RSP

On the subreddit. Chances are someone will crosspost it here, though.

Please note that today will be the last day to submit your questions. Any questions or suggestions posted after 6 AM EST on the 13th will not count.

Today is the final day to submit an entry to any of the contest's various competitions.

You've summarized my thoughts on this in a very clear and satisfying way, but I disagree with your final notion. I think that the series would benefit from deeper thought and introspection - in fact, given the prevalence of these themes in the genre, it might help to set DC apart from similar works. It would be interesting, at the very least. Hence "judging by the way things are now." However, I think that this has less to do with the character's potential development and more with Aoyama's plans for Shinichi. We know from characters like Ai that he is capable of writing on a deeper level, but Shinichi has rarely, if ever, approached a philosophical subject on any sophisticated level. I'm afraid Kudo just isn't written to be a very deep character. As you said - "thintelligence". A veil of ingenuity with little to show beyond what is practical in his specific profession. It's not just that. The series' set-up provides more than enough opportunities to breach the subject of morality and tackle the notion of justice as a whole. If Aoyama addressed even half the philosophical questions his work raises, it would do wonders to both the quality and the significance of the series.

These are certainly very virtuous traits, but they're also very generic. A decent portion of the non-murdering characters in the series fulfill these criteria to some extent or another, and there's nothing that really sets Ran apart. As for her stupidity and maturity - like I said, she's neither stupid nor immature because both of those qualities are constantly adjustable in her case. You seem to bring personal attachment up a lot, but just as you are attached to Ran or childhood friendships, so might others be attached to Ai or troubled pasts. Your love for a character is irrelevant in a discussion regarding the character's merits within the series. Do you really think it's adequate to compare the separation of ones parents to being born into a criminal lifestyle, orphaned at a young age, recruited into a criminal syndicate before you even hit puberty, and forced to work for your sister's killers under the threat of death? There are plenty of examples - on nepotism, on identity and belonging, on emotions, on appearances - but you could just her DCW Wiki page. I never implied any intrinsic purpose, I merely described Ran's roles in there series. The idea that any sort of fictional character yields any intrinsic purpose is inherently flawed, as the state of inherence denotes natural designation - something that this work decidedly lacks. You argument of intention is irrelevant, as it doesn't change the fact of significance itself. That said, while your views do sound like the antithesis of Barthes' stance, I don't think they hold any ground here, as the principle just doesn't apply - it focuses on the interpretation of subtext, not plot relevance. I don't think there's any way you could really doubt the existence of these values. Essence is realized in the discrepancy between the claims, actions, and thoughts of characters, presenting itself in the intellectual and emotional purity of a character. Necessity can be measured in the number of unique connections a character's presence within the story creates between otherwise independent entities. Finally, significance can be viewed as the number, eccentricity, and complexity of a character's intellectual/emotional contributions to the story. As I mentioned above, there are plenty of examples - on nepotism, on identity and belonging, on emotions, on appearances. Check her DCW Wiki page for more. There are countless instances of Ai solving cases before Shinichi, often demonstrating a deeper understanding of the culprit's thoughts and intentions in the process. She also yields far greater knowledge over a broad range of subjects, and tends to put far more thought into matters that require serious contemplation. The core issue underlying the organized measurement of intellect in real life is a result of the various variables in play - be it personal philosophy, education, organizational difficulty, upbringing, or local culture. These factors are either not present or not as prevalent in a work of fiction, which makes it much easier to measure established competence and/or intelligence. As for Ran - see my reply to Hobgoblin. Ran is only ever as intelligent/mature as the situation demands. Her personality is generic and her mental faculties aren't consistent. She's not a persona, she's a plot device.

I don't think personal attachment to a character/series is a valid argument. If you applied that principle to all works of art, we would have missed out on some of the most iconic and emotional moments in all of fiction. I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that a happy ending nullifies the series' merit as a whole - I'm simply saying that there's any portrayal of danger becomes insignificant if nothing ever comes of it. There definitely are various ways to make the series more memorable - for example, Mokrim made a great point regarding the hypothetical death of a DB member, I think a major factor to consider is whether Aoyama even intends to take DC in this direction. Judging solely by the way he has been writing the series so far, it's fairly reasonable to assume that Conan was never intended to ascend into the ranks of a classic. If the series' plot was only ever meant to function as a secondary feature to complement the weekly cases, we might not see any significant deaths at all.

How was my post in any way complicated? I made a very simple point - one character serves an independent purpose, the other does not. There was no intricate analysis, just a basic observation that anyone who has read the series should be capable of making. This is a thread about the nature of Ran's character and its merits within the series. If the best response you can come up with is "Uh, I like her," then there's not much of a point in discussing this topic with you. The point of a discussion is to make others understand why you're taking a certain stance, so that you may offer them an alternative perspective. If all you are doing is repeating your opinion without being able to come up with a single rational argument, then there's no point in replying to me in the first place.

