[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations [Archive] - Page 109

Toku

2012-01-12, 16:48

It doesn't mean Battler remember 'wrong' just that Battler judged differently Kinzo so, when he had to move him as a piece, Kinzo became a gentle and fun grandad.

I prefer to think at it as his own perception of how people were more than just an illusion. And likely his opinion over Kinzo is biased as he was a grandchild who rarely visited him.
It's possible that, when he was around, Kinzo acted in a way Battler deemed happy and funny. As I said he has an optimistic perception of people.
Then Battler would go out playing and Kinzo would go back yelling at the siblings and being moody.
Compare his vision to the one in the book of 'Little Lord Fauntleroy'. The grandchild is sure his grandad is a very kind soul even if said grandad is a well known jerk who's even keeping him parted from his mother.

This does sound like something Battler might do. I can believe it.

It's even possible she merely planned a murder game and in the end people ended up getting killed for real. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if the bomb also exploded regardless of her plans.

I also believe this theory. I doubt she actually had intentions of carrying out the murders, since I can't find any motive. A murder mystery game on Prime seems to be the most likely thing right now.

So I'm not the only one to have noticed the irony of all this?
Poor Yasu, it's even possible that, hadn't Battler noticed she and George were a bit too close, he would have tried getting close to her again.
Instead he greatly respect George and so.. he gives up. -_-
Another sign of Yasu's terrible bad luck.

Yep. I do like it when an author is not afraid to put lots of tragedies in their stories, but I have to admit, Yasu seems to have been born under one heck of a star.

...Mind you, I'm not saying that any of the following is the truth. I have since changed my opinions quite a lot, actually. But when I first finished EP8, this is what I believed.

What if the drowning scene is literal and only Battler survived? In that case, what is the one thing that Tohya could never remember? October 6th, which would probably have been one of the most traumatic days in all of Battler's life because he thinks he didn't manage to save Yasu and survived alone. So let's say that the emotional pain causes him to not want to remember her, and he subconsciously rejects those memories even as he begins to recover some of his other memories. She had finally managed to reach him at the end of the conference, but he was too late because she had already lost all hope and couldn't believe in the promise anymore, and now that she's dead, even that is lost and the one person she wanted to remember her no longer could.

In the face of that, the fact that Ikuko is practically living the kind of life Yasu had dreamed of, feels like a mockery of her.

But it gets even more tragic if you believe that Ikuko is Yasu and that she also somehow managed to survive drowning. Because the whole time, for decades, she's right there by his side and the one person he can't remember is her. When she attempted to try and jog his memories, this ends with him having a "fit" and barely surviving, and he still can't remember. And then, decades later, she ends up being the one to tell Ange about the one bit he can't remember, and she has a perfectly straight face.

jjblue1

2012-01-12, 17:36

I'd rather not disregard literally everything EP7 told us about the character, but that's just me. I don't like having my time wasted.
We got plenty of material on Yasu, but you're just deciding that what she confessed isn't reliable so we only have "little" material.

I'm not disregarding everything EP 7 said but EP 7 didn't really told us everything in a straight manner. It's all filtred through fantasy. Also Clair's tale cut out the part in which Yasu was told she suffered an injury. We heard about it in a fragment shown by Bern. Plus, Clair's tale showed Yasu as apparently fond of Kumasawa and possibly of Genji while it seems 'Our confession' turns this around.

So most of the material we've about Yasu is filtered.
If you decide to believe in it as it is, well, that's good for you, you've a lot of material to work with.
I'm more wary in taking it as it is so I've only little material I deem reliable enough.

Also so far I've only read summaries of 'Our confession'. I can't express a definite judgement on something I didn't read in full (though I'm really, really grateful for the summaries).

But even if what she said isn't true, she said it for a reason.

Undoubtely.

It's strongly insinuated that Hanyuu is a piece of Featherine's, complete with comments that the Piece had it's memory damaged via breaking the memory aid device (the chip in her horns).

Honestly it's the first time I've heard of this theory.
I've heard many times of Bern being Featherine's piece but Hanyuu never came up.
Either I missed the post mentioning it or it wasn't discussed during the time I joined animesuki...

Yep. I do like it when an author is not afraid to put lots of tragedies in their stories, but I have to admit, Yasu seems to have been born under one heck of a star.

Yes, she seems to be the personification of Murphy's law... -_-
Poor Yasu...

What if the drowning scene is literal and only Battler survived? In that case, what is the one thing that Tohya could never remember? October 6th, which would probably have been one of the most traumatic days in all of Battler's life because he thinks he didn't manage to save Yasu and survived alone. So let's say that the emotional pain causes him to not want to remember her, and he subconsciously rejects those memories even as he begins to recover some of his other memories. She had finally managed to reach him at the end of the conference, but he was too late because she had already lost all hope and couldn't believe in the promise anymore, and now that she's dead, even that is lost and the one person she wanted to remember her no longer could.

In the face of that, the fact that Ikuko is practically living the kind of life Yasu had dreamed of, feels like a mockery of her.

But it gets even more tragic if you believe that Ikuko is Yasu and that she also somehow managed to survive drowning. Because the whole time, for decades, she's right there by his side and the one person he can't remember is her. When she attempted to try and jog his memories, this ends with him having a "fit" and barely surviving, and he still can't remember. And then, decades later, she ends up being the one to tell Ange about the one bit he can't remember, and she has a perfectly straight face.

I still have to decide an interpretation about the drowning that satisfy me.
The drowning is odd for many reasons:
- Battler acts like nothing was wrong and he hadn't just lost his family
- also Toya said he was thinking to reach Kuwadorian when he went through a tunnel but evidently took a wrong turn and ended up where the sea was. Battler seems perfectly okay with the fact he has reached the sea as if he had been expecting it
- Battler isn't scared to go on a boat. I like to think the many, many times we were told Battler fears boats had a purpose and weren't just comic relief.
- It's not so easy to drown. Once you start suffering of lack of air you instinctively try to save yourself. The gold might have work in the beginning to help Yasu sink but again, due to lack of air she should have let it go and tried to save herself. Even if by some miracle Yasu were to manage to overcome her instinct she would have lost consciousness and let go of the gold. Then her body would have started returning toward the surface like Battler's did (there's a reason why people tied their body to a big stone when they tried drowing themselves). Instead Yasu stay calm and conscious and keep on sinking.
Note that also is never mentioned that Battler heard her jumping in the water. And of course, in the end Battler sunk with her, though we know he should have survived and become Toya.
So part of the drowing tale doesn't sound true to me... though it can be that they fell in the water in a slightly different setting and that Yasu drowned.

So far however I prefer to consider the drowing tale as a narration of how the Beatrice persona died. She couldn't leave Rokkenjima and so she sunk there. Battler lost his memory so he also sunk with her.
I still can't decide if the death of the Beatrice persona matches the death of Yasu, though I know some think so.

Though yes, if Yasu managed to survive she must have thought fate had a really twisted sense of irony when she's involved.

Wanderer

2012-01-12, 19:02

I really just don't think she could have written those stories that fast, if she did in fact write them afterwards.

She doesn't even need to write them fast if the "discovery" of the one message bottle picked up by the authorities in the few days after the incident is itself a ruse. After all, it was not made public until after the other message bottle was "found" by some fisherman years later.

Also, using some kind of deceptive trick to make it look like they were written pre-incident, such as getting some critical person to lie, is right up Beatrice's alley.

~~~~~~~

It's not that coincidence is impossible, it's just stupid. Stupid in a "small bombs" kind of way. Forget about those silly small bombs; although they are technically a possible answer, the better answer is clearly that the chapel was never locked in the first place (i.e. the stories weren't even written pre-incident in the first place).

And let me add the issue of motive. To write beforehand basically supposes that Yasu's the culprit, because the only way her messages-in-bottles are meaningful is if the island actually blows up and generates a cat box, and apparently the only way that could happen is if she did it herself or allowed it to happen. And if not, then we have another ridiculous coincidence when Yasu predicts that the island would meet its end at 24:00 Oct. 5, 1986. And if she wrote pre-incident she's not even writing to cover for someone, because she doesn't even know there will be a crime yet (unless she does know that someone is up to something and for some inexplicable reason does nothing to stop them).

Pre-incident writing just doesn't make sense.

UsagiTenpura

2012-01-12, 19:03

It's not about what RK07 wanted; as an omnipotent author he can make up whatever specific setting he wants in his fictions, but that doesn't mean that they will correlate to his world (real life). For Yasu it should be the same. She can write however she wants, but for what she writes to coincidentally correlate to things that happen in the future of her world is too convenient for her.

You're saying that Prime!Yasu wrote several different versions of a murder mystery that all included a typhoon "just because" and then there happened to actually be a typhoon closed circle that matched the same timing and duration in Prime. And this is nothing to say about accurately predicting Ange's absence or accurately predicting the significance of 24:00 Oct. 5, both of which make explaining everything even more complicated.

Yasu is a character created by Ryuukishi.
100% of Umineko follows his convenience.
Ange's future is beyond a shadow of a doubt by now entirely a fiction.
Saying "someone wrote story X" is easy for the one real writter, Ryuukishi. Same as saying a thousand years.

And yes, this is the world of stories, coincidences just happens that way.
Beside, you guys are overall, I'd say, a bit too narrow minded when it comes to mystery stories: I've just finished reading one where the culprit created a "closed room" using a time machine, yet it was 100% fairplay and solvable from the reader's pov. I don't have troubles with things not making 100% sense, if they did there wouldn't even be concepts such as "main character". You're going to say it's a crappy mystery, perhaps, or something like that? That might be. However it's from Anthony Boucher, mentioned in OC by Beatrice, and thus I'd say quite a huge influence on Umineko.

So, from my understanding, Ange's very existence suits Ryuukishi's needs: If she didn't exist basically no one would really care about everyone dying on the island, and thus there couldn't be an "after" character who has a relation to the mystery that is ultimately very close to our's. If you forget "Ange's role to Ryuukishi", I don't think you can understand her, and thus indirectly Umineko at all.

Author theory, I've said it over and over again, is there to make us reason Umineko, all of it, as a story. However I think it was probably Ryuukishi's greatest failure, as it seems the majority of fans ended up using it as a means to lose their suspension of disbelief toward the arcs and move it one level ahead to a wholly theorical Rokkenjima Prime (I'd like to remind you that the story itself never mentioned the term once).

Edit: At least from my pov, it seems many fans would accept pretty much anything as long as it doesn't break the laws of physics, no matter how absurd it gets. Even if it breaks all common sense, it's okay as long as it doesn't break the laws of physics. Such a scenario is the implication that "an outsider" wrote about how "real people died" and does whatever she wants with it. I'm not entirely clear if there's really strict laws against this or not, but I don't think there's any equivalent in our world. Basically what you'd need is for Rokkenjima to really have existed and really have blown away in 1986 (to the real us) and yet to have Ryuukishi write Umineko based on it. That'd be terrible wouldn't it? Now imagine if secretly Ryuukishi was living with the sole survivor from it, who conveniently happened to have amnesia and identity loss. That'd be so ridiculously incredible to me. It's not "impossible" as it doesn't break the laws of physics, but it would remain very hard to swallow, and also make Ryuukishi a pretty terrible person.

The funniest thing is that Battler has been repeating over that he cannot prove magic/witches doesn't exist, simply that they weren't used to commit murders in these two days. It really leaves open very large the door that in a "prime" world, magic is real.

jjblue1

2012-01-12, 19:22

It's not that coincidence is impossible, it's just stupid. Stupid in a "small bombs" kind of way. Forget about those silly small bombs; although they are technically a possible answer, the better answer is clearly that the chapel was never locked in the first place (i.e. the stories weren't even written pre-incident in the first place).

And let me add the issue of motive. To write beforehand basically supposes that Yasu's the culprit, because the only way her messages-in-bottles are meaningful is if the island actually blows up and generates a cat box, and apparently the only way that could happen is if she did it herself or allowed it to happen. And if not, then we have another ridiculous coincidence when Yasu predicts that the island would meet its end at 24:00 Oct. 5, 1986. And if she wrote pre-incident she's not even writing to cover for someone, because she doesn't even know there will be a crime yet (unless she does know that someone is up to something and for some inexplicable reason does nothing to stop them).

Pre-incident writing just doesn't make sense.

First. It can be that Yasu wrote it merely because:
a) writing mysteries can be fun
b) it can also work as stress relief

Those two reasons would have her writing, and probably writing a lot, without really planning to harm someone.

Second.
Although I don't like the idea Yasu might have actually killed someone is possible she thought of doing so then came to her senses and gave up.
It's also possible she thought of not killing the others but was still planning to kill herself and not the others.
And it's also possible she was planning to leave the island anyway and wanted someone to solve her game even if Battler failed to solve it.

In short, if Battler wasn't capable to solve her game she was hoping a Will would find the message in the bottle and solve it.

Also the messages doesn't really cover up for someone.
They might have if they had presented possible description of what had happened. As the two messages found showed two different tales which doesn't even include Eva's survival it's clear they aren't reliable.

The Shannon/Kanon culprit theory is never mentioned so either the messages weren't solvable/were solvable but no one managed to solve them, they didn't place the blame on Shannon/Kanon or the Shannon/Kanon culprit theory wasn't deemed interesting/realistic enough.
Now maybe the messages could have implied the culprit was Beatrice and some people can find cool the idea that a witch did it but... how much believable is it?

Honestly, all the messages could prove is that:
- they weren't written by Eva or Maria (I guess they never checked for everyone's writing or they would have found out the writer was Shannon)
- someone might have been planning a crime that also aimed to have Eva among the victims.

This doesn't really assure people that character X is innocent.

However I know you're secure the messages had to be written after the incident so I doubt you'll consider anything I can say. We've discussed this already. So let's just agree to disagree.

Wanderer

2012-01-12, 19:27

Yasu is a character created by Ryuukishi.
100% of Umineko follows his convenience.

Well yes I figured you'd say so. I tend to believe that there's an Umineko Prime (although I respect your view that there isn't) and I trust that RK07 actually constructed Prime to be "realistic", even if the fictions are not.

I don't really understand how you can be arguing that there is no Prime yet also arguing that the stories were written pre-incident.

Toku

2012-01-12, 19:33

She doesn't even need to write them fast if the "discovery" of the one message bottle picked up by the authorities in the few days after the incident is itself a ruse. After all, it was not made public until after the other message bottle was "found" by some fisherman years later.

Also, using some kind of deceptive trick to make it look like they were written pre-incident, such as getting some critical person to lie, is right up Beatrice's alley.

Hm? I thought I remembered reading that the second bottle was found about 8 days after the incident. Though I could be totally wrong.

But you're right: That kind of trick is right up her alley. And at any rate, I rather like that theory.

Beside, you guys are overall, I'd say, a bit too narrow minded when it comes to mystery stories: I've just finished reading one where the culprit created a "closed room" using a time machine, yet it was 100% fairplay and solvable from the reader's pov. I don't have troubles with things not making 100% sense, if they did there wouldn't even be concepts such as "main character". You're going to say it's a crappy mystery, perhaps, or something like that? That might be. However it's from Anthony Boucher, mentioned in OC by Beatrice, and thus I'd say quite a huge influence on Umineko.

That sounds quite interesting. What's the title of that book?

But I do think that sort of thing is perfectly valid.

Even so, while I think that you're right about author theory, I don't believe it needs to be taken quite that far. Understanding the stories Yasu and the Hachijos wrote, and why they wrote them, and just what kind of people they are, seems to be enough. I don't really feel the need to start looking at it from Ryukishi's point of view, except when it comes to finding cues that he might have put in the story to help us reason out the correct answers to the above mysteries.

And I don't think Prime is actually that important. As has been said, it might not even exist. I only wanted to consider it for the sake of hopefully finding more answers to the mystery of Yasu.

UsagiTenpura

2012-01-12, 19:37

Well yes I figured you'd say so. I tend to believe that there's an Umineko Prime (although I respect your view that there isn't) and I trust that RK07 actually constructed Prime to be "realistic", even if the fictions are not.

I don't really understand how you can be arguing that there is no Prime yet also arguing that the stories were written pre-incident.

Does the incident happened or nor in our world? Did it prevent Ryuukishi from writing about it? There is no Rokkenjima prime incident and yet all 8 arcs about it has been written.

However this is sorta a twisted question/answer. "Ange's world" is a story on it's own, however in this story, there are message bottles which contains at least elements of previous arcs. In that story, like in every other, nearly everyone on the island died. In Ange's world thus, were the stories written before or after all of it happened, and this is what I'm saying that they definitively were written before.

That's basically her story... The world where "it really happened".

Also it's imo way more stupid if the writer wrote them after while knowing that Eva survived, yet made the fictions claiming she was dead.
Actually this very state of things makes it so a storm could not have happened or Ange could've gone to Rokkenjima without changing the situation where we are in (seeing on one hand hints that it was written before, and one another hand hints that it was written after).

Beside, just to know, why the hell would anyone write a story about Rokkenjima after it happened? Message bottle 1-2's existence... why were they written, according to you?

Even so, while I think that you're right about author theory, I don't believe it needs to be taken quite that far. Understanding the stories Yasu and the Hachijos wrote, and why they wrote them, and just what kind of people they are, seems to be enough. I don't really feel the need to start looking at it from Ryukishi's point of view, except when it comes to finding cues that he might have put in the story to help us reason out the correct answers to the above mysteries.

Well I can see it's really not for everyone to do so, but basically what you say works pretty well nonetheless: We never need to understand what happened in Ryuukishi's world, the world from which these fictions were written, and thus I don't see why we need to understand what happened in Yasu's "real world", the world from which the fictions are claimed to have been written.

Still I do think that Ryuukishi hoped for "one reader out of a million" to go as far as his own level.

Toku

2012-01-12, 19:52

Also it's imo way more stupid if the writer wrote them after while knowing that Eva survived, yet made the fictions claiming she was dead.
Actually this very state of things makes it so a storm could not have happened or Ange could've gone to Rokkenjima without changing the situation where we are in (seeing on one hand hints that it was written before, and one another hand hints that it was written after).

Beside, just to know, why the hell would anyone write a story about Rokkenjima after it happened? Message bottle 1-2's existence... why were they written, according to you?

True. Well, they're all just message bottles though. If we assume that they were written to obscure the truth and paint the witch Beatrice as the culprit, it could make sense. It doesn't need to prove that character X is innocent.

However, pre-incident writing really only makes sense if Yasu planned for everyone to die, and that's because:

It would be incredibly stupid if she tossed these stories out to sea and they all ended up surviving, being told of these stories, and being outraged, which would probably mean pretty serious consequences for her.

That's my response to jjblue1 as well.

UsagiTenpura

2012-01-12, 19:56

Toku

2012-01-12, 20:02

The problem is that no one even thought it was murder until the message bottles were found.
Originally the whole thing was accepted as an accident.
The truth was already way obscured : no one had any idea what happened.

Beside, when one writes a mystery fiction, they are making people attempting to solve it.

Hm, was it really? I'm pretty sure most people were stuck on the "Eva as culprit" theory from the start. And then the message bottles turned up and made everything all the more mysterious.

And well, that's usually true, but this is Umineko.

What is expected from you is neither a search for the culprit nor detective work.

When will you believe in me?

That is all that matters.

If you want to do some detective work, go ahead.

If you believe that there is an answer, go and continue to search.

This is eternal torture that will not end until you can believe in witches.

Wanderer

2012-01-12, 20:15

First. It can be that Yasu wrote it merely because:
a) writing mysteries can be fun
b) it can also work as stress relief

Those two reasons would have her writing, and probably writing a lot, without really planning to harm someone.

Sure, but these reasons don't really help us understand why she would distribute them in message bottles.

Second.
Although I don't like the idea Yasu might have actually killed someone is possible she thought of doing so then came to her senses and gave up.
It's also possible she thought of not killing the others but was still planning to kill herself and not the others.
And it's also possible she was planning to leave the island anyway and wanted someone to solve her game even if Battler failed to solve it.

In short, if Battler wasn't capable to solve her game she was hoping a Will would find the message in the bottle and solve it.

So just to clarify, you're basically saying that Yasu must have intended to kill people, or at least herself?

Hm? I thought I remembered reading that the second bottle was found about 8 days after the incident. Though I could be totally wrong.

Yes, Ange exposits something like that. It's the story, at least as the public knows it.

Also it's imo way more stupid if the writer wrote them after while knowing that Eva survived, yet made the fictions claiming she was dead.

Then Alliance is patently stupid. Although I will admit that Eva's fictional death is probably the best argument to make for the stories being written pre-incident

Beside, just to know, why the hell would anyone write a story about Rokkenjima after it happened? Message bottle 1-2's existence... why were they written, according to you?

Probably to indirectly (as Beatrice) take responsibility for the tragedy that she thought she caused.

UsagiTenpura

2012-01-12, 20:27

jjblue1

2012-01-12, 20:51

True. Well, they're all just message bottles though. If we assume that they were written to obscure the truth and paint the witch Beatrice as the culprit, it could make sense. It doesn't need to prove that character X is innocent.

However, pre-incident writing really only makes sense if Yasu planned for everyone to die, and that's because:

It would be incredibly stupid if she tossed these stories out to sea and they all ended up surviving, being told of these stories, and being outraged, which would probably mean pretty serious consequences for her.

That's my response to jjblue1 as well.

Well, for start, even if someone were to find such message in the bottle and nobody died they would think it was a prank and ignore it.

The press wouldn't care, the police wouldn't care, the guy who found the message likely wouldn't bother warning the Ushiromiya about it so they would never know.

Second even if the Ushiromiya were to be informed about such message they would have to connect the message to Shannon to be outraged. Nobody did and there was a murder involved and police checking writings. I doubt someone would do if the incident hadn't happened.

Third the best they could do is to fire her. I'm not sure they can sue her because she wrote a tale about them and then she tossed it away. Yasu however can bribe them with money if she really want to stay.

This assuming Yasu didn't plan to kill anyone, not even herself.

If Yasu was planning to kill someone... well I think this would be a more serious matter that would call for more serious consequences than just a tale.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-12, 21:00

I'm not disregarding everything EP 7 said but EP 7 didn't really told us everything in a straight manner. It's all filtred through fantasy. Also Clair's tale cut out the part in which Yasu was told she suffered an injury. We heard about it in a fragment shown by Bern. Plus, Clair's tale showed Yasu as apparently fond of Kumasawa and possibly of Genji while it seems 'Our confession' turns this around.

So most of the material we've about Yasu is filtered.
If you decide to believe in it as it is, well, that's good for you, you've a lot of material to work with.
I'm more wary in taking it as it is so I've only little material I deem reliable enough.

Also so far I've only read summaries of 'Our confession'. I can't express a definite judgement on something I didn't read in full (though I'm really, really grateful for the summaries).

The metaphor is so thinly veiled that it doesn't cover up much of anything, though. It certainly doesn't allow for the deep departures from the text you're making, such as Yasu sneaking off the island to prepare a Hachijou identity for when she's done with being Yasu.

I still have to decide an interpretation about the drowning that satisfy me.

You're not taking into account that Featherine describes the tale as "A golden rose she cast into the sea as a tribute."

Basically, it's a bittersweet, romantic ending she wrote for Battler and Beatrice as a send-off; a thanks for their tale. I don't think it has any "truth" value except to demonstrate the depth of their love for each other.

Also it's imo way more stupid if the writer wrote them after while knowing that Eva survived, yet made the fictions claiming she was dead.
Actually this very state of things makes it so a storm could not have happened or Ange could've gone to Rokkenjima without changing the situation where we are in (seeing on one hand hints that it was written before, and one another hand hints that it was written after).

Beside, just to know, why the hell would anyone write a story about Rokkenjima after it happened? Message bottle 1-2's existence... why were they written, according to you?

"Please, discover the truth. That is my one and only wish. Maria Ushiromiya."

You seem to keep disregarding that it was not the writer's intentions for readers to accept the message bottles as "true."

See that's my problem: You accept she somehow miraculously planned on her message bottles being found (quite the prediction imo, considering the vital role you give to them being found) yet you are bothered with storm prediction/Ange's absence as something impossible to predict.

It's not that miraculous. "Hey, dude, there's a message bottle, and like ten million dollars or something. Reveal this on this date and tell them this fake story about how you found it. Cool, thanks."

jjblue1

2012-01-12, 21:14

Sure, but these reasons don't really help us understand why she would distribute them in message bottles.

So just to clarify, you're basically saying that Yasu must have intended to kill people, or at least herself?

I think the answer is here:

K Will called that walking on a tightrope.

R And it really was just that. She had no intention to create the perfect crime from the very beginning. And that is how, even without turning the chessboard over, we return to the question „Why did the culprit send a letter announcing the incident?“. If somebody wanted to commit the perfect crime, it would have been better not to send an announcement and to murder everyone in their sleep. In the end it shows that the culprit had the internal longing to be discovered.

K No matter how you look at it, it seems like she was already accepting death. Both the letters before the incident and the message bottles seemed very much like a will.

R While there was enough desperation to actually carry out the incident, there was also the wish for somebody to stop her. Many criminals sending out announcements of their crimes might actually be screaming „Somebody, please stop me!“. Even though of course they can not be forgiven.

So according to this I think Yasu might have thought of doing something.
However I think she stopped or was stopped before doing it, making her innocent. Sadly things like the message bottles or the letters that reached the relatives of the servants were already sent and, due to something that went wrong, the island really exploded and people died.

In Ep 8 Battler said that Beato did nothing wrong in the world they were in. I think this means in the end Yasu definitely gave up on harming someone.

There's plently of people that, in a moment of desperation think to do something crazy then realize what they're doing is wrong and stop themselves. If that's what happened to Yasu I understand how Battler could forgive her so easily and at the same time how she could feel guilty for setting up something that lead to the Rokkenjima incident.

Btw to dwelve a bit deeper, I think Ange's role (for us reader) was to get information that we couldn't have gotten otherwise such as the mysterious letters sent to everyone. An additional role seems to be... well Will claimed he got the "why dunnit" thanks to arc 4, so I figure Ange's life is meant to parallel Yasu's life and thus by understanding one we understand the other.

That's exactly the kind of things that are too convenient for Ryuukishi. Will, I think, understand that kind of allusion as well. It's not bad either, it becomes a part of the puzzle in itself.

This is interesting. For most of Ep 4 the two things Ange wanted were to discover the truth and die on Rokkenjima. If we draw a parallel with Yasu, Yasu wanted to be understood by Battler and... well die.
However in EP 4 Ange apparently reached some sort of resolution so she doesn't seem so sure about dying. She does anyway though (after believing she had killed with magic the ones that wanted to kill her) but later the games imply she might not have died on Rokkenjima...
I wonder if this can apply to Yasu as well.

UsagiTenpura

2012-01-12, 21:32

I'm really not sure of the specifics of the idea it was written after, and I know AT's being a devil's advocate considering I at least think you don't accept the existence of prime either.

The point we're talking about I don't think implies on anyone's side to accept the content of the message bottles as true (since, the moment there are two versions anyway it becomes impossible...) but the overall concern is relating to the catbox. "Like in the stories, a storm happened, like in the stories, Ange didn't come home", "unlike in the stories, Eva survived".

Tho miracles are miracles imo. It's also miraculous in many ways that "Yasu survived long enough to at least write the stories but was never found in any ways by the local authorities". Actually the same goes around Battler. You'd at least think that after everyone dies one thing the authorities would check up on are money transfer of anything belonging to any of the dead people.

If I take AT's example, it's way too convenient that the same people who "discovered" the message bottles happened to have 10 million dollars transferred to their bank account from another account, related to the Ushiromiya, and that authorities completely overlooked that, as well as the story in every ways.

It overall to me seems like just playing with the core problem and moving it away elsewhere.
"Probabilities are rigged" I guess I can see it'd be easier to accept something like human incompetence, even on a massive scale, then storm prediction and whatnot.

To me it's still pretty simple:
Every arc = stories.
Arc 3 ended with Eva still alive, and Ange from the future where Eva survived was introduced to us.
The future of the story that is arc 3.
Will has access to previous arcs in the form of stories.
Beatrice in arc 6 also had that access.
Battler in arc 5 before figuring out everything "went over everything again" seemingly hinting he also is also given access to previous arcs in at least a form where it's reviewable enough to look like a story.
What's so different about Ange having access to them?

Renall

2012-01-12, 21:32

See that's my problem: You accept she somehow miraculously planned on her message bottles being found (quite the prediction imo, considering the vital role you give to them being found) yet you are bothered with storm prediction/Ange's absence as something impossible to predict.You're creating an equivalence that doesn't really exist because of your preconceived point of argument. Which you have been doing for several pages now.

The two are nothing alike. Let us accept for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the bottles were written and released prior to the incident. The plausibility of them being found is irrelevant, as they actually were. Beatrice even accepts that they may not be. That they were is a narrative conceit to establish the story. We accept, for example, that a character survived a car crash that killed his family as a prologue to a story about that character coping with his grief. That it's unlikely that he would have survived the crash is not relevant.

By contrast, getting certain details right (or wrong) in the message bottle is highly relevant, as it speaks to the amount of information available to the writer at the time of the writing. Which, we've established for argument's sake, is before the incident. Thus the knowledge that the storm would be as severe as it was or that Ange would not be present (or that Battler would) is a question we have to ask, because there's something narratively unsatisfying about the answer being "lucky guess."

Yes, that means that "luck got the bottles to someone who would report them" and "luck allowed Yasu to correctly guess that Ange would be absent" are two different degrees of plausibility. There's not actually a contradiction here, however. Happenstance is more narratively acceptable when human agency is not involved. That's just how literature works.

Also, why do you care? If you don't believe there is a Prime, then there was no message bottle and no one was affected by it anyway. It's nothing more than an epilogue or a plot device for the Ange fictions. Nothing is actually written in them. I think you're running away from confronting the argument that there are hints of an unobserved and potentially unobservable, but still relevant unifying factor by dismissing it outright. In particular, your point of view cheapens everything Beatrice does because none of it actually has any "real world" meaning to her; it only has meaning to Ryukishi, the actual author.

Used Can

2012-01-12, 22:20

Well, there are many things that have been on the story that makes you wonder how Yasu got to know about that. Ange not being on the island is one, the storm is another, there's also Battler's return. In addition, it'd seem she was also knowledgeable on Battler's parentage, given that the thing Rudolph wanted to tell Battler was there on EP1 (though, that might have been completely unrelated).

Of the 3, I think the storm could be potentially dismissed as it never actually having happened, but that everyone stayed on the island those 2 days because they were bribed. So, the storm would be only a fictional event. As for Ange not being in the island, I think there could be several possible theories about it. One I particularly like would be that Yasu, Rudolph and Kyrie were conniving. Yasu probably had a hand of Battler's return by promising money to Rudolph and Kyrie. And, since they were involved in the whole murder play, they probably decided to leave Ange home, since she was too young and she wasn't... special like Maria.

UsagiTenpura

2012-01-12, 22:22

Well I really don't think you're getting at all what I'm saying then.

It's things like arc 4 being seemingly more aimed at us then at Battler or whoever else, as well as "Land" being the planned arc 3 that was dropped ending up being a "lost message bottle" that makes me unable to fully separate Ryuukishi from the story.

To me the overall story we are supposed to figure out is basically why did Yasu write these stories/what messages did she want to send Battler, and why could she still be satisfied with an outsider like Will solving it (the theme of an outsider solving a riddle has been there since arc 1, with the epitaph, and I think outsiders mostly refers to us real readers).

Different things lower the value of Umineko to different people, it seems. To me that'd be the idea that everyone died, possibly murdered by Yasu, and then she wrote stories about it. It's not as much a matter of screwing up the morals of Umineko as much as me simply not getting them at all anymore. Chiru just stops making any sense to me.

Edit: Just to say, what if we had been shown an arc 4 future that basically had no relevance to anything written in the previous arcs. Could Ryuukishi have done that? What purpose to the overall story would such a future play? Who showed us that future? Yasu did? If she did, how can she show anything to us?

AuraTwilight

2012-01-12, 22:35

If I take AT's example, it's way too convenient that the same people who "discovered" the message bottles happened to have 10 million dollars transferred to their bank account from another account, related to the Ushiromiya, and that authorities completely overlooked that, as well as the story in every ways.

This is the same universe where someone wired a shitton of money to everyone who died on Rokkenjima and only Ange bothered to look into it.

Wanderer

2012-01-13, 00:36

LyricalAura

2012-01-13, 01:29

For people thinking that Yasu couldn't guess that the storm would happen, here's some lines from EP1:

Rudolf: "A typhoon again? ...I guess it's unavoidable, with the family conference being held in October."

Eva: "I just suggested that you might want to propose it [moving the conference to August] to them, since you said you hate typhoons so much."

Sounds like it's happened before, repeatedly.

Snow_Storm

2012-01-13, 02:32

Okay, so thanks to a few random unmarked spoilers I found on the internet (thanks, Encyclopedia Dramatica), I wanna know a few things.

Did Future/Teen Ange Actually committed murder/suicide in one of the bittersweet endings

And on Beatrice I know she's the product of incest, but was the Italian Beatrice her mother or was it their daughter?

AuraTwilight

2012-01-13, 02:39

Did Future/Teen Ange

Yes, in the Trick Ending, Ange kills Amakusa and the boat guy.

I know she's the product of incest, but was the Italian Beatrice her mother or was it their daughter?

Their daughter, the one that Rosa met as a little girl.

There was Beatrice 1, the italian, who had a daughter with Kinzo, Beatrice 2. This was the one Kinzo raped and had another child with.

UsagiTenpura

2012-01-13, 05:12

You're creating an equivalence that doesn't really exist because of your preconceived point of argument. Which you have been doing for several pages now.
Sorry Renall, but you're pretty much the last person I want to hear this from, considering I haven't seen anything about how you approach Umineko that isn't preconceived.

Even what it should have been was already way preconceived by you, it's like you had a specific guidebook on the morals and everything else about Umineko and when it didn't deliver you started to attack it as bad and saying that Ryuukishi didn't do things right. Beside, the idea that 100% of Umineko is a standard mystery is a preconceived point of argument in itself.

What I was trying to point out that you completely missed is that claiming a culprit could predict all of these things and have everything going so perfectly according to plan isn't any less crazy then predicting a storm. As LyricalAura pointed out, such a thing seemed more common then not. Another such thing that seems more common then not is that Ange gets sick and cannot come.
From Yasu's pov, if she wrote them before the accidents/independantly on an accident occuring or not, she'd take the most realistic guess at to what would happen.
1) She guessed there would probably be a storm.
2) She guessed Ange would probably be sick.
3) She guessed a 900 tons bomb would probably ensure everyone's death.
She was right about 2 of it, and wrong about the (imo) one that seems harder to swallow to be wrong about.
Prime doesn't have to occur at all and thus none of this has to be verifiable to still be the most logical guess to make when writing the stories.

I am trying to fight a preconception that most of you seem to have, so whatever.
In the end what baffles me the most tho it that so many people seemingly never noticed that "things of incredibly low probabilities occurring nonetheless" (and especially that Yasu referred to October 4/5 that way in arc 7) is a constant and major theme of the serie. Or alternatively doesn't make anything out of it/doesn't reason it out because it wouldn't be very "realistic" to think about.

I don't accept that and haven't for a long time. I think the bottle-stories' "natural discovery" was a hoax set up by Yasu.
Well I guess I can't deny that is somehow possible, but to me it feels like small bomb theories.
Also, well, this sounds like the kind of arguments of intelligent design. Denying all possible coincidence and making them all part of a master plan. Obviously reality and fiction follows very different rules tho, so I think that's fine, however only as long as you accept that even prime is a fiction.

Wanderer

2012-01-13, 06:10

Well I guess I can't deny that is somehow possible, but to me it feels like small bomb theories.
Also, well, this sounds like the kind of arguments of intelligent design. Denying all possible coincidence and making them all part of a master plan. Obviously reality and fiction follows very different rules tho, so I think that's fine, however only as long as you accept that even prime is a fiction.

An analogy. Say your friend rolls 4 dice and gets all '5's. You would naturally think "Hm, well that's unusual, but I guess unusual things happen" and think nothing more of it. Now let's say your friend says "Hey, watch this, I'm gonna roll these 4 dice and they will all be '5's" and sure enough when he rolls the dice he gets all '5's. Whoa. Now this is really strange. Can you readily accept your friend's accurate prediction as a pure coincidence? Probably not. Would you think it's magic? No, unless you're Maria. So wouldn't your first and most logical instinct be to suppose your friend was using trick dice? That's what I'm doing.

And just to remind you, things that look like "magic" but are actually tricks are what Beatrice does.

Renall

2012-01-13, 09:35

Sorry Renall, but you're pretty much the last person I want to hear this from, considering I haven't seen anything about how you approach Umineko that isn't preconceived.You're not making any sense at all. I pretty much always argue by academic assumption and investigation, which is precisely the opposite of preconception. Perhaps you don't actually understand what I said?What I was trying to point out that you completely missed is that claiming a culprit could predict all of these things and have everything going so perfectly according to plan isn't any less crazy then predicting a storm.But you're wrong. It's considerably more crazy. What's your point here? The idea is not that one thing or another could be guessed, but that everything being guessed raises questions about the plausibility of when and where something was authored.Prime doesn't have to occur at all and thus none of this has to be verifiable to still be the most logical guess to make when writing the stories.You really should put thought into the logical consequences of your arguments. Assume there is no Prime. What level of existence, exactly, is the author existing on? And does it make any difference in the plausibility of the author's fictional premise? Consider this for a moment, because I don't think you are.I am trying to fight a preconception that most of you seem to have, so whatever.
In the end what baffles me the most tho it that so many people seemingly never noticed that "things of incredibly low probabilities occurring nonetheless" (and especially that Yasu referred to October 4/5 that way in arc 7) is a constant and major theme of the serie. Or alternatively doesn't make anything out of it/doesn't reason it out because it wouldn't be very "realistic" to think about.But this is the problem; you are the person who refuses to think about it because you don't want to think about it. We talk about it and speculate on it because we are thinking about it; you are dismissive about it because you aren't. You're projecting heavily here. I don't think anyone who disagrees with you is trying to persecute you for your ideas or suppress some brilliant realization that you've had. I certainly don't have the ability to do that.

"Things of low probability happening all the same" is a conceit of mystery fiction. We know that many things we've seen are specifically crafted mystery fictions, and we accept the improbabilities there. To then turn around and say we must accept all other improbabilities because they are equivalent is intellectually lazy and nonsensical. We have been presented with evidence that the world of the author, whatever that may be, does not behave identically to the world he or she has created. Given this, we must question the coincidences which still seem to be appearing. If the world after - whether itself a fiction or not - appears to express incongruous traits that would be more suited to a genre fiction, yet on the whole does not behave like the genre those traits come from, it's entirely reasonable to speculate as to why that is likely to be.

"Because it's also fiction and it's all the same" is a sledgehammer erasure of (and denial of) any distinctions between the different fictional layers. And we know those differences exist; if nothing else, we know the Meta-World is not a layer of equivalent fictional genre to the other layers. It is pure conceptual fantasy, whatever its origin or meaning. Coincidences in the Meta-World would be treated differently from coincidences in the fictional worlds, and both would be treated differently from coincidences in Ange's world or some theoretical R-Prime world. That's the only rational way to examine them, unless and until such time as it can be demonstrably shown that World X and World Y are genre-equivalent. That is a burden you have repeatedly failed to meet.

Bear in mind we may be permitted to accept different coincidences in different genres. Ange's world may be genre fiction, for example, but it may not be the same genre. What is an acceptable coincidence in that setting may be different from what is acceptable in others, and looking at those contrasts may reveal things that are unacceptable coincidences overall. I think it's an avenue you should explore.Also, well, this sounds like the kind of arguments of intelligent design. Denying all possible coincidence and making them all part of a master plan. Obviously reality and fiction follows very different rules tho, so I think that's fine, however only as long as you accept that even prime is a fiction.Again, consider the consequences of a Prime universe that is a genre fiction obeying the conventions of genre fiction. First of all, what genre is it? Is it also a mystery? It doesn't follow mystery rules. What exactly would be Ryukishi's intent in writing about a fictional world of a particular genre in which an individual writes a story in another genre? As interesting as it would be to see a noir detective fiction author in a world that obeys noir genre tropes write a Tolkienesque fantasy, Umineko is not a story which appears to concentrate heavily on that theme. After all, we have very little information about what a Prime world would specifically even look like. The assumption that it's "intended to be realistic" is indeed an assumption, but it's not an unreasonable one based on the themes the story has set up and the information that Ryukishi has actually advanced regarding the "real world" he's talked about, however briefly. The very reason we may never have seen it is specifically because he only wants to convey his story through genre, but that doesn't mean it either must itself be a genre fiction or that it doesn't exist. That does not logically follow.

zibbazabba905

2012-01-14, 07:40

Cao Ni Ma

2012-01-14, 10:19

Ok, working on an AMV and getting sidetracked, in the 2nd arc

Rosa is the one behind it in this arc

but who was the accomplice? They couldn't have done it by themselves, and I know Maria knows whats up, because shes a bit more batshit than usual in this one, but I doubt Maria could do anything to help

"Beatrice" is the one behind all the arcs, Rosa and the servants are the accomplices for ep2. It also doesn't make any sense unless Rosa pinning it on the servants was part of the plan from the start. Or like in the fighting game, where Rosa is an accomplice following Beatrice without knowing absolutely everything thats happening.

Pocuma

2012-01-14, 18:43

AuraTwilight

2012-01-14, 19:35

Wanderer

2012-01-14, 19:41

I was reading the released chapters of the ep5 manga and got reminded about the issue of Shannon and Kanon both appearing at the same time, even when Erika is present. Has there been any satisfying theories of how this is possible? The only one I could think of is the unreliable-narrator thing, but that woudn't explain why Erika did not notice if one of them was missing... :confused:

We've had lots of argument about this. My theory has been that the discrepancy lies somewhere between Bernkastel's "reading" and Lambdadelta's "writing" of End, and not in any of Piece!Erika's observations. To put it another way, the error is on a metaphysical level rather than a physical one. This probably supposes that the transmission of information between the player and the player's piece is in some way imperfect.

Not everyone finds this whole idea sensible, however.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-14, 19:42

Well, yea, a common criticism of Wanderer's idea is that it makes Erika's reliable perspective effectively meaningless, because it's not actually reliable, then.

Pocuma

2012-01-14, 20:43

The manga isn't the best depiction of events for a lot of things, but the problem is still there in the visual novel. The consensus answer is "Kanon is standing behind Gohda" because it's the least stupid answer.

Yes the manga does makes things a bit more confusing in certain scens, but in this case it just reminded me of the issue itself.

Both Shannon and Kanon are (suppostly) present during the "the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island" scene. According to the VN's narrator (Battler in that scene) Shannon is standing together with Kumazawa behind Erika while Kannon is being unsociable. I guess that one could get around this scene with a combination of the unreliable-narrator theory and the "Kanon is standing behind Gohda"-theory you mentioned... or just say that Erika was not aware of that red truth and therefore did not care about not seeing Kanon (or Shannon) in that room at the time.

And the scene outside Kinzo's study is quite more vague in the VN than the manga regarding the two of them (Kanon spoke in that scene but I do not remember if Shannon did anything...). Everyone who is suppostly still "alive" at this point (beside Kinzo) is there, and since Erika is looking for a suspect it seems odd for her to not notice if someone wasn't present. How everyone else could miss it is also odd, but I guess everyone else on the island is already in on the ShKanon thing by now... :heh:

And I have to ask.... "Kanon is standing behind Gohda" is the least stupid answer? What more kinds of answers exist then? :D

We've had lots of argument about this. My theory has been that the discrepancy lies somewhere between Bernkastel's "reading" and Lambdadelta's "writing" of End, and not in any of Piece!Erika's observations. To put it another way, the error is on a metaphysical level rather than a physical one. This probably supposes that the transmission of information between the player and the player's piece is in some way imperfect.

I'm not sure I undestand... Do you mean that if Bern missread/missunderstand something that Lambda "wrote" then Erika will be given the information the way that Bern "read it" and not the way Lambda "wrote it"? Kind of like Bern re-wrote the scene the way she understood it and then Erika only read this re-written version?

Renall

2012-01-14, 20:43

But there isn't really an answer at all that isn't stupid, unfortunately. If you can think of one let us know!

Pocuma

2012-01-14, 21:24

Another thought... As I was thinking about this issue and looking a bit at earlier conversations you guys had I started to wonder if there might be two kinds of answers to this... You guys have been discussing about Yasu only having a confirmed meta-motive while trying to figure out a "real" motive for the murderers (if we assume she did kill anyone). Could Erika not notice the ShKanon-thing be something similar?

If we go only with a meta-only-motive one could guess she might not have noticed it because she was going to frame Natsuhi anyway. So unless Shannon or Kanon was of any importance to the Natsuhi-culprit theory Erika would not pay them any attension (Kind of like some people do/did when looking for ways to "prove" their own theories while igoring things/hints that did not fit in with it). And even if she later noticed something seemed odd about them she was to pridefull to change her Natsuhi-culprit theory so she just ignored any sign of ShKanon.

If we go by a non-meta motive... I'm to tired to think about a proper one right now so I'll think some more about it tomorrow... when I'm not falling asleep on the keybord... :heh:

Jaden

2012-01-14, 21:58

I agree that there is no great answer, but it's not a great problem either. Erika had already decided her theory by that point so maybe she just didn't care. After all servants in the mystery genre are usually very trivial characters. Like furniture.

If at some point she couldn't locate Shannon or Kanon and started suspecting them, I'm sure LD could clear them with clever use of the red...

Kealym

2012-01-14, 22:16

I'm kinda alone on it, but I haven't been dissuaded that "In EP5, and possibly EP5 alone, Lambda just gave Kanon his own body, for either shiggles on Lambda's part, or a thought experiment on Ryukishi's / Tohya's / Featherine's / whomever's part. It explains the 'lack of love' in EP5, allows Erika's Detective Authority to still actually work like we're told, and makes EP6 Genius Battler more entertainingly insidious because he would've known Erika had a false impression of the true number of physical bodies involved in his game."

To be clear, the problem I have with "Kanon behind Godha" is that it makes Erika unforgivably stupid and out of character. And the problem I have with "she already decided to blame Natsuhi", is that if she'd already noticed a discrepancy in the appearance of Shannon or Kanon's characters, she almost certainly would've mentioned in while trying to solve the EP6 Guest Room, the only puzzle in the entire series that actually necessitates a Shkanon solution.

...of course, at this point we've discussed it so many times, that sometimes I'll just concede to "Kanon was behind Godha"'s sentiment because someone, was it Aura, suggested that Kanon was behind Erika the whole time giving her bunny ears as everyone else in the parlor tried to stifle their laughter. And that's just freakin' hilarious.

Wanderer

2012-01-14, 22:46

I'm not sure I undestand... Do you mean that if Bern missread/missunderstand something that Lambda "wrote" then Erika will be given the information the way that Bern "read it" and not the way Lambda "wrote it"? Kind of like Bern re-wrote the scene the way she understood it and then Erika only read this re-written version?

Yes. Although "not the way Lambda wrote it" might be a bit misleading because I think that Lamdba intentionally "wrote" in a way that could be interpreted the way Bern interpreted it. Basically, as a writer Lambda used a dirty trick to mislead Bern. Hence "a game without love".

Incidentally, it wouldn't really be fair to us either, but I think that'd be the point.

Drifloon

2012-01-15, 12:14

The problem with the idea that Kanon is a separate person in EP5 only is that Lambda said in red that Erika was the only piece that had been added, and that the number of people on the island had only been increased by one.

My personal theory is that EP5 is a very different kakera in which Kanon remained a simple delusion/"imaginary friend" of Yasu/Shannon and that they are not seen as two separate people by any of the residents of the island (they are never acknowledged as such that I can recall). However, Battler is Yasu's accomplice in this kakera (probably under the impression that it's a fake murder mystery as a little prank on Natsuhi, not seriously trying to frame her for murder) and thus knows the truth of Yasu's soul; therefore, because he has love for Yasu, he sees the truth that there are in fact two people standing there, not just one.

We already know that Battler is an unreliable narrator in EP5, so there's no problem with him being an accomplice. Actually it's the only real explanation I can see for the part where he tells Erika he saw Kinzo: nobody would mistake Kinzo by sight, so he was deliberately lying. Why? Because he wanted to leave room for the existence of Kinzo as part of Yasu's plan. That's how I see it, anyway.

Kealym

2012-01-15, 12:38

The problem with the idea that Kanon is a separate person in EP5 only is that Lambda said in red that Erika was the only piece that had been added, and that the number of people on the island had only been increased by one.

That's not a problem with my theory, though. Kanon is counted as a person whether he has a body or not, so the only thing that changes is the number of bodies, not the number of people.

My personal theory is that EP5 is a very different kakera in which Kanon remained a simple delusion/"imaginary friend" of Yasu/Shannon and that they are not seen as two separate people by any of the residents of the island (they are never acknowledged as such that I can recall). However, Battler is Yasu's accomplice in this kakera (probably under the impression that it's a fake murder mystery as a little prank on Natsuhi, not seriously trying to frame her for murder) and thus knows the truth of Yasu's soul; therefore, because he has love for Yasu, he sees the truth that there are in fact two people standing there, not just one.

The problem with this isn't Battler, who's directly stated to be an accomplice of sorts, so whatever, it's Erika. Erika is aware of Kanon's presence on the island, and it's her perception (or lack thereof) of him that we're trying to account for.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-15, 14:26

...of course, at this point we've discussed it so many times, that sometimes I'll just concede to "Kanon was behind Godha"'s sentiment because someone, was it Aura, suggested that Kanon was behind Erika the whole time giving her bunny ears as everyone else in the parlor tried to stifle their laughter. And that's just freakin' hilarious.

Yea, that was totes me. It's canon imo.

Erika was the only one who didn't see it because of Detective's Authority and generally because she's an un-fun asshole.

That's not a problem with my theory, though. Kanon is counted as a person whether he has a body or not, so the only thing that changes is the number of bodies, not the number of people.

But then we have the problem of why Imaginary-Kinzo doesn't count as a person, or why Beatrice doesn't count as a person. And if Maria still had Sakutarou I'm sure he'd of been counted as a person because LolMariage Sorciere right?

Wanderer

2012-01-15, 14:40

Yea, that was totes me. It's canon imo.

Hey now, don't take all the credit. The bunny ears were my idea.

Pocuma

2012-01-15, 16:37

Kanon was behind Erika the whole time giving her bunny ears as everyone else in the parlor tried to stifle their laughter.
Thats got to be the best solution EVER! :heehee:

Something else I thought of... there seems to be two common questions regarding ep5 and ShKanon:

1. "Why did Erika not notice Shannon and Kanon are the same person?"
This one got me thinking that it feels like it's the wrong question to ask. Why would she noticed that Shanon and Kanon are the same person? Last time I checked "I haven't seen those two in the same room at the same time" does not equal "these two people has to be the same person" (even if it happens to be true in this case :heh: ). Battler didn't notice they where even after 4 games. Personally I remember that the first time(s) I read about the ShKanon theory I did not buy it at all because I thought it sounded ridiculous (and out of context it still does). Its not really until you know about "the heart" that it makes sense....... well.... somewhat more sense at least... :eyespin: Having that in mind… is it really that odd that Erika did not figure ShKanon out in ep6?

2. "Why did Erika not notice Shanon and Kanon are (supposedly) never in the same room at the same time?"
Lets ask the opposit: Why would she? Unless you know/believe they are the same person you would most likely not pay that much attention whatever they appear at the same time/place or not (and especially not if you're looking for evidence that someone else is the culprit). The real question here is actually "How come Erika did not notice one person was missing?" After the first twilight she should have noticed that one person (who was supposed to be present) was missing while the group moved around. :eyebrow:

GreyZone

2012-01-15, 17:57

I got it probably...

The narrator of the EP5-gameboard was Battler. We only heard his thoughts and not Erika's.

So the scene we saw in the parlor was from Battler's perspective. What Erika saw didn't matter.

That is probably one of the things "Beato could do, but didn't do". She was so nice, to let the gameboard be run through the eyes of Battler, wherever he was present in EP1-4. But in EP5 Bernkastel as the player didn't have that much luck with the gamemaster.

So even the scenes, where Erika was present were not shown through Erika's eyes, but through Battler's. And Piece-Erika cannot investigate anything, that she doesn't find fishy at that moment...

Something like the scene in EP2 where Battler saw a living Kinzo and the golden Butterflies in Kinzo's study. Because he didn't have the "magic doesn't exist"-stance anymore, he was blinded by the illusions. Meta-Battler couldn't hear the answers from Beato about the twilights, which she told Piece-Battler. This was hinted in EP5 too, when Meta-Battler didn't get to know the details about the Epitaph, while his piece version did.

So as long as Erika doesn't think that something is fishy in EP5, the Meta-Player (Bern) will never see it either.

I hope this wasn't too confusing.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-15, 18:05

Hey now, don't take all the credit. The bunny ears were my idea.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure I mentioned the bunny ears on my own too...maybe I did that at Golden Gameboard and forgot about it. Fuck if I know.

Either way the idea is canon.

Wanderer

2012-01-15, 23:22

Are you sure?

Yeah. It's here:

