angelicinquisitors - Tumblr blog

[angelicinquisitors]

"What? Not even a shred of suspicion that you'll be whisked away into another headache of a game? Huh, Watson." 

Yeah, that was the Head of the Ushiromiya Band of Monsters. Monsters? Yes. Monsters. If one would ever see them in action as Will had, they would think the same. Although, 'Monsters' sounded too rude, even for Willard. So what better way to refer to them as 'Those types'. 

"If something like that happens to come up, I expect you to carry me with one arm and Katana in the other."

 "If you're half as good with a Katana as you are with a racket then you'll do just fine."

goldenendlesssorcerer

angelicinquisitors

Lion Ushiromiya was a boy who had been raised to show no weakness in unfamiliar territory, to treat things diplomatically but objectively. There were few times where he could afford to let his guard down. However… Even if the boy seemed too proper and uptight at most times, there was one thing that could melt through that hard shell: The presence of a loved one. His family and friends were the dearest things to him, more important than the headship or even his freedom.

He had good intuition. Before they said anything to announce their presence, he turned on his heels to face them, a warm smile already overthrowing the polite blankness his expression had held before.

"…Long time no see, huh…?"

[angelicinquisitors]

Yes. Many thoughts. Tell them. Now. 

                  Please.

Anon or not I'd like to hear your thoughts on how I play my character! Critiques as well as good points welcome!

[angelicinquisitors]

JERROLD STEP OFF THIS WILL IS MINE (CLAIMS WILL IN THE NAME OF THE USHIROMIYA FAMILY)

What?!

[angelicinquisitors]

(Jou looks at Will, the blood-red iris in his eyes vanishing.) "GAH!"

...........Vocal exercises make Diana rowdy, stay quiet. 

[angelicinquisitors]

Dlanor A. Knox’s Decalogue

Knox’s 1st It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story.

Knox’s 2nd It is forbidden for supernatural agencies to be employed as a detective technique.

Knox’s 3rd It is forbidden for hidden passages to exist.

Knox’s 4th It is forbidden for unknown drugs or hard to understand scientific devices to be used.

Knox’s 5th  It is forbidden for stereotypical minorities to assist or hinder the detective beyond providing their own conclusions and interpretations, or for said minorities to be the culprit. (possible re-interpretation of the original Knox’s 5th, with the part in bold added to avoid contradicting Knox’s 9th.)

Knox’s 6th It is forbidden for accident or intuition to be employed as a detective technique. Knox’s 7th It is forbidden for the detective to be the culprit.

Knox’s 8th It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented.

Knox’s 9th It is permitted for observers to let their own conclusions and interpretations be heard. Knox’s 10th It is forbidden for a character to disguise themselves as another without any clues.

[angelicinquisitors]

Van Dine’s Commandments

Van Dine’s 1st

The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.

Van Dine’s 2nd

No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.

Van Dine’s 3rd

There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.

Van Dine’s 4th

The detective himself, or one of the official investigators, should never turn out to be the culprit. This is bald trickery, on a par with offering some one a bright penny for a five-dollar gold piece. It’s false pretenses.

Van Dine’s 5th

The culprit must be determined by logical deductions — not by accident or coincidence or unmotivated confession. To solve a criminal problem in this latter fashion is like sending the reader on a deliberate wild-goose chase, and then telling him, after he has failed, that you had the object of his search up your sleeve all the time. Such an author is no better than a practical joker.

Van Dine’s 6th

The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. His function is to gather clues that will eventually lead to the person who did the dirty work in the first chapter; and if the detective does not reach his conclusions through an analysis of those clues, he has no more solved his problem than the schoolboy who gets his answer out of the back of the arithmetic.

Van Dine’s 7th

There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better. No lesser crime than murder will suffice. Three hundred pages is far too much pother for a crime other than murder. After all, the reader’s trouble and expenditure of energy must be rewarded.

