Work Text:
【Important Notes】
The author likes Wolfgang and dislikes Eva.
This is a personal, rambling collection of thoughts and reflections, not a formal analysis.
Personal viewpoints archived here. If the reader disagrees, the reader is free to write their own piece.
The author is not a native English speaker.
The content of this article builds upon the author's previous articles. Any information already covered in those articles will not be repeated here.
【Note】
The author recently lacks patience for euphemistic phrasing, resulting in a potentially colder writing style. Readers have the right to stop reading.
If you dislike this, you are free to leave the page.
Since the impression drawing of the analysis of the end of the prologue seems hard to see due to formatting mistakes, I'm reposting it along with some new essays.
——————
Below is the original content from the previous post.
I have to draw this picture.
(Due to equipment limitations, I can't draw all members.)
While writing that article, three thoughts kept circling in my mind:
Seriously?
Do you really have to do this?
What the hell?
Tozu is such a composed professional.
If it were me, I might have cracked up already and begun to laugh seeing such an unexpected assist.
—————————
Regarding that scene at the end of the prologue, though I analyzed the content, delivery, and impact of the speech extensively in that article, the situation itself wasn't that complex.
If viewers watch attentively—without dismissing it as “traditional tropes” due to hindsight bias—and don't treat the Masterminds as mere props or background, ignoring their lethal deterrence due to situational cognitive bias—
—It becomes immediately apparent whose actions are helpful and whose are destructive.
Identity of the Mastermind: Armed, violent criminals who forcibly coerce students into participating in a game of mutual killing
Purpose of the Mastermind: To hasten the occurrence of mutual killing
Wolfgang speaks: the Mastermind immediately counters
Grace attacks: the Mastermind immediately fires a warning shot
Eva and Damon speak: the Mastermind stands by and watches.
And this was after the Mastermind had just fired a warning shot and declared that anyone crossing the line would be executed on the spot.
Yet when confronted with Eva-Damon's speeches, they chose to remain silent, downplaying their presence, not disturbing them in the slightest. They even announced the group's dissolution immediately afterward.
Suggesting the Masterminds' objective was achieved, and they needed to do nothing more.
Of course, unless subsequent plot developments reveal evidence that the Mastermind suddenly lost their mind at that moment, or unless there's proof of narrative inconsistencies in the original author's writing.
——————
Here is the new content:
Since I switched Eva and Damon's speeches to different scenarios in that article to improve reader comprehension, I might as well do the same with Wolfgang's speeches here.
【Note】
To avoid excessive repetition, the second representative speech segment is selected here, along with the more similar scenarios such as【Disaster】 and 【War】.
【Key Note】
In the original work, group members actually share two common identities:
-
Ultimate (positive suggestion)
-
Kidnapping Victims (negative suggestion)
Since the original work portrays Wolfgang choosing the more positively suggestive “Ultimate,” the switched version will also choose the more positive shared identity pronoun.
【Word translation chart】
Ultimate: The group's current shared identity.
Talent: The unique identity of individual group members.
Trap, fire guns, and force to endure farcical courtroom procedures: The actions currently being taken against the group by external enemies.
First, the original text.
【Killing Game Version】
【"Regardless, I finally have an answer to your previous question."
"You asked me if I knew anything about my friends besides their names and talents."
"Truthfully, I don't...but I'll continue to trust them as if I do...because they're Ultimates."
"They are charged with the betterment of society. And they have proven themselves to be above simple acts of self-interest..."
"We will not succumb! Even if you trap us, fire guns at us, and force us to endure farcical courtroom procedures!" 】
2.
【Disaster Response Version】
Note: The dialogue object here (formally) can be regarded as opportunistic exploiters (external enemy).
【“Regardless, I finally have an answer to your previous question.”
“You asked me if I knew anything about my friends besides their names and occupations.
Truthfully, I don't... but I'll continue to trust them as if I do... because they're survivors.”
“They are charged with the betterment of society. And they have proven themselves to be above simple acts of self-interest...”