~~~

Incidentally for those that are interested, you can also find some older discussion relevant to the EP5 parlor scene if you follow that link.

Kealym

2012-01-16, 00:20

But then we have the problem of why Imaginary-Kinzo doesn't count as a person, or why Beatrice doesn't count as a person. And if Maria still had Sakutarou I'm sure he'd of been counted as a person because LolMariage Sorciere right?

This is a problem that exists prior to EP5 anyway, so it's not a problem created by my theory. Rather than go into detail by character, I'll generalize and say that it's Beato's narrative conceit that Kanon-persona counts as a living person, while characters with a seemingly equal level of existence, somehow do not.

Thats got to be the best solution EVER! :heehee:

Something else I thought of... there seems to be two common questions regarding ep5 and ShKanon:

1. "Why did Erika not notice Shannon and Kanon are the same person?"
This one got me thinking that it feels like it's the wrong question to ask. Why would she noticed that Shanon and Kanon are the same person? Last time I checked "I haven't seen those two in the same room at the same time" does not equal "these two people has to be the same person" (even if it happens to be true in this case :heh: ). Battler didn't notice they where even after 4 games. Personally I remember that the first time(s) I read about the ShKanon theory I did not buy it at all because I thought it sounded ridiculous (and out of context it still does). Its not really until you know about "the heart" that it makes sense....... well.... somewhat more sense at least... :eyespin: Having that in mind… is it really that odd that Erika did not figure ShKanon out in ep6?

2. "Why did Erika not notice Shanon and Kanon are (supposedly) never in the same room at the same time?"
Lets ask the opposit: Why would she? Unless you know/believe they are the same person you would most likely not pay that much attention whatever they appear at the same time/place or not (and especially not if you're looking for evidence that someone else is the culprit). The real question here is actually "How come Erika did not notice one person was missing?" After the first twilight she should have noticed that one person (who was supposed to be present) was missing while the group moved around. :eyebrow:

I'm assuming you're jumping into the discussion of this specific topic for the first time? The problem of Kanon and Erika's perspective can be stated more simply.
"Erika explicitly gathered every human that wasn't a presented murder victim, or Kinzo, into the parlor. Kanon is there. Shannon is there. What the fucklesticks?"

Also, the Logic Error is the only riddle that actually requires a Shkanon solution - Battler could've solved EP1-4 with "Shannon and Kanon are accomplices", pretty much tit for tat.

So even the scenes, where Erika was present were not shown through Erika's eyes, but through Battler's. And Piece-Erika cannot investigate anything, that she doesn't find fishy at that moment...

It's not even a matter of what she does or doesn't choose to investigate, though - it's a matter of what's right in front of Piece-Erika's eyes. Or possibly behind them making bunny ears.

Don't forget that Battler wasn't the narrator for all of EP1-4, not by a long shot, but what he himself witnessed was still important, and the case still solvable.

Either way the idea is canon.

Someone REALLY should write a fanfic that involves a super-trolling Kanon playing the most hardcore game of hide-go-seek ever. :heh:

Drifloon

2012-01-16, 02:41

The problem with this isn't Battler, who's directly stated to be an accomplice of sorts, so whatever, it's Erika. Erika is aware of Kanon's presence on the island, and it's her perception (or lack thereof) of him that we're trying to account for.

Where does Erika show awareness of Kanon in E5? I don't recall that.

Jan-Poo

2012-01-16, 08:10

Where does Erika show awareness of Kanon in E5? I don't recall that.

`"Now, Kanon-san and Kumasawa-san.`@` Please rise."`\

`"In the morning,`@` you two went to wake Genji-san because he had slept in, right?`@` And at that time, you noticed that the door was sealed, broke the seal, and opened the door, correct?"`\

At the very least Meta-Erika is aware of him.

Renall

2012-01-16, 09:03

At the very least Meta-Erika is aware of him.And if, for whatever reason, Meta-Erika is aware of him but Piece-Erika isn't, it creates some serious problems with the very notion of detective authority meaning anything at all. It'd be rather pointless for the only reliable perspective to belong to someone whose observations cannot even be accessed.

Jaden

2012-01-16, 10:26

At which point is it okay to stop thinking and admit that there is a plot hole?:heh:

Renall

2012-01-16, 11:05

At which point is it okay to stop thinking and admit that there is a plot hole?:heh:If Meta-Erika has no access to Piece-Erika's POV, or limited access, then basically it's not so much a plot hole (Erika can simply think she has access to her piece when she doesn't) as an incident of authorial "cheating." It's a red herring, an act of blatant misdirection not designed to add anything of value to the work (as opposed to Beatrice's misdirections, which generally added things). If there is no correspondence between Erikas, then the entire "detective authority" thing is a sham, at least in ep5. It simply doesn't exist.

Basically, it resolves the issue with the parlor scene - it's a lie, Piece-Erika didn't see Kanon, and Meta-Erika is unable to become aware that Piece-Erika didn't see him and thus assumes she did - but in a way that isn't terribly satisfactory to anyone. It means that Ryukishi lied to the reader by convincing us detective authority meant something, and the characters lied to Erika by convincing her she was capable of investigating when in fact she was only capable of getting the information she was allowed to have from an external authority.

Much as I hate to feel sympathy for Erika, if she didn't really have unrestricted access to the actions and observations of her piece she was basically being played for a chump by Battler, Bern, and Lambda.

Jan-Poo

2012-01-16, 11:36

Much as I hate to feel sympathy for Erika, if she didn't really have unrestricted access to the actions and observations of her piece she was basically being played for a chump by Battler, Bern, and Lambda.

This is especially true if you consider EP6 where her whole strategy revolved around the assumption that by manipulating her piece she could access informations without the Game Master knowledge.

If the truth is that the Game Master actually fed her those information her role in the whole EP6 would be nothing but that of a marionette dancing on Battler's palm.

Even the genius Battler theory wouldn't be that great in this scenario because you don't really need to be a genius to fool someone who has no knowledge of the fact all the intellegence she possess are manipulated by you.

Renall

2012-01-16, 11:41

It's worse, I think, if she has some access, but not total access, as it fools her into somehow thinking she's getting all the information she wanted when, as you put it, she's really nothing more than a puppet.

While I expect that degree of cruelty from Bern, even to the point that I can accept it being done to her own allies, I just have trouble believing that Erika would somehow have ticked off Battler so badly that he'd be okay with simply manipulating her at will and allowing her to believe a completely unfair scenario that was engineered right down to her own actions. At least if she stumbles into his trap of her own depravity the whole thing becomes her own fault. If she wasn't even able to control that much, she's basically a witches' chew toy.

Wanderer

2012-01-16, 11:49

At the very least Meta-Erika is aware of him.

And, interestingly, in EP6 Piece-Erika actually refers to Kanon, although they are never actually shown to be in the same room.

And if, for whatever reason, Meta-Erika is aware of him but Piece-Erika isn't, it creates some serious problems with the very notion of detective authority meaning anything at all. It'd be rather pointless for the only reliable perspective to belong to someone whose observations cannot even be accessed.

I think her observations can be accessed, just not accessed with perfect accuracy. This does, of course, undermine the usefulness of Erika's reliable perspective, leaving the "player" with no 100% certain information. But, goddammit, isn't that just like Umineko? We're never 100% certain of anything.

I would also like to point out that we readers never had access to Piece-Erika's observations, as we never see anything from her viewpoint.

Jan-Poo

2012-01-16, 11:59

Not to mention the fact that the very premise of Episode6, that is the creation of a game between Battler and Erika and all the talks about fairness, would be nothing but fluff, as you can't possibly call it a game at these conditions.

Anyway

It's a red herring, an act of blatant misdirection not designed to add anything of value to the work

I think this is the case for what concerns the kitchen scene in Episode1. We now know that Kumasawa, Genji and "Beatrice" were all in a conspiracy and therefore all of them should know well what happened on the first twilight and why. We also know that Battler was detective and he was supposed to have a reliable perspective.

Given that, that scene makes no sense, unless you assume Beatrice really has DID and that when she's "Kanon" cannot remember what the other personalities did, but that doesn't really matches with the rest we know.
This looks like a blatant unjustified misdirection to me, as if there was a need to misdirect the readers further in that episode.

Another thing that I didn't stomach was the fact that in EP3 the hypothesis that the servants faked their death was raised and then dismissed by the adults. That's really a bad trick. To make the usual comparison with Philo Vance claiming that "there are no secret passage", it's as if the writer after making him say that he'd "surprise" the readers by making the same character admit "whops... I was wrong! There was indeed a secret passage, and that was how you could explain this case from the beginning!".

The personality death also appearing in EP3 was a very "poisonous" trick by the author admission. The way he tried so hard to make the readers give up on shkanon starting from EP3, passing through the red truth of EP4 and then the bomb in EP5 is absolutely incredible.

I can understand he was upset by the fact his "trick" was spotted almost instantly, but man...

But, goddammit, isn't that just like Umineko? We're never 100% certain of anything.

Except, if that was even remotely true how the hell Dlanor could make a red truth out of what Erika supposedly experienced behind the GM's back without detective authority?
The explanation for that in the story was that this was possible because that situation didn't allow the smallest doubt. Your thesis is in direct contrast with that.

RedKey

2012-01-16, 12:19

Given that, that scene makes no sense, unless you assume Beatrice really has DID and that when she's "Kanon" cannot remember what the other personalities did, but that doesn't really matches with the rest we know.
This looks like a blatant unjustified misdirection to me, as if there was a need to misdirect the readers further in that episode.

Maybe someone already said this (I really don't wanna browse that many previous thread pages), but couldn't it be the case they knew Battler could have walked by the kitchen overhearing them, and thus put up the act?

Jan-Poo

2012-01-16, 12:56

I guess it's possible, but given the fact there is absolutely no hint of that nor a good reason as to how they instantly managed to spot Battler's attempt to eavesdrop them, that's still a pretty dirty trick.

If you consider this from the perspective of a sleuth that is trying to figure out the truth, there were pretty much no reasons to think Kanon and the others were playacting because they noticed Battler was listening. Given the information at disposal that was a very low probability.

I'll make again a comparison with the riddle of the three boxes. It is a given that you cannot deny the possibility that the prize is inside the box that has the lowest chance of having it. But seeing as how we can only think in terms of logic and probabilities, punishing or not rewarding those who made the most logical choice (albeit not 100% sure) doesn't really fares well in the contest of a "game". What else would you reward then? Instinct?

Renall

2012-01-16, 13:04

I think her observations can be accessed, just not accessed with perfect accuracy. This does, of course, undermine the usefulness of Erika's reliable perspective, leaving the "player" with no 100% certain information. But, goddammit, isn't that just like Umineko? We're never 100% certain of anything.Yes well, we were kinda told that Detective Authority could reach 100% certainty, to the point that a piece's observations could rise to the level of red truth. More to the point, Erika was told that. It doesn't even matter if it's true; what matters is we and Erika were both told that's how it worked.

If it doesn't actually work that way, both the reader and Erika were lied to, for no apparent reason.

And if Erika lacks perfect access to her piece, the very notion that her observations are accurate is laughable, as someone regulates when she has access and when she does not. That someone - be it Lambda, Bern, or Battler or whoever - essentially controls all information that Erika has. She literally cannot make independent observations at all. She's just misled into thinking she can when, in fact, she can make only those observations she's permitted to make.I would also like to point out that we readers never had access to Piece-Erika's observations, as we never see anything from her viewpoint.Irrelevant. We know what Piece-Erika should have observed, and we know that Meta-Erika does not act like she observed the same thing. So we know there's either a discrepancy or an error. We simply don't know which. Basically we end up looking at the situation like this: Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share no information. What Meta-Erika sees is filtered and unreliable and she has no way to actually access her piece's observations. Detective Authority is a flagrant sham, as there exists no Meta-Character who can actually use it (and the whole point, making observations red truth, applies solely to the Meta-World).
Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share all information in some form of direct connection. Kanon either should not have been seen in the parlor, or Erika should have commented about his presence, or Kanon has to have had a separate body, or Erika has to have conveniently not seen him and then never noticed this fact, or etc. etc. etc. insert your favorite vague and unsatisfying explanation here.
Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share some information, but not all. If so, there must be a regulating force in between the two of them that controls what information is passed between them. As long as that force exists, nothing Erika sees or does is actually reliable because the force can choose to "turn off" her accessibility at any time, apparently without either Erika even being aware of it. Detective Authority exists only at the sufferance of the regulating force, and is useless to the reader as the reader is not told when it's been shut off either.
It was an error. Kanon should never have been shown in the room, but Ryukishi was desperate to string along the Shkanon debate and for whatever reason felt compelled to use that "everyone is present" red when it wasn't even necessary or useful to the narrative.None of these are particularly appealing.

LyricalAura

2012-01-16, 14:09

Another thing that I didn't stomach was the fact that in EP3 the hypothesis that the servants faked their death was raised and then dismissed by the adults. That's really a bad trick. To make the usual comparison with Philo Vance claiming that "there are no secret passage", it's as if the writer after making him say that he'd "surprise" the readers by making the same character admit "whops... I was wrong! There was indeed a secret passage, and that was how you could explain this case from the beginning!".

Frankly, "someone proposed it so it can't be remotely true" is reasoning by tropes, and you deserve to get tricked if you rely on it. By that logic you could never have a story where the real culprit was considered as a suspect and dismissed because of a false alibi.

I'd agree that your example would be unfair, but that's not remotely what happened here, is it? The servants were actually killed after they faked their deaths, so the proposed theory was founded on a bad assumption and was only a small piece of the answer anyway. And, the adults then discarded the theory because they mistakenly connected two unrelated crimes. Preying on bad assumptions to make you discard possibilities is one of the foundations of the mystery genre, so I don't see any problem here.

Our Confession has a bit where Beatrice explains that she likes to attack that trope by having her accomplices deliberately accuse each other. Would you consider that to be cheating too?

I guess it's possible, but given the fact there is absolutely no hint of that nor a good reason as to how they instantly managed to spot Battler's attempt to eavesdrop them, that's still a pretty dirty trick.

Here's a question. Where was Maria during that conversation before she surprised Battler? Since she came by herself, it seems like no one was closely supervising her.

Wanderer

2012-01-16, 19:39

Another thing that I didn't stomach was the fact that in EP3 the hypothesis that the servants faked their death was raised and then dismissed by the adults. That's really a bad trick.

If you're fooled by Watson then it's your fault, not the author's.

Except, if that was even remotely true how the hell Dlanor could make a red truth out of what Erika supposedly experienced behind the GM's back without detective authority?
The explanation for that in the story was that this was possible because that situation didn't allow the smallest doubt. Your thesis is in direct contrast with that.

Well, for one, Erika didn't actually have Detective Authority at that time.

Secondly, an exception or two to my "thesis" (which I intended as more of a general emotional assertion than a precise and literal one) doesn't really change much because I just meant to say that being 100% certain about things is the exception for us readers, not the rule... so then what's the big deal if players like Meta-Erika face the same difficulties?

Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share no information. What Meta-Erika sees is filtered and unreliable and she has no way to actually access her piece's observations. Detective Authority is a flagrant sham, as there exists no Meta-Character who can actually use it (and the whole point, making observations red truth, applies solely to the Meta-World). Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share some information, but not all. If so, there must be a regulating force in between the two of them that controls what information is passed between them. As long as that force exists, nothing Erika sees or does is actually reliable because the force can choose to "turn off" her accessibility at any time, apparently without either Erika even being aware of it. Detective Authority exists only at the sufferance of the regulating force, and is useless to the reader as the reader is not told when it's been shut off either.

I mostly think something like these two assessments (they are really similar, are they not?) but I'm going to nitpick.

I can't agree with your assertion that either Detective Authority is a "flagrant sham" or that there is some force that can "turn it on and off at will". I see Erika's viewpoint as reliable in the sense that it's exactly as reliable as the player's interpretation of her reported observations is accurate. I think that what we see on the game board are the conclusions that a player comes to based off of the information they get through their piece's observations. However, this is still useful information for us because it can only diverge from "the gamemaster's truth" within the realm of possible interpretation. If the gamemaster says "Kyrie's head has been cut off" then there's pretty much no player who wouldn't interpret that to mean Kyrie was dead. Thus, assuming if the piece reporting the observation is trustworthy, the player can reliably say she's dead, and then we can reliably do so. Unless...

It's actually a lot like Red Truth. Whatever observations the gamemaster feeds the player's piece can mean one thing to the gamemaster and another to the player. You know, like Kanon is dead.? That statement was supposed to be 100% reliable, right? Well, it was wrong (at least based off of our original standards of viable interpretation). However, did that lead to us completely rejecting all Red as useless? No. It's similar for a detective's observations: Sometimes they are misinterpreted, but usually they are interpreted accurately. Thus information from a piece with a "reliable viewpoint" is still usually reliable.

Like it or not, I think this "Interpretation Theory" is the answer. I can understand why you wouldn't be satisfied with it; after all, it reeks of all the bullshit that comes with "Kanon is dead.". But on the other hand, the fact that it parallels 'bullshit Red' is highly suggestive that it's exactly what RK07 had in mind... Either that or Kealym has been right all along.

And one more thing (because I see people get this wrong so, so often): Erika's observational powers, such as her perfect photographic memory, are innate abilities of hers which have nothing to do with Detective Authority. There is no rule that detectives can't misidentify things (with the exception of corpses), even if they have a "reliable viewpoint". In other words, it is not Detective Authority that dictates Erika would make correct observations, but her own innate qualities.

Renall

2012-01-16, 20:10

I can't agree with your assertion that either Detective Authority is a "flagrant sham" or that there is some force that can "turn it on and off at will". I see Erika's viewpoint as reliable in the sense that it's exactly as reliable as the player's interpretation of her reported observations is accurate. I think that what we see on the game board are the conclusions that a player comes to based off of the information they get through their piece's observations. However, this is still useful information for us because it can only diverge from "the gamemaster's truth" within the realm of possible interpretation. If the gamemaster says "Kyrie's head has been cut off" then there's pretty much no player who wouldn't interpret that to mean Kyrie was dead. Thus, assuming if the piece reporting the observation is trustworthy, the player can reliably say she's dead, and then we can reliably do so. Unless...That makes no sense whatsoever. What you're describing is exactly the problem I already outlined. You're inventing a "player" who does not exist and whose thought processes and observations no one can actually see. You're then claiming that the reader is supposed to just go along with this misinterpretation (for which they have no evidence of any such misinterpretation and in fact have been told that there is now something in play which would seem to prevent such tricks) and somehow be able to recognize it. Basically, you're justifying the author lying to you as somehow something desirable. It isn't, and I'm entirely baffled as to why you appear to think so.

The entire crux of the ep5 parlor scene - the part you seem to be intentionally avoiding - is that there is an apparent discrepancy between what Erika should have observed and what information Erika actually makes use of. You cannot wish this away in the fashion you have attempted to advance. You're basically trying to ignore that this is a contradiction by simply stating it isn't. What exactly is your basis for believing this?

Incidentally, you also have advanced no basis for why Erika's interpretation isn't being moderated if she and her piece don't share all information. If some information is not shared, then either it's a coincidence (which is ridiculous) or there is some rule or regulating force that governs when she does or doesn't get access to her piece's observations. You've stated you think there is some degree of information sharing, so it can only be one or the other. There either is some reason she doesn't always have information or there isn't. You can't disagree with all possibilities forever.You know, like Kanon is dead.? That statement was supposed to be 100% reliable, right? Well, it was wrong (at least based off of our original standards of viable interpretation). However, did that lead to us completely rejecting all Red as useless? No.Well actually, yes. Red is basically useless. The statements would be just as useful if they weren't red. Red adds nothing more than a dimension of intentional misdirection, the way it eventually panned out. Basically all red tells you is "this statement is probably sort of true, and probably also sort of bullshit." That was actually true even in ep1-4. So short of being a giant color-coded trope marker, it doesn't actually serve the purpose it's stated to in ep2.Like it or not, I think this "Interpretation Theory" is the answer. I can understand why you wouldn't be satisfied with it; after all, it reeks of all the bullshit that comes with "Kanon is dead.". But on the other hand, the fact that it parallels 'bullshit Red' is highly suggestive that it's exactly what RK07 had in mind... Either that or Kealym has been right all along.I'm not clear what your theory is because you have no evidence for it. Since you can't actually support your points with actual observations or clear facts, it seems to just be what you'd like to be true.And one more thing (because I see people get this wrong so, so often): Erika's observational powers, such as her perfect photographic memory, are innate abilities of hers which have nothing to do with Detective Authority. There is no rule that detectives can't misidentify things (with the exception of corpses), even if they have a "reliable viewpoint". In other words, it is not Detective Authority that dictates Erika would make correct observations, but her own innate qualities.Seeing a person who does not exist is not a misidentification or incorrect conclusion. It's an outright delusion. Either she didn't see a person who doesn't exist and for whatever reason thinks she did, or she did see a person who doesn't exist and she has some 'splainin' to do, or she saw a person who did exist and Lambdadelta has some 'splainin' to do.

Kealym

2012-01-16, 20:33

Seeing a person who does not exist is not a misidentification or incorrect conclusion. It's an outright delusion. Either she didn't see a person who doesn't exist and for whatever reason thinks she did, or she did see a person who doesn't exist and she has some 'splainin' to do, or she saw a person who did exist and Lambdadelta has some 'splainin' to do.

Well, just to bump my idea a bit, because noone's rebutted it, Aura's response was that my theory creates the problem of why Imaginary-Kinzo or Beatrice don't count as people.

My response to that, in layman's terms, is that Kanon's distinct personhood over other beings of questionable existence™ has always been an arbitrary decision by Beato / author-on-however-high-a-Meta-level-you-choose-to-venture, because it was important to her/them, as an author. In other words, it's a dissonance that existed in the story already, whether my theory about Kanon's body is true or not.

Is there a further / alternate rebuttal?

Wanderer

2012-01-16, 21:15

That makes no sense whatsoever. What you're describing is exactly the problem I already outlined. You're inventing a "player" who does not exist and whose thought processes and observations no one can actually see. You're then claiming that the reader is supposed to just go along with this misinterpretation (for which they have no evidence of any such misinterpretation and in fact have been told that there is now something in play which would seem to prevent such tricks) and somehow be able to recognize it. Basically, you're justifying the author lying to you as somehow something desirable. It isn't, and I'm entirely baffled as to why you appear to think so.

When I say "player", I mean that pretty much synonymously with "reader". I don't mean to be adding anyone.

The entire crux of the ep5 parlor scene - the part you seem to be intentionally avoiding - is that there is an apparent discrepancy between what Erika should have observed and what information Erika actually makes use of. You cannot wish this away in the fashion you have attempted to advance. You're basically trying to ignore that this is a contradiction by simply stating it isn't. What exactly is your basis for believing this?

I don't think Meta-Erika and Piece-Erika have the same information.

Incidentally, you also have advanced no basis for why Erika's interpretation isn't being moderated if she and her piece don't share all information. If some information is not shared, then either it's a coincidence (which is ridiculous) or there is some rule or regulating force that governs when she does or doesn't get access to her piece's observations. You've stated you think there is some degree of information sharing, so it can only be one or the other. There either is some reason she doesn't always have information or there isn't. You can't disagree with all possibilities forever.

Ah, this. I'm proposing that what we see on the gameboard is generated as follows: Player has a "piece" with a "reliable viewpoint". Gamemaster envisions a scene. Gamemaster conveys the "piece's" observation of that scene to the player in words. Conveying a scene in words involves information loss. Player "reads" the gamemaster's words. Player uses those words to reconstruct the scene. Player must make assumptions to fill in the information lost through word-scene conversion. Sometimes said assumptions are wrong, and thus the resulting scene we see is also wrong.This is what I mean by "interpretation of reported observations", because the observations made by Piece-Erika aren't really reported by Piece-Erika to Bernkastel/Battler/Meta-Erika, but by Lambdadelta to Bernkastel/Battler/Meta-Erika.

Seeing a person who does not exist is not a misidentification or incorrect conclusion. It's an outright delusion.

Yes. I was just saying that Detective Authority's role in this is constantly misidentified.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-16, 21:19

I don't think Meta-Erika and Piece-Erika have the same information.

And what do you base this on? You seem to continuously avoid answering this.

Ah, this. I'm proposing that what we see on the gameboard is generated as follows:

Player has a "piece" with a "reliable viewpoint".
Gamemaster envisions a scene.
Gamemaster conveys the "piece's" observation of that scene to the player in words.
Conveying a scene in words involves information loss.
Player "reads" the gamemaster's words.
Player uses those words to reconstruct the scene.
Player must make assumptions to fill in the information lost through word-scene conversion.
Sometimes said assumptions are wrong, and thus the resulting scene we see is also wrong.

This is what I mean by "interpretation of reported observations", because the observations made by Piece-Erika aren't really reported by Piece-Erika to Bernkastel/Battler/Meta-Erika, but by Lambdadelta to Bernkastel/Battler/Meta-Erika.

What do you base this on? What supports this? What makes it more viable than the alternatives?

Wanderer

2012-01-16, 21:33

Well, just to bump my idea a bit, because noone's rebutted it, Aura's response was that my theory creates the problem of why Imaginary-Kinzo or Beatrice don't count as people.

My response to that, in layman's terms, is that Kanon's distinct personhood over other beings of questionable existence™ has always been an arbitrary decision by Beato / author-on-however-high-a-Meta-level-you-choose-to-venture, because it was important to her/them, as an author. In other words, it's a dissonance that existed in the story already, whether my theory about Kanon's body is true or not.

Is there a further / alternate rebuttal?

Saying the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island and then showing us 18 people is just odd; it feels like there is some wiggle room being left intentionally. Why not just say with Erika, there are 18 people on the island? It's like that particular form of the statement was intentionally avoided just so that Erika would fall for the trap later.

jjblue1

2012-01-16, 21:41

And what do you base this on? You seem to continuously avoid answering this.

Ep 4 Teaparty has Beato say to Piece Battler that Kanon isn't the culprit. However Piece Battler can't hear her but Meta Battler can.

Ergo PieceErika didn't know that everyone was supposed to be in the room.
As she couldn't know it Lambda, if pressed, could have used as excuse that she never said PieceErika was in a position from where she could see everyone at the same time and MetaErika never asked for her piece to move in such a position so this translated in... Kanon (or Shannon) could have been everywhere, actually the both of them could have been missing but since MetaErika trusted Battler's perspective that everyone was in the room and never had her piece check this info or doubt it, her piece didn't bother to observe the room she was in and take notes of who was in and who was not... basically creating a situation similar to the one in which Battler sees Kinzo while Erika is giving his back to him...

... which logically can work...

however seems pretty out of character for piece Erika never notice Shannon and Kanon are never together as she's supposed to be the detective and we would expect the detective to check things.

Maybe Ryukishi thought it could say he warned us that Erika didn't check things and swallow Battler's narration as it is because Erika refused checking the bodies.

It still feels like a dirty trick so you're welcome to come up with a better explanation.

... and now that I think at it, did Erika came up with mystery explanation for how the letter was placed in front of the door? I can't remember it but, if I'm not wrong, to destroy Beato's illusion she was supposed to solve all the riddles...

Jaden

2012-01-16, 21:42

With that kind of set up Wanderer proposes, the paradox of Erika seeing Kanon and Shannon at the same time would make sense. Because what Meta-Erika would probably do is ignore all the fantasy BS that the gamemaster feeds her, just skim through the crime scenes and alibis, then makes her theory.

But if there were such a complex mechanic in play and we're supposed to realize this, the rules of the game should have been stated explicitly. I don't like the idea of having to guess all this arbitrary stuff...that would be like a mystery novel that you have to use a spy cipher to read.

A much easier explanation is that Erika is just like that, whether it's in the meta-world, the gameboard, whatever. She collects everyone in the parlor just because that's what a detective does when about to reveal the solution. She doesn't check whether everyone is in the parlor because the detective authority forces them to be there. And from there she's too busy mentally raping Natsuhi to care about anyone else.

Yeah, I call that the Jaden's Razor: When something doesn't make sense, add more insanity to the characters.

Kealym

2012-01-16, 22:07

Saying the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island and then showing us 18 people is just odd; it feels like there is some wiggle room being left intentionally. Why not just say with Erika, there are 18 people on the island? It's like that particular form of the statement was intentionally avoided just so that Erika would fall for the trap later.

Of course it's odd, End is supposed to be a loveless game, and the first circumstance of Shannon and Kanon both surviving the first Twilight, AND being visible to someone with a reliable perspective. As for the particular language used in the red, I can't account for it eloquently. All I can say is that it's not uncomon for red statements to sort of ... flutz around, and Erika and Beato's final reds in their duel in Dawn throw everything about numbers of people into disarray. :heh:

Also, I'm not suggesting my theory is the only one that works (that was disproved a long time ago), it's just the logic I can swallow the easiest.

Side note, a bit of issue I have with your "interpretation of reported observations" solution is that you can take it to a sort of ... riduculous place, and say Nobody was in the parlor besides Erika and Natsuhi. The same logic that allows Kanon to not be in the room could potentially allow any other person, and any number of people, to not be in the room as well. Or at least, that's how it sounds off the top of my head.

Wanderer

2012-01-16, 22:17

What do you base this on? What supports this? What makes it more viable than the alternatives?

I wrote about this a while ago:

I think the whole point is that the "player" is actually a reader, but is called a "player" to indicate that they have some control in shaping the game board. Actually, there are numerous hints that what we see on the game board is a reader's interpretation of the story rather than the story itself.

For example: RK07 likens thought/detective novels to a two-way challenge between reader and writer in Umineko, in interviews, and even in Higurashi What is a series of stories in Umineko-Prime is called a game board in the Meta-World between a "player" and a "game-master" Featherine has Ange read Dawn because she wants to see how Ange reads it Umineko's most central theme is based on how perspective changes truth "It takes two people to create a world"

Also,

Bernkastel promising not to use any "reader techniques" to distort the stage directions on her game board in EP8.

Lyrical's observation is a homerun if you ask me. I'll quote the expanded conversation to make it more apparent:

Lambda: Will you be the Reader, Bern? Or shall I do that...?
Bern: ......I don't need a Reader.
Lambda: Huh?
Bern: ......A Reader miko can use her own voice to embellish or distort the tale. ......Even if there was no cheap trickery in my game, by having a Reader, any amount of trickery could be added.
Beatrice: Yes, that is true. ......That's another of the Game Master's privileges.
Bern: I want to have a straightforward duel with you. ......So, I don't need a Reader. You can read this tale with your own eyes and ears.
Lambda: Are you sure...?! That means you've lost almost all of your advantages...!
Battler: ......Got it. You don't need a Reader. We'll read the tale ourselves.
Beatrice: If there is no Reader, ......doesn't that mean there will be absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text?

AuraTwilight

2012-01-16, 22:23

Ep 4 Teaparty has Beato say to Piece Battler that Kanon isn't the culprit. However Piece Battler can't hear her but Meta Battler can.

Irrelevant. There is absolutely no comparison between that and Wanderer's other scenario. Meta-information being added with otherwise accurate information is in no way equivalent to adding false information that perverts how someone observes a Gameboard.

Ergo PieceErika didn't know that everyone was supposed to be in the room.

Piece!Erika seems to know everything Meta!Erika does because she's a meta-gaming little bitch, so I doubt this very highly unless you can cite me an instance where Piece!Erika does not know something that Meta!Erika knows.

Good luck.

however seems pretty out of character for piece Erika never notice Shannon and Kanon are never together as she's supposed to be the detective and we would expect the detective to check things.

Maybe Ryukishi thought it could say he warned us that Erika didn't check things and swallow Battler's narration as it is because Erika refused checking the bodies.

It still feels like a dirty trick so you're welcome to come up with a better explanation.

Erika never considered Shannon and Kanon being the same person because she didn't expect the truth to be something that jaw-droppingly stupid.

... and now that I think at it, did Erika came up with mystery explanation for how the letter was placed in front of the door? I can't remember it but, if I'm not wrong, to destroy Beato's illusion she was supposed to solve all the riddles...

She did.

Lambda: Will you be the Reader, Bern? Or shall I do that...?
Bern: ......I don't need a Reader.
Lambda: Huh?
Bern: ......A Reader miko can use her own voice to embellish or distort the tale. ......Even if there was no cheap trickery in my game, by having a Reader, any amount of trickery could be added.
Beatrice: Yes, that is true. ......That's another of the Game Master's privileges.
Bern: I want to have a straightforward duel with you. ......So, I don't need a Reader. You can read this tale with your own eyes and ears.
Lambda: Are you sure...?! That means you've lost almost all of your advantages...!
Battler: ......Got it. You don't need a Reader. We'll read the tale ourselves.
Beatrice: If there is no Reader, ......doesn't that mean there will be absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text?

