumi class?

[ranger]

You are amazing, Sonoci.  That is all.

[Kor]

Because of the way I think, I am of the opinion, that like wide paths that lead to cliffs or nowhere, One to needs to look for answers that others do not see or are too far out there as to make sure they get where they are going and do not go off a cliff. There is a chance they will turn out right, and be the right path. There must be some lemmings to go in other directions. After all, we are not all sheep. And while I am sure that some of Chek's ideas are wrong, as I am in the minority, I have little or no chance of convincing others. Am I wrong in trying to convince others that they might be headed for a cliff, that (Bible reference) a major rain storm is coming and to prepare now. Even though I have little or no chance, I feel I must.

Debate is healthy. How would you like a society where there is no dissent and everyone agrees, even when in the end they are proven wrong and thus a major disaster occurs? Someone must be on the other side or else there is no debate and if the worst happens, there was not one to give the warning.

I am very weary when people say things can only be one way. We are not taking known facts, we are talking theories here. You might use as an example the flat Earth before the Earth was proven round. At that time most people though the earth was flat and laughed, and at times killed those who said it was round. I sure that like Chek's ideas, the flat Earthers have lot of proof and evidence for their side. Those who said the world was round might have had no proof. They might have only had the idea. But they found a way to prove that idea and that they did. Because of those brave people we now know that we live on a round world, though a few flat Earthers remain.

Other theories are needed. I know I am thought of as crazy since I like those people who thought the world was round do not have much evidence, just theories. You can give lots of proof and evidence for a mistaken idea. The dreamers are needed to see what the majority will not or refuse to see. The minority does exist and is the failsafe to possible prevent a dictator from taking over. Another lesson from history,
Hitler at the time seemed to be the answer to Germany problems, but we all know how that worked out.

No, I don't even know how to respond to this.

So basically:
You're Noah
Chekhov and the majority think the earth is flat
And you are the minority that would have made sure that Hitler wouldn't have taken over?

Okay, first of all: WHAT?

Second of all, if the majority votes in democratic election to a "dictator in disguise" (aka Hitler), the minority can't do much about it.

Third, "dreamers are needed.........." - you can say many things about Hitler, but he was definitely a dreamer as well (though his dreams were kind of meh if you ask me)

Now let me ask you this:
If the majority of people did follow your pearls of wisdom, would you really believe all of the stuff you were saying? Then you couldn't be Noah, then you couldn't be the "1%", then you couldn't be "the minority who thought the world is round", and then you couldn't be the "minority to keep the dictator from taking over", then you couldn't be the "dreamer".
If the majority followed your theory and it turned out to be correct, no one would be surprised, right?

So you basically want to be the minority, but then again you're trying to convince people to believe your theory - and so we have another major contradiction.

[sstimson]

Well I disagree because there is NO CHANGE of being in the majority until some of my theory pan out. SO I at best can hope to maybe add 10% to the minority, but it will still be a minority.

To clarify. First I could be like Noah, not I am Him. (GOD has not yet told me to build an ark)
Chekhov could be flat earthers, of course it might turn out I am the flat earther. Time will tell
And Yes the minority, while not able to stop Hitler, might have been able to shorten the war.
(After all it a few more voices were heard, maybe Chamberland might not have played the Lets give Hitler what he wants game)

Dreamer dream the impossible. Many of today's things might not have happened but for dreamers

And If most were thinking my way, I am not sure if I would still be on this side or Chekhov side. Like I said I do not trust things that are too easy or things that can only be one way. But if no dissent, to thing that are currently being my way, then I would in all likely again be on the other side.
Yes if the majority were saying what I said and there was some dissent, then a few might be surprised

Does that help at all? Trying to move a few or even none is okay if at nothing else, if I am proven to be right, and can say next time look harder and beware.

[Vylash]

You are amazing, Sonoci.  That is all.

[Chekhov MacGuffin]

major tl;dr but I am starting to think the stupid Gundam naming scheme is to blame as all it does is absolutely confirms stuff without needing any other proof oncesoever and kills a decent amount of interest in a 4 year long story arc to make it easier for the young audience that are the ones most likely to never get the reference.

Spoiler: Arkham City spoilers

It would be like if fake Joker renamed himself "Jokerface".

Spoiler: Manga only chars mentioned

If you noticed the Gundam naming theme, you were probably smart enough to catch a good chunk of the other clues and draw the right conclusions anyway. Besides, the closer you are to the reveal for a major arc, the more obvious the dropped clues, and thus the easier the mystery. Sera and Tohru both appeared late in the game, so they were going to be pretty obvious.