Van Dine’s 8th

The problem of the crime must he solved by strictly naturalistic means. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic se’ances, crystal-gazing, and the like, are taboo. A reader has a chance when matching his wits with a rationalistic detective, but if he must compete with the world of spirits and go chasing about the fourth dimension of metaphysics, he is defeated ab initio.

Van Dine’s 9th

There must be but one detective — that is, but one protagonist of deduction — one deus ex machina. To bring the minds of three or four, or sometimes a gang of detectives to bear on a problem, is not only to disperse the interest and break the direct thread of logic, but to take an unfair advantage of the reader. If there is more than one detective the reader doesn’t know who his codeductor is. It’s like making the reader run a race with a relay team.

Van Dine’s 10th

The culprit must turn out to be a person who has played a more or less prominent part in the story — that is, a person with whom the reader is familiar and in whom he takes an interest.

Van Dine’s 11th

A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person — one that wouldn’t ordinarily come under suspicion.

Van Dine’s 12th

There must be but one culprit, no matter how many murders are committed. The culprit may, of course, have a minor helper or co-plotter; but the entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature.

Van Dine’s 13th

Secret societies, camorras, mafias, et al., have no place in a detective story. A fascinating and truly beautiful murder is irremediably spoiled by any such wholesale culpability. To be sure, the murderer in a detective novel should be given a sporting chance; but it is going too far to grant him a secret society to fall back on. No high-class, self-respecting murderer would want such odds.

Van Dine’s 14th

The method of murder, and the means of detecting it, must be be rational and scientific. That is to say, pseudo-science and purely imaginative and speculative devices are not to be tolerated in the roman policier. Once an author soars into the realm of fantasy, in the Jules Verne manner, he is outside the bounds of detective fiction, cavorting in the uncharted reaches of adventure.

Van Dine’s 15th

The truth of the problem must at all times be apparent — provided the reader is shrewd enough to see it. By this I mean that if the reader, after learning the explanation for the crime, should reread the book, he would see that the solution had, in a sense, been staring him in the face-that all the clues really pointed to the culprit — and that, if he had been as clever as the detective, he could have solved the mystery himself without going on to the final chapter. That the clever reader does often thus solve the problem goes without saying.

Van Dine’s 16th

A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no “atmospheric” preoccupations. such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude.

Van Dine’s 17th

A professional criminal must never be shouldered with the guilt of a crime in a detective story. Crimes by housebreakers and bandits are the province of the police departments — not of authors and brilliant amateur detectives. A really fascinating crime is one committed by a pillar of a church, or a spinster noted for her charities.

Van Dine’s 18th

A crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide. To end an odyssey of sleuthing with such an anti-climax is to hoodwink the trusting and kind-hearted reader.

Van Dine’s 19th

The motives for all crimes in detective stories should be personal. International plottings and war politics belong in a different category of fiction — in secret-service tales, for instance. But a murder story must be kept gemütlich, so to speak. It must reflect the reader’s everyday experiences, and give him a certain outlet for his own repressed desires and emotions.

Van Dine’s 20th

And (to give my Credo an even score of items) I herewith list a few of the devices which no self-respecting detective story writer will now avail himself of. They have been employed too often, and are familiar to all true lovers of literary crime. To use them is a confession of the author’s ineptitude and lack of originality. (a) Determining the identity of the culprit by comparing the butt of a cigarette left at the scene of the crime with the brand smoked by a suspect. (b) The bogus spiritualistic se’ance to frighten the culprit into giving himself away. (c) Forged fingerprints. (d) The dummy-figure alibi. (e) The dog that does not bark and thereby reveals the fact that the intruder is familiar. (f)The final pinning of the crime on a twin, or a relative who looks exactly like the suspected, but innocent, person. (g) The hypodermic syringe and the knockout drops. (h) The commission of the murder in a locked room after the police have actually broken in. (i) The word association test for guilt. (j) The cipher, or code letter, which is eventually unraveled by the sleuth.