That could literally mean ANYTHING. All this solidly indicates is the existence of a Fantasy layer, which is a far cry from violating Erika's gathering of information or telling her she learned something when she didn't.

Even with all this, your hypothesis is extremely wobbly and unsupported. Most of your arguments seem to be built on semantics and sophistry instead of providing any actual reasoning for why we're supposed to conclude that this is the nature of the game, especially when it contradicts how we're told things operate by (comparatively) reliable sources.

Wanderer

2012-01-16, 22:39

Also, I'm not suggesting my theory is the only one that works (that was disproved a long time ago), it's just the logic I can swallow the easiest.

Yeah I understand. Your interpretation works, logically. I just don't see it as the way RK07 would write.

Side note, a bit of issue I have with your "interpretation of reported observations" solution is that you can take it to a sort of ... riduculous place, and say Nobody was in the parlor besides Erika and Natsuhi. The same logic that allows Kanon to not be in the room could potentially allow any other person, and any number of people, to not be in the room as well. Or at least, that's how it sounds off the top of my head. Only if the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island meant that there were only 2 people there, and that the reader for some reason thought that there were 18 people there. I don't think anyone would argue that Lambda only meant 2 people, though.

Wanderer

2012-01-16, 23:16

That could literally mean ANYTHING. All this solidly indicates is the existence of a Fantasy layer, which is a far cry from violating Erika's gathering of information or telling her she learned something when she didn't.

The fact that Bern's game was going to be a pure mystery with no fantasy elements was well established before the above quote.

Even with all this, your hypothesis is extremely wobbly and unsupported. Most of your arguments seem to be built on semantics and sophistry instead of providing any actual reasoning for why we're supposed to conclude that this is the nature of the game, especially when it contradicts how we're told things operate by (comparatively) reliable sources.

It's a very abstract idea. If you come at it wanting to deny it, you will succeed.

I don't really mind if you disagree with me, but I feel like you're trying to be competitive rather than constructive, which is not a track that I want to follow.

Renall

2012-01-16, 23:20

Only if the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island meant that there were only 2 people there, and that the reader for some reason thought that there were 18 people there. I don't think anyone would argue that Lambda only meant 2 people, though.What you continue to attempt to dodge is the point that, if we were shown a scene that showed only two people present, and got a red that said everyone on the island is in the parlor, the fact that Piece-Erika would in fact have perceived more people than that yet Meta-Erika does not question the fact that only Natsuhi and Erika are shown as being there is a serious issue that you are unable to address.

Your theory is seemingly "the reader is stupid and made a mistake of perception, it's not an error, the characters aren't mistaken." Except some readers are not stupid, some wouldn't make that mistake, the characters appear to be making mistakes, and all readers are being apparently misled. Your entire notion of the structure of the game being a two-way street falls apart miserably when you then turn around and say that Ryukishi basically assumed the reader would make an idiotic decision about who he or she believed would be in the parlor and then wrote ep5 such that all readers will see the result of that idiotic decision. If you stand by this argument, you also stand by Ryukishi patronizing his entire audience with assumptions about what they would believe, or you're filtering the audience's perception through the mistaken assumptions of a higher-order character with absolutely nothing to distinguish what we're supposed to believe and what is higher-order "reader tricks."

Nothing you say is doing anything to dispel these issues, which suggests to me that you should revisit your theories and ask why you came to believe them. I'd start with actual facts and evidence contained in the text, and not vague assumptions about Umineko being a two-way process when it demonstrably isn't.

What you have right now is a vague idea of a theory, not an actual workable theory. You need to support it with evidence, evidence which clearly demonstrates that your assumed definition of what a "reader" is and what it does - a definition you have never adequately supported or defined. What are these rules, and how do they resolve the apparent differences between what Piece-Erika perceives and what Meta-Erika observes? You believe in this so strongly that it seems you don't actually know why you think it's true.I don't really mind if you disagree with me, but I feel like you're trying to be competitive rather than constructive, which is not a track that I want to follow.There's nothing constructive to say. You don't have any evidence and you're dodging any criticisms and assuring yourself that what you believe is accurate. What in the world am I supposed to add to that? Even if I assume your position to be true, I can't conclude that it actually tells me anything about the work. I can't take it anywhere. There's nothing useful about it.

Kylon99

2012-01-16, 23:26

"Bern: ......A Reader miko can use her own voice to embellish or distort the tale."

It's very clear what is being said here, that a 'reader' can distort the tale. The only thing left is to figure out what the metaphor of 'the Reader' means.

But, I think that was a huge theme of Umineko with the Witch Hunters, wasn't it? People put their own spin on the truth, attaching what is essentially their opinions onto the actual truth, to make it seem like what they say is the truth too.

i.e. (I was reading Miracle on the Andes, about that plane crash where the survivors ate the dead to survive.) There were newspapers that accused the survivors of cannibalism, intimating that they were doing it because they loved eating human flesh. The truth was that there was cannibalism, but the newspapers opinions that the survivors were doing it because they loved it was an opinion spun so that it seemed like the truth.

With Erika, she definitely had an agenda to frame Natsuhi and she may have tunnel visioned on this one theory, discarding everything else. I don't know exactly what Bernkastel said is exactly what Erika was doing; distorting the tale, though. But it is an interesting idea.

Renall

2012-01-16, 23:29

With Erika, she definitely had an agenda to frame Natsuhi and she may have tunnel visioned on this one theory, discarding everything else. I don't know exactly what Bernkastel said is exactly what Erika was doing; distorting the tale, though. But it is an interesting idea.Except there are several questions we have to ask about this. Why was Erika okay with something that was blatantly untrue being shown later to Battler when Battler wasn't even playing?
Why didn't she remember it in ep6?
If it just "escaped her notice," why did it? Why was someone allowed to show something that she never re-checked with her Piece?
What benefit does distinct Shannon and Kanon give Erika in her ploy to frame Natsuhi? Shannon and Kanon have an identical alibi, which helps them apparently not at all.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-16, 23:30

The fact that Bern's game was going to be a pure mystery with no fantasy elements was well established before the above quote.

Even Mystery stories have deceptions in the narration, brosef. Moreover, even without distorting facts, a tale can be distorted by having a narrator's personal thoughts about their observations cloud their narration. For instance, even if Erika doesn't perceive any INCORRECT INFORMATION, she can be misleading by narrating things with inordinate amounts of purple prose, or using unflattering and concise language to direct the reader's attentions to different points of data.

This is all significantly different from anything you're suggesting, and it's all stuff completely absent from Bern's game because there's no narrative framing device, just characters spouting off facts like puppets with no expository prose or descriptors.

It's a very abstract idea. If you come at it wanting to deny it, you will succeed.

So the idea only has merit if I come to it already convinced it's a solid idea?

You know, Battler had something to say about that way of thinking as early as EP1...

I don't really mind if you disagree with me, but I feel like you're trying to be competitive rather than constructive, which is not a track that I want to follow.

I'm merely exposing holes I see in your ideas as I see them. If you can repair them and fill them, your idea is all the stronger for it, and if your idea can't stand up to it, it's an idea you should move on from. For that purpose, I'll attack as strongly as I'm able, and we'll both be the better for it. If you're going to shy away from my criticisms, it indicates that you don't have a very strong faith in your theory's ability to stand on it's own ground.

By the way, Readers and Players are not the same thing in Umineko. The only time that any characters were described as Readers (ANGE and Clair), they were not serving as Players in any capacity. Any supposition that a person can be both a Reader and a Player is 100% fanfiction. To say nothing of the Readers not being involved in a Game. Nothing Clair does is a Game, and Ange isn't involved in a Game. She is reading a story ABOUT a game.

Toku

2012-01-16, 23:54

Someone REALLY should write a fanfic that involves a super-trolling Kanon playing the most hardcore game of hide-go-seek ever. :heh:

I recall Kanon hiding in a bush to spy on Piece!Beato and Shannon in EP2, as well as him standing just outside the door to the kitchen listening in on a conversation within. Not to mention that he's explicitly stated to have significant skill in hiding the noise of his footsteps. I always found this aspect of Kanon to be hilarious, and I would seriously love to read a fic like this.

Not to mention that you can make a totally reasonable mystery story out of it. The idea of something like this: "by restricting the room for Kanon to exist as much as possible with red truths, and still presenting evidence that he does exist in red, you can present yet another mystery by finding clever ways for Kanon to actually exist, no matter how incredibly improbable it would be." And then you throw in the hilarious segments of him sneaking around, in white text.

^Which is just the kind of thing Umineko loves to do.

... and now that I think at it, did Erika came up with mystery explanation for how the letter was placed in front of the door? I can't remember it but, if I'm not wrong, to destroy Beato's illusion she was supposed to solve all the riddles...

I'm pretty sure we never got anything conclusive on this. Erika came up with theories, but they were at least partially disproven. And then Lambdadelta wove some crazy web of Red. The only satisfying answer I could come up with in the end was "the knock on the door didn't actually exist."

[As far as the Erika debate goes: I think the question is really very simple. The only thing that needs to be asked here is "if Piece!Erika was supposed to see both of them at the same time in EP5, then did she?"

And certainly, I think that it would be completely OOC for her to fail to notice that someone is missing. Even if this person is hiding behind someone's back, in her eyes, it would be the same as that person being missing. She would need to notice this. Of course, you could doubt Erika's competence if you want; that would be perfectly valid.

Even so, Meta-Erika has to take into account that "the people in this room = everybody on the island" which means that if she noticed someone was missing, she would definitely want to have her Piece confirm that either 1. This person is gone and therefore doesn't physically exist, or 2. This person was just not in plain sight, but was in fact in the room. If it's #1 and she confirms that Kanon does not physically exist, then she would need to understand that Kanon is not a physical existence, which should have allowed her to find the answer to the Logic Error.

From what I'm reading here, it seems like Piece!Erika's perspective was never actually given to us in EP5 (I don't remember whether it was or not, but for the sake of this argument, I'll assume that you guys are correct). Thus, we never had the benefit of using her Detective's Authority to provide objective evidences for our interpretations. She does. But to us, the entirety of EP5 shouldn't be something we can take at face value. There is no Episode that contains a scene we should be able to take at face value. After all, Piece!Battler never had Detective's Authority either, and we can prove this by simply looking at the various fantasy scenes he saw, as well as the fact that Meta!Battler never went around getting Reds from his Piece's perspective. And after EP5, no one ever had Detective's Authority.

I do think it's reasonable to expect that "Erika was unable to solve the puzzle Beato created out of the Logic Error, and was therefore defeated" is the truth, or at least, truth of a sort. If I don't doubt that, and I don't doubt Erika's competency, then there is simply only one solution:

Kanon has a body in EP5.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the physical body in Kanon's place, that was using his name, was Kanon, or even looked like the art of Kanon that Ryukishi shows us.

If I said that "the person who was acting like Kanon is actually the Mysterious Man from the phone calls and is not a member of the family or a servant, but Yasu bribed everyone except Erika to say that he is and therefore Erika accepted it," could you refute this? Even though it's totally ridiculous.

But being able to make ridiculous theories is one of the fun things about Umineko, isn't it? I'm free to interpret it however I want, within reason.]

Kylon99

2012-01-17, 00:15

Except there are several questions we have to ask about this. Why was Erika okay with something that was blatantly untrue being shown later to Battler when Battler wasn't even playing?
Why didn't she remember it in ep6?
If it just "escaped her notice," why did it? Why was someone allowed to show something that she never re-checked with her Piece?
What benefit does distinct Shannon and Kanon give Erika in her ploy to frame Natsuhi? Shannon and Kanon have an identical alibi, which helps them apparently not at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first one. You mean when Battler 'saw' Kinzo in EP5?

You know, I was thinking about Erika. She seems to be described as the perfect detective, i.e. hard working, knowledgeable, photographic memory, etc, etc. But in the end she failed to solve EP5 correctly.

Remember when I was talking about detectives that fail to solve the mystery do not function as typical detectives; they are in my opinion, totally opposite. Because they come up with a false solution, they're actually serving to obfuscate the solution for the reader some more! Battler was like that, often coming up with misleading solutions. I think Erika falls into the same nice boat.

I really do view Erika as incompetent, maybe worse than Battler. For example, she failed to solve the Midnight Knock and Letter and she technically failed in EP5. Maybe not as bad as Battler, but definitely a detective that leads us astray.

Basically to answer your questions, I think a lot of her failures were due to her, Bern and LD scheming to frame Natsuhi in EP5. Bern and LD definitely knew by then, but I think they purposely didn't let Erika know about it for laughs. Bern liked to torture Erika as well. So basically, I think she had her 'solution' handed to her in that episode and nothing else was really important to her. That doesn't explain why she forgot it in EP6 though, unless she really isn't as 'good' as she thinks she is. In other words, she's not as photographic memory as we're led to believe.

In some way, this reminds me of Higashino Keigo's stories. In The Devotion of Suspect X, it was a mistake to take the facts as they were and conclude from them the motive without taking into account the 'heart' of the ... 'culprit.' Basically the solution was obvious if you knew how desperate someone was. Or else you'd fall for their level 1 trap and wouldn't be able to dig yourself back out. Of course Higashino writes 'motive' and 'heart' stories better than Ryukishi, but it feels along the same line.

Uh... anyways, I'll stop rambling here...

Toku

2012-01-17, 00:21

Remember when I was talking about detectives that fail to solve the mystery do not function as typical detectives; they are in my opinion, totally opposite. Because they come up with a false solution, they're actually serving to obfuscate the solution for the reader some more! Battler was like that, often coming up with misleading solutions. I think Erika falls into the same nice boat.

...Except that, in the end, Erika came up with a solution that was perfectly possible. And, we don't know what that theory is, nor what the real solution to EP5 is. Therefore, we have no idea whether the two match up.

And there are plenty of clues which could lead us to conclude that Bern and LD were just leading her to that interpretation intentionally in order to toy with her, so I think that's perfectly reasonable. After all, they definitely did toy with her a lot throughout EP5.

Kealym

2012-01-17, 00:42

Small comments.

About Witch trolling in EP5 : Lambda was almost certainly trolling - she, by definition, knows Natsuhi was innocent, but never defended (or even really presented) the fantasy side. For her it was likely a combination of her seeking amusement, and possibly ... possibly hoping to stir Battler back into playing the game.

Bern, however, doesn't like losing. She enjoys mistreating Erika, but I'm pretty sure she would rather Erika were a winning piece than a failing one.

About Erika not solving the EP5 : I, and I think most people, arrived at "there was no knock, the letter was either an illusion, or it's method of revealing lied about". Personally, I found it odd Erika DIDN'T solve this one - it's the sort of "question the premise" problem that she demonstrably excels at. I read the scene as Ryukishi wanting to mess with her a bit.

About Readers : To be frank, I've always been confused about what Ryukishi seems to think Reader's do. I can't imagine they'd add anything to an already written tale besides tone of voice, and commentary on the story. EP8, however, gives the impression that a Reader can choose to just ... make stuff up instead of reading what's on the page before them.

It wouldn't bother me, really, if not for Bern's "a reader will just slip lies into the words I wrote", as it conflates external commentary with the narrative that's written.

To put it another way, many read Romeo and Juliet as a great romantic tragedy about fate and all, yes? But many also read that play and say "what a bunch of stupid rich kids." That's what a Reader sort of feels like, to me - they comment on what's written, and have a particular slant on the events ... but they can't just change what's there. If I say "Romeo slew Tybalt in the streets like the cur he is", that's my commentary, but that's not me "reading the tale as written". I'm probably just being more literal than Ryukishi intended, but that's my take on it.

Toku

2012-01-17, 00:58

Bern, however, doesn't like losing. She enjoys mistreating Erika, but I'm pretty sure she would rather Erika were a winning piece than a failing one.

Erika is her double, and she would be quite interested in the possibility that Erika would win when the odds aren't on her side, using the arguments of the Fantasy side against them and trolling them mercilessly. In fact, I'm not sure she accepts anything as a "win" unless Erika solves absolutely everything in an entertaining way.

That said, I acknowledge that this looks a little OOC.

About Readers : To be frank, I've always been confused about what Ryukishi seems to think Reader's do. I can't imagine they'd add anything to an already written tale besides tone of voice, and commentary on the story. EP8, however, gives the impression that a Reader can choose to just ... make stuff up instead of reading what's on the page before them.

It wouldn't bother me, really, if not for Bern's "a reader will just slip lies into the words I wrote", as it conflates external commentary with the narrative that's written.

To put it another way, many read Romeo and Juliet as a great romantic tragedy about fate and all, yes? But many also read that play and say "what a bunch of stupid rich kids." That's what a Reader sort of feels like, to me - they comment on what's written, and have a particular slant on the events ... but they can't just change what's there. If I say "Romeo slew Tybalt in the streets like the cur he is", that's my commentary, but that's not me "reading the tale as written". I'm probably just being more literal than Ryukishi intended, but that's my take on it.

It's the definition of "magic." You take the same result, and you fabricate a different process, which leads to the same result. While most people who read books probably don't do this, you could if you want. And it is a very effective weapon on the witch side of the battle. In fact, without it, you're way more likely to lose against anyone who knows how to play.

LyricalAura

2012-01-17, 01:01

Even a simple interpretation can distort a story severely. For instance, take this sentence: "The culprit stood over Natsuhi's body and giggled." If I don't write a single other thing about the culprit, what is your first impression of their gender?

Wanderer

2012-01-17, 03:21

What you continue to attempt to dodge is the point that, if we were shown a scene that showed only two people present, and got a red that said everyone on the island is in the parlor, the fact that Piece-Erika would in fact have perceived more people than that yet Meta-Erika does not question the fact that only Natsuhi and Erika are shown as being there is a serious issue that you are unable to address.

"RMP"="Relevant Meta-Perceiver(s)"; it refers to whoever is responsible (Battler/Meta-Erika/Bernkastel/whoever) for the Meta-World's perception that there were 18 people in the parlor.

But we would never be shown only 2 people. If we were shown only 2 people, that would be because the RMP for some reason assumed that "everyone on the island" consisted of only 2 people (which is nonsense by any stretch). We were shown 18 people in the room because the RMP assumed that "everyone on the island" meant 18 people. The only reasonable possibilities that the RMP might assume are 17 or 18 (I would even argue that 18 is the more reasonable option with the RMP's knowledge up to that point, since ShKanon is pretty dumb).

Your theory is seemingly "the reader is stupid and made a mistake of perception, it's not an error, the characters aren't mistaken." Except some readers are not stupid, some wouldn't make that mistake, the characters appear to be making mistakes, and all readers are being apparently misled. Your entire notion of the structure of the game being a two-way street falls apart miserably when you then turn around and say that Ryukishi basically assumed the reader would make an idiotic decision about who he or she believed would be in the parlor and then wrote ep5 such that all readers will see the result of that idiotic decision. If you stand by this argument, you also stand by Ryukishi patronizing his entire audience with assumptions about what they would believe, or you're filtering the audience's perception through the mistaken assumptions of a higher-order character with absolutely nothing to distinguish what we're supposed to believe and what is higher-order "reader tricks."

This is a mechanically accurate description to of my theory, but I just don't see it as RK07 projecting a certain interpretation on all of us readers and implying we are all idiots. It's more like if your idiot friend reads a story and tells you what happened in it... poorly (which may give you the wrong impression of the story, but doesn't make you an idiot). Or it's like if the only witness you have of a crime is an idiot and you have to glean the truth as best you can from his crappy testimony.

Nothing you say is doing anything to dispel these issues, which suggests to me that you should revisit your theories and ask why you came to believe them. I'd start with actual facts and evidence contained in the text, and not vague assumptions about Umineko being a two-way process when it demonstrably isn't.

Then demonstrate...? Because I haven't seen it.

Even Mystery stories have deceptions in the narration, brosef. Moreover, even without distorting facts, a tale can be distorted by having a narrator's personal thoughts about their observations cloud their narration. For instance, even if Erika doesn't perceive any INCORRECT INFORMATION, she can be misleading by narrating things with inordinate amounts of purple prose, or using unflattering and concise language to direct the reader's attentions to different points of data.

This is all significantly different from anything you're suggesting

I'm not sure how so. I'm basically saying that Lambda is the "narrator" in EP5 and that what we see on the Game Board is the RMP's mind's eye.

, and it's all stuff completely absent from Bern's game because there's no narrative framing device, just characters spouting off facts like puppets with no expository prose or descriptors.

Right. Because there's no Reader.

I'm merely exposing holes I see in your ideas as I see them. If you can repair them and fill them, your idea is all the stronger for it, and if your idea can't stand up to it, it's an idea you should move on from. For that purpose, I'll attack as strongly as I'm able, and we'll both be the better for it. If you're going to shy away from my criticisms, it indicates that you don't have a very strong faith in your theory's ability to stand on it's own ground.

Yes, yes. Criticism is good, I just feel like you are framing it as a competitive debate and don't like it. It gets me to focus on "proving" (proof? In Umineko? Ha!) every last little detail so that I don't "lose", when what I really would rather focus on at this point is the viability of the general idea.

By the way, Readers and Players are not the same thing in Umineko. The only time that any characters were described as Readers (ANGE and Clair), they were not serving as Players in any capacity. Any supposition that a person can be both a Reader and a Player is 100% fanfiction. To say nothing of the Readers not being involved in a Game. Nothing Clair does is a Game, and Ange isn't involved in a Game. She is reading a story ABOUT a game.

Isn't it Bernkastel who is the Reader in EP7?

Anyway, it's a valid point that may warrant some reassessment of my theory. But regardless of whether "Player"="Reader" or not, it's plainly shown that the Meta-Character with the role of "Reader" influences what we see on the Game Board.

Even a simple interpretation can distort a story severely. For instance, take this sentence: "The culprit stood over Natsuhi's body and giggled." If I don't write a single other thing about the culprit, what is your first impression of their gender?

Honestly, I have no particular impression of the culprit's gender, but I do wonder whether Natsuhi is about to be killed or is already dead.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-17, 03:50

I'm not sure how so. I'm basically saying that Lambda is the "narrator" in EP5 and that what we see on the Game Board is the RMP's mind's eye.

And I'm saying I'm not seeing anything that suggests why we should think this. Lambdadelta is a Gamemaster more than she is a 'narrator', because in-universe characters do the narrating. She is presenting the story and the information but the structure of the game implies and infact necessitates that other players can influence the actions of their characters.

Given that the information base between player and character should be as close to 1:1 as possible (which should be perfectly achievable in the Meta-World), or else it's like the following D&D scenario:

"My character looks around."
"You see a Gazebo."
"Okay. I interact with it."
"You can't. It's not actually there."
"So, was it an illusion spell?"
"No, you just saw wrong."

Right. Because there's no Reader.

Well, no, Bern just didn't write anything there. The lack of a Reader doesn't change that there is literally no characterization or prose in the entire Gameboard.

Ange is the Reader of EP6. She is not the Reader of EP5. Both Episodes are, in a semantic, literary sense, the same. Ergo, there is no causal relationship between a Reader's vocal embellishments and the actual text contained in the tale.

Yes, yes. Criticism is good, I just feel like you are framing it as a competitive debate and don't like it. It gets me to focus on "proving" (proof? In Umineko? Ha!) every last little detail so that I don't "lose", when what I really would rather focus on at this point is the viability of the general idea.

My apologies. I just try and argue in an "Umineko-style", minus some of the aggressive/competitiveness. Though regardless, your idea just doesn't make any coherent sense to me. I'm both criticizing the idea and trying to understand it further because it's very close to meaning nothing understandable with what I've gathered.

Isn't it Bernkastel who is the Reader in EP7?

No, she isn't. Lemme quote the TIPS

Clair Vauxof Bernard

Created by Bernkastel to be a Reader, or else, a substitute actor.

Technically, she is a vessel used to personify Beato and her game.

Therefore, she has no personality of her own. In that sense, perhaps one could say she is not a person, but a tool.

Her name signals her position as the final guide in Beato's game.

I find it interesting that the only clear-cut Reader aside from Ange is compared to an actor, a prop, and a tool that is a necessary part of the narrative.

Anyway, it's a valid point that may warrant some reassessment of my theory. But regardless of whether "Player"="Reader" or not, it's plainly shown that the Meta-Character with the role of "Reader" influences what we see on the Game Board.

No, it really, honestly isn't. You have one solid quote that even suggests such a connection and it can be taken multiple ways.

For instance, Clair doesn't seem to HAVE a subjective perspective, since she isn't actually a person, so why the hell isn't she prattling off proseless facts like in Bern's EP8 Gameboard?

Because, imo, the Reader isn't about subjective embellishments or interpretations. They just READ what's there. They're Readers, not Interpreters or Analyzers. Without one all you have is a Wikipedia summary article, not a narrative story.

Ditto for Ange. She's not really changing anything, she's reading the words written on a piece of paper. Otherwise why isn't Featherine commenting about Ange adding shit she didn't write, or somesuch?

You know how Ange DOES embellish, though? She stops and asks questions. She gives her personal interpretations of the story without actually changing the text, like YOU AND I DO.

Honestly, I have no particular impression of the culprit's gender, but I do wonder whether Natsuhi is about to be killed or is already dead.

I think what Lyrica's going for here is that the word 'giggled' can lead people to conclude that the culprit is a female, even though that's not necessarily the case. You can create the mental image of a female even though there is no inaccuracies, false data, or misleadings in the text.

This contrasts your idea because your model insists SOMEONE ELSE'S misconceptions and misinterpretations onto OTHER READERS (us), defeating much of the purpose of the exercise.

Swigun

2012-01-17, 05:00

Erika never considered Shannon and Kanon being the same person because she didn't expect the truth to be something that jaw-droppingly stupid.

That's strange.
She claims to read Agatha Christie (in the Battler-owned-Erika scene) but it seems she didn't read all of her novels, since there's one that use pretty much the same trick.

Well it's the same "detective" that trust the family doctor in a mystery novel, maybe I'm not so surprised...

Toku

2012-01-17, 07:20

For instance, Clair doesn't seem to HAVE a subjective perspective, since she isn't actually a person, so why the hell isn't she prattling off proseless facts like in Bern's EP8 Gameboard?

False. Clair is a person. She's a personification of Beato and her game board, but she has a clear personality and she displays it when discussing the story she's reading with other characters on stage. She behaved like a doll in the EP7 Tea Party merely because Will had already killed her. That was a corpse on stage.

People almost always refer to Beato as a person, even though she's actually a personification of the rules. It's the same thing.

Therefore, as you can see in Clair's story in EP7, she can and certainly does add her own embellishments. Otherwise what on earth is Gaap doing there? And that's just the start of it.

Renall

2012-01-17, 09:24

Then demonstrate...? Because I haven't seen it.I have never interacted with Ryukishi and he has never seen my comments. I'm fairly confident in that. I'm also fairly confident that he never did anything to Umineko in response to anything that I said or did; a likely fact even if he would have read anything I wrote, as I was at least a year to six months behind the Japanese releases until ep8 making it physically impossible for anything I said to alter the next episode.

Thus, I can demonstrably prove that the author-reader dynamic between Ryukishi and myself was non-interactive. He wrote things, I read them, and by the time I'd said anything about it he'd written something else. He had no way to know or anticipate my reaction to what he was writing and could not therefore have changed anything based on that. There was no "game" because there was neither interactivity in the creative process or any answer (which the genre he apes provide in finished works). Thus, I couldn't really engage him and it was non-interactive as concerns my own personal impressions of the work.

Argument by counterexample: The process was non-interactive for at least one reader, ergo for at least one person ep5 could not possibly be justified in anticipating a responsive interpretation and presenting it to that person according to your theory. Which means that, if you are right, Ryukishi guessed wrong for some undefined number of slower or foreign readers who had no interactive access to him.

The same could be said of somebody who picks the story up now that it's already finished. Is this person's response to ep5 also anticipated to be predetermined? They have no way of interacting with a completely finished work, other than to read it and think about it. If their interpretation wasn't correctly anticipated, are they just out of luck in going two ways with the author?Even a simple interpretation can distort a story severely.That's not really the issue. We've always had to deal with narrative interpretation in Umineko, as much of it has been first-person or third-person-speculative. The issue is that we have no way of knowing the difference between "the original text" and "a given reader's interpretation, if there is one for any given text." But none of this matters for the ep5 sequence, because even if it is an interpretive issue, it should have been noticed, or else we should have been told how that interpretation is permitted to change what we see, without actually telling us.

Bluemail

2012-01-17, 10:15

I thought of some kind of solution to the Kanon issue, though I don't remember if it's clearly contradicted somewhere.

Maybe in EP5 there was only Kanon or Shannon in play. They never switched places or anything. Piece-Erika always supposed there was only one young servant, and didn't suspect an extra servant appearing. Everyone was in the parlor, Erika saw everyone she ever met on Rokkenjima there.

I checked the red truths of EP5. Kanon and Shannon were both mentioned in them exactly once. Kanon was confirmed to break the seal of the servants' room with Kumasawa when the First twilight victims were discovered. And Shannon was only mentioned by Natsuhi, as the only one who she told she liked fall. So it seems Kanon is more relevant to have existed on the EP5 gameboard, though these two create some kind of disrepancy of Shannon being told about Natsuhi's favourite season while she doesn't exist there.

The thing I don't remember is if the part Piece-Erika narrated (I think there was at least one occasion) mentioned either of them. Or if Meta-Erika spoke of them in EP5. If they didn't mention both of them it might mean that neither Piece- or Meta-Erika knew about an extra servant, which would make their sharing of information much simpler.

This might be an example of a loveless game, as Shannon and Kanon are reduced to the single servant she is. But it doesn't solve the issue of Meta-Erika's knowledge of the extra servant in EP6 at least.

About Reader techniques, maybe it means how Tohya might have read the message bottles and added his own interpretations and speculations into the mix. At least after being baffled by Legend and then trying to deny the image of a witch. While reading EP5 Battler added Shannon or Kanon where they weren't before, perhaps a sign of seeing things with love. Maybe after Ange read Dawn, her speculations were added to the story as a talk between ANGE and Featherine. A rewrite to the stories might have happened after Ikuko heard Tohya's interpretations of the raw version, or it's all happening in Tohya's head, without getting to a concrete form.

Wanderer

2012-01-17, 13:51

"My character looks around."
"You see a Gazebo."
"Okay. I interact with it."
"You can't. It's not actually there."
"So, was it an illusion spell?"
"No, you just saw wrong."

But that's not at all what I am saying. The Character sees just fine; the problem lies between communication and assumption on the part of the GM and the Player. The example would go like this:

"My character looks around."
"You see a Gazebo in the front yard of the house next door."
"Okay. I interact with it."
"You can't. It's behind a fence."

The GM assumed that the Player would know that there was a fence surrounding the yard. However the Player didn't think there was until he tried to interact with the Gazebo. If, for some reason, the Player never decided to try to interact with the Gazebo then the Player would never have learned that the front yard of the house next door was surrounded by a fence, even though his Character observed that the house next door did, in fact, have one.

By the way, I've played plenty of table-top RPGs, and I've experienced this kind of thing countless times.

No, it really, honestly isn't. You have one solid quote that even suggests such a connection and it can be taken multiple ways.

You're saying that the Reader doesn't influence what we see on the Game Board when there are lines, such as:

"......A Reader miko can use her own voice to embellish or distort the tale."
"......Even if there was no cheap trickery in my game, by having a Reader, any amount of trickery could be added."
"If there is no Reader, ......doesn't that mean there will be absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text?"

What else could all this mean?

I have never interacted with Ryukishi and he has never seen my comments. I'm fairly confident in that. I'm also fairly confident that he never did anything to Umineko in response to anything that I said or did; a likely fact even if he would have read anything I wrote, as I was at least a year to six months behind the Japanese releases until ep8 making it physically impossible for anything I said to alter the next episode.

Whenever in the past I have referred to a "reader" affecting the Game Board I have always meant a fictional character within the Umineko universe, never a person in real life. I apologize if that hasn't been clear.

I'm saying that what we see on the Game Board is the result of a two-way process between two fictional characters. Of course this result is reported to real life readers in a one-way process.

Renall

2012-01-17, 14:59

Whenever in the past I have referred to a "reader" affecting the Game Board I have always meant a fictional character within the Umineko universe, never a person in real life. I apologize if that hasn't been clear.

I'm saying that what we see on the Game Board is the result of a two-way process between two fictional characters. Of course this result is reported to real life readers in a one-way process.Except what you're saying is that, for just this one scene, for absolutely no reason, when we've always previously seen the interplay between the creative forces, we are suddenly treated to the aftereffects of such an interaction which we did not see, which has produced a result which is both intentionally misleading to the reader and seemingly contradictory to the individual advanced as a player, and are given neither indication of how this came about, what rules were obeyed to reach that point, and no explanation as to how the player (who has various special properties previously or subsequently addressed in the text) came to accept it.

Forgive me if I find that completely unbelievable.

Toku

2012-01-17, 15:51

for just this one scene, for absolutely no reason, when we've always previously seen the interplay between the creative forces

Assumptions. You can't make assumptions with Umineko.

I don't recall a time where we were shown the exact process leading up to the scenes that we, the ones reading the sound novels, are shown.

There have, of course, been many interactions between the GM and the Player, but these were usually just fights between the people trying to solve the mysteries already posed by the GM, and the GM who wants to make those people surrender.

Even so, it could have always been going on, behind the scenes, and we just weren't shown it.

Renall

2012-01-17, 16:08

Assumptions. You can't make assumptions with Umineko.

I don't recall a time where we were shown the exact process leading up to the scenes that we, the ones reading the sound novels, are shown.

There have, of course, been many interactions between the GM and the Player, but these were usually just fights between the people trying to solve the mysteries already posed by the GM, and the GM who wants to make those people surrender.

Even so, it could have always been going on, behind the scenes, and we just weren't shown it.Meaningless semantics. We've always been given examples of this supposed two-way process, and it's very clear what this process actually is, even when the story itself appears to be "fixed" in some fashion. Unless you intend to argue that all such authorial processes are the result of invisible two-way communications, which you cannot support.

Toku

2012-01-17, 16:14

Meaningless semantics. We've always been given examples of this supposed two-way process, and it's very clear what this process actually is, even when the story itself appears to be "fixed" in some fashion. Unless you intend to argue that all such authorial processes are the result of invisible two-way communications, which you cannot support.

Examples? I'm not quite sure what scenes you're talking about here.

Renall

2012-01-17, 16:24

Examples? I'm not quite sure what scenes you're talking about here.We have seen Battler interact with Beatrice, Bern interact with Lambda, Ange interact with Maria, Erika interact with Lambda/Bern, Battler interact with Erika, Beatrice interact with Erika, Ange interact with Featherine, Will interact with Bern, Will interact with Clair, Ange interact with Bern, etc. etc. etc.

We have seen these interactions and how they shape the narrative, even if the actual "story" is not actively shaped by people's collaborative actions (there are in fact more cases of the narrative not visibly changing than the opposite). The commentary, however, always is, and in almost every circumstance I can think of, we see that commentary.

But that isn't even the point, which several people here keep intentionally evading. The point is that even if we accept as true that the ep5 parlor scene is some kind of byproduct of an unseen interaction which is not in any way described or outlined or explained, the actual byproduct remains inherently contradictory and saying that it is what has been described here does not fix the contradictions. The inherent discrepancy between what the narrative says, what we know as readers is true, what Erika should have seen, and what Erika believes to be true are things which cannot be wished away by a vague and poorly thought-out notion that we're just looking at the aftermath of a process which smoothed out all those contradictions, except without actually doing any work intellectually to determine what that process was or how it came about. It's laziness to the extreme, and attempts to dismiss rightful criticism of it are downright insidious.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-17, 16:55

False. Clair is a person. She's a personification of Beato and her game board, but she has a clear personality and she displays it when discussing the story she's reading with other characters on stage. She behaved like a doll in the EP7 Tea Party merely because Will had already killed her. That was a corpse on stage.

The TIPS disagree with you. She's a doll that recites and channels Beato's personality and memory, but she is not herself Beato, or anyone else.

She is not a person, but a tool. Disagreeing with that is disagreeing with Ryukishi.

Therefore, as you can see in Clair's story in EP7, she can and certainly does add her own embellishments. Otherwise what on earth is Gaap doing there? And that's just the start of it.

Gaap is part of the story as Yasu wrote it. Clair is just reciting it.

"......A Reader miko can use her own voice to embellish or distort the tale."
"......Even if there was no cheap trickery in my game, by having a Reader, any amount of trickery could be added."
"If there is no Reader, ......doesn't that mean there will be absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text?"

I've already explained this.

Toku

2012-01-17, 17:42

@Renall: My point was merely that we never see what it's like when the GM is reading the stories to the Player. The debates afterward, yes, but not the reading.

But I guess it's true that, even so, this doesn't seem to clear up the fact that Detective's Authority apparently didn't help Erika as it should have here.

The TIPS disagree with you. She's a doll that recites and channels Beato's personality and memory, but she is not herself Beato, or anyone else.

She is not a person, but a tool. Disagreeing with that is disagreeing with Ryukishi.

Gaap is part of the story as Yasu wrote it. Clair is just reciting it.

It's strange how everything else about EP7 seems to go contrary to this TIP. It is literally the only thing I can think of that even implies that I'm wrong about this.

Maybe it's better to say that the doll, Clair, is merely the form Bernkastel gave to Yasu for the sake of the funeral. But when that doll is acting as a vessel, it takes on the personality of the one it's channeling. So Yasu is there in EP7, but speaking to her through Clair is like speaking to her via phone.

I guess that's the same as both admitting that I'm wrong and stating the obvious, though.

jjblue1

2012-01-17, 18:18

Piece!Erika seems to know everything Meta!Erika does because she's a meta-gaming little bitch, so I doubt this very highly unless you can cite me an instance where Piece!Erika does not know something that Meta!Erika knows.

Good luck.

Maybe you don't mean to but you sound aggressive. If you want to turn this into an arguing instead than a discussing then I'm not really interested in going on.

If that's not the case:

I provide you evidence that a piece might not know what the player know.
You say that's not enough evidence however the whole of Umineko will not provide you enough evidence for nearly everything.

In some cases we have 'commonly accepted theories' that have a high probably to be true, and that in some cases is so high we take them as truth and don't bother to discuss anymore if it's true or not.

In some other cases we don't get such luxury.

In short we're close to Erika's problem in EP 6. She could check very accurately the 'corpses' but the only way to prove for sure they were death was to kill them.

Since we can't kill them and we can't even prove if our 'autopsy' is accurate or we missed some vitals details there's no way any of us can prove how things work for sure, though we can be sure we've guessed right... or that someone else guessed wrong.

If you're absolutely sure in EP 5 there's a error or a dirty trick nothing can be said that will cause you to waver in your convintion with the present material we've at hands.

Erika never considered Shannon and Kanon being the same person because she didn't expect the truth to be something that jaw-droppingly stupid.

I also find it pretty stupid unless additional info will come up that will justify it so I sort of understand why Erika didn't bother checking if the two of them were the same person.

Also I find Umineko lacks of an important detail for making this believable.
No one mentioned Shannon and Kanon have an awfully similar face despite not even being related to each other... unless Yasu is really serious about this and when she dresses up as Kanon also wear a mask or some accessories that significantly alter her face... (and no one noticed because Yasu is in truth a professional make up artist)

She did.

Where? I can't find it. all her theories were smashed by Lambda's red as far as I can remember...

AuraTwilight

2012-01-17, 18:46

It's strange how everything else about EP7 seems to go contrary to this TIP. It is literally the only thing I can think of that even implies that I'm wrong about this.

Maybe it's better to say that the doll, Clair, is merely the form Bernkastel gave to Yasu for the sake of the funeral. But when that doll is acting as a vessel, it takes on the personality of the one it's channeling. So Yasu is there in EP7, but speaking to her through Clair is like speaking to her via phone.

I guess that's the same as both admitting that I'm wrong and stating the obvious, though.

The way I saw it was that Clair was like a chatbot. She gives the illusion of sentience but isn't actually so. At best she is channelling the 'ghost' of Yasu's regrets. But either way, there is no spirit to Clair's existence. She's just a part of the show.

I provide you evidence that a piece might not know what the player know.

But I'm asking for Erika, specifically, who follows different rules from other pieces.

You say that's not enough evidence however the whole of Umineko will not provide you enough evidence for nearly everything.

You can find evidence for lots of things in Umineko. I'm asking for evidence, not proof. The two are different.

Also I find Umineko lacks of an important detail for making this believable.
No one mentioned Shannon and Kanon have an awfully similar face despite not even being related to each other... unless Yasu is really serious about this and when she dresses up as Kanon also wear a mask or some accessories that significantly alter her face... (and no one noticed because Yasu is in truth a professional make up artist)

You know, I actually did a similar experiment, and scientists will tell you that the human brain can be deceived in pattern recognition. We can completely fail to recognize a face if it's "framed" differently, so Yasu wearing different wigs and hairstyles can do wonders to keep people from realizing Shannon and Kanon look similarly.

jjblue1

2012-01-17, 19:25

And I'm saying I'm not seeing anything that suggests why we should think this. Lambdadelta is a Gamemaster more than she is a 'narrator', because in-universe characters do the narrating. She is presenting the story and the information but the structure of the game implies and infact necessitates that other players can influence the actions of their characters.

Given that the information base between player and character should be as close to 1:1 as possible (which should be perfectly achievable in the Meta-World), or else it's like the following D&D scenario:

"My character looks around."
"You see a Gazebo."
"Okay. I interact with it."
"You can't. It's not actually there."
"So, was it an illusion spell?"
"No, you just saw wrong."

LOL I played roleplays and I think if this had happened it would have been rather crazy.

Though a gamemaster would probably have to make up explanations that made more sense like:

"You can't. It's forbidden to get close."

And if you insist in trying to get close regardless have something that would take your attention away from it or that would force you to move away.

Though in a RP we ended up managing to find a solution to open a door we weren't supposed to open at such a early stage cornering the gamemaster.

I'm pretty sure we never got anything conclusive on this. Erika came up with theories, but they were at least partially disproven. And then Lambdadelta wove some crazy web of Red.

This is what I remember as well.

[As far as the Erika debate goes: I think the question is really very simple. The only thing that needs to be asked here is "if Piece!Erika was supposed to see both of them at the same time in EP5, then did she?"

I think the trick is that:
No person can keep in her field of vision so many people and see them all at the same time.

So Erika technically can never see everyone present in the parlour at the same time.

Of course in real life one can say: okay, I can't see them all at the same time but, if I keep on turning my eyes around I can check the position of everyone in a relatively quick time. In this short time in which I'm not observing Shannon or Kanon would Yasu manage to switch from one to the other and back? Without anyone noticing? What is she, Superman or a trasformist?

