AnimeSuki Forums

k//eternal · 2010-01-03, 14:53

Argh, please don't quote such huge posts in their entirety.

I had a Fight Club-esque theory where someone random has a Beatrice split personality as one of the "rules" of the game. If Shkanon is true, though, I'm not sure how much I like the prospect of multiple people running around with split personalities.

Shkanontrice doesn't resolve the end of EP4, but you could always go with the disaster/explosion theories for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer

Unfortunately, your theory has a glaring flaw that makes it fall apart at the seams:

Beatrice is not Battler.

And you could get around that with the same kind of logic that allows for Shkanon to exist and have single personalities "die" without the actual person dying.

Forsaken_Infinity · 2010-01-03, 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer

Unfortunately, your theory has a glaring flaw that makes it fall apart at the seams:

Beatrice is not Battler.

And how does this make it all fall apart? There are more than one Battler you know. And in this case, its not even multiple personality crap, there are literally two battlers.

Sorry, I will edit that quote >.>

ijriims · 2010-01-03, 15:00

I advise anyone that before proposing a theory, think about it was the answer Ryukishi07 would give, what would you and most readers would think about.

I have seen so many theoretically workable theory, but nonetheless most would be counted as bad downer ending, stupid plot, or betraying how the characters were portrainted in the game.

I have read enough split-personality or cross-dressing theory already.

Damn, why not just say Battler had a split-personality Beatrice and he "seen" all the things through his hallucination? He just got this mental illness because he could not escape from his mother Asumu's death, so he created a persona Beatrice, hoping by conducting all the murders Beatrice would revive all people, including Asumu.

If it is the truth, is it good enough for all the guys believing in 1st type Shkanontrice theory??

Have a writer's mind first. Turn the chessboard around.

Archer · 2010-01-03, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

And how does this make it all fall apart? There are more than one Battler you know. And in this case, its not even multiple personality crap, there are literally two battlers.

Sorry, I will edit that quote >.>

Actually, let me rephrase that.

Beatrice is not the Battler that lived until the end of the fourth game. She says that "I am not you," which is referring to the Battler that she is currently talking to. Also, Beatrice states that she killed him, which means that Battler could not have killed himself without a clear violation of the red.

Joneleth · 2010-01-03, 15:04

The bomb on the island exploded like in every arc and killed Battler.

The last people are usually torn apart and dragged into hell.

Which refers to the bomb exploding, burning them and have them explode.

ijriims · 2010-01-03, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joneleth

The bomb on the island exploded like in every arc and killed Battler.

The last people are usually torn apart and dragged into hell.

Which refers to the bomb exploding, burning them and have them explode.

Saying it was a bomb is not difficult.

What is difficult is why there is bomb (or explosive)? Who placed it? Placing a bomb for what? What was the scale of explosion? Why had the police classified the event as an accident but not a murder?

Forsaken_Infinity · 2010-01-03, 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer

Actually, let me rephrase that.

Beatrice is not the Battler that lived until the end of the fourth game. She says that "I am not you," which is referring to the Battler that she is currently talking to. Also, Beatrice states that she killed him, which means that Battler could not have killed himself without a clear violation of the red.

Actually, let me speculate further as well. Its not necessary that that red truth refers to the time of Death of Battler. There could be another Beatrice who killed Nanjo for instance but Battler is the Beatrice most of the time and thus responsible for most of the murders. When Beato says "I am not you", she doesn't specify the time so she could be another person when she killed Nanjo. Furthermore, the "you", doesn't have to be the Battler we know, it could be the Battler who was having a fantasy battle with Beatrice and not the Battler who died, yes they are different because heck, the Battler who dies denies witches, why would he be having a fantasy battle with the witch unless its inside head? And Killing yourself still counts as a kill, which is why there were so many instances of "X didn't kill himself" truth -_-, it doesn't violate the red. And even without that, trap murder wasn't denied either so Battler could have set a trap to kill himself at the end. Either way, Ushiromiya Battler that came to the island after six years is the culprit.

And if that fails, go with the multiple personality crap >.>

chronotrig · 2010-01-03, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkwright

The story we are told is not a purely subjective tale written entirely from the perspective of one person at a time. Instead it is a reconstruction based on the testimony provided by all of the individuals involved. When all individuals present agree to lie about what happened in a particular scene, that is the interpretation shown to the reader.

However, if too many people present offer testimony which differs from the person who claims a lie, it becomes difficult to impossible to present the lie to the reader. That is the practical meaning of the magic-resisting toxin.

Furthermore, the central character (detective) of the story has an incredibly high level of "toxin." Any testimony they provide will override testimony provided by other characters, and it becomes impossible to present an untruth to the reader when the detective's version of the scene will eliminate that possibility. Thus, in order to present a lie to the reader in a scene where the detective is present, it is necessary to offer an explanation not for why the liar believes the lie, but for why the detective did not offer their own testimony.

