Strange Pictures
question
Plot hole
Cara
Dec 01, 2025 01:13PM
Hi everyone,
I recently finished Strange Pictures and loved it - the tension, the mystery, everything about it is brilliant. That said, there’s a detail I can’t quite reconcile, and I’m curious if anyone else has thought about it (or if there’s context I’m missing). Spoilers ahead.
The issue: At one point, Iwata tells Yuki that he plans to recreate the camping trip that very night — just a few hours later. Later, Yuki supposedly tells Naomi about Iwata’s investigation “a little while back,” which reads to me as some earlier time, not immediately. But then Naomi seems to know the very night about Iwata’s plan to be at the campsite, enough to anticipate him and act on it.
It seems like the timeline is too tight for Naomi to have gotten that information in time. Unless Yuki rushed to tell her in the same few hours (which the text doesn’t really support), it feels like a logical gap.
Has anyone else noticed this? Is there something I might have missed, or does it seem like a small plot hole? I’d love to hear your thoughts or interpretations.
Thanks!
I recently finished Strange Pictures and loved it - the tension, the mystery, everything about it is brilliant. That said, there’s a detail I can’t quite reconcile, and I’m curious if anyone else has thought about it (or if there’s context I’m missing). Spoilers ahead.
The issue: At one point, Iwata tells Yuki that he plans to recreate the camping trip that very night — just a few hours later. Later, Yuki supposedly tells Naomi about Iwata’s investigation “a little while back,” which reads to me as some earlier time, not immediately. But then Naomi seems to know the very night about Iwata’s plan to be at the campsite, enough to anticipate him and act on it.
It seems like the timeline is too tight for Naomi to have gotten that information in time. Unless Yuki rushed to tell her in the same few hours (which the text doesn’t really support), it feels like a logical gap.
Has anyone else noticed this? Is there something I might have missed, or does it seem like a small plot hole? I’d love to hear your thoughts or interpretations.
Thanks!
reply
flag
Just read it yesterday, so a bit late to your post! I think that the text was more focused on making Yuki a red herring at the expense of logical continuity for sure. But I also interpreted it as playing with the theme of underestimating the cunningness and lengths Naomi would go re: protecting her bird in the tree.
Maybe Naomi was somewhat familiar with Iwata when he was Miura's student? Miura must've mentioned him back then, even in passing every so often, if he was buying him and his grandfather bento boxes, and loosely acting as a mentor/parental figure. Maybe Naomi was even encouraging him to take care of Iwata in those days (which loosely aligns with the lone baby bird protected in the tree drawing)? If so, she would've passively gathered information & updates about him over those years, but not in a way close enough to see Iwata as her 'son' (important), and when she had to take action, she'd already have a greater profile on how he'd likely go about the investigation. Also, the idea that he wasn't just a random journalist/detective with no connection to Miura, but someone who would possibly know a lot about him is big. The fact Naomi went from 0 to 100 there, when Yuki merely mentioned someone was looking into the case again, makes me think that she dug further into what was going on and knew Iwata was another level of threat than just the average journalist/detective.
With that in mind, it kind of makes sense she'd show up to the campsite on Miura's murder anniversary. The journalist being Iwata would make it higher stakes than just some Joe showing up and retracing the night. That might be a little far-fetched I admit, but even if Naomi never heard about Iwata and didn't know who he was, it still would make sense for her to show up that day, because it was the last 'barrier' to her being caught:
We know that she was aware of Miura's receipt drawing, and likely understood what it meant, but felt fine leaving it at the scene anyway because her precautions with the food timing etc, and him being an artist would squash any real focus/concern with it for the average detective.
She might've even left the drawing on purpose to ensure that, whoever was close to figuring her out, would have to go to the campsite on Miura's death anniversary one day. It would give her complete control of the investigation if that scenario ever happened.
So my thought is that Naomi showed up that day as a precaution after hearing from Yuki, and when Iwata was actually there, she went through with it. I think even if she heard the news from Yuki months in advance, she still would've shown up on that particular day... and if he went any other day, she wouldn't have been there.
I mean, there's still a lot of luck on her side... that Yuki told her about it in the first place, and that Iwata was alone at the campsite. Just my thoughts!
Maybe Naomi was somewhat familiar with Iwata when he was Miura's student? Miura must've mentioned him back then, even in passing every so often, if he was buying him and his grandfather bento boxes, and loosely acting as a mentor/parental figure. Maybe Naomi was even encouraging him to take care of Iwata in those days (which loosely aligns with the lone baby bird protected in the tree drawing)? If so, she would've passively gathered information & updates about him over those years, but not in a way close enough to see Iwata as her 'son' (important), and when she had to take action, she'd already have a greater profile on how he'd likely go about the investigation. Also, the idea that he wasn't just a random journalist/detective with no connection to Miura, but someone who would possibly know a lot about him is big. The fact Naomi went from 0 to 100 there, when Yuki merely mentioned someone was looking into the case again, makes me think that she dug further into what was going on and knew Iwata was another level of threat than just the average journalist/detective.
With that in mind, it kind of makes sense she'd show up to the campsite on Miura's murder anniversary. The journalist being Iwata would make it higher stakes than just some Joe showing up and retracing the night. That might be a little far-fetched I admit, but even if Naomi never heard about Iwata and didn't know who he was, it still would make sense for her to show up that day, because it was the last 'barrier' to her being caught:
We know that she was aware of Miura's receipt drawing, and likely understood what it meant, but felt fine leaving it at the scene anyway because her precautions with the food timing etc, and him being an artist would squash any real focus/concern with it for the average detective.
She might've even left the drawing on purpose to ensure that, whoever was close to figuring her out, would have to go to the campsite on Miura's death anniversary one day. It would give her complete control of the investigation if that scenario ever happened.
So my thought is that Naomi showed up that day as a precaution after hearing from Yuki, and when Iwata was actually there, she went through with it. I think even if she heard the news from Yuki months in advance, she still would've shown up on that particular day... and if he went any other day, she wouldn't have been there.
I mean, there's still a lot of luck on her side... that Yuki told her about it in the first place, and that Iwata was alone at the campsite. Just my thoughts!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
