AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-04-28, 02:29   Link #9381
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
So I'm betting that eliminating suspects further and further will get us... surprised. There has to be more than one candy in the box.
So are you saying if the readers eliminate the wrong people from the equation they'll all end up being hanged?

or that Kanon is the culprit because he's the hanged man?
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 02:31   Link #9382
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
So I'm betting that eliminating suspects further and further will get us... surprised. There has to be more than one candy in the box.
This is precisely what's going on in my head. After Rosa and Eva are shown to possibly be 'trap' culprits.. (was it called red herrings?) and in EP5 Natsuhi is shown to be innocent, everyone I suspect now I also suspect to be innocent.

Genji, Kumasawa, Nanjo
Shannon
Kanon
George
Maria
Jessica
Rudolf
Kyrie

I guess the only one I don't feel the need to be innocent is Gouda and Hideyoshi, both of which have not really that much character development.

But I doubt I can construct the answer with just Hideyoshi. So, I'm naming names, ignoring my feeling that they *should* be innocent. I feel pretty much the same as Battler was feeling... (Except George is getting suspicious after all we've discussed about him...)


By the way, I understood Hempel's Raven but I thought I was stupid or something not understanding Beatrice's explanation. 8) Thanks for making me feel normal again.


EDIT: I think Oliver is saying that as we eliminate suspects, we'll end up with someone we thought should've been innocent?
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 02:36   Link #9383
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
EDIT: I think Oliver is saying that as we eliminate suspects, we'll end up with someone we thought should've been innocent?
But the surprise for the prisoner was about him being hanged so isn't the surprise a bad thing? In other words when it's finally revealed the culprit isn't who you suspect that's the surprise if your reasoning is wrong right?
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 02:49   Link #9384
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
So, uh, what are you trying to say here? I don't quite get it, because I'm not very smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
So are you saying if the readers eliminate the wrong people from the equation they'll all end up being hanged?
I am trying to say that:
  • Beatrice's proof of witches hinges on everyone else being proven or assumed innocent. Which is what Battler is doing most of the time to the best of his incompetence.
  • But a mystery is supposed to be a surprise.
  • The number of possible single culprits is limited to 17. Some of them have been eliminated in red over time already, starting with Battler who is the detective, which brings us closer to being surprised.
  • It is likely that 'Beatrice'/'Ryukishi' expects us to further eliminate those who remain one by one and end up with one most likely singular culprit.
  • It will be a great surprise if in Ep7 we will get a complete denial of this person being a singular culprit or a culprit at all. In red. That would be fully in keeping with Beatrice's long treatise on culprits and candy. He can do this multiple times.
  • But if we assume that whichever singular culprit is not one because they're the most likely one and we know Ryukishi wants to surprise us, we risk stepping into the unexpected hanging trap -- i.e we will be surprised because someone we eliminated ourselves is the culprit.
  • Nevertheless, a large portion of the audience will end up being correct purely through randomness if any single culprit is assumed. That is not in Ryukishi's interest.
  • But unlike the surprised prisoner, we can be 'hanged', i.e. surprised, at multiple days of the week simultaneously, because our 'days of the week' - suspects - are not arranged in any consecutive order!

It is therefore very likely that every episode features more than one culprit. They either have to all be innocent of murder and it's all a giant magic trick, or many of them have to be guilty at the same time. That's the only practical way to keep the surprise up while we're working with single culprit theories because this way no single elimination will remove the surprise in the end.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 02:49   Link #9385
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
I'm trying to prove that she is likely innocent. And as far as I can find it is impossible to prove (without pointing out the real killer) that she didn't kill her siblings.
By the way, this is a bit of a separate discussion than what you were talking about but I thought it's necessary.

In terms of 'proof' for a detective novel, we will never be able to come up with and solve using proofs. This is because what is presented are clues, rather than proofs and sometimes evidence.


I'm putting forth the idea that when Ryukishi gives us an 'answer' he gives us 'evidence.' Evidence like the word 'explosion' in Erika's tips or evidence like the statement that 'everyone choose a room to lie down in.' in EP6. But before we are given this evidence/answer, what are we given?

I'm thinking we are only given 'clues.' Clues like, Ange not being able to find the dock or the remains of the house. Or clues like the Battler saying 'murder means it wasn't a closed room.' And these clues are very easy to 'explain away.' I propose that if we are arguing away too many clues that our thought process is not proceeding down the correct path.