Spoiler for size:

And now, here's a new theory to explain almost all of EP5:

Spoiler for size:

Archer · 2010-01-03, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

Actually, let me speculate further as well. Its not necessary that that red truth refers to the time of Death of Battler. There could be another Beatrice who killed Nanjo for instance but Battler is the Beatrice most of the time and thus responsible for most of the murders. When Beato says "I am not you", she doesn't specify the time so she could be another person when she killed Nanjo. Furthermore, the "you", doesn't have to be the Battler we know, it could be the Battler who was having a fantasy battle with Beatrice and not the Battler who died, yes they are different because heck, the Battler who dies denies witches, why would he be having a fantasy battle with the witch unless its inside head? And Killing yourself still counts as a kill, which is why there were so many instances of "X didn't kill himself" truth -_-, it doesn't violate the red. And even without that, trap murder wasn't denied either so Battler could have set a trap to kill himself at the end. Either way, Ushiromiya Battler that came to the island after six years is the culprit.

And if that fails, go with the multiple personality crap >.>

That red truth does specify an exact time frame for when it is being used. Furthermore, this "you" in particular refers to the piece-Battler alone on the island. Finally, Virgilia has confirmed that Battler is not the culprit in red anyway, so this entire discussion is rendered pointless. By Knox's 8th, Ushiromiya Jessica can not be called Battler, as there was no hints that foreshadowed this development. Knox's 10th also forbids Jessica as masquerading as Battler.

ijriims · 2010-01-03, 15:24

Spoiler for size:

[/QUOTE]

I have to say Erika was much more annoying in EP6 than in EP5, and in EP5, she had solved the epitaph. Therefore there was a little chance if the adults would agree to play a prank on her. Saying that the adults forcing the children to play dead in order to break through into Kinzo's study was a much more plausible account, which also fit what their behaviour.

However, in EP6 (Battler's game), it should be like what you said.

I guessed Eva also planned the dead-play in EP1, and the adults thought the servants played dead in EP3. Still, obviously in EP4 there was no dead-play. In EP2, there was little reason for the six adults to play dead to scare the others, it was not 1st April...

Forsaken_Infinity · 2010-01-03, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Spoiler for size:

And now, here's a new theory to explain almost all of EP5:

Spoiler for size:

Hmm. That would mean Ushiromiya Battler is the Beatrice who wrote the declaration of Mariage sorciere in Maria's Grimoire. Kinda farfetched since Battler doesn't even meet Maria until the start of all the episodes after she is three but for all we know, it could be a blatant lie or that he met her as Beatrice. That sort of explains why Maria doesn't recognize him and acts cold to him but he goes straight into playing aeroplane with her.

As for the Battler recognizing Sayo as the culprit theory, why would he allow for actual murders after that then? Also, an equally likely (maybe even more likely) theory would be that Battler is indeed himself the culprit. Since he is the culprit himself, he has no reason to stop himself from actually killing the people who were playing Dead at some point later.

Rias · 2010-01-03, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Spoiler for size:

That's good and all, but there's still the motive behind revealing Natushi's past, and that man from 19 years ago. Unless it's all made up, part of Battler's plan to mess Erika. But seriously, seeing Battler's uselessness in all the episodes (especially ep6), I don't think he's able to pull something like that.

Forsaken_Infinity · 2010-01-03, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer

That red truth does specify an exact time frame for when it is being used. Furthermore, this "you" in particular refers to the piece-Battler alone on the island. Finally, Virgilia has confirmed that Battler is not the culprit in red anyway, so this entire discussion is rendered pointless.

Huh? Let me get the red text from the game then.

Spoiler:

where the heck does it specify the time when she says she wasn't him? The only time specified is when Battler dies and that ties in only to the fact that there is nobody else in the island when he is killed. Which is why its Battler who kills himself. In fact, the very fact that she mentions "now" only during her statement that she will kill him when he is alone points that the other statement were for a different time.

Furthermore, just a while before all that fantasy battle, Beatrice can't talk to the piece-Battler when she states Kanon's death in red. So obviously, the Battler she is talking to and thus refers to as "you" isn't the piece-battler who dies because she can't reach the piece-Battler. If she did, the game would be over to begin with as that would confirm the existence of Magic.

Virgilia has confirmed that Battler isn't the culprit, but there are more than one battler. That's the basic premise of the blue text I gave to begin with...

Please make actual sense rather than claiming something as pointless without thinking at all. This is Umineko we are discussing, not your standard mystery novel.

Used Can · 2010-01-03, 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by ijriims

What is difficult is why there is bomb (or explosive)? Who placed it? Placing a bomb for what? What was the scale of explosion? Why had the police classified the event as an accident but not a murder?