Are you seriously trying to argue that a character shouldn't be killed off on the basis that their real-life counterpart wouldn't want it to happen? C'mon, man. I don't think people believe that. It's simply that when investing time into a story, folks tend to seek immersion - we read and watch fictional works because we want to relate to the characters and live out their adventures along side them. This is hard to do when the work itself lacks realism or authenticity. When characters are virtually invincible and any harm that might come to them is understood to be an arbitrary illusion for the sake of a spiel, the actions taken to both avoid and inflict said harm lose their meaning. If your characters continuously escape any and all threats posed to them, then said threats will eventually lose their power to captivate the audience, and once that happens, the story is robbed of its emotional impact. It doesn't matter how high the stakes are raised, because in the end, the hero always wins, and nothing of value is lost. That's why folks like tragedies - rather than present an emotional constant, tragedies offer characters whose survival/happiness is not guaranteed, and whose actions matter, which in turn means that the audience is invested in everything that happens. You're not just observing the plot, you're experiencing it. To say that an author lacks creativity for creating an actual story rather than a narrative stasis is delusional. Just to make this clear, you're degrading the work of the likes of Homer, Dante, Saavedra, Doyle, Harris - hell, just about any famous author. Claiming that tragedies are solely about destruction is contradicting the very nature of such works. Tragedies aren't just about death and decrepitude - they're about the creation of beauty, the sacrifice of the established, and the celebration of the flawed. Hamlet might have been a tragic story, but in the end it was an examination of the futility of vengeance and rage. The Odyssey might have told of a thousand deaths, but its purpose was the celebration of Odysseus' journey and the bonds that carried him through it all. You are oversimplifying and defiling one of mankind's greatest artistic achievements, and sloppily at that.

I never said that she was stupid, nor immature. I merely claimed that she was devoid of real intellect and maturity. What this means is that she is only as intelligent/mature as Aoyama needs her to be. Unlike other characters, she can be put in any given situation and be expected to either notice or ignore clues, comprehend or dismiss arguments, and accept or question excuses. Whereas most other characters are actual personas, Ran is not - she's a role, and is appropriately lacking in definition. Aside from her martial arts ability, she is a walking, talking plot device; meant to authenticate the plot rather than participate in it. That's a fundamental difference between the characters of Ran and Ai. Ran's purpose in the DC universe is to serve as Shinichi's main incentive to return to normal. Any pressure placed on him tends to be due to his relationship. Outside of their bond, Ran fulfills no purpose within the story. Whatever significance her role yields is founded in Shinichi. Ai, on the other hand, is a character of her own. Consistently intelligent and appropriately opinionated, she holds a number of philosophical beliefs that add depth to her persona. Beyond that, her role is not tied to Shinichi - she was a part of the Black Organization, had her own dealings with them, and even developed the drug the series is all about. She serves as an informant, provides perspective, and presents an independent intellect that matches - if not surpasses - that of Shinichi. Not only does she fulfill a genuine purpose within the story, she functions as a direct component of it. As for your desire for the character's inclusion - that's subjective, and largely irrelevant. I'm talking about essence, necessity, and significance, all of which can be measured through relatively objective methods.

Sure, she's open and friendly - unfortunately, she's also completely void of any real intellect or maturity, and lacks any real personality beyond being a walking, talking tough-love machine. When it comes down to it, she's awfully generic.

Unless some sort of traumatic event changes her into an entirely different person, I'd really prefer for her to die. Detective Conan is a great series - it's cerebral, complex, and tackles some very interesting themes - however, as time went on, it became clear that it would be doomed to stagnate. Few major changes were made to the series' core, and whenever something did change, it was always an amendment, id est a new character, a short-lived upheaval of the plot, or flashbacks. While this serves the show's meta well, it shifts the focus from the emotional to the intellectual. Rather than caring about a victim's death, viewers immediately attempt to decipher the story told by the various clues Conan uncovers - or, at the very least, watch him do so. This is obviously natural in detective shows, but Detective Conan differs from similar works in the genre in that it also presents a primary plot that is expanded upon each season/volume - specifically, one that revolves around persecution and danger. Sure, Sherlock had Moriarty, but the professor rarely went after Sherlock with physical harm in mind. Even when he did, the sense of potential loss was always real - with characters like Adler disappearing, Mary Watson dying, and Holmes' own famous "death", readers were always wary when guns were cocked and lives threatened, simply because death was now an established reality rather than a plot device. When Gin tried to hunt down Ai, we knew that something would interfere. When Mitsuhiko was stuck in a forest with a dangerous serial killer, we knew that Conan would rescue him. We knew these things because major deaths are unprecedented. Now, there are plenty of arguments for Aoyama's format, and there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a purely stoic show, but once such a commitment is made, the audience starts to become emotionally detached from the plot, and what might be written with the intent of creating a sense of dread will no longer feel that way. Put simply, unless this is done in a very deliberate, calculated way, a disconnect starts to emerge between the way a story is written and the way it is read. This only serves to hurt the audience's enjoyment of the story, because the danger is now perceived as openly artificial, and the experience loses its authenticity. As the years went by and the plot twists became increasingly arbitrary, Detective Conan came to suffer from this exact issue - Ran would be kidnapped, but her plot armor would make the kidnapping feel absolutely arbitrary, functioning as a gimmick rather than a genuine part of the story. Thus, my desire to see her dead. Her death would vindicate the series as one of not only ingenuity, but genuine shock and volatility. If Conan ends as habit dictates, it won't feel like the masterpiece we know it to be - rather, it will be a decent series whose creator got distracted by a senseless attempt to feign authenticity. Alternatively, embrace the blatantly pure nature of the show and abandon pathos altogether. Detective Conan is a low-fiction series focusing on the unstoppable might of intellect, the spectrum of morality, and a clearly defined contrast between the ordinary and the extraordinary. These properties are all representative of a stoic format, and would fit it very well. Either way - be it stoicism or classic tragedy, I'd like a commitment. The current mesh of virtual invincibility and artificial danger simply isn't working for me, and I would be very disappointed if the series' inevitable conclusion was tainted by it.

Raw. He yields an admirable intellect, but he lacks maturity and apathy. He might flaunt his mind, but his thoughts aren't very deep, and he generally fails to contemplate anything of real value. Put simply, I think that, judging by the way things are now, his intelligence is wasted on him. Thus the word. He has all the ingredients necessary to create a genius, but wastes it on the mundane. The core property is there, but it lacks refinement - ergo, raw.