If we take a case example, the 10th Twilight Explosion, we can see that the clues provided:

- EP1 body parts were found rather than whole corpses
- EP1 only Maria's jaw being found
- EP2 Rosa feeling the need to get off the island no matter what on 10th Twilight
- EP3 Eva surviving by being 2km away from the mansion
- EP4 The murders being referred to as 'incident' and not 'murders' by police
- EP4 Massive geological changes when Ange visits

Now before the 'answer' was provided in EP6 these clues existed and maybe a lot of people agreed that it was possible... but no one took the clue and used it as a basis for other theories. There was a lot of arguing back and forth (and still was in the EP5 thread.) I don't remember what it was but there were a lot of arguments against the clues, especially the last two.

Ok, after the 'answer' was provided, I think we've all come to think this is true. Certainly we're coming up with theories on the idea that it's a rigged explosion of some kind. Although not everyone's accepted it and still attempt to explain away the EP6 TIPs. (Not here though. Especially not after that Ryukishi interview.)


So what I'm getting at is we'll never have proof. We can still argue away Ryukishi's blatant 'evidence' or 'answers' too. But if we start thinking once we have an 'answer' then really we'll have to be spoon-fed all the answers until the final answer is obvious.

So, no, I think the only method we have if we want to get anywhere is to base our ideas off of clues. It will be like being presented with half-played chessboard and imagining up the entire tree of possible outcomes.


Just food for thought. Not like I'm saying this will be easy though..
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 02:57   Link #9386
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
It is therefore very likely that every episode features more than one culprit.
Well, yes. But we already knew that.

There can't be a singular culprit. No one person could pull off everything by themselves.
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:02   Link #9387
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
So some people if anyone figured out the answer shouldn't be surprised.
Naturally! However, the achievement of the writer would be measured by surprising the most possible people while still providing fitting, logical clues.

Notice that Battler never actually looks for a single culprit, and in his attacks against Beatrice always leaves the possibility of an undefined person doing it whenever possible. This is because he doesn't want to suspect anyone. However, if he suspects anyone, he would prefer it to be a single person -- sacrifice one to save everybody else from damnation, so to speak. This is why for every episode we end up with a 'most likely singular culprit' which is then exonerated or re-evaluated later or just dies early in the next episode. But murders still happen!

I am not advocating completely abandoning the idea of slimming down suspects, but I am insisting that no single episode has all the murders committed by one singular person or even faction, and so far, most of our theories concentrate on only exposing a single one, even when we're assuming more than one is present.

That would be the best way to surprise the most of us while we're trying to save the most people by sacrificing one, like Battler does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
Then again maybe Umineko will try to break all normal mystery rules... I wouldn't put it past Kinzo.. uhem.. I mean Ryukishi.
Considering that Umineko pretty much uses the list of Van Dine 'thou shalt not' rules as a checklist of cool things to try, oh yes I wouldn't put it past Ryukishi.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:02   Link #9388
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
I am trying to say that:
  • Nevertheless, a large portion of the audience will end up being correct purely through randomness if any single culprit is assumed. That is not in Ryukishi's interest.
I disagree with this. After all, who cares if someone manages to guess the right culprit? If you don't know why or how they did it, you haven't really solved anything. For spoilers' sake, I won't mention specific names, but there are multiple Agatha Christie books where the true culprit is the most suspicious person from the beginning. In these books, the culprit is so suspicious that the reader discounts them, and soon on, the reader even gets "proof" that the culprit couldn't have done things the way everyone thought. It's only later that we learn that the culprit had an entirely different way to carry out the crime.

Some of these are some of her hardest mysteries to solve, even though the 'answer' is the most obvious.
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:10   Link #9389
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
So what I'm getting at is we'll never have proof. We can still argue away Ryukishi's blatant 'evidence' or 'answers' too. But if we start thinking once we have an 'answer' then really we'll have to be spoon-fed all the answers until the final answer is obvious.

So, no, I think the only method we have if we want to get anywhere is to base our ideas off of clues. It will be like being presented with half-played chessboard and imagining up the entire tree of possible outcomes.