I personally wouldn't buy it... but in game 6 is said that the only way for Erika to prove that the 'corpses' were dead for sure was... well, to cut their head.

Since they were merely faking death technically they should have been still breathing, their heart beating, and they should have been able to react to pain.
In short it shouldn't have be so hard to prove they were merely faking.

Now... Erika wanted them dead, all right, but there's still the fact that everyone is secure she couldn't prove they were dead in any other way.

So the trick is a devil proof.

As Piece Erika can't keep everyone under control at the same time we can't deny the possibility that Yasu was speedchanging continuously as stupid as this can sound. So, even if Meta Erika were to look at the scene through Piece Erika's eyes, she couldn't deny that Shannon or Kanon were in the room at the same time because they could have been in two different locations and to gaze at one would force her not to gaze at the other.

The narrative is from Battler so, even if he were to see Shannon and Kanon at the same time it wouldn't be reliable so for Lambda it was possible to work up a trick in which she implied Shannon and Kanon were in the parlour at the same time and Erika could have not noticed that actually when one of them was present the other was absent.

Through the trick is in itself pretty ridicule (Yasu speedchanging her clothes and no one noticing? This would be weird.) it's not more weird that Erika not noticing/checking that Kanon was nowhere in EP 6... or for people not noticing that Shannon and Kanon have the same face... or for people believing that Shannon and Kanon were two separate people.

Personally I don't really like much the Shkannon thing in Umineko... but as it looks like that's what Ryukishi planned and everyone in Rokkenjima swallowed I guess I can't put past him to use a trick like the one I described.

But I guess it's true that, even so, this doesn't seem to clear up the fact that Detective's Authority apparently didn't help Erika as it should have here.

My feeling is that the only thing her detective authority was good for was allowing her to impose some of her wishes (she forced Battler to let her check the scene) and stopping her from seeing fantasy scenes.

Which means in the parlour scene she couldn't see Kanon and Shannon at the same time but couldn't see first one and then the other at short distance of time. As the same might be applied to all the characters in the parlour (for example Natsuhi and Eva might have never been close enough she could observe them at the same time) I think even if piece Erika didn't see Kanon and Shannon at teh same time she didn't find it relevant.

That's strange.
She claims to read Agatha Christie (in the Battler-owned-Erika scene) but it seems she didn't read all of her novels, since there's one that use pretty much the same trick.

Well it's the same "detective" that trust the family doctor in a mystery novel, maybe I'm not so surprised...

Hum... I remember two novels of Agatha Christie using a similar trick but not exactly the same... would you mind to refresh my memory?

Toku

2012-01-17, 19:56

I think the trick is that:
No person can keep in her field of vision so many people and see them all at the same time.

So Erika technically can never see everyone present in the parlour at the same time.

Of course in real life one can say: okay, I can't see them all at the same time but, if I keep on turning my eyes around I can check the position of everyone in a relatively quick time. In this short time in which I'm not observing Shannon or Kanon would Yasu manage to switch from one to the other and back? Without anyone noticing? What is she, Superman or a trasformist?

I personally wouldn't buy it... but in game 6 is said that the only way for Erika to prove that the 'corpses' were dead for sure was... well, to cut their head.

Since they were merely faking death technically they should have been still breathing, their heart beating, and they should have been able to react to pain.
In short it shouldn't have be so hard to prove they were merely faking.

Now... Erika wanted them dead, all right, but there's still the fact that everyone is secure she couldn't prove they were dead in any other way.

So the trick is a devil proof.

As Piece Erika can't keep everyone under control at the same time we can't deny the possibility that Yasu was speedchanging continuously as stupid as this can sound. So, even if Meta Erika were to look at the scene through Piece Erika's eyes, she couldn't deny that Shannon or Kanon were in the room at the same time because they could have been in two different locations and to gaze at one would force her not to gaze at the other.

The narrative is from Battler so, even if he were to see Shannon and Kanon at the same time it wouldn't be reliable so for Lambda it was possible to work up a trick in which she implied Shannon and Kanon were in the parlour at the same time and Erika could have not noticed that actually when one of them was present the other was absent.

Hmmm. I just think that there should be no need to resort to the most ridiculous explanations when a less ridiculous one is available. Now, granted, it's still somewhat ridiculous if LD put a physical body for Kanon in EP5, but there's no way it could be as ridiculous as speedchanging!Yasu... I mean, it may be a devil's proof, but even so, it would take many miracles, one after another, to pull this off, and a lot of skill too. We are given no clues which could lead us to believe that Yasu is that good at continuously switching. Sure, she can switch at will, but this is something totally different...

Aside from the perception theory you gave, and the additional body theory I brought up, the only other theories seem to involve meta-world stuff, which I just really don't like. It should be irrelevant in this case, anyway, because what we're looking at is why Meta-Erika didn't notice the lack of Kanon, not why we didn't notice. What we saw was from Battler's perspective, but what Meta-Erika saw through her piece's eyes should have been different and much more accurate.

Through the trick is in itself pretty ridicule (Yasu speedchanging her clothes and no one noticing? This would be weird.) it's not more weird that Erika not noticing/checking that Kanon was nowhere in EP 6... or for people not noticing that Shannon and Kanon have the same face... or for people believing that Shannon and Kanon were two separate people.

1. Erika didn't have Detective's Authority in EP6. Therefore it's not only possible, but very easy to feed her false information. Piece!Battler in EP1-4 saw all kinds of crazy stuff that shouldn't have been possible, so it only makes sense that Piece!Erika in EP6 could too. Not only that, but BATTLER was able to skillfully dodge the issue of saying in Red that Kanon was in the cousins' room because Erika told him to say "everyone else."
2. Aura seems to have found a theory for the same face thing, in her post right before yours.
3. I think the best theory for this is probably that Yasu was bribing people to play along and treat Kanon as a different person.

Personally I don't really like much the Shkannon thing in Umineko... but as it looks like that's what Ryukishi planned and everyone in Rokkenjima swallowed I guess I can't put past him to use a trick like the one I described.

Yeah, it's a really odd trick and I didn't like it at all when I first read about it. Even so, what I disliked most about it was the whole "they're all different personalities in the same body" theory. But really, they seem to be more like masks (or characters in stories she wrote) than anything else.

Plus, you can easily use wonderful Reds like all people can only use their own names and still get this past the radar easily, because Yasu owns all of these names. Things like this make me think it's just really witty.

After all, if you can come up with a possible theory for something that seems completely impossible, then you have a much higher chance of winning (if you're on the witch side). And I really just love logic games like that. Reading Umineko has given me the insatiable desire to trap people in crazy, impossible-looking closed rooms, and dare them to find a way out, and cackle at them from the shadows (in an RP setting, that is. or something of that sort anyway).

AuraTwilight

2012-01-17, 20:28

RandomAvatarFan is on a distinguished road

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight (paraphrased) View Post
You are incompetent
:P

But... but... secret tunnels can explain *everything*. And with that I begin to get sucked into the anti-mystery. I mean even in Higurashi, we couldn't trust what the narrator was showing us. Why should we trust what Battler sees? What does "These secret tunnels do not count as revealed unless Battler, our detective character, observes them." mean? Piece!Battler always had a limited view of the events of 1986, and Meta!Battler observes everything from the MetaWorld, regardless of if it's fantasy or real. And are you now saying that everything Ange sees in 1998 is a lie, because she is not our one detective? That actually would explain the strange cast list at the end...

The only reliable viewpoint is Piece!Battler because nothing he observes is a lie, being the Detective character. This does technically mean that Ange isn't reliable,but that was obvious since she pretends to talk to demons. That doesn't necessarily mean everything in her story was a lie, though. It's not a one-or-the-other binary switch.

Oh, and the sixth person was Nanjo. Who is still suspicious alongside the Servants OWB. My feelings is that in the fantasy scene of EP3, 1st twilight, as far as the three of the OWB, they were pretty much prepared and expected to die. I know that's where you learn that you really can't trust everything, even emotions, but you have to trust *something*.

Right, I'm just saying that you're jumping the gun a little, here. Even if we trust some of the information in fantasy scenes, it's probably metaphorical and symbolic more than anything else.

Also, Beatrice's red All the victims of the first game are guaranteed.
Yes, everyone died at the end, but could it be referring at the end? You could say that the red isn't possible until it is true. For instance Beatrice can't confirm anyone's death until afterwards, right? Did she confirm any of EP1's deaths happened the way they appeared? Someone may have died after it was believed he or she was already dead, and since Beatrice's red declaration wasn't made until after the game was over, everyone in the first game *was* already dead by the time Beato made that declaration. The only time it was confirmed that anyone was alive was during Nanjo's murder in EP3 and right before the end of EP4.Kinzo, Krauss, Natushi, Hideyoshi, George, Rudolf, Kyrie, Rosa, Nanjo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, and Kumasawa was dead at the beginning of every game. It's some sort of delusion going on in Battler's mind. There is not enough information to prove otherwise.

This is kind of a silly argument. The games all take place on the same timeframe, so they are "perpendicular" to each other. Moreover, Whenver Beatrice talks about stuff outside of the current Gameboard, she gives proper context.

Nothing Battler observes is a delusion. His viewpoint in EP1-4 is 100% reliable until the end of each game: Midnight of the second day. As the Detective, he cannot witness illusions and delusions, and everything he experiences is trustworthy.

Toku

2012-01-17, 20:43

Nothing Battler observes is a delusion. His viewpoint in EP1-4 is 100% reliable until the end of each game: Midnight of the second day. As the Detective, he cannot witness illusions and delusions, and everything he experiences is trustworthy.

I'm pretty sure I remember various scenes that he shouldn't have been able to see if this is true. It's been too long since I've read EP1-4 though so I just can't give specific examples. That's why I want to ask here, if anyone remembers anything like that? Weren't there times he saw golden butterflies, for example? And he saw Beatrice in EP4. And, while my memory is lacking here, wasn't there a time when he told Maria that Beatrice should show herself, and she showed up right behind him? I'm not sure if he actually saw her then though...

I just want to confirm whether or not there was anything questionable about his perspective here, but it would take forever for me to go through the text again, so...

jjblue1

2012-01-17, 21:11

Hmmm. I just think that there should be no need to resort to the most ridiculous explanations when a less ridiculous one is available. Now, granted, it's still somewhat ridiculous if LD put a physical body for Kanon in EP5, but there's no way it could be as ridiculous as speedchanging!Yasu... I mean, it may be a devil's proof, but even so, it would take many miracles, one after another, to pull this off, and a lot of skill too. We are given no clues which could lead us to believe that Yasu is that good at continuously switching. Sure, she can switch at will, but this is something totally different...

Well, I don't really mean that Yasu was speedchanging for real. I guess I explained myself poorly

The point is: since piece!Erika couldn't keep everyone under control at the same time and, if she tried to keep them under control as much as humanly possible she would have looked ridicule (in EP 5 Erika is trying to fit in... if she had kept looking around she would have looked suspicious) Erika never bothered trying to force the issue of not witnessing Shannon and Kanon at the same time in Ep 5 nor noticed it... because most likely they weren't the only ones whom she couldn't see at the same time.

However I think Shannon changed into Kanon at least once (meaning she left and turned dressed up as Kanon) or twice so that piece!Erika could see everyone in the parlour although not everyone at the same time.

And this is for what I think the trick was.

However if Erika was trying to force the issue and saying her piece was costantly looking around Lambda could have switched to something similar. Carefully moving the pieces so that Yasu would have time to change herself before coming again into Erika's vision.
Note that the time seems short because we think that Erika is purposely targetting Shannon and Kanon but it gets longer if Erika has no idea this might be the trick being played and that the one she should check are Shannon and Kanon.
Also she had no plans to consider a servant as the culprit so maybe, after seeing one and then the other, she kept looking at what the adults and cousins were doing and not at what Kanon and Shannon were doing.

Aside from the perception theory you gave, and the additional body theory I brought up, the only other theories seem to involve meta-world stuff, which I just really don't like. It should be irrelevant in this case, anyway, because what we're looking at is why Meta-Erika didn't notice the lack of Kanon, not why we didn't notice. What we saw was from Battler's perspective, but what Meta-Erika saw through her piece's eyes should have been different and much more accurate.

Well, I don't think piece!Battler either managed to see everyone at the same time

This is how Battler 'saw' the scene through his piece's eyes.

'I' glanced around at the humans in the parlor.
The guest, Furudo Erika. And behind her, Kumasawa-san and Shannon-chan. Off to the side was Genji-san.
Krauss oji-san and Natsuhi oba-san were welcoming the guest.
Gohda-san immediately started showing off, and Kanon-kun was being unsociable, wearing his usual blank expression.
There was Dad and Kyrie-san. Eva oba-san and Hideyoshi oji-san. Rosa oba-san and Maria. And, Doctor Nanjo.
Then, on either side of me, were George-aniki and Jessica...

First thing is that as George and Jessica are on either side of him to look at George he likely couldn't see Jessica and viceversa so we've a hint that he too couldn't see everyone at the same time.
Second hint is that Shannon is behind Erika... so it's likely she wasn't in Erika's field of vision at the moment as Erika is facing the cousins to greet them. The same goes for Kumasawa and possibly Genji (who might have moved out of Erika's field of vision after he introduced the cousins to Erika).

So in the moment in which EVERYONE was in the parlour at least two, maybe three people were out of Erika's field of vision.
We've no info about piece!Erika turning to look behind her so as to check if Shannon and Kumasawa were really there. We only know she was acting dignified (which I guess means no keeping on looking around).
By the time she finished speaking with the cousins and she could turn and check if Shannon was really there Lambda might have said that Shannon and Kumasawa left. Meanwhile Kanon might have left as well and showed up short later as Shannon.

Same trick as when Battler saw Kinzo and Erika was turned.

Her reliable perspective would have allowed her to see that yes, Battler was really in front of her with the two cousins, and remember what she saw once this person were to enter in her field of vision but not that Shannon wasn't behind her anymore...

1. Erika didn't have Detective's Authority in EP6. Therefore it's not only possible, but very easy to feed her false information. Piece!Battler in EP1-4 saw all kinds of crazy stuff that shouldn't have been possible, so it only makes sense that Piece!Erika in EP6 could too. Not only that, but BATTLER was able to skillfully dodge the issue of saying in Red that Kanon was in the cousins' room because Erika told him to say "everyone else."

Hum... no, piece!Battler never saw crazy stuff... unless it was around midnight of the last day (in short by that time the bomb should explode and he was dead). The only exception might be Ep 2 where it seems he met Beato short before midnight though it's possible he was completely drunk and therefore his reliable point of view was messed up by alchool.

3. I think the best theory for this is probably that Yasu was bribing people to play along and treat Kanon as a different person.

Well, the siblings all know Kanon. This means that in all the games everyone apart from Battler knows Shannon and Kanon are the same person... which would mean Jessica doesn't love Kanon and want him to become her boyfriend or she wouldn't encourage Shannon to date George at the same time.

Another problem is Kanon must have been witnessed by more than just the people on Rokkenjima that day or the police could easily discover his non-existence.
Just saying he went to Jessica's school wouldn't be enough because it would be possible to construct a theory saying that Jessica invited to school someone who didn't work on Rokkenjima. In short the other servants of the Ushiromiya who werent' in service that day should have seen Kanon and be able to confirm he was working for the Ushiromiya by at least around 2 years (or, at least prior than Gohda was hired).

Also technically we're told Kanon had birth before Yasu discovered the gold so she couldn't bribe people into believing in Kanon.

In an old theory of mine I assumed Natsuhi, Krauss, Kumasawa and Genji knew Shannon and Kanon were the same person and were using Kanon to make the siblings and the other servants believe that Kinzo was still alive using Kanon as a witnesser that Kinzo... was eating in his room for example.

This would allow them to have Kinzo almost always 'under control', without forcing Shannon or Genji or Kumasawa to neglect their own duties to serve a dead Kinzo.

Kanon had birth as immaginary creature before Yasu discovered the gold, but gained 'an existence in the real world' only after Kinzo died.

Yeah, it's a really odd trick and I didn't like it at all when I first read about it. Even so, what I disliked most about it was the whole "they're all different personalities in the same body" theory. But really, they seem to be more like masks (or characters in stories she wrote) than anything else.

Plus, you can easily use wonderful Reds like all people can only use their own names and still get this past the radar easily, because Yasu owns all of these names. Things like this make me think it's just really witty.

After all, if you can come up with a possible theory for something that seems completely impossible, then you have a much higher chance of winning (if you're on the witch side). And I really just love logic games like that. Reading Umineko has given me the insatiable desire to trap people in crazy, impossible-looking closed rooms, and dare them to find a way out, and cackle at them from the shadows (in an RP setting, that is. or something of that sort anyway).

*nods* I really dislike it. It's one of those things I find hard to believe but that I'm forced to swallow because that's part of the truth.

It reminds me of a old logic game 'how can you place a horse in a fridge in three actions?'. Although the solution is 'logic' it would never work in the real world unless you go and say when you say friedge or horse you aren't meaning the first thing that would come to everyone's mind.

But I'm asking for Erika, specifically, who follows different rules from other pieces.
We don't know if Erika follows rules that are different from the ones of piece!Battler in this regard.
The only rule we're given is that the detective should not witness magic scenes (or better that his perspective must be reliable so no magic scenes can be witnessed). Battler was the detective for Ep 1-4 so at best there can be a difference between piece!Erika and Ep5piece!Battler.
(actually I'd like it very much if there was a guide book for the rules pieces has to follow)

Or are you speaking of something else?

You can find evidence for lots of things in Umineko. I'm asking for evidence, not proof. The two are different.

I gave you evidence that a piece can't be aware of the meta at all the time... which can work as circumstancial evidence that the same might apply to piece!Erika in that situation. There's no direct evidence though... but direct evidence generally work as a proof if my understanding of English is correct (I expect Renall to set me straight on this if I made a mistake... :P) so again, we've no proofs of this.

You know, I actually did a similar experiment, and scientists will tell you that the human brain can be deceived in pattern recognition. We can completely fail to recognize a face if it's "framed" differently, so Yasu wearing different wigs and hairstyles can do wonders to keep people from realizing Shannon and Kanon look similarly.

I know about such experiments. For me it works perfectly well when we talk of people not recognizing that Shannon and Beato are the same person (similarities between Shannon and the Beato in the painting, the meeting in EP 7 and it's possible Yasu bought her accomplices dressed up as Beato). The problem I have with this is that Kanon refers to Shannon as neesan 'big sister' but Shannon feels the need to point out they aren't related. And there's also this bit:

"That kid we met earlier, Kanon-kun, is her little brother."
"...He's not exactly my little brother... Still, he loves me like a big sister. ...He didn't cause you any trouble, did he?"

As soon as Jessica says he is her little brother Battler should have automatically thought to Kanon and see the resemblance and point out:
"Oh, so you two aren't related? How odd, he looks so much like you."

The same works for Erika as she has a great visual memory and should notice the oddity of the two of them looking so similar and not being related. She might miss it in the paint because maybe it's not perfectly accurate but real faces can't lie.

Though again it's possible that Erika do not pay attention to servants.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-17, 22:00

I'm pretty sure I remember various scenes that he shouldn't have been able to see if this is true. It's been too long since I've read EP1-4 though so I just can't give specific examples. That's why I want to ask here, if anyone remembers anything like that? Weren't there times he saw golden butterflies, for example? And he saw Beatrice in EP4. And, while my memory is lacking here, wasn't there a time when he told Maria that Beatrice should show herself, and she showed up right behind him? I'm not sure if he actually saw her then though...

The golden butterflies were after the end of the game: Midnight of the Second Day.

The instance where he asked Maria to present Beatrice and she appeared behind him was in the Tea-Party of the First episode, which was a Meta-World event.

Beatrice in EP4 could have been someone in a costume, and in fact probably was, since we know SOMEONE is pretending to be here.

Battler's perspective is objective and reliable as a Detective. This is not refutable.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-17, 22:05

We don't know if Erika follows rules that are different from the ones of piece!Battler in this regard.

Yes, we do, because Piece!Erika is fully aware of the Meta-World and uses out-of-Game knowledge constantly. No other character on Rokkenjima can do this outside of a Fantasy scene.

The only rule we're given is that the detective should not witness magic scenes (or better that his perspective must be reliable so no magic scenes can be witnessed). Battler was the detective for Ep 1-4 so at best there can be a difference between piece!Erika and Ep5piece!Battler.
(actually I'd like it very much if there was a guide book for the rules pieces has to follow)

Or are you speaking of something else?

Erika also has superhuman senses and other abilities that Battler was not afforded, such as the ability to invoke Red Truth on the Gameboard in order to control the actions of other Pieces.

I gave you evidence that a piece can't be aware of the meta at all the time... which can work as circumstancial evidence that the same might apply to piece!Erika in that situation. There's no direct evidence though... but direct evidence generally work as a proof if my understanding of English is correct (I expect Renall to set me straight on this if I made a mistake... :P) so again, we've no proofs of this.

Evidence and Proof are different concepts. Proof is absolute and certain; Evidence just strongly suggests it. (An example of evidence would be something like finding a tattered piece of someone's clothing covered in blood. Evidence that something bad happened to them but not PROOF).

As soon as Jessica says he is her little brother Battler should have automatically thought to Kanon and see the resemblance and point out:
"Oh, so you two aren't related? How odd, he looks so much like you."

Yea, and no one comments on Jessica being blonde, either. The appearances of the characters don't actually matter and effectively do not exist within the narrative unless it becomes important. Hell, Ryukishi has even said in an interview that characters don't drip wet when they come in from the rain because it "Wasn't important."

Wanderer

2012-01-18, 03:38

I've already explained this.

No you haven't. You're earlier explanation only addresses how there could be distortion in a story without a Reader, which neither addresses the idea that "having no Reader"="absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text", nor does it address why they were all saying that a Reader can add distortion to a story.

Except what you're saying is that, for just this one scene, for absolutely no reason

No, you're assuming that I'm saying that. I suggest that this "Interpretation Theory" is in the background affecting things throughout the story. It was just used more insidiously than usual in EP5 when we have a different Player and Game Master.

, when we've always previously seen the interplay between the creative forces, we are suddenly treated to the aftereffects of such an interaction which we did not see, which has produced a result which is both intentionally misleading to the reader and seemingly contradictory to the individual advanced as a player,

RK07 himself admits to using dirty tricks. Do you really think that RK07 wouldn't do something like this?

Yes, we do, because Piece!Erika is fully aware of the Meta-World and uses out-of-Game knowledge constantly. No other character on Rokkenjima can do this outside of a Fantasy scene.

She certainly seems to have meta-oriented goals, but that's not absolute proof that she has access to out-of-Game knowledge.

I think that it's possible that everything about Erika, including her super human skills and her ridiculous meta-oriented behavior, is guided by the fact that she's the piece of "The Witch of Miracles", not by any kind of special access to meta-knowledge.

The way I saw it was that Clair was like a chatbot. She gives the illusion of sentience but isn't actually so. At best she is channelling the 'ghost' of Yasu's regrets. But either way, there is no spirit to Clair's existence. She's just a part of the show.

Just because she's a "tool" doesn't mean the fact that she's the Reader is irrelevant. Which tool you use to complete a job will affect the process, and possibly even the result, of the job.

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 04:16

By the way, I was looking into the idea that Yasu has no concept of self-identity and I found an interesting article:

Abstract here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8337306
Full article here: http://www.ijpsy.com/volumen4/num3/96/understanding-and-treating-loss-of-sense-EN.pdf

I was less interested in the treatments it described and more about the types of changes after a brain injury. Circa 1993, and I'm sure we've made much more progress in the last 19 years, but I think most of the descriptions of brain injuries are still true.

While it doesn't exactly address Yasu's condition, it *does* address Tooya's condition, including the part about feeling that after the brain injury they are a totally different person, basically coming from realizing changes in behavior and viewing the changes in a negative manner. It could be that Tooya was no longer the outgoing friendly Battler and it's not George that was just jealous of this, but Tooya specifically brought it up because he felt this change too.

And also the "fear of psychological annihilation" (from the paper) which Tooya experienced, although his was a fear of his former self re-emerging and overwriting his current self (which he had learned to deal with eventually.)

And then, there is THIS chessboard analogy which I'm sure is just a coincidence... right? :uhoh:

Another example is the “chessboard” metaphor, in which the therapist guides
the client to view herself as a limitless chessboard, which holds both black and white
pieces (Hayes et al., 1999; Hayes & Wilson, 1994). The pieces are said to represent
thoughts and emotions, both those that are positively valued (one team of pieces) and
those that are negatively valued (the other team). The client is guided to verbally
understand that if she identifies with one or other of the teams (i.e., if she identifies
with her conceptualized self) it becomes necessary to fight the other team, in order to
win the game. Identification with one team automatically brings the client into a battle
with herself that is impossible to win. However, identification with the board (self as
context) both avoids this conflict and leads to increased self-knowledge. To the board,
it matters not which team is winning. The board holds and knows all the pieces equally,
whatever their nature. Freed from engaging in unnecessary, pointless conflict, the board
is free to move in any chosen direction (e.g., toward valued life goals), carrying all the
pieces with it.

Yeah... gotta be a coincidence. Yeah... >_>

I'm pretty sure Ryukishi would have researched brain disorders for Tooya at the least. But I'm wondering how much of what Yasu suffered was ironically exactly what Tooya suffered. Tooya didn't go around insisting he was several different people, however. Unless... hmmm... Maybe Ikuko was a figment of Tooya's imagination? :heh: Although I don't think the house, servant and money was a figment of his imagination though...

Anyways, it's a good read you want to know a bit more about Tooya's brain injuries.

Any thoughts?

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 05:24

Argh, sorry for the double post. My brain started working and now I can't sleep, so I need to get this written down.

It makes more and more sense that Yasu has severe problems with self-identity in that she most likely has no actual self identity. Basically that, yes, her Shkannontrice identities are masks or personas and they are not fully formed people, but instead, if you remove that mask you'd actually find nothing underneath. Several things keep me thinking like this:

1. Obviously the Shkannontrice act. Why is it that this her cry to Battler? Umineko's theme isn't her saying, "Hey, Battler, the real one you love is Yasu." The fact that she juggles these personas is something she desperately wanted to say to Battler. This is not how someone (normal :heh:) who has a real identity would act; they would be eager to discard the mask and let that person know the real them. Or of course they would normally hide them; but then she wouldn't have written Umineko to be something where Battler can discover the truth. But the main thing is that Yasu didn't give out hints, like... ever... about who or what she *truly* was; I'm thinking that there was no truly *anything* to speak of. She kept putting these personas in front; that was what she kept trying to clue him on.

2. What LyricalAura said about furniture makes the most sense to me now. Furniture are people whose lives and actions are scripted by others. Shkannon both fall under this and so does Genji to a degree. Certainly Yasu was able to manipulate Genji to do her bidding with minimal effort and probably he did whatever Kinzo told him to as well. Beatrice seems to pretend that she's not furniture though, and we see evidence that she is much more action oriented than Shannon, although she admits to being furniture once in awhile, IIRC. She acts, but is limited in her actions too, perhaps?

This brings me to the red flashing scene in EP7 where Yasu screams at GenSawaJo at how it's as if she's nothing but 'furniture.' I can understand that not having a self identity means not having a willpower to act *for* the self. Until, of course she learned to place these desires into Beatrice and Shannon; her way of dealing with it. But dealing with the original injury did not belong to any of her personas; it belonged to her 'self', which must have felt like she realized that she really died back then and existed as a shell now.

What this means to me is that it would explain why this scene was merely a flash, a counterpoint to the beautiful loving scene chapters before; if you have no self identity you can't say, "It would have been better if you left *me* to die." The 'me' shouldn't make sense to someone who has no self identity, but the sentiment was there. So I'm wondering if the flash scenes were things she wanted to say but couldn't. And if that sentiment was bottled up without expression after 15 or so years... well, that can certainly explain enough self-deprecating rage to kill everyone. Or at least Gensawajo. It can also explain why something minor like Battler's promise would seem like some kind of massive hope to her.

3. This is why other characters in the episodes, like Jessica in EP2 keep talking about having different personalities. Over and over again. It wouldn't make sense to think that the entire cast suffered from DID; instead it makes sense if this was a major re-occuring theme and Yasu was speaking through them in EP1 and 2. And that maybe she's noting and studying that other people have this ability to wear different personas as well. Jessica, Rosa, Maria from her direct EP1-2 writings have all been shown to have 'multiple personalities,' but of course, they're merely the personas that they wear. Eva too in EP3 and later with her Eva-Beatrice personality. I see this as Yasu using this to help identify herself with the others; to feel out the different personas other people wear. Maybe it's that she doesn't know how to connect with the inner self of other people because she has no experience with hers, but she can connect with people's outer selves.

Also, didn't Hideyoshi mention some stuff off-hand about some historical figure that also had this same theme? Did anyone else mention stuff off-hand? A re-play-through with this thought in mind might be very enlightening.

Evidence ends here. Now here are some consequences and further thoughts if this is true... IF it's true, please bear in mind. 8)

First thought that comes to mind: That Bernkastel named her Yasu and called her the one responsible for the other personalities. If you think about this carefully, it seems to me to be an insult by Bern. "Hey, you're just pretending to have this disability. I will call you Yasu and give you an identity to make people believe that you're stupid and/or crazy." You guys know about how I've never really felt too strongly that Yasu is a 'real' name since it coincides so much with the "Hanin ha Yasu" meme. I think this makes sense if this is Bernkastel's way of crushing the truth; by pretending that someone has an identity when they don't. Which makes this one of her greatest final moves; Yasu's actions make no sense if there was a healthy individual behind them and yet if we just say she's 'psycho' that doesn't provide a satisfying answer. This is something we still haven't surmounted even now.

Another thought: If this is actually true, then she should have suffered the loss of her abilities (as per the brain article I posted in the last message) when she was .. what was it, 1 or 2 years old? Not old enough to detect the changes in abilities or personality for sure. So she grew up happy to be herself, not knowing any better. Or she may have assumed everyone else was like her; or perhaps she realized she was somewhat 'special' (uhhh.. in a good way. 8) ) Then Gensawajo break the news to her, "No, you're actually disabled, you have no ability in places where EVERYONE does." On some level, she probably wouldn't know how to respond, but there must be some part which suddenly realizes that she's not 'good special' anymore, but 'speshul' instead. This realization should have been a huge trauma. This could explain the change from Happy Glowy Beatrice to bitter, derisive and self-deprecating (to the other personalities) Beatrice at the time of her inheritance of the gold.

One problem: Battler. How the @#$! would he, "And then I knew?" I don't imagine that he goes around reading brain injury papers from 1993 in 1986. And I don't imagine Shannon would have told him something like that and he would forget it. That'd be pretty loser-ish, Battler. 8) The only thing I can think of is that, is there's a detective novel, or similar novel where the villain has the same problem? I've noticed that ever since Psycho in 1960 (and probably even earlier), the field of brain injuries or psychological disorders was a gold mine for creating villains. Was there a story, especially a detective story where the antagonist, or at least any character suffered the same problem? If there was, then this would probably be the strongest clue of them all. It means that Battler would be able to put 2-and-2 together immediately just by recalling one story he and Shannon shared, rather than somehow figuring out on the spot all the dropped clues from several episodes.

Anyways, lots of ideas to digest here. I think this does gives us another view of Umineko itself.

By the way, Renall, if you like this theory, can you give it a catchy name like you did last time? :3

Renall

2012-01-18, 09:27

Well, I don't really mean that Yasu was speedchanging for real. I guess I explained myself poorly

The point is: since piece!Erika couldn't keep everyone under control at the same time and, if she tried to keep them under control as much as humanly possible she would have looked ridicule (in EP 5 Erika is trying to fit in... if she had kept looking around she would have looked suspicious) Erika never bothered trying to force the issue of not witnessing Shannon and Kanon at the same time in Ep 5 nor noticed it... because most likely they weren't the only ones whom she couldn't see at the same time.

However I think Shannon changed into Kanon at least once (meaning she left and turned dressed up as Kanon) or twice so that piece!Erika could see everyone in the parlour although not everyone at the same time.The problem with that is that while it's as plausible as things could really get for how Erika could believe that she might have seen Shannon and Kanon around at roughly the same times, there's several kludges you've made or facts you've forgotten that make it difficult. Notably: That's not how Battler describes the scene while narrating it. He basically describes everybody walking into the room and then the scene pauses for confirmation. There's no time for a costume swap, and moreover...
...Lambda's confirmation is basically an instantaneous thing. So even if Shannon/Kanon were swapping off to periodically create the impression they're both milling about, at the exact moment of the confirmation only one of them could be in the room. Now if Erika simply forgot that it's one thing, however...
...Erika has a photographic memory. She would therefore never actually be fooled by the swapping, at least in the sense that she would believe she had ever seen Shannon and Kanon together. She might assume she just wasn't looking at one or the other, but it starts to get suspicious when she never sees them together, and can perfectly remember that this is the case. Worse, if Erika was observing one of them at the moment of the confirmation, and if Meta-Erika has any access to what her piece should have seen in that scene, she'd immediately know Shkanon was true because she's looking at Kanon and being told everyone on the island is in the parlor, which precludes Shannon being anywhere else. The only other conclusion she could reach is "Shannon must be out of my sight. Again." Which would make her pretty dense and only serve to underscore the detail that she's never seen both of them at once.Even if Erika's too dumb to figure out Shkanon, surely the detail that she's never seen them in the same place means something to her, given that she has perfect recall. Battler didn't, and could have easily overlooked or forgotten the detail (notably, the time period between meeting Shannon and Kanon in ep1 is brief enough that Battler's memory could've made him think he'd seen them both within seconds of each other; Erika would not make that mistake).RK07 himself admits to using dirty tricks. Do you really think that RK07 wouldn't do something like this?What evidence do you have that he did in this case?

None, save one exchange that only means what you want it to mean if you already think it means that. You also still haven't resolved any of the actual issues with that scene, so I'd continue to classify your theory as useless as I have no idea what exactly anyone is supposed to do with this claim.

Wanderer

2012-01-18, 13:05

What evidence do you have that he did in this case?

The terminology. "Player", "Game Master", "Game Board" typically indicates a two-way process between the Player and Game Master with the Game Board as a medium. It's very often likened to chess, which is indisputably a two-way process. If the what happens on the Game Board is not a two-way process then RK07 is using deceptive terminology for apparently no reason. The basic narrative in EP6 just screams a 2-way process. First there's the whole idea that the Game Master can, and sometimes needs to, change the narrative in the middle of the Game, which makes no sense in a 1-way process as there's nothing for the Game Master to react to. Second, Meta-Erika can't trap BATTER in a logic error unless either: BATTLER unilaterally determines the narrative, in which case he's just fucking around by himself and Meta-Erika is pointless, or Meta-Erika can influence the narrative and it's a 2-way process. Battler's narrated thought projection throughout EPs 1-4. Piece-Battler would make assumptions as to what certain people were thinking, which would be narrated. If someone other than Meta-Battler wrote those assumptions into Piece-Battler's mind, shouldn't Meta-Battler find it presumptuous? Wouldn't they get it wrong sometimes and Meta-Battler would go "wait, I wouldn't think that". That never happened in EPs 1-4. It did happen in EP 5 when Meta-Battler found Piece-Battler to seem smarter than he should be, but that was in EP 5 when Meta-Battler wasn't playing.

None, save one exchange that only means what you want it to mean if you already think it means that. You also still haven't resolved any of the actual issues with that scene, so I'd continue to classify your theory as useless as I have no idea what exactly anyone is supposed to do with this claim.

If you're talking about the discussion about "Readers" in EP 8, I simply cannot see it meaning something else than "a Reader can distort a game", since that's what they say practically word for word, several times.

If you accuse me of interpreting it only the way that I want to, then you better give me some kind of alternative possible interpretation that I am failing to see. Else you're just being an antagonistic jerk without reason to back it up.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-18, 13:07

No you haven't. You're earlier explanation only addresses how there could be distortion in a story without a Reader, which neither addresses the idea that "having no Reader"="absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text", nor does it address why they were all saying that a Reader can add distortion to a story.

A Reader can add a distortion to their story with how they choose to pay attention to details, such as character voices or sound effects or even personal opinions that can cause an audience or the Reader's own mind to be misdirected.

The "No Reader = No Falsehoods" thing is complete bullshit if only on the grounds that Bern's Game totally has falsehoods.

She certainly seems to have meta-oriented goals, but that's not absolute proof that she has access to out-of-Game knowledge.

In EP6 she talks to Battler directly referencing EP5 and the Meta-World. "Wow, even here, you're a good intellectual match for me." "What are you talking about?"

In EP5 she shouts for Bernkastel's forgiveness before being stricken down into her seat like a puppet.

Just because she's a "tool" doesn't mean the fact that she's the Reader is irrelevant. Which tool you use to complete a job will affect the process, and possibly even the result, of the job.

Tools-Who-Are-Not-Persons do not have a subjective viewpoint with which to corrupt and distort the telling of a story.

The terminology. "Player", "Game Master", "Game Board" typically indicates a two-way process between the Player and Game Master with the Game Board as a medium. It's very often likened to chess, which is indisputably a two-way process. If the what happens on the Game Board is not a two-way process then RK07 is using deceptive terminology for apparently no reason.

False Argument, because there's already interactivity in the way of Battler or Erika or whoever controlling their Piece and being able to interact with the environment and characters. This does not lead us, in any way, to "The gameboard's imagery is directly misrepresented by the player's misconceptions."

The basic narrative in EP6 just screams a 2-way process. First there's the whole idea that the Game Master can, and sometimes needs to, change the narrative in the middle of the Game, which makes no sense in a 1-way process as there's nothing for the Game Master to react to. Second, Meta-Erika can't trap BATTER in a logic error unless either: BATTLER unilaterally determines the narrative, in which case he's just fucking around by himself and Meta-Erika is pointless, or Meta-Erika can influence the narrative and it's a 2-way process.

See above.

Battler's narrated thought projection throughout EPs 1-4. Piece-Battler would make assumptions as to what certain people were thinking, which would be narrated. If someone other than Meta-Battler wrote those assumptions into Piece-Battler's mind, shouldn't Meta-Battler find it presumptuous? Wouldn't they get it wrong sometimes and Meta-Battler would go "wait, I wouldn't think that". That never happened in EPs 1-4. It did happen in EP 5 when Meta-Battler found Piece-Battler to seem smarter than he should be, but that was in EP 5 when Meta-Battler wasn't playing.

Battler is really good at reading the thoughts, moods, and attitudes of everyone else because he knows them personally. It's not that the narration is following his thought processes so much as he's just getting really spot on. Alternatively, if these thought narrations are being given in accordance to what Battler thinks, it's worth noting that seeing the mental viewpoints of other characters technically constitutes a Fantasy Scene, and is completely out of the purview of Piece!Battler, making it a far cry of incompatibility and incomparability with Erika's misdirected perceptions of the Parlor scene.

If you're talking about the discussion about "Readers" in EP 8, I simply cannot see it meaning something else than "a Reader can distort a game", since that's what they say practically word for word, several times.

And you are choosing to interpret "distort" in a very specific, unsupported, and personally preferred way that isn't even metaphorically analogous to how readers work in every other medium of life and fiction, which is a direct contrast to how you argue the usage of terms such as Piece, Player, Gameboard, and the like.

Your argument is special pleading one way or another because you're using different forms of reasoning at different parts of the theory that are only superficially separate from each other, and your shuffling of semantics doesn't get around the fundamental problems and criticisms being raised against your theory.

If you accuse me of interpreting it only the way that I want to, then you better give me some kind of alternative possible interpretation that I am failing to see. Else you're just being an antagonistic jerk without reason to back it up.

Totes did that, see above.

Renall

2012-01-18, 14:17

The terminology. "Player", "Game Master", "Game Board" typically indicates a two-way process between the Player and Game Master with the Game Board as a medium. It's very often likened to chess, which is indisputably a two-way process. If the what happens on the Game Board is not a two-way process then RK07 is using deceptive terminology for apparently no reason. The basic narrative in EP6 just screams a 2-way process. First there's the whole idea that the Game Master can, and sometimes needs to, change the narrative in the middle of the Game, which makes no sense in a 1-way process as there's nothing for the Game Master to react to. Second, Meta-Erika can't trap BATTER in a logic error unless either: BATTLER unilaterally determines the narrative, in which case he's just fucking around by himself and Meta-Erika is pointless, or Meta-Erika can influence the narrative and it's a 2-way process. Battler's narrated thought projection throughout EPs 1-4. Piece-Battler would make assumptions as to what certain people were thinking, which would be narrated. If someone other than Meta-Battler wrote those assumptions into Piece-Battler's mind, shouldn't Meta-Battler find it presumptuous? Wouldn't they get it wrong sometimes and Meta-Battler would go "wait, I wouldn't think that". That never happened in EPs 1-4. It did happen in EP 5 when Meta-Battler found Piece-Battler to seem smarter than he should be, but that was in EP 5 when Meta-Battler wasn't playing.Okay, except... none of that has anything to do with your theory. Your theory is about Readers, which don't exist in the "game" scenarios. There is no indication that the "distortions" applied by a Reader, even if able to misrepresent the very character of the story to an individual who has supernatural confirmation abilities and a perspective present in the actual story - please stop dodging that, it's getting aggravating, address it - apply in any way to the Game Master/Player dynamic. In fact, one thing we do know is that, while Beatrice often showed Battler fantastical things in her stories, she never once did so while Battler's piece was present and Battler was still actively engaged in playing against her. That suggests to me that she can't because of some property of the player's piece, be it their "reliable perspective" or "detective authority" or whatever. It's a mechanism to make the game fair for the player. Battler had it. Erika has it. And Erika actually has more fair play mechanics than Battler ever got, at least in ep5. As you said, Battler's behavior was different from when he was a player. That suggests the player can't be easily messed with.

If Erika was playing, and Erika was in the parlor, Erika's perspective ought to mean something (i.e. she cannot have seen Shannon and Kanon both unless, as Kealym suggests, there actually were two of them; and if she did see two of them when there weren't two, it needs to be explained). You just handwave this and ignore it. Stop that.

That's the entire crux of the problem with that scene, and your tangent hasn't done much of anything to approach it. We are aware of what Erika ought to have seen, and we don't actually need to have seen the original playthrough to know that. We know what the narration says Erika should have seen, and we know that Erika and Meta-Erika are in some sense connected (although we don't know how or to what extent). We also know how Meta-Erika acts, and from this there is certain information we can infer (e.g. she thinks Shannon and Kanon are different persons). What she should know and what she does know don't add up.

Saying "she assumed they were separate so it was depicted that they are even though her piece would not have seen that" is something which has never happened during a game. Battler made a lot of false assumptions in ep1-4, but they didn't suddenly become true because he did so. We know this because we have independent confirmation.

