I'm surely in the minority as one of the few who stuck around after Ubume and Mouryou and still criticise it brutally, but I reckon this was somehow a greater disappointment than both of them. The build up and general storytelling was good as usual, but the mystery and grand reveal were once again a disaster. Ubume and Mouryou sort of had a weak excuse of being moreso an philosophical exploration piece than a classic mystery, but this one leaned so heavily into it that it's practically begging to be seen as a geniune mystery genre.
Yes, the hints were present, but no way those scarce hints were going to be able to lift a story with such a convoluted mess of an explanation bordering incoherence, featuring 4 skulls, 2 Akemi where one is Tamie, Tamie's brother popping in at the end as if we could know his relationship and motives, a historical sex cult that no one could possibly have connected the dots to without a PhD in Japanese history and esoteric religions, and like a quadrillion plot twists total.
There are also some open questions that really challenge the believability of this whole debacle:
- Can we believe that a random priest would just casually cut off the husband's head without hesitation AND cleanly remove the skull with limited time AND fool everyone who have handled the skull before as if it were never swapped? Maybe, but he was hardly even introduced as a character with personality so it will be hard to claim fair play.
- Can we really just brush aside how the head priest was "talking" without a line of acknowledgement? Maybe the novel did acknowledge it, but that was still an unecessary plot twist among all the other ones, designed solely for relieving the tension rather than a meaningful story development.
- How the hell does this onmyouji speculate so hard on each victim's thought process from decades ago and miraculously pull out the exact correct answer from the sea of all possible conclusions like 10 times in a row? The side characters literally just watch in awe as he pulls the most BS reasoning to explain the life stories of some 6 people + an entire organisation using only the weakest of circumstantial evidence and go "yep, that'll stand up in court" or "oh damn, he completely saw through me, I guess I should confess".
If we let the story get away this many contradictions and questionable justifications, surely any and all conclusions the author could have written could have been correct? Why, dear ol' Knox must be rolling in his grave right now.
In the end, my greatest joy throughout all that was still reading those excellent translator's notes. Those were legitimately well written masterpieces, so thank you.