Just food for thought. Not like I'm saying this will be easy though..
When you read a mystery you base your theories on the clues that were presented, same with Umineko. That is how you solve a mystery. Think of Umineko ep1-4 like a mystery novel, but the last chapter is missing. So the book ends with the detective saying he knows the answer. Just like the detective the reader can still solve and figure out the answer and result. Now Chiru we can say is basically if tons of people complained that they couldn't solve this mystery novel. So the author wrote another book about the same mystery showing a different angle so the reader sees more clues and gets closer to the answer. Chiru is the sequel if you will, it is made to help those find the answer that couldn't in the first series. If it is a good mystery story the proof is when we solve all the questions and things make sense with each other, the answer will be starring at you in the face. It will seem that we should have figured it out before. That is what a good hard mystery is supposed to do, even if you didn't figure it out till the reveal or the tip end, as you look back at it you think 'it was starring at me in the face, I should have gotten it before'
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:13   Link #9390
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
It is therefore very likely that every episode features more than one culprit. They either have to all be innocent of murder and it's all a giant magic trick, or many of them have to be guilty at the same time. That's the only practical way to keep the surprise up while we're working with single culprit theories because this way no single elimination will remove the surprise in the end.
For some reason I like the idea that each story is an individual mystery with different culprits. It keeps the surprise factor for every episode that way. I guess if you follow author theory Rokkenjima prime would be caused by "Culprit prime".

I got that idea from this post here
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...postcount=1821

Anyway I've been thinking that the people in different factions may be chosen at random or that the leaders of the factions are different in every episode and they choose different people to join their group. That's a good way to use the Roulette idea.

A different faction leader in every episode would explain a lot of things.

For example if Hideyoshi or Kyrie were one of the leaders of the faction in episode 4 that frames people in all the episodes it would explain why Kinzo was framed in episode 4.

If Jessica was the culprit in both episode 1 and 5 Natsuhi being framed could be explained.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:18   Link #9391
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
When you read a mystery you base your theories on the clues that were presented, same with Umineko. That is how you solve a mystery. Think of Umineko ep1-4 like a mystery novel, but the last chapter is missing. So the book ends with the detective saying he knows the answer. Just like the detective the reader can still solve and figure out the answer and result. Now Chiru we can say is basically if tons of people complained that they couldn't solve this mystery novel. So the author wrote another book about the same mystery showing a different angle so the reader sees more clues and gets closer to the answer. Chiru is the sequel if you will, it is made to help those find the answer that couldn't in the first series. If it is a good mystery story the proof is when we solve all the questions and things make sense with each other, the answer will be starring at you in the face. It will seem that we should have figured it out before. That is what a good hard mystery is supposed to do, even if you didn't figure it out till the reveal or the tip end, as you look back at it you think 'it was starring at me in the face, I should have gotten it before'
What you're describing is after the answer has been provided. I expect that of course... I'm just saying that it's very difficult to solve before we get that answer, if people won't even accept the clues sometimes, arguing back and forth.

I'm looking for ways to solve it before we come to the end. In some ways we are late already as we've been given two episodes with answers already... 8)
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:21   Link #9392
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Anyway I've been thinking that the people in different factions may be chosen at random or that the leaders of the factions are different in every episode and they choose different people to join their group. That's a good way to use the Roulette idea.
Actually, we have evidence already that one faction recruits somewhat random members for their objectives. (The first twilight.) And we sorta see that this faction doesn't operate so well in EP5 and perhaps has a different leader in EP6.

So this idea that even the factions, the leaders and who they may be recruiting will rotate is a good idea.

EDIT: I remember talking about this idea before. I was calling Umineko a result of Faction Wars...
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:23   Link #9393
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
A different faction leader in every episode would explain a lot of things.

For example if Hideyoshi or Kyrie were one of the leaders of the faction in episode 4 that frames people in all the episodes it would explain why Kinzo was framed in episode 4.

If Jessica was the culprit in both episode 1 and 5 Natsuhi being framed could be explained.
That's one way it's possible. I think a more likely variant would be that in the early morning of the 4th, a lot of plans and motives -- possibly as much as six or ten -- exist, some of them involving murder, some not involving murder at all, and some accepting murder as an option when the opportunity presents itself.

By the time 5th rolls in, some of them are shelved away, because other actions make them impossible -- people die and can't follow up, crucial accomplices die so plans become unfeasible, people learn new information, motives become more or less appealing due to that information -- and several play out simultaneously. Sometimes it results in a different person doing something in each episode, and no single person or faction committing all the crimes within the space of one episode.