---

Anyway, I think the translation here is that Sstimson is bitter that his theories didn't garner many supporters, and as the expected end draws closer, he is becoming increasingly desperate to give his ideas some air. His lashing out takes the the form of:
1) Claiming I am massively misleading others with poor theorywork.
2) Playing himself up as a hero against evil dictator Chekhov championing a minority idea that will ultimately turn out to be right because it would be "better writing" that way.
3) Trying to undermine the basic premise upon which I base my theories that Gosho writes fair mysteries where all the clues are provided to solve it. That is no arsepull swerve endings, and no Gosho changing the ending because he read the theories and wanted to undermine them.
4) I have an unfair exposure advantage, so I should keep my theories private. (lol innuendo)

Sorry, but no one is sympathetic to any of this, and adding biblical, flat earth, and Hitler references only makes it even more farcical.

Regardless of who you think is right, Sstimson, let's look at the reasons why "my" theories gained as much reputation as they did and why yours didn't, so hopefully you can understand why no one is listening to you which I imagine is rather frustrating for you.

Spoiler: collapsed for length not manga spoilers

1) "My theories" are not my theories - they are a common conclusion many people other than me reach. I didn't invent them and what I say has NO effect on on the thought processes of the majority of people coming to the conclusions O=A, SA=B, etc... Most people draw their conclusions long before they read my theories, and if or when they do read them, they simply solidify the suspicions they already had. In my experience, I only rarely change the minds of people through debate - and even then usually only those who were on the fence to begin with. Those who change their conclusions do it mostly by themselves. (eg. Kyuu who originally argued Akai was really dead). The only reason why they are called "Chekhov's theories" in the first place is because I am the most vocal proponent of them and have organized all the major ideas into one place.
2) I built a reputation for "being good at DC" by more-or-less solving most of the weekly mysteries and by answering other people's questions. No one took me seriously before that for the most part. I made a lot more mistakes early on, people pointed them out, and then I got my act more together by not making those same mistakes again.
3) I formulate my ideas in a comprehensive, easy to read, list-like fashion with the logic presented concisely after each point. I base all the theories on actual evidence, with citations, that can be checked, or by using simple deductions, often based on prior examples, that are relatively self evident and can't be easily argued with. (If the logic/deduction is debatable, the point is worthless) I never make assumptions without providing evidence or logic as to why that assumption is probably valid. I also address common counter-arguments too. Finally, none of my theories or evidence contradicts with evidence anywhere else.

The differences between your theory and "mine" are that your theory is not a common conclusion, so you are going to have to work a lot harder and with smarter evidence to convince people, and even then you are going to have limited success.
You don't solve cases, and rarely help people with their questions, which builds reputation for being skillful. Also, sometimes you don't have your facts straight in ways that can be proven by simply looking up the facts. This hurts your rep.
Finally, your arguments are scattered, your thoughts not cogent, clear, or concise, and you aren't disciplined with how you present evidence. People get confused, so they simply stop reading your posts. Your logic and assumptions are often irrational or not based on evidence, so people simply disregard them, which then undermines your entire argument in the eyes of the reader.

Even if you have the best theory, you aren't going to win any minds unless you present it in one go so that anyone reading it will have no choice but to think you are on to something. If you can't do that, then maybe it's time to start wondering if your theory or assumptions are really correct.

[Abs.]

Also, sometimes you don't have your facts straight in ways that can be proven by simply looking up the facts. This hurts your rep.

Case in point:

Spoiler: From the SD board

Another Idea. Back when Kir's Dad was killed, and Camel asking a BO member to leave, Funny thought, What if the BO member Camel ask to leave was the BOSS? In the background, not mentioned since, And being told to leave,means he knew it was a trap. Could Camel unknowingly have meet the BOSS?

No. I do not think in this case that could be Vermouth.

It happened two years ago in Japan (Chapter 607 Page 8)

A year ago Vermouth if Sharon was in America, New York (Chapter 350 Page 16)

And current Dc time just a few weeks before the party Vermouth Arrives (Chapter 239 Page 10); (Chapter 242 Page 17)

It seem to me that Vermouth Home base was in the USA and makes it very unlikely to be Vermouth who Camel saw. Nor is it Pisco. That why it might be the BOSS. He has age, Sound like he was to be part of the meeting where KIR dad Died, and is not a seen member of the BO. A member in the shadows and none of the current members we know about. Nor could it be Bourbon, if chek is right about there being a bourbon and when they joined. Not Rye as Akai flash backs clearly show him as himself and Camel would have know. Who is left? I really think there is a good chance that the Boss was a part of the Party case where Pisco was killed (Gin might have got the order in person), and BOSS was suppose to show up where camel made his mistake. Think this was a old guy sits down where likely only BO member are. Again if not vermouth who is likely in USA at this time, then who could it be?