For example, Battler assumes the chapel is locked in ep2. He never actually confirms that it isn't. By your reasoning, the chapel became locked as a result, or would have actually been locked on a replay of the same events to an observer of the game. Except Will says the answer is "it wasn't locked" (in so many words). And Our Confessions makes clear that Beatrice has intended solutions to each of her tricks. So even though Battler can interact in some way and she can improvise in some way, she can't make the chapel suddenly be locked if the whole trick was "make a big show of giving the key to Maria, then don't actually lock the chapel door." The chapel door will never be locked, Shannon's body will never be in the ep1 shed, and if the adults posted a guard at every room they checked in ep3's First Twilight Kanon would never be found in the chapel. The only difference is whether Battler actually confirms it by being present through his piece and doing something.

If the "trick" of ep5's parlor scene was "Shannon and Kanon swap out a couple times to give Erika the impression that both are in the room," or "Kanon was never actually in Erika's line of sight," we should have seen that. Instead, we get Battler's perspective description and Lambda's instantaneous assurance. These are things Erika ought to have noticed, but she apparently didn't. That is what we must adequately address, if we even can.If you accuse me of interpreting it only the way that I want to, then you better give me some kind of alternative possible interpretation that I am failing to see. Else you're just being an antagonistic jerk without reason to back it up.I don't need an explanation of my own to tell you that your idea is malformed and improperly supported. That's a self-evident observation. If I were to propose a theory of my own, it wouldn't suddenly mean that one of us is right. We could both be wrong. So there's really no point to confusing the subject with a new argument when we haven't properly disposed of the current one.

Toku

2012-01-18, 15:05

stuff

I, uh... Just want to say that this is pretty amazing. I can't really process and understand all of it, let alone all of the implications of it, but it seems to be at least somewhat grounded in canon, especially because of things like:

(EP7)
"Ah, where is this place?! And who am I?!"
"Then let me ask! Where do you want it to be? Who do you want to be?!"
"Any place, so long as it will wrap itself around me gently! Anyone, so long as I am treated kindly!"
"Yes, for us...!"
"For us...!"
""Where and who we are hardly matters!!""

And it allows an interesting parallel between Tohya and Yasu, and between the injuries the two suffered. Not only that, but it seems to imply even more strongly that BATTLER's logic error is a parallel for the Battler between suffering brain damage and the epilogue, when Beatrice finally reached him. Well, it's also a parallel for how Yasu felt during those 6 years though, of course.

A Reader can add a distortion to their story with how they choose to pay attention to details, such as character voices or sound effects or even personal opinions that can cause an audience or the Reader's own mind to be misdirected.

And you are choosing to interpret "distort" in a very specific, unsupported, and personally preferred way that isn't even metaphorically analogous to how readers work in every other medium of life and fiction, which is a direct contrast to how you argue the usage of terms such as Piece, Player, Gameboard, and the like.

Uhhhh, I'm pretty sure this kind of thing was never even implied. Actually, isn't it said all the time that a GM can play with the presentation of the story however they please, and that therefore white text is all but useless? Wait, do you really think that, for example, Beato vs. Virgilia is a result of how Beato paid attention to details or her personal opinions which caused someone to misinterpret it? Because, that's practically impossible.

On a game board, the GM is the Reader. As a result of their Reading, the Fantasy side of the story is established. If the GM doesn't function as a Reader, then you will only see the Mystery side, like in Our Confessions.

EDIT: Well, of course, the GM can also have someone else Read for them, though.

The "No Reader = No Falsehoods" thing is complete bullshit if only on the grounds that Bern's Game totally has falsehoods.

Only in purple text. And that's the characters lying, not the narration or anything like that.

False Argument, because there's already interactivity in the way of Battler or Erika or whoever controlling their Piece and being able to interact with the environment and characters. This does not lead us, in any way, to "The gameboard's imagery is directly misrepresented by the player's misconceptions."

...Wait a bit. What's the point of this whole argument? The question is why Erika didn't have a clue about the "ShKannon" thing in EP6 when she needed it to solve Beato's puzzle, even though she should have only been able to see one of them at a time in the EP5 parlor scene. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we saw.

What we saw is Lambda Reading the scene to us from a non-detective perspective. Thus, any amount of illusions could have been added.

EDIT: Nevermind. I think I get it now. Meta-Erika is seeing what we see? I don't see any basis for believing that at all...

Renall

2012-01-18, 15:07

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 15:12

And it allows an interesting parallel between Tohya and Yasu, and between the injuries the two suffered. Not only that, but it seems to imply even more strongly that BATTLER's logic error is a parallel for the Battler between suffering brain damage and the epilogue, when Beatrice finally reached him. Well, it's also a parallel for how Yasu felt during those 6 years though, of course.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's kind of ironic, I thought at first, that Ryukishi would put Battler through something similar to Yasu, if indeed Yasu had the same sort of psychological problems. Albeit a change in identity, vs. a loss of identity. Then I started thinking, what if this wasn't just irony, but an actual hint? One of the last hints at the very end of Umineko...

By the way, can you clarify on what you mean by the logic error being a parallel? Like Battler's mind/self being trapped away and Battler's outer self being a non-entity yet another representation of this same theme?

Toku

2012-01-18, 15:20

That doesn't make any sense. There's no reason for her to do that, and the mere occurrence of that happening should have been a giant red flag to Bernkastel (and possibly to Erika). It would not have been of any benefit to Battler, and more critically, to her. It would also suggest that it wasn't narrated like that to begin with. Who did narrate it then? How was it different? If we never even get a hint of that, there's nothing remotely fair or useful about writing it that way.

There's also no evidence for your interpretation. How do you know she didn't just hit the rewind button on the game board? Oh, because there's no evidence the game board has a rewind button? Exactly.

I'm afraid that neither of us seem to be able to understand the other right now. I'm saying that the GM can embellish the story however they please, which has several metric tons of evidence. The Fantasy side of the stories = fabricated processes which lead to the same results. For example, I cited Beato vs. Virgilia as evidence. And that's just the most obvious case of it. That's why I say, as long as it's not from the perspective of a detective Piece, the Reader can do whatever.

Whether the GM does the Reading or someone else does though, I don't think it matters...

The only times that we didn't have a Reader, as far as I can tell, are in Bern's puzzle and in Our Confessions. Shouldn't it be obvious that every other game board we see has a Reader?

I'm pretty sure Lambda should be the Reader for EP5, I mean, it has to be either her or Bern doing it. And it looks like it's Lambda. Therefore, shouldn't it follow that Lambda is also Reading the parlor scene, which is part of EP5? And she has more than enough authority to distort the scene however she pleases, as long as it leads to the same results.

However, the detective, who sees things through the eyes of their Piece, should be able to see what's really happening.

Which means that the Reader argument shouldn't have much place in this particular discussion.

Renall

2012-01-18, 15:23

The only times that we didn't have a Reader, as far as I can tell, are in Bern's puzzle and in Our Confessions. Shouldn't it be obvious that every other game board we see has a Reader?No. Because a Reader isn't the same as a Game Master, and the person being read to isn't the same as a Player.

Lamba is the Game Master and Bern by her proxy Erika is the Player (well, Erika is playing and theoretically Bern is helping, when she feels like it, which she usually does not). Battler walks in on them playing a game and Lambda goes back and shows him what happened. It's not clear what this relationship is. However, if Lambda showed him something that flatly contradicted what Bern and Erika experienced when they played the game with Lambda as Game Master, wouldn't somebody notice this? Bern and Erika are arrogant, but they're not stupid.

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 15:26

That doesn't make any sense. There's no reason for her to do that, and the mere occurrence of that happening should have been a giant red flag to Bernkastel (and possibly to Erika). It would not have been of any benefit to Battler, and more critically, to her. It would also suggest that it wasn't narrated like that to begin with. Who did narrate it then? How was it different? If we never even get a hint of that, there's nothing remotely fair or useful about writing it that way.

By the way, when did the concept of the Reader come in? Wasn't that started in EP6? Before Featherine appeared, there was no reader even mentioned or what not...

In any case, I don't understand what you guys are arguing about. I think everyone agrees that EP5 is rather unfair and cheats. The only thing some people seem to be saying is that that was the way it was intended to be, as an illustration of a game master gone wrong. Or at least, I'm saying it, but Ronove's line about how this game lacks love and the absolutely lost expression he had on his face (and Virgilia's) sounded to me like the game was being made into a mockery and a travesty.

All you can really say is that on the Ryukishi level, the example of cheating served to hide the Shkannon situation on us for one more episode when he revealed it in EP6. If you really want to say this is, "Insiduous" then go ahead, it's your opinion, but I still don't get what you're arguing against. Or are you trying to say he DIDN'T cheat?

Renall

2012-01-18, 15:38

By the way, when did the concept of the Reader come in? Wasn't that started in EP6? Before Featherine appeared, there was no reader even mentioned or what not... That's correct. The concept of a Reader is introduced by Featherine to Ange when she asks Ange to read her manuscript. It's mentioned in one form or another in ep7 (Clair) and ep8 (the aforementioned exchange about Bern's game).

Note that when Featherine and Bern discuss things at the end of ep7, the concept of what Bern is doing is somewhat confused. There is game board symbolism, yet it doesn't appear in ep7 that Bern is actually operating a game... on the other hand, she might not be Reading either, since Will is there actively participating at times. So really, who knows.

GreyZone

2012-01-18, 15:43

What we saw is Lambda Reading the scene to us from a non-detective perspective. Thus, any amount of illusions could have been added.
That doesn't make any sense. There's no reason for her to do that, and the mere occurrence of that happening should have been a giant red flag to Bernkastel (and possibly to Erika). It would not have been of any benefit to Battler, and more critically, to her. It would also suggest that it wasn't narrated like that to begin with. Who did narrate it then? How was it different? If we never even get a hint of that, there's nothing remotely fair or useful about writing it that way.

There's also no evidence for your interpretation. How do you know she didn't just hit the rewind button on the game board? Oh, because there's no evidence the game board has a rewind button? Exactly.

There is evidence... in EP1-4 we could only read the thoughts of Battler, the player, the detective in these games.
And what about EP5? Did we read the thoughts of Erika, the detective? Or the thoughts of Bernkastel, the player (aside from the "you will scream in pain Lambda, ahaha.wav")?

No we didn't.

Instead we got to read the thoughts of (Piece-)Battler once again. Erika didn't appear as Meta till a later stage of the review/flashback, so she at least wasn't present at the review of the parlor scene. We have No idea how they reacted when it was shown the first time and also whether Meta-Erika was present or not.

But how about this: "(Piece-)Erika could "re-investigate" the parlor scene anytime, if she wanted to, because of her Photographic memory. However her photographic memory does not "think for her". If she doesn't even think about ShKanon, then she, of course, cannot confirm that. So she would realize the mistake of that scene in the first moment, where she seriously considers ShKanon." That never happened though.

But that probably ends with EP5 so she cannot start the investigation again in EP6 (for Battler's closed room etc.) because her piece version of that world already ceased to exist and she can only rely on the information she gathered at that time. But to specify this further we would have to know more about the mechanics between Piece and Player.

Toku

2012-01-18, 15:46

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's kind of ironic, I thought at first, that Ryukishi would put Battler through something similar to Yasu, if indeed Yasu had the same sort of psychological problems. Albeit a change in identity, vs. a loss of identity. Then I started thinking, what if this wasn't just irony, but an actual hint? One of the last hints at the very end of Umineko...

By the way, can you clarify on what you mean by the logic error being a parallel? Like Battler's mind/self being trapped away and Battler's outer self being a non-entity yet another representation of this same theme?

Yeah, pretty much that. Battler's "self" is trapped away, and nobody can find a way to save him. The Battler of 1986 is trapped away somewhere in Tohya's mind, and trying to retrieve him causes massive problems (because Tohya is seeing himself as the White side of the chessboard instead of the chessboard itself, as you said). There is also the fact that, at the end of EP8, Beatrice supposedly reached Battler, which perhaps means that Tohya finally was able to see himself as the chessboard.

Not only that, but the fact that it was Beatrice who reached him in both instances, seems like it could imply that Ikuko is Yasu. But I know that this doesn't necessarily confirm the Ikuko=Yasu theory in any way, shape, or form. I'm just saying.

The strange thing is that it's implied that BATTLER tried to put himself in Yasu's shoes on purpose. After all, there was some line like this: (this is just how I remember it, not the exact words)
"I know how you suffered, waiting for me all that time. So now, I'll try waiting for you."

And the biggest evidence that he intended it is that he should have been able to solve this logic error easily. After all, by that point, he DEFINITELY knew about the "ShKannon" thing. And he's not an idiot, so he should have been able to understand that only the doors were checked for duct tape.

...Does this mean that he intended to get stuck in the logic error or with a brain injury? I have no idea. As far as the brain injury in particular goes, I kind of doubt it.

Oh, right. There's yet another parallel with that logic error. Remember, Kinzo shut himself away in his study, trying to revive Beatrice.

Honestly, both Battler and Yasu get compared to Kinzo all the time. It's like they're both miniature Kinzos.

No. Because a Reader isn't the same as a Game Master, and the person being read to isn't the same as a Player.

Lamba is the Game Master and Bern by her proxy Erika is the Player (well, Erika is playing and theoretically Bern is helping, when she feels like it, which she usually does not). Battler walks in on them playing a game and Lambda goes back and shows him what happened. It's not clear what this relationship is. However, if Lambda showed him something that flatly contradicted what Bern and Erika experienced when they played the game with Lambda as Game Master, wouldn't somebody notice this? Bern and Erika are arrogant, but they're not stupid.

I know that it's not the same. The Game Master is the one who wrote the story. The Reader is the one who embellishes it, providing the Fantasy side. So yes, they're different.

However, no GM would do something as stupid as putting an elephant next to the detective's Piece when the detective clearly doesn't see an elephant there, for example. So that's why, given that the detective's Piece was present in the parlor, it would make no sense for Lambda to put an elephant there. But she certainly didn't do anything that ridiculous. All she did was say that "both Shannon and Kanon are there, on opposite sides of Erika" which Erika, in one way or another, was apparently unable to disprove. Either her focus on Natsuhi allowed a changing!Yasu trick to be used, or Kanon had his own body.

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 15:56

That's correct. The concept of a Reader is introduced by Featherine to Ange when she asks Ange to read her manuscript. It's mentioned in one form or another in ep7 (Clair) and ep8 (the aforementioned exchange about Bern's game).

Note that when Featherine and Bern discuss things at the end of ep7, the concept of what Bern is doing is somewhat confused. There is game board symbolism, yet it doesn't appear in ep7 that Bern is actually operating a game... on the other hand, she might not be Reading either, since Will is there actively participating at times. So really, who knows.

I get that same feeling too. The concept of the reader as a metaphor is somehow tied to the idea of observation, so I thought it had something to do with reading implications and opinions into plain vanilla facts. But the concept doesn't seem to have really hit maturity.

If we use the lack of a reader in EP8 as an example, I was thinking that Bern's game ended up turning into a plain old logic puzzle, with even less literary development or value than some very plainly written detective novels. *cough* 8) So maybe the Reader metaphor on the meta-level implies some kind of care into crafting a story from a puzzle?

This doesn't fit in with the idea that in EP6, Featherine was using Ange as a reader to evaluate her manuscript as you said, nor EP7's reading by Bern.

To put it into terms at the Author level, EP6's Reader appears more as an Editor, whereas EP8's lack of a Reader appears more as an example of lack of writing to begin with. I don't have a clue what EP7's Reader, if there were any, did at all. (Maybe that one was Eva-B, rather than Bern.)

Toku

2012-01-18, 16:10

The golden butterflies were after the end of the game: Midnight of the Second Day.

The instance where he asked Maria to present Beatrice and she appeared behind him was in the Tea-Party of the First episode, which was a Meta-World event.

Beatrice in EP4 could have been someone in a costume, and in fact probably was, since we know SOMEONE is pretending to be here.

Battler's perspective is objective and reliable as a Detective. This is not refutable.

Was it ever stated in red that Battler's perspective is purely objective and perfectly reliable until Oct. 5 1986 at midnight in EP1-4?

After all, there was no Detective's Proclamation in any game other than 5, which is the process of invoking Detective's Authority.

You could certainly say that that's something totally different, though, and that while Piece!Battler doesn't have that privilege, he's still a detective, and the Player's Piece, which makes his perspective perfectly objective.

^Which is what I currently believe.

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 16:11

The strange thing is that it's implied that BATTLER tried to put himself in Yasu's shoes on purpose. After all, there was some line like this: (this is just how I remember it, not the exact words)
"I know how you suffered, waiting for me all that time. So now, I'll try waiting for you."

And the biggest evidence that he intended it is that he should have been able to solve this logic error easily. After all, by that point, he DEFINITELY knew about the "ShKannon" thing. And he's not an idiot, so he should have been able to understand that only the doors were checked for duct tape.

...Does this mean that he intended to get stuck in the logic error or with a brain injury? I have no idea. As far as the brain injury in particular goes, I kind of doubt it.

This definitely sounds like Ryukishi was intending for Tooya to be working through the same problem of his and Yasu's all along.

Wait a second... this makes sense now. The whole Genius Battler Theory implied that he put himself into a precarious situation so that Moetrice could 'evolve' and regain her previous (Trollish) nature. And that turning point was when she figured out Shkannon for herself, as Battler did already. He purposely didn't tell her and bet it all on a miracle, another common theme in the story.

Well, this change in Moetrice mirrors the exact same situation Yasu went through, didn't it? Yasu discovered that she was disabled and became fully aware; so did Moetrice. The difference being this time Moetrice had Battler by her side and Yasu did not. (And that may have made all the difference between feeling loved and feeling abandoned.)

I'm going to put that post into my signature, it seems to be providing a lot of answers and insights on Yasu's behavior... if someone can think of a catchy name for the theory, please. 8)

Honestly, both Battler and Yasu get compared to Kinzo all the time. It's like they're both miniature Kinzos.

It still disturbs me when I see Moetrice call Battler "Father" when I realize this is supposed to be Beatrice-2 and Kinzo's parallel. Only with less raping. 8) Still incest though, if you think about it.... :heh:

AuraTwilight

2012-01-18, 16:11

I know that it's not the same. The Game Master is the one who wrote the story. The Reader is the one who embellishes it, providing the Fantasy side. So yes, they're different.

ANGE doesn't do this in EP6, though, Battler does. Providing a Fantasy side is the Gamemaster's job. You're wrong.

To put it into terms at the Author level, EP6's Reader appears more as an Editor, whereas EP8's lack of a Reader appears more as an example of lack of writing to begin with. I don't have a clue what EP7's Reader, if there were any, did at all. (Maybe that one was Eva-B, rather than Bern.)

EP7's Reader was Clair, who quite literally read aloud a story without giving any personal judgements.

Renall

2012-01-18, 16:17

There is evidence... in EP1-4 we could only read the thoughts of Battler, the player, the detective in these games.
And what about EP5? Did we read the thoughts of Erika, the detective? Or the thoughts of Bernkastel, the player (aside from the "you will scream in pain Lambda, ahaha.wav")?

No we didn't.But she had them. Just because we don't know what they are, we know what she ought to have seen and what she would think if what was depicted was not what she was supposed to see.Instead we got to read the thoughts of (Piece-)Battler once again. Erika didn't appear as Meta till a later stage of the review/flashback, so she at least wasn't present at the review of the parlor scene. We have No idea how they reacted when it was shown the first time and also whether Meta-Erika was present or not.If Meta-Erika didn't exist at the time, then Bern was the one playing. Again, if Erika was her proxy in some fashion, that discrepancy (if one existed) should have turned up.But how about this: "(Piece-)Erika could "re-investigate" the parlor scene anytime, if she wanted to, because of her Photographic memory. However her photographic memory does not "think for her". If she doesn't even think about ShKanon, then she, of course, cannot confirm that. So she would realize the mistake of that scene in the first moment, where she seriously considers ShKanon." That never happened though.My problem with this is that the solution is "Erika is an idiot." I can more readily accept her falling for a puzzle that requires Shkanon if she doesn't have any previous evidence that they're the same. But in ep5, either she should have gotten that information, or she was terribly, terribly misled. In either case, she's been cheated.But that probably ends with EP5 so she cannot start the investigation again in EP6 (for Battler's closed room etc.) because her piece version of that world already ceased to exist and she can only rely on the information she gathered at that time. But to specify this further we would have to know more about the mechanics between Piece and Player.She states she has a photographic memory. Assuming Meta-Erika has Piece-Erika-5's memories (and we don't know she does, but if she doesn't she should be asking some questions of herself), she remembers all details. She can't go back and check them, but she would remember anything that doesn't fit if she's smart enough to do so.

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 16:30

ANGE doesn't do this in EP6, though, Battler does. Providing a Fantasy side is the Gamemaster's job.
EP7's Reader was Clair, who quite literally read aloud a story without giving any personal judgements.

That's right! And you said that before, about Clair. It's so easy to conflate Reader with Game Master it seems...

So, two examples of where Readers are supposed to change facts into literature, and one where the Reader checked up on already written prose.

Captain Bluebeard

2012-01-18, 16:37

Concerning all the talk above about how Erika didn't notice the thing about Shannon and Kanon during her stay in Rokenjima...I read a lot of it, but I'm too lazy to quote all points I want to comment on, though I'll say, people are just overthinking into this with all the talks about Meta-Erika, Piece-Erika and so on....Clearly, it was just avoided by the author because it would be too much of a giveaway if Erika started getting into the innermost depths of the truth just from the fifth game. To justify this, in the fifth game she was mostly concerned about framing Natsuhi, so I guess actually solving anything wasn't in her priorities.

Toku

2012-01-18, 16:40

This definitely sounds like Ryukishi was intending for Tooya to be working through the same problem of his and Yasu's all along.

Wait a second... this makes sense now. The whole Genius Battler Theory implied that he put himself into a precarious situation so that Moetrice could 'evolve' and regain her previous (Trollish) nature. And that turning point was when she figured out Shkannon for herself, as Battler did already. He purposely didn't tell her and bet it all on a miracle, another common theme in the story.

Well, this change in Moetrice mirrors the exact same situation Yasu went through, didn't it? Yasu discovered that she was disabled and became fully aware; so did Moetrice. The difference being this time Moetrice had Battler by her side and Yasu did not. (And that may have made all the difference between feeling loved and feeling abandoned.)

I'm going to put that post into my signature, it seems to be providing a lot of answers and insights on Yasu's behavior... if someone can think of a catchy name for the theory, please. 8)

Yeah, I just remembered earlier today when talking to Captain Bluebeard. That particular parallel with Kinzo trying to revive Beatrice I by making Beatrice II "remember" who she was. And how Yasu seemed like she might have been doing something similar with Battler when she was trying to make him remember the promise.

At this point... I kind of have to agree with the "genius Battler" theory. Because, didn't Featherine herself say it? That Chick!Beato is like a blank slate. She's what Beatrice originally was. But if she were to experience the same kind of life, she would "revive."

So, Chick!Beato is there, trying her very best to get him out of that logic error. She wants desperately to be reunited with him, to have her future with him, and to be of use to him.

...Wait, that sounds familiar?

And I'm absolutely certain that BATTLER said something to this effect in EP6 to Chick!Beato when she asked him a question (I don't remember what the question was though):
"I won't tell you. Because the old you would have known it, and I'm hoping you can remember it on your own. So let me believe for just a little longer..."

It still disturbs me when I see Moetrice call Battler "Father" when I realize this is supposed to be Beatrice-2 and Kinzo's parallel. Only with less raping. 8) Still incest though, if you think about it.... :heh:

If they're cousins, it's not exactly incest. Or at least, it's not nearly as bad.

ANGE doesn't do this in EP6, though, Battler does. Providing a Fantasy side is the Gamemaster's job. You're wrong.

Yeah, that's one of the things that confuses me. But even so, the part about Readers being able to distort the tale in EP8 sure seems similar to things like this:

In other words, things like magic mustn't appear.
When they do appear, I shouldn't suspect that the mystery element is breaking down... But I should instead question why it was shown and suspect the witnesses and observers.
[...]
Also, at the end of the 1st game,
it was revealed that this tale was passed on to people in the future by that message bottle.
...Someone had written about this crime...this tale.
In other words, ......this tale is all part of a world which includes the personal opinions of an observer, namely, the person who wrote that message in a bottle.
In other words, the observer isn't God.
It's a human.
Therefore, there's no guarantee that this description is truly impartial.
By the end of the 1st game, it had already been made clear that we've broken the constant premise of the mystery genre: that the story itself must be seen through the eyes of God.
For that reason, it's possible to doubt even the observer, as well as the witnesses.
If I could've doubted this much, ...then no matter how many seemingly unsolvable displays of magic appeared, I wouldn't have had to blindly accept them and give up...

I just connected the two ideas mentally, and came to the conclusion that the one who writes the Fantasy side is called the Reader. It sure does seem quite similar, after all, apart from the instance of Ange.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-18, 16:50

Knox's 8th, it is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED! Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE! Was it ever shown that you were not the detective this time, and that you were an observer with a subjective VIEWPOINT?!! Unless it was, you do not have the right to falsify your point of VIEW!!

Checkmate.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-18, 16:54

That's right! And you said that before, about Clair. It's so easy to conflate Reader with Game Master it seems...

Not really. It's extremely easy to keep them apart because no known Reader has ever been a Gamemaster EVER.

I just connected the two ideas mentally, and came to the conclusion that the one who writes the Fantasy side is called the Reader. It sure does seem quite similar, after all, apart from the instance of Ange.

How? At no point has the Reader ever created a Fantasy that wasn't already present in the story.

On top of that, Readers as a concept didn't even exist in EP5. What Battler is saying here is that since there are multiple perspectives in the story, and that only one of those perspectives is reliable, we have a narrative that contradicts objective observation, something present in most all other mystery stories regardless of any such "reader".

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 17:02

At this point... I kind of have to agree with the "genius Battler" theory. Because, didn't Featherine herself say it? That Chick!Beato is like a blank slate. She's what Beatrice originally was. But if she were to experience the same kind of life, she would "revive."

So, Chick!Beato is there, trying her very best to get him out of that logic error. She wants desperately to be reunited with him, to have her future with him, and to be of use to him.

...Wait, that sounds familiar?

And I'm absolutely certain that BATTLER said something to this effect in EP6 to Chick!Beato when she asked him a question (I don't remember what the question was though):
"I won't tell you. Because the old you would have known it, and I'm hoping you can remember it on your own. So let me believe for just a little longer..."

Ok, so not only can we see the pattern, but I think we can now see exactly *what* the thing was that changed the innocent Beatrice we saw in early EP7 to the angry one in EP1-2. I mean beyond just that Battler wasn't there for her.

I'm tempted to think this is what he meant by Without Love It Cannot Be Seen. If you don't gain an understanding of Yasu, you'd just conclude that she's crazy or psycho and nothing would make sense. But if you understood her inability to express her rage except only through Beatrice, because she has this particular problem, then it makes sense. Not that her actions are right, but that you understand the mentality of screaming something like, "Stop it or else I'll shoot!"

That may just be me being conceited though, I'm not 100% sure on that Love phrase. 8)

If they're cousins, it's not exactly incest. Or at least, it's not nearly as bad.

She is his Aunt *and* Cousin, as they sometimes say in the stereotypical Deep South. Happy Fun Cyclic Family Tree time here... 8)

GreyZone

2012-01-18, 17:06

There is still the thing with EP6's "BATTLER could have said exactly who was present in the cousin's room, but Erika wanted him to say "everyone else" ".

And we all know that he couldn't. So it is likely that ANGE was the "reader" for this scene.

Well although that is no guarantee of course. It is still possible that it is "part of the story".

But i think in the earlier EPs the narrator of the META scenes was never lying or mistaken. Correct me if i am wrong.

Cao Ni Ma

2012-01-18, 17:09

It still disturbs me when I see Moetrice call Battler "Father" when I realize this is supposed to be Beatrice-2 and Kinzo's parallel. Only with less raping. 8) Still incest though, if you think about it.... :heh:

And yet its pretty clear that Battler didn't see her as the previous Beatrice. At least, not during her "birth" and infancy. I dont know how to reconcile this with what Kinzo and Will said during their scenes together.

GreyZone

2012-01-18, 17:24

Nothing Battler observes is a delusion. His viewpoint in EP1-4 is 100% reliable until the end of each game: Midnight of the second day. As the Detective, he cannot witness illusions and delusions, and everything he experiences is trustworthy.

Not entirely true. His viewpoint is only reliable, if he has "enough anti-magic-toxin", or better said an "anti-fantasy viewpoint".

As prove: Battler saw Kinzo at the end of EP2. Kinzo is dead at the starting time of all games.

Ok... if i have to answer it myself i have 2 theories about this:

1. He was drunk and hallucinating.

2. He died by alcohol-poisoning and everything he saw at the end was META.

But both somehow seem strange...

AuraTwilight

2012-01-18, 17:53

You're forgetting that that scene took place after the end of the game. At that point, Magic and Illusions consumes the island.

LyricalAura

2012-01-18, 18:07

LyricalAura

2012-01-18, 18:12

jjblue1

2012-01-18, 18:19

You're forgetting that that scene took place after the end of the game. At that point, Magic and Illusions consumes the island.

The problem with this is that piece!Genji joined piece!Battler before midnight:

Sun, Oct 5 1986 11:30PM

and the talk he had with him didn't seem to last half a hour, so unless the bomb exploded earlier, the game was still supposed to go on for half a hour.

So my best explanation for Battler meeting Kinzo and Beato is that he was completely drunk and out of it. That or Rosa killed him while we weren't looking.

Toku

2012-01-18, 18:50

Um. Quick question. Does anyone happen to remember exactly what part of EP6 I'm remembering here?
And I'm absolutely certain that BATTLER said something to this effect in EP6 to Chick!Beato when she asked him a question (I don't remember what the question was though):
"I won't tell you. Because the old you would have known it, and I'm hoping you can remember it on your own. So let me believe for just a little longer..."

...Because I can't find it.

How? At no point has the Reader ever created a Fantasy that wasn't already present in the story.

On top of that, Readers as a concept didn't even exist in EP5. What Battler is saying here is that since there are multiple perspectives in the story, and that only one of those perspectives is reliable, we have a narrative that contradicts objective observation, something present in most all other mystery stories regardless of any such "reader".

Hm... But if that's the case, then why is "a game board without a Reader" treated the same as "a game without any changes or embellishments, with no tricks played on the one hearing the story"?

If the two are the same, then in order to have a Fantasy side of the story, one must have a Reader.

Not only that, but Battler, who reads mystery genre stories all the time, said clearly in my quote that, on the contrary, the constant premise of the mystery genre is that it must be told from the impartial, objective perspective of God. And you just said that it's the complete opposite. I've never read too many mystery genre stories though, so actually, I don't have any idea which it is. It would be pretty weird if Battler was just totally and completely wrong though...

Ok, so not only can we see the pattern, but I think we can now see exactly *what* the thing was that changed the innocent Beatrice we saw in early EP7 to the angry one in EP1-2. I mean beyond just that Battler wasn't there for her.

I'm tempted to think this is what he meant by Without Love It Cannot Be Seen. If you don't gain an understanding of Yasu, you'd just conclude that she's crazy or psycho and nothing would make sense. But if you understood her inability to express her rage except only through Beatrice, because she has this particular problem, then it makes sense. Not that her actions are right, but that you understand the mentality of screaming something like, "Stop it or else I'll shoot!"

That may just be me being conceited though, I'm not 100% sure on that Love phrase. 8)

The reason I don't yet accept this is because I don't believe Yasu killed anyone in Prime. But, I suppose it's viable.

What do you mean by exactly what the thing was that changed her, though? I don't think we're quite on the same page there.

She is his Aunt *and* Cousin, as they sometimes say in the stereotypical Deep South. Happy Fun Cyclic Family Tree time here... 8)

True. Well, if the aunt is only one year older than you though, I don't think it's that terrible.

jjblue1

2012-01-18, 18:51

Yes, we do, because Piece!Erika is fully aware of the Meta-World and uses out-of-Game knowledge constantly. No other character on Rokkenjima can do this outside of a Fantasy scene.

The fact that piece!Erika sometimes seem aware of the meta world and of the meta knowledge cannot confirm she's always aware of what's going on there.
In that specifical istance is even more difficult as we don't know if Meta!Erika was present. She wasn't there when Meta!Battler witnessed the scene and, in the beginning, it was Bern that played with Lambda in the meta world and Bern likes to bully Erika.

Kanon and Shannon also have meta knowledge.
Piece!Battler has moments in which he seems to be connected to Meta!Battler following his directions and echoing his words as if the two were one and the same and moments in which he's completely disconnected by it.

So as far as I'm involved yours is just a theory with circumstancial evidence that clashes with circumstancial evidence she might not be aware of it.

From an objective point of view I'll say they both have a 50% possibility to be true or wrong and the sides of the scales are tipped merely due to our personal preferences.

Let's call it a draw...

Erika also has superhuman senses and other abilities that Battler was not afforded, such as the ability to invoke Red Truth on the Gameboard in order to control the actions of other Pieces.

Wait, can you tell me what are you talking about? Because I remember in the trial she had to prove all her red truths with human means...

Evidence and Proof are different concepts. Proof is absolute and certain; Evidence just strongly suggests it. (An example of evidence would be something like finding a tattered piece of someone's clothing covered in blood. Evidence that something bad happened to them but not PROOF).

Then I gave you evidence how it's possible piece!Erika worked in a certain way.

Yea, and no one comments on Jessica being blonde, either. The appearances of the characters don't actually matter and effectively do not exist within the narrative unless it becomes important. Hell, Ryukishi has even said in an interview that characters don't drip wet when they come in from the rain because it "Wasn't important."

Well, maybe it's just a personal opinion but I deem pretty important the fact that Shannon and Kanon have exectly the same face. But yes, Ryukishi has a odd idea about what's important and what's not. Evidently realism isn't included in the important things... -_- ... though I seem to remember he also said Umineko is a logic game... and sometimes logic games can care less about realism...

AuraTwilight

2012-01-18, 19:25

Are you sure about that? If I recall correctly, it was 11:45 when Genji came to get Battler, and I doubt it took 15 minutes to get upstairs.

Maybe Battler didn't wake up at all, and the end sequence up to midnight was filled in as a dream, like Maria's dream of killing Rosa in EP4.

I'm of the opinion he never woke up, because Shannon had killed herself and Kinzo was dead the whole time. So why in the fuck would Genji summon Battler up to that room?

AuraTwilight

2012-01-18, 19:40

Hm... But if that's the case, then why is "a game board without a Reader" treated the same as "a game without any changes or embellishments, with no tricks played on the one hearing the story"?

Comedy "Because Bern is an ass"

But yea, I've said before that embellishments can distort and change what the audience perceives without altering information. Tricks do not have to constitute false information and I wish people would bother to acknowledge that point instead of ignoring it.

If the two are the same, then in order to have a Fantasy side of the story, one must have a Reader.

Yea, well, they're not. This was demonstrated at the same time the concept of Readers was introduced.

Not only that, but Battler, who reads mystery genre stories all the time, said clearly in my quote that, on the contrary, the constant premise of the mystery genre is that it must be told from the impartial, objective perspective of God. And you just said that it's the complete opposite. I've never read too many mystery genre stories though, so actually, I don't have any idea which it is. It would be pretty weird if Battler was just totally and completely wrong though...

What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing. I'm agreeing with Battler but disagreeing on where you're taking that information.

I'm positing that Umineko is genuinely, objectively different from other Mysteries in that it contains non-objective viewpoints and lying points of view, and this is completely irrelevant of a Reader's possible influence.

The fact that piece!Erika sometimes seem aware of the meta world and of the meta knowledge cannot confirm she's always aware of what's going on there.

And yet, there has absolutely been no demonstrated point where Meta!Erika and Piece!Erika have ever had this sort of disconnect, so why should we even bother to entertain the idea? It's just as completely unsupported and silly as "Ange was on the island the whole time and killed everyone."

Kanon and Shannon also have meta knowledge.

Only in Fantasy scenes, and in Fantasy scenes, any character can know any damn thing the author wants, including Kyrie insinuating that Lambdadelta is her master.

Piece!Battler has moments in which he seems to be connected to Meta!Battler following his directions and echoing his words as if the two were one and the same and moments in which he's completely disconnected by it.

Piece!Battler has never broken the 4th Wall by commenting on Meta-phenomena by name, speaking with Meta-Entities while on the Gameboard, discussing and using Red Truth and Blue Truth, or otherwise breaking the very basis of the narrative's suspension of disbelief. Battler and Erika are not the slightest bit comparable.

So as far as I'm involved yours is just a theory with circumstancial evidence that clashes with circumstancial evidence she might not be aware of it.

From an objective point of view I'll say they both have a 50% possibility to be true or wrong and the sides of the scales are tipped merely due to our personal preferences.

Let's call it a draw...

Except you have not given me a single scrap of evidence that at all implies that Erika has ever had a disconnect of information between any of her selves. You have only demonstrated that such is the case for other characters, who do not function the same way Erika does.

This is not a draw in any sense. You have provided no evidence.

Wait, can you tell me what are you talking about? Because I remember in the trial she had to prove all her red truths with human means...

Bossing around people with the Red Truth is something she did quite a few times. Remember the First Twilight of Episode Five?

Well, maybe it's just a personal opinion but I deem pretty important the fact that Shannon and Kanon have exectly the same face. But yes, Ryukishi has a odd idea about what's important and what's not. Evidently realism isn't included in the important things... -_- ... though I seem to remember he also said Umineko is a logic game... and sometimes logic games can care less about realism...

I think we can safely disregard the importance of realism in Umineko the second Meta-shenanigans got introduced. Realism has absolutely no place in the world of meta-fiction.

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 19:59

@Kylon:

Your theory reminded me of something in another novel I read recently.
One of the characters in Kokoro Connect grew up with a single mother who had a string of abusive boyfriends. To protect herself, she learned to put on completely different personas according to who she was with in order to keep them happy, but as a result she lost all sense of having a core identity outside of her physical appearance and her acting ability. When that physical identity was also undermined by events in the story, she had a complete nervous breakdown because she couldn't tell who she was anymore, and she started desperately relying on one of the other characters to act as her anchor.
If you start from the premise that Yasu had this kind of problem, and then she received the additional shock to her perceived identity from Genji etc.'s revelations, then I think a similar sort of breakdown and seeking for someone to tell her who she's supposed to be is not out of the question.

That said, I don't really feel comfortable ascribing mental health problems to Yasu to explain the murders because I don't think she planned to commit any in the first place.

Hmm, that's very interesting about that other story. Certainly there are probably other ways to develop into this same situation. However, I'm not saying that this has to be a psychological or mental health problem, but I'm leaning more towards a physiological problem with the brain stem. This is only because I was watching a TED video about recent findings of the interaction between the brain stem and the cortex, where, as I said before: "damage to the periaqueductal gray area of the brain stem" results in loss of consciousness. (TED video at around 11:57 ... http://www.ted.com/talks/antonio_damasio_the_quest_to_understand_consciousn ess.html ) Maybe in Yasu's case it was some kind of partial damage. And it seemed there also exists psychological conditions where people feel they are losing their self.

Note that none of this suggests that she is driven to murder by some kind of psychosis or mental illness; just that she's realizing how disabled she is for the first time in her life. The post prior to that post of my theory talks about how people become suicidally depressive after similar or even lighter (like in Battler's case) brain damage. So she would be driven to murder through 3 years of real despair, a real sense of loss and tragedy that she only realized when she thought she had gained everything.

And I think the key is that, if then she cannot express these emotions, since to her, 'she' does not exist, then she can't express her happiness or anger, except through her personas. (But of course this tragedy didn't happen to her personas; Shannon, Beatrice, nothing like being thrown off a cliff by your mother happened to them. It's this non-entity Yasu that suffered the tragedy, and yet this Yasu has the inability to express it.) And so it is Beatrice that expresses all the anger and Shannon expresses all the love. And Kanon all the pessimisim; he always gets the short end of the stick, poor guy... :heh:

Anyways, I'm not 100% clear on how this developed, but I'm starting to feel certain that she lacks the ability to actually have a self. More below...

What do you mean by exactly what the thing was that changed her, though? I don't think we're quite on the same page there.

Just what I mentioned above... that she never really had a self but didn't realize this until she inherited the Gold and the legacy. While she had been happily living out her dreams through her personas before, she was told where she came from by Gensawajo and what she had lost. Personally, I wouldn't deal with it in such a way, but I can imagine for some people the sense of realizing what you have lost, or what you could never have in the way normal people can can be devastating. Like being told that you lost your legs, but worse. Basically in the post prior to the link I have, I indicated how suicidally depressive people who have had brain injuries can become.

And also, I've been discussing this with some friends and it just seems to answer more and more things. Or at least it provides a concrete way of viewing things:

Like look at this discussion that George and the cousins are having about Maria and her dual personalities. (This is from Judoh's George Culprit theory.)
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/2139/georgepoint3.jpg

Now, since Yasu was writing this episode, imagine it's not the cousins having this discussion... because it most likely is not since it's written. Imagine this is all Yasu working out her identity problem. 8) This is the Pessmisitc, Self-Deprecating Adult Yasu talking, that learned of her disability and is now looking down at the child-like naive Yasu that she used to be mere months before. At least if you keep in mind my theory while reading it, it totally reads like it.

Other stuff keeps fitting too. Genji had an eagle too but I assume this was Kinzo's doing. So why did Shannon and Kanon have eagles? If Shkannon was truly a trick that Yasu was intent on hiding, putting eagles on those two would have been a dead giveaway! Yet the eagles are there. Why? Because in the end they are not mere roles she was playing. They, along with Beatrice are considered by her to be *real* parts of her, not some mask. (Discardable roles would be like the Man From 19 Years Ago.) So, my opinion is that she could not not put eagles on them; it would be like if she didn't put an eagle on herself after being the head of the family. (But she can't put an eagle on herself, because there is no herself.)

I'm talking about Shkannon wearing eagles in the stories of course. I have no idea about Rokkenjima Prime. 8)
Basically it's a dead giveaway in the story that she could not not have placed out there; it would be similar to us disrespecting ourselves.

I'm about 60% sure on this last one. 8) But at the very least, I'm starting to think she views Shannon and Kanon not as discardable as we thought them to be. And if she is so serious about Shannon and Kanon though, I could imagine when she DID discard them, it would be like cutting off a limb. That limb effectively dies. It is literally death of a piece of her.

Anyways, it's an idea that I think has merit and seems to provide answers. The mechanics of the physiological brain damage or psychological problem I haven't fully worked out, yet. But this truly feels like The Answer, and that almost all the dialogue and scenes in the game were about it. And I am seriously seeing why Ryukishi wouldn't want to just fart it all out at the end like the end of Psycho the movie where some psychologist comes out and explains it all to the audience in a soliloquy. (I guess 1960's audiences were more accepting of something like that.)