You shouldn't put things past grandfather, etc...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rias

That's good and all, but there's still the motive behind revealing Natushi's past, and that man from 19 years ago. Unless it's all made up, part of Battler's plan to mess Erika. But seriously, seeing Battler's uselessness in all the episodes (especially ep6), I don't think he's able to pull something like that.

That could be red-herring. In fact, that may be the trap R07 talked about. The baby could be a completely different person, and that baby did die back then.

Forsaken_Infinity · 2010-01-03, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Used Can

You shouldn't put things past grandfather, etc...

That could be red-herring. In fact, that may be the trap R07 talked about. The baby could be a completely different person, and that baby did die back then.

Or Shkanon is the red-herring. Or both are. I am going with both being red-herrings. Natsuhi's secret does have something to do with the game though, seeing as she gets called before the game every game. (you can hear the phone ring right after the introduction of Episode 1, I kinda freaked out when I heard it on my last playthrough o.0)

ijriims · 2010-01-03, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Used Can

You shouldn't put things past grandfather, etc..

I don't get this response.

But anyway, I asked you all these because I also believed that what killed Battler in the end of EP4 was explosive, and I have answers to all the question I have asked.

I just want to know if you are going to give the same account as mine.

Antera Caramichael · 2010-01-03, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

It isn't the opposite reaction. She isn't saying "Yeah, well I doubt that". It's more like "Are we absolutely sure?" The Japanese is a little more specific to this second meaning.

Well, you didn't seem to understand what I meant^^.
I was underlining the reaction toward Beatrice. For Kanon, she's a absolute Bitch while Shanon have a reaction in whitch she shows respect to her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

There's no evidence that this scene was taken from Erika's perspective. Therefore, if Erika didn't hear what Shannon mumbled and someone in the room still wanted to keep up the Shkanon lie, this scene could be shown. Remember, George and Jessica aren't in the room, but they're probably alive at this point. This could be hearsay passed on to them.

Yes, we know that we should doubt all of the scenes. The game has made it quite clear that these were the rules ever since "Kinzo is dead" appeared in EP4.

I am sorry but I don't agree with you on this point. What do you define by Point of View? In EP1-4, for me, we could trust no scenes but those where Battler was present, not those where he was the narrator. if it was the case, then we could throw out the entire EP1-4. I agree with you that we can doubt about the authenticity of some scenes, Kinzo's first, but for me, Battler's/the main character/inspector present is the sign of the authenticity of the scenes, the fact that we can support that because of his/her presence, the scene is true. Furthermore, do you really think that Bernkastel, in an important scene like the one where the number of people on the island is define, would let him, his ally, see a fake character, and by so leads him to fake conclusions? Because, I recall you that at this point of the story, what is shown to us is a replay of the game between Bernkastel and LambdaDelta that they show him so that he could understand how Bern cornered the culprit.

Archer · 2010-01-03, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

where the heck does it specify the time when she says she wasn't him? The only time specified is when Battler dies and that ties in only to the fact that there is nobody else in the island when he is killed. Which is why its Battler who kills himself. In fact, the very fact that she mentions "now" only during her statement that she will kill him when he is alone points that the other statement were for a different time.

First of all, if meta-Battler died in that battle, why is not brought up anywhere in Ep. 5? Meta-Battler should have said something along the lines of "Beatrice killed me, but for some reason I'm still alive." Meta-Battler is still fine even after the end of the game, and only piece-Battler is referred to as "leaving the gameboard," which shows that there was no mistaking who died. By Knox's 8th, the scenario where Beatrice kills Meta-Battler in their duel in Ep. 4 cannot happen as there are no clues that suggest this possibility.

Therefore, this red text can only refer to piece-Battler. The red has already established the context of its usage, so there can be no mistaking what event it is referring to. The same cannot be said for Nanjo's murder in Ep. 3 or the deaths of the first twilight in Ep. 5. Beatrice has intended for the game to be solvable, so unless you have evidence that Beatrice could use the red to refer to another event outside of the context that has also been established in red, then you have no case.

Quote:

Furthermore, just a while before all that fantasy battle, Beatrice can't talk to the piece-Battler when she states Kanon's death in red. So obviously, the Battler she is talking to and thus refers to as "you" isn't the piece-battler who dies because she can't reach the piece-Battler. If she did, the game would be over to begin with as that would confirm the existence of Magic.

Naturally, this "you" cannot refer to Meta-Battler, as he's not dead. Even if Beatrice did not refer to piece-Battler specifically, the fact that this person that she was talking to was alone on the island makes it impossible for that person to have committed suicide. Furthermore, even if she could not reach piece-Battler, she could still refer to him, just like how I can say "Hey, you there!" to a person talking to a cell-phone without the person noticing.

Quote:

Virgilia has confirmed that Battler isn't the culprit, but there are more than one battler. That's the basic premise of the blue text I gave to begin with...