Somehow all those plans by seemingly unrelated groups have a singular root, which is Ryukishi's excuse for saying we can actually uncover all of them if we find it.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:25   Link #9394
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
What you're describing is after the answer has been provided. I expect that of course... I'm just saying that it's very difficult to solve before we get that answer, if people won't even accept the clues sometimes, arguing back and forth.

I'm looking for ways to solve it before we come to the end. In some ways we are late already as we've been given two episodes with answers already... 8)
By the end of ep4 we've already been given enough hints to find the answer Ryu07 said that in an interview. By ep4 the tale is solvable ep5 and on are just hints to get closer. And this is the whole point mentioned on trust in ep5, you have to accept clues otherwise your just sliting your own throat. Here is a hint, we know that the tale is not solvable by ep3, so ep4 contains big clues, we can't solve Umineko by 3, but we can by 4. What was mentioned in ep4 that we didn't have clues to in 1-3? If we can figure this out were probably closer to getting to the answer.
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:27   Link #9395
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
What was mentioned in ep4 that we didn't have clues to in 1-3?
The phones actually work. Just like in 5 also.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:28   Link #9396
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Somehow all those plans by seemingly unrelated groups have a singular root, which is Ryukishi's excuse for saying we can actually uncover all of them if we find it.
Isn't the root cause Battler's sin from 6 years ago? What could Battler have done to cause all this?

Could running away from his responsibilities to someone like Kinzo be the cause for anything? Responsibilities to Shannon?

Battler got more than one of the girls and women pregnant at the bright early age of 12! He takes too much after Rudolf. This is why at least two aunts like him. Although technically the women wouldn't really 'like' him if he did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserworm View Post
What was mentioned in ep4 that we didn't have clues to in 1-3? If we can figure this out were probably closer to getting to the answer.
Battler's sin of 6 years ago and a broken promise to 'Beatrice.' Looks like both threads arrived at this point. 8)
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:29   Link #9397
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
The phones actually work. Just like in 5 also.
The phone works in ep1. Maria was heard singing through it.
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:31   Link #9398
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
Some of these are some of her hardest mysteries to solve, even though the 'answer' is the most obvious.
This also ties into Poirot's constant mantra about how the murderer is always the most obvious person.

Who's the most obvious person in Umineko?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
That's one way it's possible. I think a more likely variant would be that in the early morning of the 4th, a lot of plans and motives -- possibly as much as six or ten -- exist, some of them involving murder, some not involving murder at all, and some accepting murder as an option when the opportunity presents itself.

By the time 5th rolls in, some of them are shelved away, because other actions make them impossible -- people die and can't follow up, crucial accomplices die so plans become unfeasible, people learn new information, motives become more or less appealing due to that information -- and several play out simultaneously. Sometimes it results in a different person doing something in each episode, and no single person or faction committing all the crimes within the space of one episode.

Somehow all those plans by seemingly unrelated groups have a singular root, which is Ryukishi's excuse for saying we can actually uncover all of them if we find it.
So you're saying that Umineko is a bit like Murder on the Orient Express, but less unified and more convoluted? That is, EVERYONE is a culprit in some form or another?
__________________

Last edited by Kaisos Erranon; 2010-04-28 at 04:06.
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:34   Link #9399
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
This also ties into Poirot's constantly repeated philosophy that the murder is always the most obvious person.

Who's the most obvious person in Umineko?
I'd have to say Kanon. Although I don't *want* to.

At least in EP1, it's most likely him still sneaking around. EP3 he probably did kill Nanjo and led Jessica away. EP4 he may have gotten killed early.

You know what, maybe we weren't supposed to make any sense of EP4. Maybe it was the episode that showed us that none of the sequence of the events matter on the gameboard; if you know which factions want to do what you'd know the order anyways.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-28, 03:34   Link #9400
Laserworm
Maelstorm-Fenrir
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: On Rokkenjima (I'm the 19th person)
Age: 23
Send a message via AIM to Laserworm Send a message via MSN to Laserworm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
Battler's sin of 6 years ago and a broken promise to 'Beatrice.' Looks like both threads arrived at this point. 8)
I'm pretty sure there are other things fully shown in ep4 that is not shown in ep1-3. I can think of a few others.
Laserworm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.