Kylon99

2012-01-18, 20:29

Sorry, double post again. 8) I'll try not to triple post.... but the thoughts are coming fast now. These are all consequences if the story and Yasu if Yasu truly has a problem with self identity.

Why can't Yasu leave the island? Which of her personas can leave the island? Well, Kanon can and Shannon can. But Beatrice cannot leave the island, since her myth is closely tied to it. The other two can leave for awhile but to leave permanently to go after Battler or George means to rip away Beatrice.

To us normal people it feels like we're just going to give up pretending. But to someone with no self identity it's like sawing off a limb.

Which she DOES, when she decides in EP6. (Or Tooya imagines this for her.) Imagine the pain of doing this for her if it was real.

More... this is just an interesting thought experiment:

Imagine you living your life. You wake up, you get some toast, you go walk the dog. Now imagine how Yasu lives it. Just WHO wakes up? Then who eats the toast? Who walks the dog? You can't live your life as a non-entity doing these things, it makes no sense to your brain. So you start making up the who, because there cannot logically be a no-one who did all those things.

Etc., etc... Anyways.. I'll shut up now. 8)

jjblue1

2012-01-18, 20:42

Not only that, but Battler, who reads mystery genre stories all the time, said clearly in my quote that, on the contrary, the constant premise of the mystery genre is that it must be told from the impartial, objective perspective of God. And you just said that it's the complete opposite. I've never read too many mystery genre stories though, so actually, I don't have any idea which it is. It would be pretty weird if Battler was just totally and completely wrong though...

Well, there are many mysteries that are told by the perspective of God and some who simply aren't.
To make two Christie's examples that are mentioned in Umineko:
"And then there were none" is narrated through the eyes of God, while "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" has a totally unreliable narrator.

I think it's more common mysteries are told with the perspective of God... or, when they aren't, at least you get hints the perspective isn't necessary reliable.

(You get hints the scene described is merely 'what others told someone else it happened' and so they might have lied and the description might be unreliable)

True. Well, if the aunt is only one year older than you though, I don't think it's that terrible.

I think in Japan is okay if you commit incest with a cousin but it's not if you commit it with a aunt... so there could be a problem here...

And yet, there has absolutely been no demonstrated point where Meta!Erika and Piece!Erika have ever had this sort of disconnect, so why should we even bother to entertain the idea? It's just as completely unsupported and silly as "Ange was on the island the whole time and killed everyone."

Listen, if you don't agree with me, that's fine for me but I'd apprecciate if you wouldn't tell me that we shouldn't even bother to entertain an idea or that it's silly, just to name the first two things that came up in your first two periods of your answer to me.
It makes hard to keep on talking with you when you do this.

The problem with that is that ...

How I see things:

- To prove that Erika knew everyone was in the parlour she should have heard it. She wasn't there when Lambda told it to Battler. We don't know if she was there the first time the scene was played, if Lambda told it the first time the scene was played and, in case Lambda told it and Erika wasn't there, if Bern informed Erika of this.

- the scene is played as following:
1) Genji knocks at the door, Erika enters in the parlour, Shannon and Kumasawa are following her. In the parlour there should be the siblings (the cousins aren't there yet and the text doesn't mention Nanjo, Gohda or Kanon). Erika is introduced to Krauss. She's likely aware of who's in the parlour and possibly where and likely can feel Shannon and Kumasawa behind her but of course NOT EVERYONE IS ON THE PARLOUR right now.

2) MetaBattler stops the game and asks for clarification about Erika

"Repeat it. ......'Furudo Erika had no influence on any of Beato's games before now'."

"Sure, I'll respond. Furudo Erika had no influence on any of Beato's games before now. She's nothing more than an extra character who appears for the first time this round. She does not exist in the worlds before this one, nor does she influence them."

"In that case, what happens to the number of people on this island right now?"

"Of course, it's plus 1 over the previous number. But don't worry. Furudo Erika only increases it by one person. Besides her, the number of people on this island is exactly the same as it was in the previous games."

As Bern made the detective proclamation (and likely she made it in the previous time in which this scene was played as well) I think she was aware that Erika couldn't affect the game board so I've no idea if she bothered checking the effect Erika might have on the game board.

3) The cousins jons the others in the parlours and Erika is introduced to them. They exchange some words which likely means Erika is looking at them while talking to them.

4) Meta discussion goes on while Erika is still talking with the cousins

"......Isn't that convenient. This way, the number of people is clear. The people in the guesthouse have joined up with the rest, and now, all of the pieces except for Kinzo...all of the humans, have gathered in the parlor."

"Looks like it. In other words, the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island."

"There were supposedly 18 people on the island, ...but since Grandfather was actually dead, that became 17. ......And now one piece of Bernkastel's has been added......"

The number of humans on this island has returned to 18......

5) The we've this:
'I' glanced around at the humans in the parlor.
I'll assume I refers to piece!Battler. What follows is the description of where everyone is:

The guest, Furudo Erika. And behind her, Kumasawa-san and Shannon-chan. Off to the side was Genji-san.
Krauss oji-san and Natsuhi oba-san were welcoming the guest.
Gohda-san immediately started showing off, and Kanon-kun was being unsociable, wearing his usual blank expression.
There was Dad and Kyrie-san. Eva oba-san and Hideyoshi oji-san. Rosa oba-san and Maria. And, Doctor Nanjo.
Then, on either side of me, were George-aniki and Jessica...
This is everyone. The true number of people on the island at the moment......

... while Erika is still talking with the cousins with a dignified and appropriate behaviour.

By this description we have that when the proclamation 'everyone is in the parlour was done' piece!Erika was busy talking with the cousins and looking at them with a dignified behaviour so she couldn't really turn her gaze all around the room. We know for sure that Kumasawa and Shannon were behind her so out of her field of vision. We don't know who else she could see apart from the cousins so more people could have been out of her field of vision.

In short, in the moment that red was said piece!Erika's perspective of the people in the room was limited and remained limited for a certain period.
The narration doesn't tell us when she quit talking to the cousins and was free to look around. It's possible she never managed to do it or that she could do it only after 'the servants left the parlour'.

Checking the number of people on Rokkenjima is important for Battler who hopes to find an extra person. Bern knows there's no such thing and wants to frame one of the Ushiromiya. Ergo Erika might have never cared to check if people were actually less than what the story implied in EP 5 so piece!Erika and meta!Erika never bother to confirm if Erika could see everyone in Ep 5.

The best Erika's photographic memory could tell her is maybe she hadn't seen Kanon entering before the cousins entered or with them, however she's short and Kanon is short as well and George and Battler might have been blocking her view (and as a servant Kanon had to enter after them). For all we know she might not have seen Gohda entering either.
As long as Shannon used the moment in which Erika was busy talking with the cousins to leave, change into Kanon's clothes, show up for a second in order to have Erika catch a glimpse of Kanon, the scene isn't that suspicious... expecially if you've no plans to check how many people there are in the room.

The scene with everyone present in the parlour is described by Battler who's interested in checking if everyone is there so it can include either Shannon or Kanon. If Meta!Erika saw it, it likely was through piece!Battler's eyes in the same way as she likely saw piece!Battler meeting piece!Kinzo.
In short, while everythng in piece!Erika's view was real, everything that wasn't was merely a fantasy scene.
The 'Battler met Kinzo while Erika has her back turned' scene was showed even when the game was played the first time so I guess Erika had again her back turned while Kanon and Shannon were shown together.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-18, 20:45

Listen, if you don't agree with me, that's fine for me but I'd apprecciate if you wouldn't tell me that we shouldn't even bother to entertain an idea or that it's silly, just to name the first two things that came up in your first two periods of your answer to me.
It makes hard to keep on talking with you when you do this.

There's magnitudes of difference between "We shouldn't entertain an idea" and "This idea has nothing supporting it."

I specifically used the idea because I entertained Ange Culprit Theory.