[angelicinquisitors]

.......Surly, you, The Ruler of Rokkenjima would not stoop so low as to throw a piece into the trash and not destroy their Hope of being proven INNOCENT? Would you, EVA-Beatrice, who is famed for her cruelty, let a piece so insignificant--die in HOPE? I did not believe the rumors, bu it seems that some of the other witches think that you have gone SOFT. Is this TRUE?

He is a wanted CRIMINAL. Yet even criminals have a right to a TRIAL. No matter what sort of Evil he is, be it demon or witch, they deserve a TRIAL. If proper evidence is not shown, then the trial will be postponed and the Great Court will decide how to go about THINGS. 

[angelicinquisitors]

Waru-sama glares at your apprentice starter. May she?

witchofthefinite replied to your post: “you should become lamdas apprentice”:

[*AGGRESSIVE NOD*]

Beato is the bomb~

[angelicinquisitors]

Knox's Decalogue

The Decalogue was originally written in 1929 by Ronald Knox, in an attempt to codify the rules of the golden age of detective fiction. In the game Umineko EP5, it is used as a weapon of reasoning.

Knox’s 1st: It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story.

Knox’s 2nd: It is forbidden for supernatural agencies to be employed as a detective technique.

Knox’s 3rd: It is forbidden for hidden passages to exist.

Knox’s 4th: It is forbidden for unknown drugs or hard to understand scientific devices to be used

Knox’s 5th: It was never included/mentioned in the game, but it is as thus follows: It is forbidden for stereotypical minorities to assist or hinder the detective beyond providing their own conclusions and interpretations, or for said minorities to be the culprit. (possible re-interpretation of the original Knox’s 5th, with the part in bold added to avoid contradicting Knox’s 9th.)

Knox’s 6th: It is forbidden for accident or intuition to be employed as a detective technique.

Knox’s 7th: It is forbidden for the detective to be the culprit.

Knox’s 8th: It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented.

Knox’s 9th: It is permitted for observers to let their own conclusions and interpretations be heard.

Knox’s 10th: It is forbidden for a character to disguise themselves as another without any clues.

"The debate over the interpretation of these laws continues to this very day, and it has become the source of countless unfair controversies. While fundamentalists call any infringement upon these commandments heresy, revisionists point out that many canonized geniuses have violated these rules."

[angelicinquisitors]

Knox’s Third: No more than a single hidden room or passage may exist.

[angelicinquisitors]

What kind of a dumb name is Willard.

What kind of dumb shades are those? 

And if you think its so stupid then just call me Will. 

[angelicinquisitors]

[Someone actually said such a nice thing about my Dlanor/Will blog oh shiit.]

[angelicinquisitors]

OH MY GOHDA

angelicinquisitors is such an amazing Dlanor, and their Willard is absolutely amazing! The mun’s response to difficult situations with Dlanor is just perfect.

Shout-out sponsored by: Anonymous

[angelicinquisitors]

Plum-Tea is desu pass it on

[angelicinquisitors]

He is a wanted CRIMINAL. Yet even criminals have a right to a TRIAL. No matter what sort of Evil he is, be it demon or witch, they deserve a TRIAL. If proper evidence is not shown, then the trial will be postponed and the Great Court will decide how to go about THINGS. 

Not at ALL. I simply wish for it to be FAIR. A court that is biased cannot be TRUSTED. Impartial eyes must review the EVIDENCE. 

[angelicinquisitors]

.....This trial is FARCE. I ask for proper presentation of EVIDENCE. My personal beliefs do not matter in a case regarding JUSTICE.

Not at ALL. I simply wish for it to be FAIR. A court that is biased cannot be TRUSTED. Impartial eyes must review the EVIDENCE. 

[angelicinquisitors]

Not at ALL. I simply wish for it to be FAIR. A court that is biased cannot be TRUSTED. Impartial eyes must review the EVIDENCE. 

Are you saying that one of you may act as an impartial JUDGE? As an Archbishop of the Great Court of Heaven, I am required to submit my services when it comes to putting such a being on TRIAL. I am ready to request the services of the Chiester CORPS.