However, I wasn't debating the fact that there's one Battler. I was debating the reasoning behind the thinking that all of the red up to now that has referred to "our" Ushiromiya Battler could have been referring to some other person. If the piece-Battler that we all know was actually the culprit behind the murders, then Virgilia would not have said that "Battler-kun was not the culprit" in red. Beatrice intended for Battler to find out the truth, and if Battler really was the culprit, then why would Virgilia intentionally mislead him like that?

This is where the crux of this argument lies: Would Battler being the culprit be consistent with what we know? It is one thing to be plausible, but plausibility alone does not mean that it actually happened. If a theory only needed to be plausible to be true, then Natsuhi really did end up having an affair with Ushiromiya Kinzo. However, it's been shown that Natsuhi would never do such a thing. Similarly, would Virgilia go directly against the wishes of her pupil? Virgilia did not need to provide Battler with that red text, but she did so that he could better understand Beatrice. Your theory would directly go against the characterization that has been set in this series, and defy one of the most important facets of any mystery.

Quote:

Please make actual sense rather than claiming something as pointless without thinking at all. This is Umineko we are discussing, not your standard mystery novel.

I suppose you should follow your own advice first. Umineko is a story that is meant to be solved with the clues that are already in the story, and is currently solvable. You should provide substantial evidence in the story that your theory is correct, as all of the necessary clues have already been presented. If you cannot, then the theory is meaningless.

Used Can · 2010-01-03, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

Or Shkanon is the red-herring.

Maybe, maybe not. I'd say EP6 hinted at it far too much. If all of that was done to deceive the readers, then that certainly worked. But, at this point, I honestly doubt it was a trick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

Natsuhi's secret does have something to do with the game though, seeing as she gets called before the game every game.

That can be explained easily. Someone knows about that incident, and is using it to extort Natsuhi.

Chii Kei · 2010-01-03, 16:57

Hi guys, sorry to interrupt but I have a question, if someone would mind answering...
Somewhere in this thread, someone stated that:

Spoiler for Knox's Rules, just incase:

Would anyone mind telling me just WHAT they apply to, then? I was under the impression that they were a form of red truth, so being told they dont apply is extremely confusing. I'd like to know because I have a lot of theories that fall short BECAUSE of Knox's rules, so.

Thanks for posting such interesting discussions - they're great fun to read through. I'd join in, but I fear I'd just get in the way. XD

2010-01-03, 15:00	Link #4803
ijriims Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: HK, China	I advise anyone that before proposing a theory, think about it was the answer Ryukishi07 would give, what would you and most readers would think about. I have seen so many theoretically workable theory, but nonetheless most would be counted as bad downer ending, stupid plot, or betraying how the characters were portrainted in the game. I have read enough split-personality or cross-dressing theory already. Damn, why not just say Battler had a split-personality Beatrice and he "seen" all the things through his hallucination? He just got this mental illness because he could not escape from his mother Asumu's death, so he created a persona Beatrice, hoping by conducting all the murders Beatrice would revive all people, including Asumu. If it is the truth, is it good enough for all the guys believing in 1st type Shkanontrice theory?? Have a writer's mind first. Turn the chessboard around. Last edited by ijriims; 2010-01-03 at 15:18.

2010-01-03, 15:24	Link #4810
ijriims Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: HK, China	Spoiler for size: In all answer arcs so far, piece Battler realizes who Sayo is, but agrees to keep her secret. This might have something to do with Erika arriving and being so annoying. Therefore, he always claims to have seen both in the same room. It's possible that him finding this out (remember the test) prevents the murders from taking place. In other words, in both EP5 and EP6, the first twilight is a trick that Battler orchestrated to get back at Erika for insulting Jessica and the Illusion of the Witch. That's why Battler said "I am the culprit" at the end of EP5...he wasn't literally a "culprit" because he didn't kill anyone, but he was responsible for tricking Erika with the fake corpses. [/QUOTE] I have to say Erika was much more annoying in EP6 than in EP5, and in EP5, she had solved the epitaph. Therefore there was a little chance if the adults would agree to play a prank on her. Saying that the adults forcing the children to play dead in order to break through into Kinzo's study was a much more plausible account, which also fit what their behaviour. However, in EP6 (Battler's game), it should be like what you said. I guessed Eva also planned the dead-play in EP1, and the adults thought the servants played dead in EP3. Still, obviously in EP4 there was no dead-play. In EP2, there was little reason for the six adults to play dead to scare the others, it was not 1st April...

2010-01-03, 15:04	Link #4805
Joneleth Blue Wizard Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Brussels Age: 39	The bomb on the island exploded like in every arc and killed Battler. The last people are usually torn apart and dragged into hell. Which refers to the bomb exploding, burning them and have them explode.