Wanderer

2012-01-19, 05:55

~~~

I haven't commented on it until now, but all this psychology stuff has been very interesting.

So, I was thinking about how strange a coincidence it was that Battler got such a similar form of brain damage as Yasu. Then I wondered if maybe it wasn't a coincidence. What if Ikuko was Yasu and she somehow inflicted it on Battler on purpose? What if Battler wasn't even a victim but volunteered to become that way?

Pretty ridiculous, I know, but it actually makes a lot of things... fit.

Anyway, just some wild speculation...

The "No Reader = No Falsehoods" thing is complete bullshit if only on the grounds that Bern's Game totally has falsehoods.

Toku already pointed out your error here before I could, so it's your move on this one.

Tools-Who-Are-Not-Persons do not have a subjective viewpoint with which to corrupt and distort the telling of a story.

What a tool does is determined by the tool's user, who has a subjective viewpoint.

And you are choosing to interpret "distort" in a very specific, unsupported, and personally preferred way that isn't even metaphorically analogous to how readers work in every other medium of life and fiction, which is a direct contrast to how you argue the usage of terms such as Piece, Player, Gameboard, and the like.

You are technically right that a reader could "distort" a story without changing the text. However, this leg of my argument is mostly about the attitudes of all the characters in the discussion. The fact that Bern is not using a Reader comes as a big surprise to all. Lambdadelta seems alarmed; she seems to think it makes Bern practically defenseless; Battler seems exited by Bern's head-on challenge. If all a Reader does is emphasize certain words and sound effects with their voice then considering the voiceless format of Umineko why the hell is so much attention drawn to a Reader's potential effect on a story? Why do they care so much? Why should we care? Is Bern afraid of a few extra commas and dot-dot-dots added to the written text we read?

The terms point is a fair one, but I believe that's RK07's double standard, not mine. He has likened reading and writing to a competitive game between reader and writer before.

Totes did that, see above.

Who is Totes?
Okay, except... none of that has anything to do with your theory. Your theory is about Readers, which don't exist in the "game" scenarios. There is no indication that the "distortions" applied by a Reader, even if able to misrepresent the very character of the story to an individual who has supernatural confirmation abilities and a perspective present in the actual story - please stop dodging that, it's getting aggravating, address it - apply in any way to the Game Master/Player dynamic.

But Readers, whatever they may be, seem to have affected the narration of every story except Bern's game and maybe Our Confessions. They can be either the Game Master or Player, or alternatively they could be some vague invisible 3rd party, which, based off of some of your earlier criticisms, I imagine you would find unpalatable.

Saying "she assumed they were separate so it was depicted that they are even though her piece would not have seen that" is something which has never happened during a game. Battler made a lot of false assumptions in ep1-4, but they didn't suddenly become true because he did so. We know this because we have independent confirmation.

But those assumptions were often depicted as true. Suppose the "assumption" mechanic I am suggesting helps create the scenes that depict something false. To put it another way, the "assumption" mechanic plays a part in unreliable narration.

For example, Battler assumes the chapel is locked in ep2. He never actually confirms that it isn't. By your reasoning, the chapel became locked as a result, or would have actually been locked on a replay of the same events to an observer of the game. Except Will says the answer is "it wasn't locked" (in so many words)

The chapel would, and did, become locked on the Game Board, but The Truth is that it was never locked. This is because what happens on the Game Board is not necessarily The Truth.

. And Our Confessions makes clear that Beatrice has intended solutions to each of her tricks. So even though Battler can interact in some way and she can improvise in some way, she can't make the chapel suddenly be locked if the whole trick was "make a big show of giving the key to Maria, then don't actually lock the chapel door." The chapel door will never be locked, Shannon's body will never be in the ep1 shed, and if the adults posted a guard at every room they checked in ep3's First Twilight Kanon would never be found in the chapel. The only difference is whether Battler actually confirms it by being present through his piece and doing something.

Game Boards aren't static. They are worlds shaped by embellishment and interpretation. The creation of a Game Board starts off with a set of certain facts (mystery-related events) that comprise an incomplete story then embellishments and interpretation (fantasy, unreliable narration) are incorporated to fill in the rest and form a complete story. Thus, some things that happen on the Game Board are The Truth; some things aren't.

Jan-Poo

2012-01-19, 12:04

The chapel would, and did, become locked on the Game Board, but The Truth is that it was never locked. This is because what happens on the Game Board is not necessarily The Truth.

The truth of... what? There is no truth relevant to the game outside of the truth of the gameboard.

jjblue1

2012-01-19, 12:15

I'm of the opinion he never woke up, because Shannon had killed herself and Kinzo was dead the whole time. So why in the fuck would Genji summon Battler up to that room?

In an interview Ryukishi said this:

K That was really interesting right now. From the beginning of the depiction of magical events within the story, there were many scenes were golden butterflies appeared in front of the people. Latching on to Rosa’s back, Genji throwing a knife at one, I always thought that this was to show when something illusionary is depicted, but what would you say?

R It’s almost that meaning. To just come out and say it, there are no golden butterflies. When somebody starts seeing them, he is starting to go insane.

So I wonder if Genji was insane and brought a drunk Battler to an empty room (Genji might have figured out Yasu had turned the game into a massacre and feel so much regret for having been unable to anticipate it that this is the result). Drunkness and Genji's words caused Battler to 'see' Beato and Kinzo.

Though it's also possible Battler never woke up.

Personally I think EP 2 is pretty unclear about this.

The only thing that seems to be pretty secure is that Battler was drunk so 'goodbye reliable point of view'...

jjblue1

2012-01-19, 13:20

In Ep 5 Battler says:

Also, at the end of the 1st game, it was revealed that this tale was passed on to people in the future by that message bottle.

......Someone had written about this crime...this tale.

In other words, ......this tale is all part of a world which includes the personal opinions of an observer, namely, the person who wrote that message in a bottle.

In other words, the observer isn't God.
It's a human.

Therefore, there's no guarantee that this description is truly impartial.

By the end of the 1st game, it had already been made clear that we've broken the constant premise of the mystery genre: that the story itself must be seen through the eyes of God.

For that reason, it's possible to doubt even the observer, as well as the witnesses.

He doesn't really talk about someone reading the tale to him... but of someone 'reading the facts in a certain way and writing them down in a tale he... read? witnessed? was read about?'.

And in Ep 6:

"Be an observer for me. An observer of the Fragments Beatrice has woven."

"An observer...? I don't really know what you mean, but no deal."

"In the past, I observed the Fragments through Battler's eyes. ......However, now that he has succeeded the position of Game Master, he is not a suitable observer. I am following this tale with true and earnest intentions. It would be such a waste to observe it through the eyes of Battler as he is now, like reading a detective novel backwards..."

"......Onii-chan is the Game Master?? What on Earth are you talking about?"

"Of course you don't know. You want to know, don't you? ......I too wish to know something. What kind of tale will Battler weave now that he has taken the position of Game Master? ...Furthermore, I wish to search for the truth Battler reached as part of my own mental journey. .........My illness affects me gravely. If I do not think, I cannot even keep my heart beating..."

".........So, ...you want me to read your new picture book aloud to you...?"

"You might as well interpret it that way. In exchange, you will also be able to take part in your own journey of the mind. I do believe that even you have yet to reach the truth. .........I think you want to continue on the journey to find that truth."

So, although Ange is supposed to be a reader, she's called in to observe, to read a 'picture book' for Featherine. The fact she is 'observing' the tale comes up more than once in other parts of EP 6.

When reading text the amount of interpretation we can add is pretty minimal and it will influence mostly the tone with which the quotes from the characters are read and we don't really observe things... we just read them and, at best, we picture them in our mind.

However if what we're supposed to read is... let's say a manga to a person who's not going to watch the scene drawn, we've to describe them using our words. In this way we can influence the plot a lot more.

If the 'reading' Ange is doing is some sort of 'meta' reading, in short it can be in the meta world the tale is being 'seen' by her and she narrates her interpretation of what she sees to Featherine. That's her 'reading' and that's how she can influence the reading. She can't really change the plot of what she's seeing but she's telling Featherine the story using her own words.

And yes, this would mean Umineko basically instead than using 'reader' with the usual meaning of 'person who read a written text' used it with the meaning of 'person who read a situation (and then reports it according to his own interpretation to another)'.

Note that Featherine said she was 'watching the stories' through Battler's eyes and that it was made clear in EP 3 that Battler was called to give his own interpretation of the story (remember the discussion between him and Beato about the magic battle between Beato and Virgilia?), so maybe in a fashion, Beato was being the reader for Battler, as she gave him a fantasy interpretation of facts, and Battler was also a reader, as he gave facts his own interpretation.

... and this is just a newborn theory so it can have holes.

Also...

It was hard to actually like this Hachijo Tohya person.
......However, though this forgery she had written was still in its first stages, ...it definitely felt as though it had something very similar to the tales in those message bottles.
Speaking metaphorically, ......one might call it a scent.
An indescribable stern atmosphere, ......like a stuffy library.
The 'Beatrice' who wrote the message bottles and Hachijo Tohya are different people.
......And yet, this has the same scent as that tale...
......I see.
This is why some of those curious Witch Hunters are so intensely devoted to her...
Their keen sense of smell was able to sniff out that familiar scent......

(...)

Amakusa badgered me to turn the page, ......so I returned to the world of the tale once more.
......Why does her tale have the same scent as Beatrice's, I wonder...
Is it because......she actually has reached the truth, as she claims?
Does this mean that anyone who knows the truth could create an endless number of message bottles?
......Is that what the cat box world is like...?
I see. ......I guess she might also be an Endless Witch.
In fact, ......maybe anyone who knows the truth can become an Endless Witch.
An endless tale, created by the Endless Witches.
The two days starting on October 4, 1986, where my family is being toyed with endlessly.

Ange's explanation about the common scents might be the truth of course... but in a mystery doesn't the Watson's suggestions exist to depiste the reader?
So can this be a hint that Featherine is also one of Yasu's personas?
Or is it just a read herring?

GreyZone

2012-01-19, 15:07

The only thing that seems to be pretty secure is that Battler was drunk so 'goodbye reliable point of view'...

Hmm in EP4 Battler was also drunk, but his viewpoint was still reliable and he could investigate... well aside from the Beatrice, he saw at 23:59 when he was standing next to the Beatrice picture in the hall... or was it 00:00 already?

jjblue1

2012-01-19, 15:42

Hmm in EP4 Battler was also drunk, but his viewpoint was still reliable and he could investigate... well aside from the Beatrice, he saw at 23:59 when he was standing next to the Beatrice picture in the hall... or was it 00:00 already?

In EP 4 Battler got drunk after he investigated so there's no problem with his point of view.

Also in EP 4:

......When I exited the kitchen and passed through the lobby, .........that portrait of the witch came into view.
The big clock did too.
......It was almost exactly 24:00.
Then, the sound of the bell rang out, proclaiming that it was 24:00......
As I listened, ......I looked up at Beatrice's portrait.
Exactly 24 hours ago, I met you.
What were you trying to say...?
And where did you go?
Just who in the world are you.........?
Golden Witch, Beatrice.
I haven't solved a single one of the riddles surrounding you......!
Show yourself...
.........And fight with me...!!
Then, ......the witch showed herself.
Like a guest of honor finally appearing, she showed herself on the landing at the top of the big staircase......

So Beato showed up after midnight.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-19, 16:04

Toku already pointed out your error here before I could, so it's your move on this one.

Well, if I wanted to be a jerk I could argue that "falsehoods" was never defined as fantasy scenes, and it could and should mean falsehoods from the characters too. It's just as flimsy as this currently proposed definition of a Reader's powers, which is based on next to nothing.

Or are people going to engage in Special Pleading again?

What a tool does is determined by the tool's user, who has a subjective viewpoint.

And Bern says she didn't get to do any Gamemastering, which implies she didn't get to write any narratives or anything. Clair is clearly channeling Yasu, who most definitely came up with these fantasy embellishments herself because....seriously, it's Yasu.

If Clair is just repeating what Yasu came up with, in what way is Clair embellishing it?

And how can a Reader embellish a story if they do not have a personality or soul? She's basically a Kindle.

You are technically right that a reader could "distort" a story without changing the text. However, this leg of my argument is mostly about the attitudes of all the characters in the discussion. The fact that Bern is not using a Reader comes as a big surprise to all. Lambdadelta seems alarmed; she seems to think it makes Bern practically defenseless; Battler seems exited by Bern's head-on challenge. If all a Reader does is emphasize certain words and sound effects with their voice then considering the voiceless format of Umineko why the hell is so much attention drawn to a Reader's potential effect on a story? Why do they care so much? Why should we care? Is Bern afraid of a few extra commas and dot-dot-dots added to the written text we read?

This isn't a very compelling argument because this isn't nowhere near the first or even most significant thing Ryukishi's drawn attention to with big reactions from the characters that didn't lead anywhere or really mean anything.

But to attack the actual point, bear in mind that what tripped people up most wasn't the Fantasy Scenes, but the minor embellishments, such as a TIPS not being updated until Battler arrives, thus obscuring the time of death forever.

The terms point is a fair one, but I believe that's RK07's double standard, not mine. He has likened reading and writing to a competitive game between reader and writer before.

He's also compared it to a love letter, and said that if one must choose between the two interpretations, the 'game' one is less accurate. And I don't know how many love letters you've gotten, but you don't put a shitton of falsehoods in there.

Who is Totes?

Totes = Totally, sorry. ^_^;

Game Boards aren't static. They are worlds shaped by embellishment and interpretation. The creation of a Game Board starts off with a set of certain facts (mystery-related events) that comprise an incomplete story then embellishments and interpretation (fantasy, unreliable narration) are incorporated to fill in the rest and form a complete story. Thus, some things that happen on the Game Board are The Truth; some things aren't.

The Red Truth is Simply the Truth. The Truth cannot be escaped from. The Truth cannot be avoided. And, in the words of a great many philosophers, 'Truth is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.'

Ange's explanation about the common scents might be the truth of course... but in a mystery doesn't the Watson's suggestions exist to depiste the reader?
So can this be a hint that Featherine is also one of Yasu's personas?
Or is it just a read herring?

It was definitely foreshadowing that Toya had a legitimate connection to Rokkenjima, which she does (Battler, who is the actual writer).

AuraTwilight

2012-01-19, 16:06

In an interview Ryukishi said this:

No offense, but I've stopped caring what Ryukishi had to say almost a year ago.

Hmm in EP4 Battler was also drunk, but his viewpoint was still reliable and he could investigate... well aside from the Beatrice, he saw at 23:59 when he was standing next to the Beatrice picture in the hall... or was it 00:00 already?

It was 00:00. Though I'll note that when EP4 Battler started investigating, he had already stopped drinking and might have gotten over it.

Toku

2012-01-19, 16:20

No offense, but I've stopped caring what Ryukishi had to say almost a year ago.

Well then. There's completely no point to you being in Umineko discussions if you no longer respect the author of the story.

You used one of the TIPS to argue your point a bit ago, and I'm pretty sure you said something like "if you disagree with this, then you're disagreeing with Ryukishi."

You sure seemed to accept that the text in that TIP was the truth though...

SonozakiUshiromiya

2012-01-19, 17:52

jjblue1

2012-01-19, 18:11

Well hold on, we can still use the text even if the author makes up stuff on the spot. Would you agree with everything Nasu's said about his works? Or the opinions of Jhonen Vasquez? AT can't be reasonably blamed if R07 took a solid theory which a lot of us used in our reasoning and tossed it for bull feces. Why reason at all if every hurdle could be solved with "LOLinsanity"?! We might as well just copy-paste the facts and leave only the surface interpretations. We'll be EP7 Tea Party!Kyrie. Intelligent, analytical looking morons tripping over ourselves since we can't even try to make an unfavorable situation work in our advantage in the long haul. I don't want that. So to hell with R07's after-the-fact crap sandwich. I'll take the possibly non-ridiculously interpretable text soup with a side of reasoning toast, thankyouverymuch.jpg.

I don't think it's a matter of blaming someone. However I fear the goal of who wants to find the solution Ryukishi thought and the goal of who wants to solve Umineko with a solution that will fit his tastes might not match, which create problems in discussing things instead than smoothing the reasoning process because each of us will give his own suggestions.

LyricalAura

2012-01-19, 18:17

jjblue1

2012-01-19, 18:24

Toku

2012-01-19, 18:33

Well hold on, we can still use the text even if the author makes up stuff on the spot. Would you agree with everything Nasu's said about his works? Or the opinions of Jhonen Vasquez? AT can't be reasonably blamed if R07 took a solid theory which a lot of us used in our reasoning and tossed it for bull feces. Why reason at all if every hurdle could be solved with "LOLinsanity"?! We might as well just copy-paste the facts and leave only the surface interpretations. We'll be EP7 Tea Party!Kyrie. Intelligent, analytical looking morons tripping over ourselves since we can't even try to make an unfavorable situation work in our advantage in the long haul. I don't want that. So to hell with R07's after-the-fact crap sandwich. I'll take the possibly non-ridiculously interpretable text soup with a side of reasoning toast, thankyouverymuch.jpg.

I don't know the details, but this sounds interesting, so could you elaborate? What exactly did Ryukishi say that tossed out a popular theory?

Wanderer

2012-01-19, 18:50

even if able to misrepresent the very character of the story to an individual who has supernatural confirmation abilities and a perspective present in the actual story - please stop dodging that, it's getting aggravating, address it.

As for the supernatural confirmation abilities, it's not something I think I have a full burden to explain because not making full use of her confirmation abilities seems to have happened regardless of explanation. Still, I'll go as far to say that I think that Erika's mind simply doesn't work in a way that could suspect ShKanon being possible- kind of like how she only thinks in terms of mystery even though ShKanon is fantasy.

As for Erika having a perspective in the actual story, I have given some evidence that a Meta-Character (as a Reader-whatever that may mean) can affect a story, which establishes that what we see is somehow edited from it's original form in a way that is not made explicitly clear to us. What I can't provide much evidence for is the exact nature of the "Reader's" effect, but if I suppose that it can cause a Player to mistake what their Piece's observations are, which I don't think is all that big of a jump, then it can answer a very central and persistent problem to Umineko. That's why I like the idea that it can.

Well, if I wanted to be a jerk I could argue that "falsehoods" was never defined as fantasy scenes, and it could and should mean falsehoods from the characters too. It's just as flimsy as this currently proposed definition of a Reader's powers, which is based on next to nothing.

Or are people going to engage in Special Pleading again?

I have no dispute with these possible interpretations as to what "falsehoods" might mean or that there are falsehoods in Bern's game. However, and Toku already pointed this out, the quote said that "no Reader"=>"no falsehoods in the narrated text." Which straitly implies that a Reader can change the narrated text.

And Bern says she didn't get to do any Gamemastering, which implies she didn't get to write any narratives or anything. Clair is clearly channeling Yasu, who most definitely came up with these fantasy embellishments herself because....seriously, it's Yasu.

If Clair is just repeating what Yasu came up with, in what way is Clair embellishing it?

And how can a Reader embellish a story if they do not have a personality or soul? She's basically a Kindle.

I tend to think that Bern technically did some Gamemastering; she just wasn't satisfied with what little she was permitted to do, so to her she may as well not have done any. And if Claire is channeling Yasu then she's channeling a subjective person. Even if it's her story to begin with, the way she tells it still matters.

Basically, I don't think there is any of the insidious kind of embellishment that we are used to, but it's not like there was a complete surgical removal of it from the story altogether either.

This isn't a very compelling argument because this isn't nowhere near the first or even most significant thing Ryukishi's drawn attention to with big reactions from the characters that didn't lead anywhere or really mean anything.

I can't think of any such examples.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-19, 19:06

Well then. There's completely no point to you being in Umineko discussions if you no longer respect the author of the story.

I respect the work in of itself. But a lot of interview statements Ryukishi made have, in my opinion, contradicted the text he wrote in his novel. It's called Death of the Author, and it's a fully legitimate form of analyzing literature. I'd like if you could refrain from being an asshole about it.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-19, 19:10

I have no dispute with these possible interpretations as to what "falsehoods" might mean or that there are falsehoods in Bern's game. However, and Toku already pointed this out, the quote said that "no Reader"=>"no falsehoods in the narrated text." Which straitly implies that a Reader can change the narrated text.

Even if we conceded that a Reader can change the narrated text, for the sake of argument, this in no way logically connects to Erika seeing Kanon when Kanon isn't physically present (which was the original argument and this Reader thing is just kind of a meaningless tangent).

I tend to think that Bern technically did some Gamemastering; she just wasn't satisfied with what little she was permitted to do, so to her she may as well not have done any. And if Claire is channeling Yasu then she's channeling a subjective person. Even if it's her story to begin with, the way she tells it still matters.

Of course YASU is subjective, but Yasu isn't the Reader, Clair is, and Clair and Yasu aren't the same entity.

See? The whole concept of Readers changing the text is so damn nebulous, vague, self-contradictory, and convoluted that I honestly don't really see much merit in the EP8 interchange. If anything it seems like something Ryukishi made up at the last minute, to me.

I can't think of any such examples.

*inserts all the hints about Kumasawa being directly connected to Kinzo's Beatrice in some way.*

Toku

2012-01-19, 19:24

*inserts all the hints about Kumasawa being directly connected to Kinzo's Beatrice in some way.*

Oh? This sounds interesting. I don't remember much of this, though. The earliest thing we know of her past, as far as I remember, is that she helped raise Beatrice II. I don't think she comes into the story at all, at any point before that.

Toku

2012-01-19, 19:28

I respect the work in of itself. But a lot of interview statements Ryukishi made have, in my opinion, contradicted the text he wrote in his novel. It's called Death of the Author, and it's a fully legitimate form of analyzing literature. I'd like if you could refrain from being an asshole about it.

I apologize. It's simply that I've seen too many people bashing both Ryukishi and all of Umineko. And since I very much respect both, I just don't like to see it, so I sometimes overreact.

What are those statements though, that you feel contradict the text in the novels?

AuraTwilight

2012-01-19, 20:57

AuraTwilight

2012-01-19, 20:58

There's several hints in the early episodes that Kumasawa wasn't as she appeared to be, to say nothing of her Fantasy counterpart, Virgilia, being the Original Beatrice.

Toku

2012-01-19, 21:06

I'd have to dig around for them specifically, but one that sticks out in his memory is a particularly sexist statement where he said that women only cared about feelings and men only cared about status.

Even though this is contradicted by characters such as Kinzo, George, Natsuhi, Eva...

Well, that looks like it's taken out of context... I think it's clear from the story, as you said, that he doesn't actually believe it. Especially when I look at Kinzo.

Toku

2012-01-19, 21:16

There's several hints in the early episodes that Kumasawa wasn't as she appeared to be, to say nothing of her Fantasy counterpart, Virgilia, being the Original Beatrice.

My memory is too vague about a lot of the early stuff, so I can't really remember...

But certainly, both her age and the title of being the original Beatrice, as well as the fact that we don't know anything about her life before Beatrice II came into the picture, leaves plenty of room for her to be Beatrice I, or someone who had a significant connection to Beatrice I. And I don't know of anything that necessarily denies this, so.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-19, 21:47

Either way, it doesn't matter; this totally isn't the thread to discuss that sort of thing. :P

AuraTwilight

2012-01-19, 21:48

Well, EP7 denies it pretty hard.

SonozakiUshiromiya

2012-01-19, 22:09

Ryuukishi did not say "When golden butterflies appear in the story, it means someone's going insane." He said "If someone were to really see golden butterflies, it would mean they're going insane." Since no one saw golden butterflies in reality there is no insanity, okay?

....-_-....*derp*Well thanks for clearing things up, LA.
@Toku
I herped and got mad over miscommunication. It's like you're going to make a PB & J sandwich, but you didn't have any PB, so you couldn't have made a PB & J. Instead of trying to figure out the truth behind the illusions, we don't really have to try thinking about anything. Instead of going with bomb theory to explain the endings for the eps, let's say at the end of Ep 2, Rosa and Maria drowned trying to swim away from the island. Battler was drunk and fell off the Beatrice cliff. Genji sat there like a robot and starved...Yeah. But I suppose this avenue is closed.

About Genji, I think he did kinda disagree with Yasu's actions, and at the end, he tried to lead a drunk Battler to Kuwadorian to repent, but failed.

Toku

2012-01-19, 22:15

....-_-....*derp*Well thanks for clearing things up, LA.
@Toku
I herped and got mad over miscommunication. It's like you're going to make a PB & J sandwich, but you didn't have any PB, so you couldn't have made a PB & J. Instead of trying to figure out the truth behind the illusions, we don't really have to try thinking about anything. Instead of going with bomb theory to explain the endings for the eps, let's say at the end of Ep 2, Rosa and Maria drowned trying to swim away from the island. Battler was drunk and fell off the Beatrice cliff. Genji sat there like a robot and starved...Yeah. But I suppose this avenue is closed.

About Genji, I think he did kinda disagree with Yasu's actions, and at the end, he tried to lead a drunk Battler to Kuwadorian to repent, but failed.

Oh, I get it now. I never really interpreted that quote in such a way as to say that everything is explained with insanity, but I can see how you could have thought that. And I can see how it would be frustrating.

zibbazabba905

2012-01-19, 22:18

Well, EP7 denies it pretty hard.

it was something about dieing during childbirth, wasn't it? aside from that it would make total sense with the Beatrice trail = money trail.

Kylon99

2012-01-19, 23:08

No, that was the original Beatrice Castigilloni who died giving birth to Beatrice 2. Genji, Kumasawa and Nanjo probably all helped to raise Beatrice 2, but we never had any clues about Kumasawa being Beatrice or having anything to do with inheriting a title herself. Virgilia can, of course, because that's the fantasy side of the story.

Kumasawa did inspire Yasu, however (who became the 3rd Beatrice later) with her tons of novels. She also passed on various rumors and superstitious beliefs, IIRC.

Virgilia was definitely shown to be Beatrice's teacher, but it was mentioned in early EP3 when she appeared before a young Beatrice who called Virgilia, "Beatrice." (Which Beatrice this is is debatable; it's probably an amalgamated version that Meta Beatrice showed to Battler.)

But, I imagine there are tons of things like this that Ryukishi would want to retcon. Especially that unlocked door in the boiler room, which he DID seem to retcon for EP3 of the anime and manga where they showed that it was blocked. 8)

Virgilia, Ronove and maybe Gaap was supposedly created by Ryukishi (he called them the Suspicios Trio or something in his recent interview, I think... :heh:) to help the readers after people nearly gave up at the end of EP2. He realized that he needed to create some other characters who could give subtle clues to Battler, and by extension to us, so that we could understand some basic concepts like Unreliable Narrator, etc. I imagine when he first introduced her he started planning for her to have carried the title of Beatrice inbetween the two real Beatrices or something but that plan didn't really fit later on. (Otherwise we'd have Kinzo x Kumasawa shippers by now... 8) )

Wanderer

2012-01-20, 03:34

Even if we conceded that a Reader can change the narrated text, for the sake of argument, this in no way logically connects to Erika seeing Kanon when Kanon isn't physically present (which was the original argument and this Reader thing is just kind of a meaningless tangent).

Establishing the viability of the influence of subjectivity on what appears on the Game Board is crucial to my theory about what happened with Erika.

Of course YASU is subjective, but Yasu isn't the Reader, Clair is, and Clair and Yasu aren't the same entity.
See? The whole concept of Readers changing the text is so damn nebulous, vague, self-contradictory, and convoluted that I honestly don't really see much merit in the EP8 interchange. If anything it seems like something Ryukishi made up at the last minute, to me.

It was your words saying "Claire channels Yasu"; I was just going with them. The point is that as long as Claire is a "tool", what she does (i.e. how she "reads") will necessarily be dictated either by her creator or by her user, and whoever that is will be a subjective being.

*inserts all the hints about Kumasawa being directly connected to Kinzo's Beatrice in some way.*

What hints? That Virgilia was the "original Beatrice"? That's not a dead end hint at all; it came full circle when we were shown that Kumasawa was the first person to teach Yasu "magic".

Not a very convincing example.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-20, 03:55

Establishing the viability of the influence of subjectivity on what appears on the Game Board is crucial to my theory about what happened with Erika.

Things can be subjective in different ways, however. Someone misconceiving someone and relating that is not equivalent to someone witnessing something that is already misconceptualized, even if it's misrepresented to mirror their own misunderstandings.

It was your words saying "Claire channels Yasu"; I was just going with them. The point is that as long as Claire is a "tool", what she does (i.e. how she "reads") will necessarily be dictated either by her creator or by her user, and whoever that is will be a subjective being.

How is that any different from Ange reading something already distorted from the truth that was written by Featherine/Toya? This just supports that it's the Game Master/Author who presents false information in the text.

What hints? That Virgilia was the "original Beatrice"? That's not a dead end hint at all; it came full circle when we were shown that Kumasawa was the first person to teach Yasu "magic".

Not a very convincing example.

Wow, so Ryukishi wrote one thing that very strongly insinuates something but turns out to completely end up meaning something ELSE?

Because that's exactly where I was going with that, thank you.

Keriaku

2012-01-20, 03:59

I just wanted to add some of my thoughts in the recent discussions.

Here is what I think about the EP5 incident where both Kanon and Shannon are in the parlor. This scene leads us to infer that Erika could have gained knowledge about the fantasy status of ShKanon. So, I tried going back to check the powers detective authority gives to Erika. While the conversation about this scene has advanced in complexity, I'm thinking that the crux of the problem is centered on workings of the gameboard. This is why things like Readers have been brought up, being tangentaly related. Really what we need to do here is figure out the workings of the Gameboard.

---

As an aside, I think that Reader's are definitely something worth spending some time thinking about, especially since the concept is not explicitly expounded upon in the story, but I don't think they're crucial for this problem.

First we should probably try and gain some collective understanding of how the Gameboard works.

Perhaps if everyone shared their thoughts or view on this area, we could all figure out how this works? I know I'm interested in hearing how people view the meta-structure of Beatrice's Gameboard and rules. (It would take me some time and thinking to get that up for myslf). As possibly the most active english, intelectual disucssion about the series, I'm sure we could figure out what's happening with Erika, and probably discover a whole bunch of interesting things within the series. I've really enjoyed all of the different kinds of theories I've read so far, in all areas of the series. I think Umineko has done something timeless in how you can theorize, finds parallels, see symbolism, and explore the meta-setting with all it's information.

---

That being said, here are my thoughts. From watching the discussion, I wondered how the Detective's Authority never mentions anything about fighting Fantasy, or 'truth. It rather gives Erika a list of abilities. I'm thinking that what is happening is that both Kanon and Shannon are being presented there, as Fantasy. This is where Readers were being brought into the picture, but I think we can go into more fundamental ideas here to explain it.

What I'm thinking happens here is that Erika carries an implicit belief that both Shannon and Kanon are there. This makes sense as this seems to be the only moment that makes us think she should wonder about it. Erika has no reason to question it, no will to direct her attention to it and epecially no reason to utlilize her abilities towards it. In this sense, to her, whether or not she believes everyone is there, Kanon is there with Shannon. So Erika should have no magic toxin directed towards them. Though she would instantly destroy any 'normal' fantasy, this single instance is kept intact. And this would be because her beliefs and thoughts do not create any magic toxin to blow this Fantasy away. It's interesting because Kinzo could probably have been in the same state, though she realizes he is because of the overwhelming evidence for it.

I think this idea fits very well as something for Ryuukishi to call a 'dirty trick' in EP5. It's something that only makes sense if you really understand the workings of Umineko. To say directly what I've thought out as I write this, it would be something like this: The detective sees 'fantasy' unless their anti-magic toxins (beliefs) do not destroy it.

(Rereading note, this fits in very well with the theme of 'mystery' being similar to 'fantasy'. If mystery has it's detective rules, fantasy has it's magic rules)

Let me expand on this idea a bit. It fits in very well with the rest of the series. It seems to be something that happens jarringly and abruptly to Battler over the questions arcs, his time as the 'detective'. The series has shown multiple times that this is something possible on Beatrice's Gameboard. There is a big deal made out of the magic toxin and how Battler has 'Endless Nine', even within the meta-world, after learning how to fight. He explicitly learns how to brush away other interpretations and see only what he knows to be true.

And I can understand why Ryuukishi would put in a scene like this. Now everything's at EP5, and we get Erika. She is a new detective, a piece of the Witch of Miracles. She is a fresh face for the mystery side, showing how things could have gone without Battler at the helm. Much more competent, forceful and even has a bunch of shiny, special new abilities that people didn't even know were possible. Right near the beginning of this gameboard where the scene appears, people are too distracted by this new detective delcaring a culprit, something unheard of until this point, to be thinking too hard about things. And this is when a tiny drop of fantasy is slipped in and allowed to stand without question.

From the game and fantasy teachings of every episode prior, it can be said to be foreshadowed. Even with later meta-understandings of how things work, it seems to fit and be allowed. But this is something you'd only spot and eventually understand if you have some general knowledge of how things work already. Think about what we're dealing with here. We now understand that Kanon is a fantasy. Erika should not be seeing it because she is the detective. This fantasy appears in this scene because of either/or the Gamemaster or a Reader creates them there. All of these words show how deeply we're already into knowing about, being familar with, and understanding the workings of this game and this world. And we have to understand these concepts to an extent to even be able to identy this parlor scene as a problem. It then makes sense that we should appeal to other rules to try and figure out what's happening. It now makes complete sense to me for Ryuukishi to slip this in, to see if you really understand the workings of Umineko. And if it goes by completely unnoticed, it's left as a challenge for later.

This perspective puts even more depth on Erika's character in not being able to fully understand the gameboard. Being unable to fully understand how Fantasy works and what gives Beatrice any power. How Fantasy vs. Mystery is a game not a slaughter. This scene then becomes a key plot point rather then a shoddy plot hole.

And this was the period where Ryuukishi was saying something like 'if you're on the right track, you'll pick up some big hints and be pushed forward, or you'll just get further confused'. Perhas questioning something as shaddy as the 'Detective's Authority', that mixes meta and reality in startling ways --the same was fantasy used too-- is 'being on the right path' at that point?

And from this idea, let's go back to Battler. He has already gained an Endless Nine ability against fantasy through his past games. But perhaps we should say its 999....98, if he still allowed in Kanon at this point as well. He gained knowledge of how to fight fantasy directly, but still failed against Beatrice after 4 games. Erika comes in, not caring about fantasy in the least. A level number to fight against it wouldn't even mean anything to her. Instead, she attacks with high levels in mystery, with all sorts of critcial detective abilities. And she wins as a mystery, almost. She has no abilities against fantasy, so that's where she eventually loses with the corpes. She's also hit with Kanon, but that was not a direct strike, it's rather something that slides right past her.

When Battler looks back on this game, it now makes sense how he could possibly reach Beatrice's heart not after the 4 games, but this last game was enough. The parlor scene itself wouldn't have been enough, he was still at 999....98 anti-magic defense, as he had no belief against Kanon existing. Kinzo as fantasy had already been beaten, he probably had no reason to suspect more. But with Battler thinking about the past games, if he truly understands how and why Erika loses, it makes sense that the parlor scene could be the 'key' for him in understanding Beatrice.

This seems to fit in perfectly for everything. Like how Lambda says she's still gonna be giving hints. She slips in some fantasy at the end, while having fun knowing she can get away with it (especially if she had already dealt with all of the detective things with Erika earlier). She'd get to mess with Bern, and her lack of love. She would know by that point that Erika would never suspect it and could purposely leave it there as something for Battler to find, or not. Perfect true neutral until the end.

It's now not only unsurprising that this is key to Erika's downfall in EP6, but completely thematically and structurely appropriate for the Gameboard.

I am now personally forced to view this scene as necessary and important. My mind has been blown.

I'm sure I could say more if I kept thinking about this, but I should probably stop here. I wasn't expecting to write all this when I started this post. I had some other stuff to say about Virgilia's place in things and Readers, but I'll add my two cents later. How do you guys feel about this as a response to the parlor scene?

P.S. I don't have much time to write up thoughtful posts as I usually read the thread on my iPhone, but I've enjoyed the discussion and Ill join in when I can.

Toku

2012-01-20, 08:29

stuff

This looks like the most interesting thing so far, at least in my opinion.

However, I think we need a confirmation of what exactly Detective's Authority is. You said it's just a list of abilities, and that it doesn't get in the way of your theory, but you didn't really list what those abilities were, or why they didn't get in the way.

I do, of course, have some understanding of Detective's Authority, but my memory is a little blurry, so about all I remember is something like this:
"the observations that the detective makes can now potentially be raised to the level of red truth"
And even then, it seems to require the presence of a witch like Bern to raise it to red truth. Except for some times, like with her right to investigate all crime scenes. I don't think her duct tape would actually be at the level of Red if not for Bern.

At any rate, if that about sums it up, then I think your theory should be possible.

I think of Dlanor's Red on detectives not having the right to subjectify their observations as being part of the whole Knox's Decalogue package. In other words, it's a set of rules to be enforced, and "Heaven" gives her the ability to raise it to the level of Red. Therefore, if she notices an infringement of these rules, she can slash it down with the Red Key. However, if she doesn't notice the infringement, it can probably pass.

Keriaku

2012-01-20, 09:41

This looks like the most interesting thing so far, at least in my opinion.

However, I think we need a confirmation of what exactly Detective's Authority is. You said it's just a list of abilities, and that it doesn't get in the way of your theory, but you didn't really list what those abilities were, or why they didn't get in the way.

I do, of course, have some understanding of Detective's Authority, but my memory is a little blurry, so about all I remember is something like this:
"the observations that the detective makes can now potentially be raised to the level of red truth"
And even then, it seems to require the presence of a witch like Bern to raise it to red truth. Except for some times, like with her right to investigate all crime scenes. I don't think her duct tape would actually be at the level of Red if not for Bern.

At any rate, if that about sums it up, then I think your theory should be possible.

I think of Dlanor's Red on detectives not having the right to subjectify their observations as being part of the whole Knox's Decalogue package. In other words, it's a set of rules to be enforced, and "Heaven" gives her the ability to raise it to the level of Red. Therefore, if she notices an infringement of these rules, she can slash it down with the Red Key. However, if she doesn't notice the infringement, it can probably pass.

I recognize this. Last night I got more caught up in writing the theory rather then checking it. But from what I remember from having read through the series and what the author is doing thematically, this seems to fits. I don't believe the Detective's Authority could have any kind of clause specifically destroying all fantasy, because then it seems like it would've been an auto-win in a sense.

And this idea of ways to fight as fantasy or against and the ways to fight as mystery or against, really seem to me to fit as what Ryuukishi meant with Fantasy, Anti-Fantasy, Mystery and Anti-Mystery.

But I'll surely revise my theory when I've had a chance to check out what excactly what Detective Authroity gives. But right now, using detective abilities to me just seems like another way for the Mystery side to fight. Not Anti-Fantasy, just Mystery. And this fits because some mystery novels have detectives, some don't. Beatrice's Gameboard is simply flexible enough to allow both.

Bluemail

2012-01-20, 13:41

While reading your theory, Keriaku, I thought you were going to say something like Battler had Endless Nine, and Erika didn't, so Shannon and Kanon were able to coexist in front of her. But you started saying Battler was allowing fantasy as well. Okay, here's some things that bug me:

If Erika could see a bodiless Kanon, why didn't Shannon and Kanon ever appear together in front of Battler when he was the detective? Or might this be one of the things Beatrice could do with her gameboard but wouldn't?

Also, Battler never had to 'allow Kanon to exist'. He appeared physically whenever he was supposed to in front of Battler, and Battler never suspected it was the same human as Shannon in disguise.

Doesn't objective viewpoint mean that what the person sees is not influenced by their own interpretations and beliefs? So what Erika's objective view can't be influenced by what she thinks of Shannon and Kanon and her anti-magic toxin levels, which are subjective. Unless the condition of Erika's viewpoint was actually described more vaguely, I don't think such interpretations are viable.

I also don't like it when people say Erika didn't pay attention because she thought Shkanon was ridiculous. For example, what's with Battler and Erika's chain-locked room battle in EP8 then? She acknowledges them as quite ridiculous yes, but at least she can use them as possible solutions.

Well I'm not saying my theory makes the most sense, but I don't think it's one people have given much thought. I posted it a few pages back (http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=3953441&postcount=27102), but didn't get any feedback on it, which I'd like to hear.

About the Kumasawa/original Beatrice... What's a mystery without some red herrings? I myself entertained the idea of Kumasawa being Kinzo's Beatrice who he couldn't acknowledge because she had lost her beauty or something long ago. But red herrings need their explanations as well, and it did happen in Kumasawa's case.

Oh, about Clair, maybe she's mostly the embodiment of Beatrice's games. She is laid to rest as Will gives answers to the games. She remains as nobody was able to solve the mysteries, not until Will did that. And she was satisfied even if it wasn't exactly Battler, as a mystery's purpose is to be solved. This helps if you want to believe in a theory where Prime-Yasu isn't actually that troubled, as Clair tells the story of the murderer of the games used in writing them, not the exact story of Prime-Yasu.

Keriaku

2012-01-20, 14:26

Dirty_Harry

2012-01-20, 14:42

There's also some really interesting character analysis I haven't even explored yet. For example, if Battler knew Lambda slipped in this hint, allowing him to reach the truth, maybe that sheds some light on Battler and Lambda's interactions in EP8? Just a thought, but there's lots of stuff that could be drawn from this scene using this perspective.

Lambda knew the truth of Beatrice's gameboard in EP5? Only in this way for her to give hints to Battler.

Toku

2012-01-20, 14:47

If Erika could see a bodiless Kanon, why didn't Shannon and Kanon ever appear together in front of Battler when he was the detective? Or might this be one of the things Beatrice could do with her gameboard but wouldn't?

She wanted Battler to see the truth. After seeing the EP5 Tea Party, it should no longer be possible to deny that she did. On the other hand, Lambda and Bern were clearly toying with Erika. They weren't trying to show her the truth. Or at least, the truth is not something that was very high on their list of priorities in EP5. This is more than evident by the fact that they worked together to frame Natsuhi even though we know that Natsuhi was not the culprit for that game.

Doesn't objective viewpoint mean that what the person sees is not influenced by their own interpretations and beliefs? So what Erika's objective view can't be influenced by what she thinks of Shannon and Kanon and her anti-magic toxin levels, which are subjective. Unless the condition of Erika's viewpoint was actually described more vaguely, I don't think such interpretations are viable.

If you're referring to this:
Knox's 8th, it is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED! Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE! Was it ever shown that you were not the detective this time, and that you were an observer with a subjective VIEWPOINT?!! Unless it was, you do not have the right to falsify your point of VIEW!!

Then, I think we need to take into account that it was spoken long after the parlor scene we're discussing. Said parlor scene was from Battler's point of view, who wasn't yet stated to have not been a Detective. And his narration said that he saw both Shannon and Kanon at the same time.

However, at that point in time, this Red wasn't used against him. Why? Because Dlanor wasn't there yet, so she didn't enforce this rule. If the rule is not enforced, then it shouldn't take effect. That's how rules work. She also can't enforce a rule if she doesn't realize that the rule is being broken. At that moment, if this theory about Erika seeing both of them even though there was only one body is true, there should have been no reason for Dlanor to suspect that it was an illusion, even if she was there.

Not only that, but the subject of this Red was Battler alone. Dlanor never used it on Erika.

I also don't like it when people say Erika didn't pay attention because she thought Shkanon was ridiculous. For example, what's with Battler and Erika's chain-locked room battle in EP8 then? She acknowledges them as quite ridiculous yes, but at least she can use them as possible solutions.

That's not what we're saying. This theory says that "Lambda inserted a fantasy element into Piece!Erika's observations, and it went undetected, because there was no reason to doubt that it was the truth at that time." It doesn't say that Erika wasn't paying attention.

But at any rate, the battle at the end of EP6 makes it clear that Erika did not suspect anything like the "ShKanon" theory.

Well I'm not saying my theory makes the most sense, but I don't think it's one people have given much thought. I posted it a few pages back (http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=3953441&postcount=27102), but didn't get any feedback on it, which I'd like to hear.

I'd say that it's possible, if only because the Red that refers to Shannon in EP5 is only speaking about something that happened before the game started. It's also possible that Shannon told someone about Natsuhi's secret. So for the duration of this one game, it's possible that Shannon didn't exist.

This is one of the less ridiculous theories. I rather like it, but I would prefer one that allows both Kanon and Shannon to exist on the game board.

About the Kumasawa/original Beatrice... What's a mystery without some red herrings? I myself entertained the idea of Kumasawa being Kinzo's Beatrice who he couldn't acknowledge because she had lost her beauty or something long ago. But red herrings need their explanations as well, and it did happen in Kumasawa's case.

There really is nothing that denies Kumasawa being Kinzo's Beatrice, even after EP7.

This is because the only confirmation we have of Beatrice I's death is secondhand information from Nanjo.

Of course, there was a time when, in Kinzo's eyes, Beatrice I died. However, what kind of death that is, is something that is not necessarily clear.

There is nothing else, that I can remember, that would deny this theory.

Bluemail

2012-01-20, 16:34

@Bluemail
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Sorry if I didn't completely specify.

Battler had a high level of Anti-Fantasy power over EP 3&4. He knew how to fight with those techniques. But still at the time of the parlor scene, he let that fantasy through. It wasn't until the end of EP5 where he realizes the trick and reaches the truth.Well, we know in EP5 Battler's viewpoint was not reliable, so the rules of how he could see Shannon and Kanon in that scene don't need much debating.

And for the objective bit, looking at it as a combination of what is being presented aligning with her own beliefs, I don't think that really holds up as a good counter argument. There is no 'real' objectivity and the closest definition to it is something along the lines of justified true beliefs. And 'true' has many different philosophic theories, one of which is that the 'fact' fits on with all other information. Which is exactly what would allow this fantasy to exist.I think I understand better how you're interpreting this. It's about how the scenery the 'objective viewpoint' sees is decided by the Gamemaster, right? I know about all this "there's no real objectivity" talk, but I like to think that the "subjective meaning of objectivity" in the gameboards means it looks like the (if you can say physical) truth, the solution, of the game. The game must be made solvable, with a truth in mind. So if an objective viewpoint sees both Shannon and Kanon, they both are there physically. Unless the truth is fantasy. Might qualify for Ryukishi's dirty trick. ;)

One of the reason I like this theory is that it fits so perfectly. It fits within the stated rules of the series. It fits within what the characters would do. It explains lots of dialogue about why EP5 is unusual. It's a necessary piece to understanding Beatrice. It explains later events eloquently, such as why Battler understands everything after this specific arc, and Erika realizing where she went wrong in EP6. It fits with what the author was trying to get us to do in understading Beatrice. It doesn't need more complex rules, we just need to actually understand what EP1-4 was trying to tell us. It taps into the theme of mystery being equal to fantasy. There's so many reason that this theory fits.Who wouldn't like a theory that fits perfectly? xD
I think you're overestimating EP5's importance. Battler did after all go through the previous tales again before arriving at the truth. And it was implied Umineko should be solvable after EP4, but a proclamation of solvability wasn't made until EP5. It might not be as necessary as you think, but there is probably some kind of great hint that made it click for Battler when he didn't get it from just Beatrice's games. And I don't think it is just going through the games with Knox rules in mind as implied.

She wanted Battler to see the truth. After seeing the EP5 Tea Party, it should no longer be possible to deny that she did. On the other hand, Lambda and Bern were clearly toying with Erika. They weren't trying to show her the truth. Or at least, the truth is not something that was very high on their list of priorities in EP5. This is more than evident by the fact that they worked together to frame Natsuhi even though we know that Natsuhi was not the culprit for that game.I guess that's good enough. So, one of the things Beatrice could but wouldn't do. I'm not sure if Bern knew of Shkanon yet, but that's not her business as Lambda's the Gamemaster. But framing Natsuhi was clearly planned.

If you're referring to this:
Knox's 8th, it is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED! Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE! Was it ever shown that you were not the detective this time, and that you were an observer with a subjective VIEWPOINT?!! Unless it was, you do not have the right to falsify your point of VIEW!!

Then, I think we need to take into account that it was spoken long after the parlor scene we're discussing. Said parlor scene was from Battler's point of view, who wasn't yet stated to have not been a Detective. And his narration said that he saw both Shannon and Kanon at the same time.

However, at that point in time, this Red wasn't used against him. Why? Because Dlanor wasn't there yet, so she didn't enforce this rule. If the rule is not enforced, then it shouldn't take effect. That's how rules work. She also can't enforce a rule if she doesn't realize that the rule is being broken. At that moment, if this theory about Erika seeing both of them even though there was only one body is true, there should have been no reason for Dlanor to suspect that it was an illusion, even if she was there.

Not only that, but the subject of this Red was Battler alone. Dlanor never used it on Erika.I'm not outright referring to it. And I have grown a bit suspicious. I don't remember EP5 in every detail. So where was it confirmed that Erika had an objective viewpoint? Might it be the case that she got that ability only after the parlor scene, or possibly never got it? That would be really dirty, Ryukishi! That or the truth of the gameboard actually being fantasy.

Or perhaps it's not about Shannon and Kanon being in the parlor with Erika and Erika wasn't actually in the parlor seeing them. She, too, was added by unreliable narrator Battler.

That's not what we're saying. This theory says that "Lambda inserted a fantasy element into Piece!Erika's observations, and it went undetected, because there was no reason to doubt that it was the truth at that time." It doesn't say that Erika wasn't paying attention.

But at any rate, the battle at the end of EP6 makes it clear that Erika did not suspect anything like the "ShKanon" theory.Sorry for the misunderstanding. So it's the same point of view Keriaku seems to have, where the objective viewpoint is decided by the Gamemaster (on which I gave thoughts above)?

I'd say that it's possible, if only because the Red that refers to Shannon in EP5 is only speaking about something that happened before the game started. It's also possible that Shannon told someone about Natsuhi's secret. So for the duration of this one game, it's possible that Shannon didn't exist.Shannon could have told someone or there were cards for every season hidden in the room, and MF19A told Natsuhi to look from where he hid the Fall card after she told her favourite season. The Shannon disrepancy is not exactly a big problem which couldn't be easily solved, I just threw that there.

This is one of the less ridiculous theories. I rather like it, but I would prefer one that allows both Kanon and Shannon to exist on the game board.It's not like they couldn't both exist, the other one just never appears in front of Erika.

There really is nothing that denies Kumasawa being Kinzo's Beatrice, even after EP7.

This is because the only confirmation we have of Beatrice I's death is secondhand information from Nanjo.

Of course, there was a time when, in Kinzo's eyes, Beatrice I died. However, what kind of death that is, is something that is not necessarily clear.

There is nothing else, that I can remember, that would deny this theory.Yeah, I thought about it long ago, but it doesn't mean it couldn't be picked up again. It's just easy to let it go, as it doesn't seem relevant anymore. There are things like how Kumasawa has been working on Rokkenjima such a long time. She might just be fond of the Beatrice bloodline, so she's staying for the sake of Yasu as a motherly figure.

By the way, I've noticed Kumasawa is most ofted staked with the Stake of Leviathan, the demon of Envy. If Kumasawa is the original Beatrice, maybe she's jealous of the attention Yasu is getting or something?

I compiled a list long ago, I'll share it (the victims are in episodic order):

Asmodeus (Lust) - Eva, Jessica, Rudolf
Beelzebub (Gluttony) - Hideyoshi, Gohda, Hideyoshi
Mammon (Greed) - Kinzo, Shannon, Kyrie
Satan (Wrath) - Kanon, Kanon, Natsuhi
Lucifer (Pride) - Genji, George, Krauss
Belphegor (Sloth) - Nanjo, Nanjo
Leviathan (Envy) - Kumasawa, Kumasawa

Wanderer

2012-01-20, 17:35

Really what we need to do here is figure out the workings of the Gameboard.

Yes!

From watching the discussion, I wondered how the Detective's Authority never mentions anything about fighting Fantasy, or 'truth. It rather gives Erika a list of abilities.

Yes. People often associate Detective Authority with Erika's observational powers, but strictly speaking D.A. is only said/shown to do a few specific things:

Grants the detective the ability to identify a "corpse"'s true status with 100% accuracy. Incidentally, this ability was never used even once. Grants the detective the right to investigate all crime scenes. Apparently grants the detective use of Knox's Decalogue.

That's all. Notably, within the Decalogue there is only one rule relevant to Fantasy and that's "Knox's 2nd. It is forbidden for supernatural agencies to be employed as a detective technique." Its wording is interesting because it does not actually forbid supernatural agencies from being part of Mystery.

And from this idea, let's go back to Battler. He has already gained an Endless Nine ability against fantasy through his past games. But perhaps we should say its 999....98, if he still allowed in Kanon at this point as well.

Although in this case I think it might be relevant that Meta-Battler wasn't even playing his own Piece.

Erika comes in, not caring about fantasy in the least. A level number to fight against it wouldn't even mean anything to her. Instead, she attacks with high levels in mystery, with all sorts of critcial detective abilities. And she wins as a mystery, almost. She has no abilities against fantasy, so that's where she eventually loses with the corpes. She's also hit with Kanon, but that was not a direct strike, it's rather something that slides right past her.

By losing with the corpses you mean about how they all seemed to disappear from the cousins' room? Because there's a Mystery solution to that.

But in any case you make an interesting observation: Erika may dismiss fantasy out of course, but that doesn't mean she can differentiate fantasy from non-fantasy automatically. The idea that Shannon and Kanon are different people does not say "magical", so why would she question it?

I do, of course, have some understanding of Detective's Authority, but my memory is a little blurry, so about all I remember is something like this:
"the observations that the detective makes can now potentially be raised to the level of red truth"

This is because most rules of the Decalogue, as well as the "perfect autopsy" ability, are just a categorical denial of the existence of any Devil's Proof that could cause a Mystery to not be solvable with 100% certainty.

And even then, it seems to require the presence of a witch like Bern to raise it to red truth. Except for some times, like with her right to investigate all crime scenes. I don't think her duct tape would actually be at the level of Red if not for Bern.

Just like to point out that "being at the level of Red" is not the same as actually being Red.

I also don't like it when people say Erika didn't pay attention because she thought Shkanon was ridiculous. For example, what's with Battler and Erika's chain-locked room battle in EP8 then? She acknowledges them as quite ridiculous yes, but at least she can use them as possible solutions.

Well, since Erika said 18 she must necessarily have either rejected ShKanon for some reason or didn't even conceive of the idea in the first place.

Well I'm not saying my theory makes the most sense, but I don't think it's one people have given much thought. I posted it a few pages back (http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=3953441&postcount=27102), but didn't get any feedback on it, which I'd like to hear.

Well, I think you're right that Erika witnessed one total person between Kanon and Shannon; but that is hardly a new idea. The real question we've been discussing is why the parlor scene in EP 5 and the final scene in EP 6 don't correlate, which- you said it yourself- your ideas don't address, so I'm afraid there just isn't much to say.

------------

I'm out of time for now. I will reply to some other posts later.

Bluemail

2012-01-20, 18:18

Now that I think of it, the thing that made it click for Battler was probably all the focus on mystery genre in EP5 and thinking about the games as a mystery story. He remembers his exchanges with Shannon from 6 years ago, realizes she's Beatrice and everything just falls into place from there. About the same thing seemed to have happened to Chick-Beato in EP6.

That makes sense with the whole Knox rules helping Battler thing. There might also be some scene which turns out to be revealing when viewed with the rules in mind, but I don't think they could be that much use. Maybe he thought more about disguises and twins with rule 10, though.

Just to expand my last post on EP5's importance. It's not necessarily anything pointing directly at Shkanon that was crucial for Battler.

Well, I think you're right that Erika witnessed one total person between Kanon and Shannon; but that is hardly a new idea. The real question we've been discussing is why the parlor scene in EP 5 and the final scene in EP 6 don't correlate, which- you said it yourself- your ideas don't address, so I'm afraid there just isn't much to say.I just didn't remember anyone proposing that before, so I put it forth. It might solve EP5 but seems pretty useless in the big picture. Unless EP5's Meta-Erika is somehow different from the one in EP6...?

Keriaku

2012-01-20, 18:36

By losing with the corpses you mean about how they all seemed to disappear from the cousins' room? Because there's a Mystery solution to that.

But in any case you make an interesting observation: Erika may dismiss fantasy out of course, but that doesn't mean she can differentiate fantasy from non-fantasy automatically. The idea that Shannon and Kanon are different people does not say "magical", so why would she question it?

I apologize as I haven't read EP5 in quite a long time. But it's true that there's a Mystery solution. There's probably a Mystery solution to all Fantasy, just as Fantasy can be inserted in all unknowns. It's the fact that Erika let the fantasy stand which put her off balance, leading to her loss. It's specifically a win for Beatrice in the trial, isn't it? This fits in line with my theory, as Erika loses by placing too much worth on Mystery alone and she's surprised when that's not as infalliable as she expects. It's thematically the same message as leaving a Kanon fantasy that the detective does not detect. Where if she had been using a bit of anti-Fantasy as well, she would have checked the corpses to destroy any possible illusion. I'd say she 'learns from her mistake' for EP6, but she never changes her attitude to an Anti-Fantasy one. She just kills them instead.

EP6 is actually a bit interesting with this reading of Erika, because Erika never really engages Battler from an anti-Fantasy stance over his gameboard. Rather she just goes for a meta-attack.

Jaden

2012-01-20, 18:43

Quote:
About the Kumasawa/original Beatrice... What's a mystery without some red herrings? I myself entertained the idea of Kumasawa being Kinzo's Beatrice who he couldn't acknowledge because she had lost her beauty or something long ago. But red herrings need their explanations as well, and it did happen in Kumasawa's case.
There really is nothing that denies Kumasawa being Kinzo's Beatrice, even after EP7.

This is because the only confirmation we have of Beatrice I's death is secondhand information from Nanjo.

Of course, there was a time when, in Kinzo's eyes, Beatrice I died. However, what kind of death that is, is something that is not necessarily clear.

There is nothing else, that I can remember, that would deny this theory.

There is Kumasawa's family in the mainland right?

Toku

2012-01-20, 19:48

There is Kumasawa's family in the mainland right?

Hm, actually I'd forgotten about that. Though, technically, the only one we saw was her son.

Well, I'm not saying that I believe Kumasawa is Beatrice I.

I do think that it's exceedingly odd though, that we never saw the story of how Kinzo met Kumasawa. After all, we know how Kinzo met both Nanjo and Genji... She's the only one of his old friends that we didn't get a story for. And while she may not be super close to him, it's clear that there is a high level of trust between them, since Kumasawa acted as Beatrice II's mother and knew all about Kuwadorian all along.

Wanderer

2012-01-20, 22:00

There really is nothing that denies Kumasawa being Kinzo's Beatrice, even after EP7.

Except that, by all indications, Beatrice I is a blond-haired, blue-eyed Italian and Kumasawa is, by all indications, Japanese, who are virtually never blond-haired or blue-eyed.

I wouldn't completely put it past RK07 to just ignore these common sense racial characteristics, though.

I'm not outright referring to it. And I have grown a bit suspicious. I don't remember EP5 in every detail. So where was it confirmed that Erika had an objective viewpoint? Might it be the case that she got that ability only after the parlor scene, or possibly never got it? That would be really dirty, Ryukishi! That or the truth of the gameboard actually being fantasy.

The terms 'subjective' and 'objective' are mentioned in reference to 'detectives' in this sequence of Reds and Blue. I think it's the only time they ever are.

Dlanor: Knox's 8th, it is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED! Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE! Was it ever shown that you were not the detective this time, and that you were an observer with a subjective VIEWPOINT?!! Unless it was, you do not have the right to falsify your point of VIEW!!
Battler: In this game! When I figured out the device of the epitaph's riddle, I witnessed Grandfather. ......As has already been shown in red, Grandfather doesn't exist. It was impossible for me to witness him! Therefore, it has already been shown that my viewpoint wasn't objective!!
(EDIT): Dlanor: It is possible that it was just a sheet or something fluttering in the wind and rain which you mistook for Kinzo. It cannot be used as foreshadowing to form a basis for Knox's 9th...!! Mistaking things for something else is a right permitted to all observers!!
Battler:There's the red truth which Beato showed during the 4th game!! No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight!
Battler:In other words, on this island, all illusions which might lead someone to mistake something for Grandfather, including someone else pretending to be Grandfather, 'most certainly cannot work'.
Battler:Because of the right granted by Knox's 9th, people are allowed to mistake a sheet in the wind for anything else and tell about it. ......However! Mistaking it for Grandfather in particular is not permitted in this game due to the red truth!!

(EDIT): The bolded Blue tells us that "objective" people can still mistake one thing for another, so long as they do so honestly. Although when it comes to Erika she's allegedly got a perfect photographic memory, so it's hard to justify any theory that relies on her making observational mistakes.