“We will not succumb! Even if you cut off our supplies, exploit us, and force us to endure hardship!”】
3.
【Sudden War Version】
Note: The dialogue object here (formally) can be regarded as the invaders ( external enemy).
【“Regardless, I finally have an answer to your previous question.”
“You asked me if I knew anything about my friends besides their names and identities.
Truthfully, I don't... but I'll continue to trust them as if I do... because they're resistance fighters.”
“They are charged with the betterment of society. And they have proven themselves to be above simple acts of self-interest...”
“We will not succumb! Even if you attack us, invade us, force us to endure torments!” 】
——When the scenarios shift, doesn't Wolfgang's speech sound more familiar?
In the original scenario, Wolfgang's speeches were necessary because the group was on the brink of panic and collective collapse due to the armed threat from external enemies.
Such direct, logically simple emotion-boosting slogans were the most effective.
Pursuing logical perfection over immediate practicality at that moment would have been as absurd as holding a seminar in the middle of a fire.
To put it more bluntly, any discussion of logic detached from specific scenarios is nothing but armchair theorizing—self-important, greenhouse-grown nonsense.
Only when one is in, or mistakenly believes oneself to be in, a safe zone does one have the luxury to engage in debate-style thinking.
【Example】
I once saw a news report:
A medical student stepped forward to administer emergency treatment to a passenger who suddenly fell ill on a flight.
Afterward, some people online criticized the medical student for practicing medicine without a license.
Everyone can judge for themselves the nature of these online critics' behavior.
——————————
Now, let us consider the behavior of Eva and Damon (particularly Eva) and how it appears to observers.
1. Self-interest perspective:
Eva and Damon's actions directly provoke discontent and aversion among most group members, positioning themselves as potential targets.
They heighten the possibility of mutual killing, thereby increasing their own risk of being killed.
2. Altruistic Perspective:
Eva and Damon's actions objectively aid the enemy and escalate the impact of external enemy actions.
They heighten the likelihood of mutual killing, particularly increasing the risk of vulnerable members being killed.
—In short, there is no benefit whatsoever. Neither for themselves nor for others.
This behavior is structurally no different from this:
When someone's own country engages in a dangerous political confrontation with an enemy nation during wartime—broadcast live to the entire world at the same time—someone suddenly publicly declares before the enemy commander and cameras that their own citizens possess inherent flaws, while making baseless accusations of treason against the volunteer army leader of their own country.
At this juncture, debating whether the accuser “harbors patriotic sentiments” becomes utterly meaningless, for the nature of their actions and the potential consequences they may unleash are abundantly clear.
—Deliberating over motives is a luxury afforded only to those of us seated in the zones of peace and safety.
After logical reasoning based on common sense and context, this behavior can only lead to two possible conclusions.
1. This individual is an extremely unstable threat.
— Consequently, their actions will be purely driven by immediate emotional impulses and primal instincts, making them highly destructive.
2. This individual is a spy/traitor planted by the Mastermind.
— Consequently, their actions will be highly targeted and hostile, deliberately striking at the group's vulnerabilities.
————————
【Note: The following are the author's thoughts, not character analysis】
Eva and Damon's choice at the end of the prologue was irrationality within irrationality. For those whose thinking is rationally driven, such a choice is literally a cognitive blind spot.
To pull a backstab under the threat of external enemies and gunpoint--
The fact that Wolfgang could maintain the content of his slogan (“What are you insinuating? Don’t we all carry the same obligation to improve the world we live in?”) instead of getting stuck on “Huh?” was already impressive. Especially for his age (22).
Some people's definition of “facing reality” indeed is running around crying and whining, “We’re doomed, everything’s ruined, we can’t do anything.”
For them, not behaving this way is “not facing reality.”
How convenient.
——————
【Rejecting Malicious Responses—Distorting the Author's Intent, Misrepresenting Article Content, or Emotional Attacks】
【The author reserves the final right to choose not to respond】