Or perhaps it's not about Shannon and Kanon being in the parlor with Erika and Erika wasn't actually in the parlor seeing them. She, too, was added by unreliable narrator Battler.

Regardless of the narrator there are the Reds: Furudo Erika only increases it by one person. Besides her, the number of people on this island is exactly the same as it was in the previous games. In other words, the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island.(EDIT): But to make a small amendment: What if all of Meta-Erika's knowledge comes from Battler's narration in End and none from Piece-Erika... Hmm... I think we may be on to something here.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-20, 23:59

Except that, by all indications, Beatrice I is a blond-haired, blue-eyed Italian and Kumasawa is, by all indications, Japanese, who are virtually never blond-haired or blue-eyed.

I wouldn't completely put it past RK07 to just ignore these common sense racial characteristics, though.

Let's also keep in mind that Ryukishi very blatantly doesn't seem to think the characters look the way he draws them. Like Jessica's blonde hair.

(EDIT): But to make a small amendment: What if all of Meta-Erika's knowledge comes from Battler's narration in End and none from Piece-Erika... Hmm... I think we may be on to something here.

Then we run into the same objections Renall and I raised pages ago about Detective's Authority being totally useless. You're kind of going in circles.

Wanderer

2012-01-21, 00:20

Then we run into the same objections Renall and I raised pages ago about Detective's Authority being totally useless. You're kind of going in circles.

One, Renall's main complaint against my claim was that I was postulating that there was a communication mechanic between the GM and a RMP that had no clues for it. The current idea involves no such thing.

Two, why is it a problem if Detective's Authority is not useful in this case?

AuraTwilight

2012-01-21, 02:34

His main complaint was that the Detective's Authority was being completely undermind, which is still happening here. If you're arguing that Erika has never had access to her Piece's knowledge, observations, and narration, in what sense is it any different from there being a communication mechanic between Erika and the Gameboard that obfuscates information?

This was what Renall and I were originally complaining about before you brought up the Reader thing. We've gone in a complete 360.

battle22

2012-01-21, 04:58

guys in ep5 first twilight . didnt cousing faked death? but the red.. gosh i hate ep5. !!!!!!!!

Wanderer

2012-01-21, 05:21

His main complaint was that the Detective's Authority was being completely undermind, which is still happening here.

I assume that by Detective Authority you mean her reliable viewpoint (and super-duper observational powers).

Meta-Erika did not get to see End through Piece-Erika's eyes; she saw the game replayed exactly as we did (mostly from Battler's perspective). Since Piece-Erika does not narrate, even to Meta-Erika, Meta-Erika was never "tricked" by relying on Piece-Erika having a falsely reliable viewpoint. In other words, Piece-Erika's reliable viewpoint was not "undermined"; it simply was never expressed in the first place.

If you're arguing that Erika has never had access to her Piece's knowledge, observations, and narration, in what sense is it any different from there being a communication mechanic between Erika and the Gameboard that obfuscates information?

There is no such mechanic. There is only a lack of a special information-sharing mechanic between non-viewpoint Piece-Characters (Piece-Erika in EP5) and Meta-Characters that don't even exist as Meta-Characters yet (Meta-Erika in EP5, at least until the trial). All Meta-Erika gets to see is the replay- the same exact one that we and Meta-Battler got.

guys in ep5 first twilight . didnt cousing faked death? but the red.. gosh i hate ep5. !!!!!!!!

The trick was that when those Reds were spoken it was 24:00 on October 5th, which leaves plenty of time for the cousins to die after they fake the First Twilight.

Drifloon

2012-01-21, 05:24

The trick was that when those Reds were spoken it was 24:00 on October 5th, which leaves plenty of time for the cousins to die after they fake the First Twilight.

Actually, there are red truths saying that the corpses are definitely and unmistakeably dead before that time, in particular the one made by Virgilia when she visits the game board. But it's never said that those corpses are what were seen by the witnesses in the cousins' room.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-21, 05:52

I assume that by Detective Authority you mean her reliable viewpoint (and super-duper observational powers).

Meta-Erika did not get to see End through Piece-Erika's eyes; she saw the game replayed exactly as we did (mostly from Battler's perspective). Since Piece-Erika does not narrate, even to Meta-Erika, Meta-Erika was never "tricked" by relying on Piece-Erika having a falsely reliable viewpoint. In other words, Piece-Erika's reliable viewpoint was not "undermined"; it simply was never expressed in the first place.

Then what is the meaningful difference from never having the authority in the first place? Erika can never act on it or utilize it in any meaningful way.

There is no such mechanic. There is only a lack of a special information-sharing mechanic between non-viewpoint Piece-Characters (Piece-Erika in EP5) and Meta-Characters that don't even exist as Meta-Characters yet (Meta-Erika in EP5, at least until the trial). All Meta-Erika gets to see is the replay- the same exact one that we and Meta-Battler got.

What about when MEta-Erika played EP5 the FIRST time? This is her second time through the board.

Wanderer

2012-01-21, 12:57

Then what is the meaningful difference from never having the authority in the first place? Erika can never act on it or utilize it in any meaningful way.

None, at least in the sense you are talking about. But my point was that the mechanics that lead to Erika's incorrect assumption are far simpler than they were in my earlier theory.

Nothing logically necessitates that Meta-Erika must be able to utilize "the authority" unless you assume that my premise- that Meta-Erika has no direct access to EP5 Piece-Erika's observations whatsoever- is wrong. Don't do that. It's circular reasoning and a complete waste of time.

If you want to attack my theory, and I'm sure that you do, then attack the validity of my premise. It has plenty of weak points you can have fun with.

What about when MEta-Erika played EP5 the FIRST time? This is her second time through the board.

Meta-Erika never Played End in any sense a first or second time; Bernkastel was the Player and, according to my premise, Meta-Erika never experienced End as Piece-Erika.

Toku

2012-01-21, 13:17

None, at least in the sense you are talking about. But my point was that the mechanics that lead to Erika's incorrect assumption are far simpler than they were in my earlier theory.

Nothing logically necessitates that Meta-Erika must be able to utilize "the authority" unless you assume that my premise- that Meta-Erika has no direct access to EP5 Piece-Erika's observations whatsoever- is wrong. Don't do that. It's circular reasoning and a complete waste of time.

If you want to attack my theory, and I'm sure that you do, then attack the validity of my premise. It has plenty of weak points you can have fun with.

Meta-Erika never Played End in any sense a first or second time; Bernkastel was the Player and, according to my premise, Meta-Erika never experienced End as Piece-Erika.

I only really have one problem with this theory. If Erika never really made use of Detective's Authority, and it therefore had practically no impact on the game apart from letting Erika investigate all crime scenes (which she didn't even do, causing her downfall at the end), then why would Ryukishi have put it in EP5 in the first place?

If he put it in just to fake us out, that would be kind of silly...

Wanderer

2012-01-21, 15:27

AuraTwilight

2012-01-21, 16:52

Toku

2012-01-21, 17:04

Well, that's not really what I was saying...

More like, since it never had an impact on the story, why did Ryukishi even bother to write it into the story? He might as well have left out Detective's Authority completely.

GreyZone

2012-01-21, 18:56

She could still use the Detective's Authority when she entered the cousins room and Battler tried to stop her.

Keriaku

2012-01-21, 19:50

Well adding in Detective's Authority added legitimacy to the Mystery side of things. And I like the idea that Beatrice's Gameboard is flexible to create tales with a detective or without a detective, just as different mystery stories have them or not.

And Aura, you never commented on my theory. I'm curious what you and Renall think of it. To me it doesn't undermine the Detective's Authority, but rather just shows that the Mystery side is on equal terms with the Fantasy for what they are capable of.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-21, 20:05

Honestly, Keriaku, I'll be frank; I seriously have a difficult time following most of your essays... ^_^;

Wanderer

2012-01-21, 22:01

What he's saying is that Erika's reliable perspective never had impact. She both never got to make use of it, and NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT NOT GETTING TO ACCESS HER PIECE'S INFORMATION. Why would she POSSIBLY let that sort of thing stand?

This assumes that Erika feels that she has a "right" to such information.

I am saying that she does not have that right nor does she have a reason to feel that she should have that right.

My premise is that there is no information-sharing mechanic between Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika at all (beyond what we see in-story as it is shown to Meta-Battler and ourselves). It's simply how the Meta-World<=>Game-Board relationship works. There is only one version of how the game went and we saw it; there is no Erika-perspective version of the game. No one was directly "regulating" what information went from Piece-Erika to Meta-Erika because there is nothing to regulate. No one is obstructing her. There is no one for Erika to complain to.

Well, that's not really what I was saying...

More like, since it never had an impact on the story, why did Ryukishi even bother to write it into the story? He might as well have left out Detective's Authority completely.

Well, I see episode 5 as, among other things, a parody of the Mystery genre demonstrating how unrealistic the genre actually is. Detective Authority plays a part in that. I can't speak for everyone... but at least I found it funny.

But I agree that it's kind of weird that Detective Authority apparently only has, what?, two functions other than the Decalogue, one which was never used at all (the perfect autopsy ability) and the other only used to view a scribble on a wall (right to inspect crime scenes ability).

Although the potential usefulness of these abilities was part EP6's plot, even if they weren't used.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-21, 22:12

This assumes that Erika feels that she has a "right" to such information.

I am saying that she does not have that right nor does she have a reason to feel that she should have that right.

This contradicts everything we know about Erika.

Why would she not feel entitled to information she's told her character has access to? It's nonsense.

Wanderer is on a distinguished road

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
What he's saying is that Erika's reliable perspective never had impact. She both never got to make use of it, and NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT NOT GETTING TO ACCESS HER PIECE'S INFORMATION. Why would she POSSIBLY let that sort of thing stand?
This assumes that Erika feels that she has a "right" to such information.

I am saying that she does not have that right nor does she have a reason to feel that she should have that right.

My premise is that there is no information-sharing mechanic between Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika at all (beyond what we see in-story as it is shown to Meta-Battler and ourselves). It's simply how the Meta-World<=>Game-Board relationship works. There is only one version of how the game went and we saw it; there is no Erika-perspective version of the game. No one was directly "regulating" what information went from Piece-Erika to Meta-Erika because there is nothing to regulate. No one is obstructing her. There is no one for Erika to complain to.

So Detective's Authority doesn't exist. Got it.

Keriaku

2012-01-21, 22:48

Honestly, Keriaku, I'll be frank; I seriously have a difficult time following most of your essays... ^_^;

What didn't you understand? I'd gladly explain it to you, as it's a chance to further develop the theory as well. Because I seriously think this is the answer for that scene.

And for what Wanderer is saying, I'd say I mostly agree with the idea that Erika probably does not have an unseen perspective on things. The game boards seem to have a a single telling that everyone examines, and this is what is avaliable for reviewing by others, such as what Lion and Will do in EP7. Otherwise we could be asking questions such as if they watched from Erika's perspective or Battler's perspective for EP5.

Of course there is an 'underside' of the game board which is put together by the GM, but I wouldn't think of that as a different perspective but rather extra information that is hidden. It seems to be that there is only one single perspective to see for each game board.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-21, 23:07

What didn't you understand? I'd gladly explain it to you, as it's a chance to further develop the theory as well. Because I seriously think this is the answer for that scene.

I'd hate to insinuate "TL;DR", because it's not the case, but due to English not being my native language, plus some brain handicaps I have, I just couldn't mentally piece together such a large post. A summary would be nice.

And for what Wanderer is saying, I'd say I mostly agree with the idea that Erika probably does not have an unseen perspective on things. The game boards seem to have a a single telling that everyone examines, and this is what is avaliable for reviewing by others, such as what Lion and Will do in EP7. Otherwise we could be asking questions such as if they watched from Erika's perspective or Battler's perspective for EP5.

I disagree. EP6 Erika's ability to do things without the Gamemaster's (apparent) awareness indicates that Erika has full control and knowledge of her Piece's actions, as if she were in a Choose Your Own Adventure novel.

Keriaku

2012-01-22, 03:31

I'd hate to insinuate "TL;DR", because it's not the case, but due to English not being my native language, plus some brain handicaps I have, I just couldn't mentally piece together such a large post. A summary would be nice.

Okay, cool. Hopefully I can help.
I'm gonna be adding in new elements to the theory as I write it out, and probably not catching everything I originally wrote, but I'll see if I can write up a concise form of the theory. (The concise theory is in quotes)

Here is a key part part of where the theory is coming from. The series of Umineko, and Beatrice's Gameboard, is about a battle of Mystery vs. Fantasy. Within each individual Epsiode, we follow two clashing sides in a battle. In each game we can focus on the Player's side (Mystery) or the Gamemaster's side (Fantasy).

But we, as observers have a 3rd option: to look at the battle as a whole, not limiting ourselves to either perspective. And I believe this is exactly what the invitations to each Episode are about.

You can see what I mean by rereading them again with this in mind.

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc457/Keriaku/EP1.png
http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc457/Keriaku/EP2.png
http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc457/Keriaku/EP3.png
http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc457/Keriaku/EP4.png

I think it is clear from these that Beatrice's Gameboard exists as something beyond just the Fantasy vs. Mystery we follow through the series. To us and other observers, the gameboard is a meta-battle where we blend both Fantasy and Mystery to understand what happened. This is what we do, this is what Featherine and all the Theatergoing Witches did. This is why Featherine made such a big deal about 'stepping onto the stage'.

Once we establish this 3rd 'Meta' view, the Game Invitations make sense as addressin us directly, and not talking about Battler. It also puts into perspective how all the theatergoing witches percieve the battles. The EP5 parlor scene exists solely for people thinking from this perspective.

It is interesting to note that it is only from the Meta side that the Truth is actually the focus. The Mystery side just needs to destroy Fantasy. The Fantasy side just needs to exist. It is only from the Meta side that this scene would matter.

So here is a concise form of my theory:

Lamdbadelta is a witch observing the Gameboard with a Meta perspective. When she becomes the Gamemaster, she uses her understanding of how both the Mystery and the Fantasy come together to craft her tale.

Lambda puts both Kanon and Shannon in the parlor, using her ability to create fantasy. She know that it is something that is a crucial detail for understanding the Tale, but also that it won't get brought up in the Mystery vs. Fantasy battle. Though it is technically a Fantasy, it is not there as something for the Mystery side to engage with. It is a hint for those thinking from a Meta perspective.

Even though she is the detective, which is a Mystery construction, Erika sees this Fantasy because it has been set up in a way where her beliefs correspond to the magic being set up. Erika has no 'Anti-Magic Toxin' to destroy Kanon with.

This seems to be exactly what the EP5 Game Invitation is talking about.
http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc457/Keriaku/EP5.png

The Game Invitation says we should be able to spot something with a clear perspective. And this thing can't be anything that is explained in the narrative, because then there wouldn't be any difficulty. I believe that by putting both Kanon and Shannon in this scene, Lambda is giving a direct hint to people that are trying to find the Truth. Us, other observers, or people like Battler. This is a scene to show everyone that neither side alone is enough. Even the detective can be fooled by the right kind of Fantasy. You have to understand from the Meta perspective Beatrice to actually see the truth of the Gameboard.

From a Meta perspective, alongside the events of the first 4 games, one is able to pick out that this might be a Fantasy. And by identifying that Kanon and Shannon appearing together is a Fantasy, you can quickly understand a lot more about the workings of the gameboard and the truth of the games.

It is from this meta perspective that people like Featherine, Will, and us have been able to understand Beatrice and her tale.

In a way, Shannon and Kanon is some of the most well protected magic through all the narratives we see. Since they are something 'allowed to exist' by so many, they are a very well-protected piece of Fantasy. Which is interesting, considering their relationship to Beatrice.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-22, 03:43

Alright, I think I understand, now. So in EP5, under this theory, do Kanon and Shannon legit have individual bodies, or what?

Keriaku

2012-01-22, 03:52

Alright, I think I understand, now. So in EP5, under this theory, do Kanon and Shannon legit have individual bodies, or what?

Thinking about it in this way might be misleading.

It's rather that all of Rokkenjima exists in a nebulous form where the Fantasy exists solidly, but can easily be wiped away.

Kinzo exists until the Fantasy is destroyed. Kanon and Shannon both exists as there is nothing denying them. Like the battles with the Goats in EP8.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-22, 04:20

But what about the 'truth' within the box? Doesn't that lend weight to the non-magical side having a heavier existence than the Fantasy? After all, if things are genuinely mutable, than the red truth doesn't really mean anything.

Keriaku

2012-01-22, 04:28

It's not about which exists more. As the Gameboard stands, Fantasy can exist. It's true, if the Book of the Single truth was revealed, then Fantasy and Beatrice probably would have been destroyed forever. EP8 does make a big deal of learning the truth being a one-way street. And that's why it was so important to keep it hidden.

EDIT for thoughts:

Actually, instead of having the truth destroy all fantasy, I think it rather would collapse the infinite (endless) worlds into one single world. And if no fantasy appeared in that one single world, then Beatrice might as well not exist. The truth can never completely destroy the unknown that Fantasy exists in, but by revealing the truth, it'll all but eliminate it from Rokkenjima on that weekend.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-22, 05:00

I'll just have to respectfully disagree on that, then.

Bluemail

2012-01-22, 07:39

I gathered Keriaku's theory is basically:

Fantasy can visibly exist on the gameboard until it is denied by anti-magic toxin. Most obviously magical things like demons and golden butterflies would be easily denied in front of Erika and immediately cease to exist from that point forward. The subtler fantasy of Shannon and Kanon existing together is able to stand as it doesn't obviously look like a fantasy. Until the trick is exposed, they are both able to visibly exist together.

And the reason for not showing Shannon and Kanon together in front of Battler is either because he has Endless Nine that destroys even subtler fantasies, or that it was used in EP5 as a thing Beatrice could but wouldn't do, as she wanted to leave a hint to Battler.

Is that a good general summary?

Drifloon

2012-01-22, 08:40

The subtler fantasy of Shannon and Kanon existing together is able to stand as it doesn't obviously look like a fantasy. Until the trick is exposed, they are both able to visibly exist together.

In that case, what is the trick that makes it look like they are both existing at the same time?

jjblue1

2012-01-22, 10:02

I only really have one problem with this theory. If Erika never really made use of Detective's Authority, and it therefore had practically no impact on the game apart from letting Erika investigate all crime scenes (which she didn't even do, causing her downfall at the end), then why would Ryukishi have put it in EP5 in the first place?

If he put it in just to fake us out, that would be kind of silly...

Erika used Detective's Authority to enter in the room where there were supposed to be the corpses of the cousins... but didn't bother to check the corpses, although, with detective's authority, she could have realized immediately they weren't dead.

In Ep 6 she also didn't have her piece check if Kanon entered in the room he was supposed to be closed in, merely demanded a red truth that, according to her, assured he was in.
Note that Erika sealed the rooms but never checked who was inside directly and that's likely also because she was looking for a logic error, not for the culprit.

So it's easy to assume that in the first game she played in, she never checked where the servants were, because she was aiming at framing Natsuhi, not one of the servants.

Photographic memory is useful only if you look around. In a room where people are moving around and where she's staring at the cousins, talking with them in the moment where it's declared everyone is there, she didn't have a full visual of the room, nor she bothered to get one so it was easy to place Kanon or Shannon or both behind her without her caring she hadn't seen them both at the same time or that she might not have seen one of them enter in the room.

What is much more illogic and should have drawn her attention is actually the scene with Kinzo's room.
Everyone is in front of the door when they knock for Kinzo and Shannon and Kanon both speak more than once.
Now, in the parlour is possible Erika wasn't checking who was there or what it was doing because busy in other things or because disinterested but HERE it's hard to assume one of the two remained out of her field of vision and there's definitely no time for one of them to change into the other's clothes.

The same goes for when they managed to enter in Kinzo's room.
Everyone is present (if one of the two was absent it would have looked rather odd thought it could be explained with a 'Kanon went to put away the ladder') and Shannon and Kanon again talk.

If Bern, because at the moment it was Bern that was moving Erika, we never see Erika in the meta world, was listening/watching the story, she evidently wasn't doing it through the eyes of a reliable narrator but what's worst is that Erika will never go back and check that this part of the story either doesn't match with what she could remember (just Kanon or Shannon being present and not both) or it requires for both to have a body.

So I think if we want to focus on how Erika never noticed Shannon and Kanon can't be present at the same time, we should check this scene, not the parlour one.
Someone can come up with an explanation for it?
One that's not Shannon and Kanon were two different people?
And also... is this scene presented in the same way in the PS version? (with both Shannon and Kanon present and talking?)

Klashikari

2012-01-22, 10:26

In that case, what is the trick that makes it look like they are both existing at the same time?
The premise itself: it is difficult to imagine a single person being able to impersonate Shannon and Kanon by themselve, especially how it would be hard to juggle between the duties and the disguises.
The very same point why a lot of people don't like the whole shkanon thing (that and personality switch).

Toku

2012-01-22, 11:09

In that case, what is the trick that makes it look like they are both existing at the same time?

The trick is that "Kanon was being anti-social." Since his role in the entire thing was extremely minimal, it was possible to find room for him to exist in the Parlor during this scene. Was he actually there? There's theories which allow him to be, like Keriaku's, but who really knows.

stuff

Well, you don't need to convince me of this stuff, since I pretty much already agree with it all. I was just saying that, according to the "Erika never saw things from Piece!Erika's perspective in EP5" theory, Detective's Authority only became useful in one instance (cousin's room), and even then, she didn't make use of the privileges she had, so I still don't really like that theory.

What is much more illogic and should have drawn her attention is actually the scene with Kinzo's room.
Everyone is in front of the door when they knock for Kinzo and Shannon and Kanon both speak more than once.
Now, in the parlour is possible Erika wasn't checking who was there or what it was doing because busy in other things or because disinterested but HERE it's hard to assume one of the two remained out of her field of vision and there's definitely no time for one of them to change into the other's clothes.

The same goes for when they managed to enter in Kinzo's room.
Everyone is present (if one of the two was absent it would have looked rather odd thought it could be explained with a 'Kanon went to put away the ladder') and Shannon and Kanon again talk.

If Bern, because at the moment it was Bern that was moving Erika, we never see Erika in the meta world, was listening/watching the story, she evidently wasn't doing it through the eyes of a reliable narrator but what's worst is that Erika will never go back and check that this part of the story either doesn't match with what she could remember (just Kanon or Shannon being present and not both) or it requires for both to have a body.

So I think if we want to focus on how Erika never noticed Shannon and Kanon can't be present at the same time, we should check this scene, not the parlour one.
Someone can come up with an explanation for it?
One that's not Shannon and Kanon were two different people?
And also... is this scene presented in the same way in the PS version? (with both Shannon and Kanon present and talking?)

If this scene is how you describe it, then it certainly is harder to justify.

The idea of Fantasy is that it's just a different process leading up to the same result. But if we say, here, that the result is "Erika talked to both Shannon and Kanon at once" then we get stuck. After all, the Fantasy itself cannot be the result; it never is. It's always just the process.

Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if the result was actually something more vague like "Erika and the others investigated Kinzo's study." The Game Master is free to show us any process she wishes, which leads up to that result. Whether we believe it or not, is up to us.

jjblue1

2012-01-22, 12:36

Well, you don't need to convince me of this stuff, since I pretty much already agree with it all. I was just saying that, according to the "Erika never saw things from Piece!Erika's perspective in EP5" theory, Detective's Authority only became useful in one instance (cousin's room), and even then, she didn't make use of the privileges she had, so I still don't really like that theory.

Sorry, I misunderstood you then...

My idea about Erika is that she's nothing else but Bern's Mary Sue (I wonder if she can also sing well).
Someone who can do amazing things in her author's idea... though since her author is a poor writer, Erika ends up being poorly used.
She doesn't use her amazing powers when it could be useful to use them, tries to twist the story for her own end and gives life to a poor story.

Erika complained so much it was a third rated mystery but it wouldn't have been third rated if she had solved it properly.

I guess also Erika exists to make fun of those who thought 'if I were in Battler's place I would have done better'. Bern places her in Battler's place to do better, gives her a certain inner knowledge of how things will work but still Erika fails badly and her superpowers sort of make her look like a parody of a detective instead than a realistic detective.

So, maybe, the mere reason due to which she has superpowers (because DA is presented very much like one) is merely to make fun of them.

If this scene is how you describe it, then it certainly is harder to justify.

The idea of Fantasy is that it's just a different process leading up to the same result. But if we say, here, that the result is "Erika talked to both Shannon and Kanon at once" then we get stuck. After all, the Fantasy itself cannot be the result; it never is. It's always just the process.

Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if the result was actually something more vague like "Erika and the others investigated Kinzo's study." The Game Master is free to show us any process she wishes, which leads up to that result. Whether we believe it or not, is up to us.

Well, technically she didn't talk to them but they spoke out loud and were both described as present.
Erika has also an impressive hearing so, if they talked, she should have heard them, no way to turn around this.

The only way to handle this is with a more or less ridicule solution.

Servants generally are positioned behind the Ushiromiya. If you don't count Kanon and Shannon the group of people in front of Kinzo's room and in Kinzo's room was of ten people. If you remove Erika they're 9 and all taller than Erika. Assuming they all wanted to keep hidden the fact that Shannon and Kanon are the same person (and this is possible since Shannon was technically an ally of both Natsuhi & Eva's group) they merely took care to keep Shannon (or Kanon) always behind them.
Due to this Erika wouldn't have noticed that just one of them was present, since both groups were adversaries but pursuing the same goal she might not have noticed suspicious that they all ended up covering Shannon and Kanon fron her sight and would have allowed Shannon to use both her and Kanon's voice.
Erika is already targeting Natsuhi so she's not paying Shannon and Kanon any attention.

Battler himself used in that scene the trick of the observer not being able to observe the room fully so the same trick can be used by Shannon and Kanon.

The problem I have with this explanation however is that in real life you either need a dumb Erika or Houdini to make it work... though it might be a case of dumb Erika. When Battler jumped out of the window she didn't rush to look at how he was falling so she didn't saw how he solved the problem of jumping down but had to figure it out.

Evidently Erika rarely check things with her eyes...

Still I don't like the explanation at all.
The whole thing feels forced... though the ShKannon feels forced as well so maybe it was bound to be.

Anyone can offer something better?

Toku

2012-01-22, 13:23

Sorry, I misunderstood you then...

My idea about Erika is that she's nothing else but Bern's Mary Sue (I wonder if she can also sing well).
Someone who can do amazing things in her author's idea... though since her author is a poor writer, Erika ends up being poorly used.
She doesn't use her amazing powers when it could be useful to use them, tries to twist the story for her own end and gives life to a poor story.

Erika complained so much it was a third rated mystery but it wouldn't have been third rated if she had solved it properly.

I guess also Erika exists to make fun of those who thought 'if I were in Battler's place I would have done better'. Bern places her in Battler's place to do better, gives her a certain inner knowledge of how things will work but still Erika fails badly and her superpowers sort of make her look like a parody of a detective instead than a realistic detective.

So, maybe, the mere reason due to which she has superpowers (because DA is presented very much like one) is merely to make fun of them.

I'm one of those people who dislikes a certain part of the ending of EP8. And that part, is the part where BATTLER suddenly went super saiyan and beat the mess out of Bern when he shouldn't have been able to under any circumstances. The only way it could have been possible, is with a miracle, and Bern controls miracles.

Therefore, a miracle will not occur for him.

So what this means is, is that Bern was completely pathetic in that scene. And as someone who was a big fan of Bern, I found this inexplicable patheticness to be quite troubling.

I don't believe that Bern is pathetic. And, I also don't believe that Erika is. Actually, even if Erika did fail in the end in both EP5 and 6, some of the things she pulled off were simply amazing.

Both Bern and Erika are very competent, but they have flaws that drag them down. I have no trouble accepting that. Certainly, they both do have flaws, like how Bern is only concerned with what outcome will be the most interesting, and how Erika has too much pride.

However, I won't believe that they exist just to be your everyday cannon fodder antagonists, or even worse, that they're just there so that they can parody things and look stupid.

Well, technically she didn't talk to them but they spoke out loud and were both described as present.
Erika has also an impressive hearing so, if they talked, she should have heard them, no way to turn around this.

The only way to handle this is with a more or less ridicule solution.

Servants generally are positioned behind the Ushiromiya. If you don't count Kanon and Shannon the group of people in front of Kinzo's room and in Kinzo's room was of ten people. If you remove Erika they're 9 and all taller than Erika. Assuming they all wanted to keep hidden the fact that Shannon and Kanon are the same person (and this is possible since Shannon was technically an ally of both Natsuhi & Eva's group) they merely took care to keep Shannon (or Kanon) always behind them.
Due to this Erika wouldn't have noticed that just one of them was present, since both groups were adversaries but pursuing the same goal she might not have noticed suspicious that they all ended up covering Shannon and Kanon fron her sight and would have allowed Shannon to use both her and Kanon's voice.
Erika is already targeting Natsuhi so she's not paying Shannon and Kanon any attention.

Battler himself used in that scene the trick of the observer not being able to observe the room fully so the same trick can be used by Shannon and Kanon.

The problem I have with this explanation however is that in real life you either need a dumb Erika or Houdini to make it work... though it might be a case of dumb Erika. When Battler jumped out of the window she didn't rush to look at how he was falling so she didn't saw how he solved the problem of jumping down but had to figure it out.

Evidently Erika rarely check things with her eyes...

Still I don't like the explanation at all.
The whole thing feels forced... though the ShKannon feels forced as well so maybe it was bound to be.

Anyone can offer something better?

You're trying to take this scene at face value and explain the tricks in it. However, this same scene has things like, for example, Piece!Battler being able to see into a higher plane where the battle between Piece!Beato and Dlanor is taking place.

I'd just like to say that taking everything in Umineko at face value, is a huge error. You just can't do that, unless you want to look at it as a Fantasy-genre story.

Well, actually, there's nothing wrong with looking at the story that way. You're free to believe it's Fantasy if you like. It's just that, from that very instant onwards, you'll no longer be able to reason about the various truths hidden within the story.

As you say, it's theoretically possible to find a trick with the result of "Shannon and Kanon are both overheard by Erika while they're all in the same location." However, when it starts to get that ridiculous, I think we should look at it from a different angle.

In other words, did that scene actually happen as it was told?

It's well known that the Game Master can show us whatever they want. There are no restrictions on how ridiculous they can make it. In fact, the GM could have a witch tear Rokkenjima into two equal halves on a whim, with their bare hands, and it would be perfectly fine as long as there is nothing else in the story which require a Piece to interact with something or someone on the other side of the island. Actually, they could even get around that by having the witch put the two halves together again, or construct a huge bridge between the two halves with a snap of their fingers.

Therefore, my theory is that what we saw, was at least partially fabricated by the GM. There is no need to explain why Erika was able to hear both of them if we question the idea that she ever did hear both of them.

Kylon99

2012-01-22, 15:32

I want to clear something up about Photographic memory. I think some of us on here are treating that as some kind of video recorder in Erika's head that records every single waking second and that she can play this back at will and check instantly. Eidetic memory doesn't work that way. In particular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memory

Much like any other memory, the intensity of the recall may be subject to several factors such as duration and frequency of exposure to the stimulus, conscious observation, relevance to the person, etc. This fact stands in contrast to the general misinterpretation of the term which assumes a constant and total recall of all events.

I have the this type of memory and I can attest that it doesn't work like a constantly playing video recorder. Something notable has to have occurred which caused me to have interest. When that does happen, I do have recall of scenes, even as far back as when I was 3 years old.

I think the misconception comes from how other detectives like Sherlock Holmes say they have a total recall of the crime scene. This is because their interest lies in detective work and that they consciously turn it on. In fact, they have trained themselves to do so. Erika is most likely meaning this; that she can do what these other detectives do with their photographic memory.

Sherlock Holmes has no chance of remember the chips and notches on the lamp post he hurries by on the way to the crime scene unless he thought it was interesting somehow. And Erika would not be able to use photographic memory for something like Shannon and Kanon unless she suspected it... which she did, later.

Anyways, I think the real issue we all have around Shannon and Kanon is the idea that the detective was supposed to be the true observer for the reader and that this seems to be subverted by the EP5 scene.

I'm one of those people who dislikes a certain part of the ending of EP8. And that part, is the part where BATTLER suddenly went super saiyan and beat the mess out of Bern when he shouldn't have been able to under any circumstances. The only way it could have been possible, is with a miracle, and Bern controls miracles.

Therefore, a miracle will not occur for him.

So what this means is, is that Bern was completely pathetic in that scene. And as someone who was a big fan of Bern, I found this inexplicable patheticness to be quite troubling.

You know, I thought Bern was purposely playing this role for the good of the story. In the same way that Lambdadelta got to play the role as the sacrificed hero. If you think about it, Bern was being nice in that she had to play a villain and she played it by being defeated by the hero... 8)

In the final epilogue where they were discussing what happened to all the other meta characters, it felt like to me that they were finally done with playing villains.

So I gave some bonus points to Bernkastel for playing her part nice. It's almost like she's a tsundere. 8)

Toku

2012-01-22, 15:44

You know, I thought Bern was purposely playing this role for the good of the story. In the same way that Lambdadelta got to play the role as the sacrificed hero. If you think about it, Bern was being nice in that she had to play a villain and she played it by being defeated by the hero... 8)

In the final epilogue where they were discussing what happened to all the other meta characters, it felt like to me that they were finally done with playing villains.

So I gave some bonus points to Bernkastel for playing her part nice. It's almost like she's a tsundere. 8)

Hm. I guess this is a satisfying explanation. From what I hear, Frederica wasn't a sadistic antagonist figure in Higurashi, though I don't know the details. And considering the EP8 Tea Party, you're right, it's possible she was just playing her part.

Kylon99

2012-01-22, 16:01

Oh yeah, about memory. There are only 6 people in the world with super-autobiographical memory, called Hyperthymesia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymesia

This appears to be different than photographic memory, which is what Erika claims in that:
Hyperthymestic individuals appear to have poorer than average memory for arbitrary information.

Hm. I guess this is a satisfying explanation. From what I hear, Frederica wasn't a sadistic antagonist figure in Higurashi, though I don't know the details. And considering the EP8 Tea Party, you're right, it's possible she was just playing her part.

Frederica Bernkastel was more of a tragic super entity of Rika in Higurashi, I think. I think for Umineko it was Ryukishi's implication that it was Bernkastel's turn to play the villain, unlike Higurashi where Lambdadelta was doing it.

Mind you, he never really connected the two series by other than suggestive hints. There was no Lambdadelta or Featherine in Higurashi to begin with. He's only ever just danced around this... 8)

jjblue1

2012-01-22, 16:28

Both Bern and Erika are very competent, but they have flaws that drag them down. I have no trouble accepting that. Certainly, they both do have flaws, like how Bern is only concerned with what outcome will be the most interesting, and how Erika has too much pride.

However, I won't believe that they exist just to be your everyday cannon fodder antagonists, or even worse, that they're just there so that they can parody things and look stupid.

I think the thing Ryukishi might be trying to make fun of isn't the character per se but the stereotype on which the character is based.

The process used by Bern to create Erika is way too close to the one used by many authors to create a Mary Sue. The goal Bern has clashes with the one of the game, like the stories that have a Mary Sue save the world in place of the hero, or marrying the hero in place of the hero's girlfriend (sometimes even turning straight an hero who previously had a boyfriend) or even changing completely the genre of the story.

As a result Bern and Erika are the bad guys and are supposed to make stupid mistakes caused by their arrogance and lose.

In short Ryukishi might have created a parallel between the usual bad guy that wants to destroy/rule the world and fanfiction writers that wants to twist a story for their own ends.

This doesn't mean that Bern and Erika are poor characters. As far as bad guys go they are cool.
The antagonist doesn't have to be unlikable or completely dense... even thought more often he never follows the rules a good evil overlord should follow.

You're trying to take this scene at face value and explain the tricks in it. However, this same scene has things like, for example, Piece!Battler being able to see into a higher plane where the battle between Piece!Beato and Dlanor is taking place.

I checked the scene carefully and it's made by a mix of 'real scenes' and 'meta battles scenes'. Basically people in the story entered in the parlour and discussed things, though they never saw Dlanor or Cornelia and Geltrude, nor Beato, Kinzo or the stakes. Shannon and Kanon spoke during the 'real scenes' not the meta ones.

As I see it the 'meta battle' is merely a fantasy representation of the intellectual duel going on. Each time there's a reasoning there's a bit of 'meta battle'.
It looks like even a meta!Natsuhi had a brief apparition in the meta world and this because the whole battle in the 'real' world is likely between her and Erika, Beato being merely her own delusion.
Battler wasn't supposed to join the meta battle. Beato gives us a fantasy explanation (he's a piece) but more likely because piece!Battler isn't supposed to be on Natsuhi's side so why should he try to help Beato?
Although the fantasy scenes show piece!Beato, Yasu's creation, on Natsuhi's side, Yasu likely is aware that the siblings are working to corner Natsuhi. To hand the ring to Battler most likely Shannon or Kanon personally handed the envelope to the siblings and they also told them about the mysterious phone calls that are used to trick Natsuhi into going in Hideyoshi's room.

In other words, did that scene actually happen as it was told?

The problem is that Erika, the detective, shouldn't be able to witness magic unless she's having a 'meta moment'. She's supposed to have an objective point of view.

It's all fine and dandy when the magic scene takes place where Erika can't see. If the narrative says Battler saw a dragon showing up behind her the narrative is being subjective without violating Erika objectivity. She didn't see the dragon so the dragon could exist in the dark zone of magic (there's a similar scene in EP 5). As Beato said:

All darkness outside the range of observers belongs to us demons.

The problem is that Erika has perfect hearing abilities.

"Erika has a photographic memory. And her hearing ability is on par with a tape recorder. ......It was impossible for him to deceive Erika's ears, kill George and the others and slit their throats."

So, as soon as Shannon and Kanon talk they can be heard by Erika. Merely hearing them is fine as one person can speak with 2 different voices but a person can't be 2 different people in the same time. So either they were hidden to her sight and she never cared about it or showing them to her would be the same as showing a dragon to her in the 'real' world.
In order to do so you should prove that she's not the detective in this game, however with the detective proclamation I fear this is impossible so you would create a logic error.

So yes, it's stupid they spoke and yet she never noticed she couldn't see one of them but she has not the option to see them both without going 'meta'.

AuraTwilight

2012-01-22, 16:33

@Kylon: Ryukishi has already demonstrated that he makes up mental disorders and mental abilities. Why should Erika's super mary sue bullshit ultra-memory be an exception?

jjblue1

2012-01-22, 17:02

Anyways, I think the real issue we all have around Shannon and Kanon is the idea that the detective was supposed to be the true observer for the reader and that this seems to be subverted by the EP5 scene.

Well, your explanation would fit nicely with my idea for the parlour scene... though I still don't like much how in front and inside Kinzo's room she was able to hear both Shannon and Kanon's voice but never saw them... or at least one of them, and didn't find it odd.
Unless Erika really considered them like furnitures and never bothered to look at them...

Toku

2012-01-22, 17:20

The process used by Bern to create Erika is way too close to the one used by many authors to create a Mary Sue. The goal Bern has clashes with the one of the game, like the stories that have a Mary Sue save the world in place of the hero, or marrying the hero in place of the hero's girlfriend (sometimes even turning straight an hero who previously had a boyfriend) or even changing completely the genre of the story.

I'm not denying that Erika is a Mary Sue. I don't think I could possibly find a way to deny it, actually. Lol. But, I think she's one of the cases where it's done right. At the very least, a lot of the scenes with her in them are quite entertaining.

even thought more often he never follows the rules a good evil overlord should follow.

You also go to TvTropes?

I checked the scene carefully and it's made by a mix of 'real scenes' and 'meta battles scenes'. Basically people in the story entered in the parlour and discussed things, though they never saw Dlanor or Cornelia and Geltrude, nor Beato, Kinzo or the stakes. Shannon and Kanon spoke during the 'real scenes' not the meta ones.

The very fact that both Shannon and Kanon are there at the same time, not to mention that they both speak, denies it being a "real scene." There is at least a little Fantasy mixed in.

The problem is that Erika, the detective, shouldn't be able to witness magic unless she's having a 'meta moment'. She's supposed to have an objective point of view.

We didn't see the narration from Piece!Erika's point of view, so it's even possible that the narrator said "I saw Erika there" and it wasn't necessarily true.

It's possible for the GM to make it look like a Piece is in a certain place when they're actually somewhere else, or nowhere at all. This is the very core of the Illusion of the Witch. So in other words, we've been given more than enough hints.

What I'm saying, is that the entire scene is probably a heavily modified version of what actually happened. The fact that Lambda did what she did with the Parlor scene makes it obvious that she's more than willing to play "dirtier" tricks than Beatrice did in EP1-4.

Kylon99

2012-01-22, 17:47

@Kylon: Ryukishi has already demonstrated that he makes up mental disorders and mental abilities. Why should Erika's super mary sue bullshit ultra-memory be an exception?

Ryukishi has demonstrated an understanding of mental disorders with Tooya though, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. And it's safer to assume that he does understand as, really, information like this is only one google away. In addition the way he writes his stories with hidden clues and historical background checking suggest meticulousness with the possibility of error, rather than carelessness with the possibility of being right by coincidence.

However, Erika can definitely BE a tape recorder when she's interested. And she's definitely interested in murder mysteries despite calling this a 3rd rate mystery. (I guess he wants to prove herself regardless.) And so she demonstrates keen memory, especially with things like alibis.

She didn't display any interest in Shannon or Kanon until EP6 though, so I don't assume it would have been turned on. At best, you could say, why wasn't Erika aware of the genre convention of cheating with twins or disguises; which is something she should have been looking for. That's one of the classic signs of bad detective mysteries, which she (and Dlanor) should've been aware of.

I still chalk it up to Erika behaving more to frame Natsuhi, I think from unspoken agreement with Lambdadelta and Bernkastel.

I'm not talking about the detective as observer point of view here though, which seems to be a separate problem.

Well, your explanation would fit nicely with my idea for the parlour scene... though I still don't like much how in front and inside Kinzo's room she was able to hear both Shannon and Kanon's voice but never saw them... or at least one of them, and didn't find it odd.
Unless Erika really considered them like furnitures and never bothered to look at them...

There's still the matter of why what was supposed to be a view into the story by the detective ended up being unreliable though. In normal detective stories; and indeed in EP1-4, the detective is not supposed to be cheated in what he sees so that we have a chance of solving the mystery. It's kind of an unspoken rule.

Although, I view EP5, 6 and 7 as more anti-games. (EP8 too, technically.) EP5 was supposed to be a demonstration of a game without love so I expected all sorts of unsolvable weird stuff. EP6 seemed more like a demonstration of a game with two people at the wheel and the ability to retcon the hell out of it; not surprising the whole story ended up into the gutter. 8) EP7 feels more like a story where truth was presented, but only enough so that you get the wrong idea. And then it tacked on biased opinions as if they were fact; more for the people of Rokkenjima Prime, to convince them that Kyrie was a cold blooded killer. EP8 felt like a study on the pure puzzle aspects of a detective novel when you take away the literary parts. It felt further along on the spectrum than the first Van Dine novel, for example.

Anyways, I only view EP1-4 as full detective mystery games and although EP5-6, as messed up as they were (they didn't even finish properly; how can you have a detective story that just stops in the middle... :heh:) they did provid us with important clues/answers for EP1-4...

jjblue1

2012-01-22, 18:04

I'm not denying that Erika is a Mary Sue. I don't think I could possibly find a way to deny it, actually. Lol. But, I think she's one of the cases where it's done right. At the very least, a lot of the scenes with her in them are quite entertaining.

I personally like Erika but I think she's supposed to play the 'bad stereotype' in opposition to Will, who, although being an original character and if you want a Gary Stu of some sort (awesome powers, cool sword, legendary reputation and we're actually shown him solving a mystery out of the gameboard as well as the one in the gameboard), follows the rules of the game and didn't want to interfere with the story nor twist it for his own ends (actually the only time he does something of his own volition is when he believes it's Bern that's twisting again the story for her own ends trying to kill Lion... otherwise he's forced by Bern to investigate).

This don't stop Erika from being an awesome character, she just have to play a... well, let's call it a 'bad role'?

You also go to TvTropes?

Well, I'm not really that much into TvTropes but the Evil Overlord list and the assorted lists that it inspired are something I love madly.

The very fact that both Shannon and Kanon are there at the same time, not to mention that they both speak, denies it being a "real scene." There is at least a little Fantasy mixed in.

For me is a case of the scene being presented in Battler's subjective perspective.
He can 'observe Shannon and Kanon at the same time' as long as he doesn't show them to Erika. The same goes for the others.

We didn't see the narration from Piece!Erika's point of view, so it's even possible that the narrator said "I saw Erika there" and it wasn't necessarily true.

It's possible for the GM to make it look like a Piece is in a certain place when they're actually somewhere else, or nowhere at all. This is the very core of the Illusion of the Witch. So in other words, we've been given more than enough hints.

What I'm saying, is that the entire scene is probably a heavily modified version of what actually happened. The fact that Lambda did what she did with the Parlor scene makes it obvious that she's more than willing to play "dirtier" tricks than Beatrice did in EP1-4.

The problem always rely on the objective viewpoint of the detective.
I think the thing can be read in a way that means 'the narrative MUST be honest about the detective: where he is, what he does, what he sees, what he hears, though the narrative can lie about everyone else'.

In short, to follow your example, the subjective narrative can't lie about Erika being there... because it would create a clash with Erika needing to have an objective viewpoint. However, as long as Erika can't observe what the subjective narrative proposes because... let's say it's happening behind her, you can have all the magic scenes you want.

At least this is how I interpret the 'objective viewpoint' of the detective.

Funny enough saying there was no objective viewpoint in all EP 5 can also mean that Erika was also something that was made up and that she actually was never witnessed by anyone in Rokenjima...
LOL, poor Erika, I've just denied her existence...

... and weren't there theories that assumed Erika never existed in Rokkenjima?
Someone willing to refresh my memory?

There's still the matter of why what was supposed to be a view into the story by the detective ended up being unreliable though. In normal detective stories; and indeed in EP1-4, the detective is not supposed to be cheated in what he sees so that we have a chance of solving the mystery. It's kind of an unspoken rule.

That's why I'm assuming Erika actually didn't see Shannon and Kanon together because busy talking with Battler while 'they were behind her' and didn't bother to check about WHY she couldn't see them together because she decided that servants can't be the culprit (or Bern didn't want them to be the culprit).

Actually in some mysteries the culprit tries to cheat the detective in what he sees... the trick is that the detective never see something that's not true but, since the culprit implied the detective might have witnessed it, we believe he does.

For example... let's say that the culprit must wear a costume with a cape to commit his crimes. So, to let the detective believe he's not the culprit he would say something along the line of 'look, there's a person wearing a cape escaping' and all the detective would see is a glimpse of a cape before it would disappear by his sight.
We would assume the detective witnessed the criminal escaping but later the detective would say 'sorry, I only saw a cape, you tricked me into thinking the culprit was wearing it but (insert trick here). So the excuse you were with me when the criminal was escaping didn't work.'

Toku

2012-01-22, 18:30

Well, I'm not really that much into TvTropes but the Evil Overlord list and the assorted lists that it inspired are something I love madly.

I agree, I've had fun looking through that stuff. And indeed, a lot of it is stuff I wish antagonists would follow...

The problem always rely on the objective viewpoint of the detective.
I think the thing can be read in a way that means 'the narrative MUST be honest about the detective: where he is, what he does, what he sees, what he hears, though the narrative can lie about everyone else'.

In short, to follow your example, the subjective narrative can't lie about Erika being there... because it would create a clash with Erika needing to have an objective viewpoint. However, as long as Erika can't observe what the subjective narrative proposes because... let's say it's happening behind her, you can have all the magic scenes you want.

At least this is how I interpret the 'objective viewpoint' of the detective.

Well, this isn't ever confirmed... Besides, this definition of yours applies to a specific Piece's viewpoint. And the story is being narrated from a completely different viewpoint, which we can confirm is not objective.

Funny enough saying there was no objective viewpoint in all EP 5 can also mean that Erika was also something that was made up and that she actually was never witnessed by anyone in Rokenjima...
LOL, poor Erika, I've just denied her existence...

... and weren't there theories that assumed Erika never existed in Rokkenjima?
Someone willing to refresh my memory?

I think this theory is possible. In particular, if we follow this theory, then it could be said that there is no objective perspective for EP5. Therefore, absolutely nothing but the Red Truth can be trusted. Which makes the whole thing quite amusing.

However, I think that a few Reds can deny this. Namely,
As the detective, <Miss> Erika sealed all ENTRANCES. If Erika does not possess a body, she cannot perform such an action. Furthermore, if there is someone acting like Erika, then it follows that when they are treated as "Furudo Erika," their perspective must be objective, and it will amount to the same thing as her being there.

jjblue1

2012-01-22, 18:50

Well, this isn't ever confirmed... Besides, this definition of yours applies to a specific Piece's viewpoint. And the story is being narrated from a completely different viewpoint, which we can confirm is not objective.

Yes, it's an interpretation, though it would fit with piece!Battler never being directly involved in magic scenes in EP 1-4 unless he's dead/drunk.

Otherwise all Ep 1-4 would have to do is saying that the scene was, for example, told by Maria's point of view (after all she's the 'author' of the message bottles).

I personally prefer to think that there's another explanation for which Erika never noticed that Shannon and Kanon weren't there that 'the scene is under a subjective viewpoint and, due to this, Erika can see magic'... though the idea that Yasu is hidden behind the others and talk with two voices isn't really of my tastes... but yes, I guess it would have been odd for the readers if, in such a moment one of the two were to be absent so the trick is more for us than for Erika (who's busy framing Natsuhi and might have been so focused on it that she wouldn't notice an elephant entering in the room...)

I think this theory is possible. In particular, if we follow this theory, then it could be said that there is no objective perspective for EP5. Therefore, absolutely nothing but the Red Truth can be trusted. Which makes the whole thing quite amusing.

However, I think that a few Reds can deny this. Namely,
As the detective, <Miss> Erika sealed all ENTRANCES. If Erika does not possess a body, she cannot perform such an action. Furthermore, if there is someone acting like Erika, then it follows that when they are treated as "Furudo Erika," their perspective must be objective, and it will amount to the same thing as her being there.

Well, personally I think that Erika existed and she wasn't... let's say Battler's imaginary friend, so I'm not even going to try and think if there's a way to work around the various red about Erika... though the idea of Erika not existing is interesting...

AuraTwilight

2012-01-22, 18:55

I'm curious if jjblue and Toku are aware of the old Ghost!Erika and ErikaBall theories.

Cao Ni Ma

2012-01-22, 19:05

I kinda understand Keriaku's theories because they are similiar to what I believe is going on in the game boards. I think that the game is in a state of superposition and that everything that could happen is happening at the same time. If someone with an objective point of view like piece Battler see it or if a red truth mentions an event, then it forces it to pick a side into a single truth.

So Shkanon could be individuals or a single person in games 1-4 because there is no concrete proof to force it to be a single answer. Same thing happens with the mountain of gold. For all we know, the gold shown in EP2 was fake, or it could be real but it was only a few bars, a far cry from the mountain we were led to believe. This is, in my opinion, the root of Beatrice's endless magic.

Now Lambda school is certainty, she can make anything a 100%. So she does, and makes a game were the gold is 100% real and plentiful. Now, she could have forced Shkanon to be a sure fact at the start of the game like she did with the gold. Instead she left it in the superposition. You cant see the number of people as a single number, doing that means that you fall into the trap. The number of people is X, Erika raises it by one, so its X+1. Erika objectively observes the game, this forces X to take a particular shape in that game. The shape Erika observes is 17.

The number of people has always been in the quantum position of X. At first it was (1,Infinity), Beatrice then limited to (1,18]. She then limited further to (1,17]. Erika just saw one of the possibilities of X. My idea still trips me up in the final series of reds in EP6 though, I still see it as them going "No, X=16".

So here is how I see the problem. Erika introduces herself and says she's the 18th human in Rokkenjima in red. By doing this she forces herself to exist in a world were X must be 17. Battler and Beatrice destroy her by denying the probability of that world from existing, because X can only be 16. So then what happens in EP5 were X had to be 17? Retconned, it never happened :heh:

Toku

2012-01-22, 19:12

I personally prefer to think that there's another explanation for which Erika never noticed that Shannon and Kanon weren't there that 'the scene is under a subjective viewpoint and, due to this, Erika can see magic'...

That's not what anyone here is saying.

Well, personally I think that Erika existed and she wasn't... let's say Battler's imaginary friend, so I'm not even going to try and think if there's a way to work around the various red about Erika... though the idea of Erika not existing is interesting...

It would be amazing if she was Battler's imaginary friend, though. This might even be fic-worthy.

I'm curious if jjblue and Toku are aware of the old Ghost!Erika and ErikaBall theories.

Sadly, I'm not. I'm interested to hear about them though.

Kealym

2012-01-22, 19:35

AuraTwilight

2012-01-22, 19:53

Sadly, I'm not. I'm interested to hear about them though.

Well, there were lots of theories about Erika. Erika!Ball theory was that "Erika" never existed on a Gameboard, but was a title that could control different Pieces. Let's say, for instance, that Erika was controlling Jessica's Piece during the Logic Error, so it was Jessica as "Erika" that was looking for Battler in that room.

The advantage is that Erika doesn't have to be one Piece throughout the game. She's passed around like a ball.

Ghost!Erika is similar, supposing that Erika was an embodiment of the negative natures of all the women on Rokkenjima, including Yasu's. Notice that Erika only appears after Beatrice gives up on Battler, and dies as soon as Beatrice is survived and the two reconcile?

jjblue1

2012-01-22, 19:55

I'm curious if jjblue and Toku are aware of the old Ghost!Erika and ErikaBall theories.

I'm aware they existed and I remember going through them... though I forgot most of their details... which is why I asked for someone to refresh my mind in a previous post...

That's not what anyone here is saying.

From my understanding it sound like: 'people (narrative) are lying on what Erika is seeing'... which I translated in 'people lied and said Erika witnessed something that in the end could only be explained with magic' (as Shannon and Kanon can't be seen in the same moment), or, in an even shoter sentence 'Thanks to subjective viewpoint Erika "can see magic"'.
Obviously I didn't mean Erika really saw it... just that we were told she saw something that was impossible to see without magic.

Though if I misunderstood you, I apologize.

It would be amazing if she was Battler's imaginary friend, though. This might even be fic-worthy.

In the beginning I tried to give Erika a similar role. To be exact I wanted her to be the ruthless, mystery solving side of Battler. They both read a lot and liked to use English sentences so they shared some similarities... though in the end I gave up on that theory to go for something in between.

As far as I'm involved the meta is merely what Toya's subconscious came up while writing his books about the witch of Rokkenjima... which would make everyone that's meta subconsciously created by him (though some of the meta characters can be based on... let's say, pictures on Maria's diary or a certain mystery game that's mentioned in Umineko... ^_-).

This would make Erika's personality something he created based to the info he could collect about a girl disappearing around the time of the Rokkenjima incident.

As sub theories I've considered the meta could also be something Ange or Ikuko (assuming Ikuko is Yasu) came up while reading or creating the novels.

Though there's no way to prove what the meta is so there are many theories and the thing is still up to debate.

Toku

2012-01-22, 20:47

Grr, I hate not having internet access. Everyone decides to become chatty, chatty essayists while I'm gone. XD

As I've said before, this issue is just a sore spot for me. Noone's disproved my "Kanon has a body theory" (which in my mind explains everything, is still thematically fitting, and is rather simple to understand), and I doubt anyone can convince me otherwise. Or at least, I haven't heard any real counter.

...at the same time, I'm pretty exhausted on the topic. Alot of these theories are interesting, but a bit much to try and sift through all at once... I guess I'll bow out until we move on to another topic. :heh:

I know the feeling.

As for your theory, at first I liked it the best. But, that was because it seemed like the least ridiculous thing available. Now that this is no longer the case, I'm not too sure how I feel about it anymore. Plus, I found this Red Truth from EP4:

No more than 17 humans exist on this island!!
That excludes any 18th person.
In short, this 18th person X does not exist!!
This applies to all games!!!

Since the word "humans" was used specifically, I'm inclined to believe that this means that there cannot be more than 17 human bodies on the game board. And, it applies to all games. Furthermore, even with the "ShKanon" theory... If you add Erika in, the total is 17 bodies. According to this logic, Kanon cannot have a body in EP5.

...Well, it's a weak attempt at trying to deny your theory, I admit. I can think of quite a few ways to get around what I just said. But I thought you wanted to discuss your theory, so I tried to throw a small obstacle at you.

Well, there were lots of theories about Erika. Erika!Ball theory was that "Erika" never existed on a Gameboard, but was a title that could control different Pieces. Let's say, for instance, that Erika was controlling Jessica's Piece during the Logic Error, so it was Jessica as "Erika" that was looking for Battler in that room.

The advantage is that Erika doesn't have to be one Piece throughout the game. She's passed around like a ball.

Ghost!Erika is similar, supposing that Erika was an embodiment of the negative natures of all the women on Rokkenjima, including Yasu's. Notice that Erika only appears after Beatrice gives up on Battler, and dies as soon as Beatrice is survived and the two reconcile?

Erika!Ball theory is very interesting. In particular, if we say that the name "Furudo Erika" belongs to all Pieces on the game board, we can even get around all people can only use their own names!! in EP6.

It's also pretty amusing, since it reminds me of the Idiot Ball trope. Only problem is, it's slightly ridiculous.

Ghost!Erika seems to make Erika into the "Black Witch." I'm not sure how I feel about that. But you're right, the timing of her appearance and death does seem to coincide. Well, aside from the fact that she came back in EP8.

From my understanding it sound like: 'people (narrative) are lying on what Erika is seeing'... which I translated in 'people lied and said Erika witnessed something that in the end could only be explained with magic' (as Shannon and Kanon can't be seen in the same moment), or, in an even shoter sentence 'Thanks to subjective viewpoint Erika "can see magic"'.
Obviously I didn't mean Erika really saw it... just that we were told she saw something that was impossible to see without magic.

Though if I misunderstood you, I apologize.

I guess you're more or less right. Well, you're free to use whatever theory you want. I mean, as far as I know, your theory seems plausible too. I can't really deny it. Or at least, not without going back and reading through the story again.

In the beginning I tried to give Erika a similar role. To be exact I wanted her to be the ruthless, mystery solving side of Battler. They both read a lot and liked to use English sentences so they shared some similarities... though in the end I gave up on that theory to go for something in between.

I just checked, and this theory has unfortunately been denied.

Three people--in other words, three bodies--went in or out. Only you and Kanon entered, and only Battler left. It has already been said in red that all people can only use their own names. Therefore, the names Erika, Battler, and Kanon can only be used by those people.

So, Erika was using a different body at the time of the logic error in EP6.

Of course, the Erika!Ball theory can get around this. However, the theory we get from combining Erika!Ball with "Erika is Battler's imaginary friend" is just... Lol.

(I already know that you said you gave up on this theory, I was just having fun with it)

As far as I'm involved the meta is merely what Toya's subconscious came up while writing his books about the witch of Rokkenjima... which would make everyone that's meta subconsciously created by him (though some of the meta characters can be based on... let's say, pictures on Maria's diary or a certain mystery game that's mentioned in Umineko... ^_-).

This would make Erika's personality something he created based to the info he could collect about a girl disappearing around the time of the Rokkenjima incident.

As sub theories I've considered the meta could also be something Ange or Ikuko (assuming Ikuko is Yasu) came up while reading or creating the novels.

Though there's no way to prove what the meta is so there are many theories and the thing is still up to debate.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that Ikuko is Yasuda and she wrote all eight episodes, with Tohya's help in later cases. It just ties everything up pretty nicely... In my opinion.