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 2010-07-13, 14:43   Link #13761
delita-umw-
Wild Speculator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 13th Hierarchical City Kagutsuchi
After reading ep6 I can't deny the possibility of Shkanon but I was wondering if someone from that camp can explain something to me. Maybe I don't fully understand Shkanon theory, but how do you resolve the breast-grabbing scene in ep1 when Shanon is re-introduced to Battler? I have a hard time understanding why Shkanon would allow Battler to touch his/her chest only to be found out for not having anything =/
delita-umw- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 14:54   Link #13762
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by delita-umw- View Post
After reading ep6 I can't deny the possibility of Shkanon but I was wondering if someone from that camp can explain something to me. Maybe I don't fully understand Shkanon theory, but how do you resolve the breast-grabbing scene in ep1 when Shanon is re-introduced to Battler? I have a hard time understanding why Shkanon would allow Battler to touch his/her chest only to be found out for not having anything =/
I'm not from that camp but...Detective's authority! Battler has the right to inspect everyone's breasts!
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 14:54   Link #13763
satisek
Witch of Stupidity
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Polkowice, Poland
I just finished ????? ep 6.
What do you think about last verse?
Quote:
There is no survivors in Umineko no naku koro ni
Btw, after reading ep 6 i can say it with certainty. The trapgirl from the cover of ep7 is Battler and Beatrice's daughter. This two_meters_tall_guy is propably a furniture created for trapgirl's sake.
__________________
Sorry, for my english, i'm from poland ; dd
satisek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 14:54   Link #13764
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
After reading ep6 I can't deny the possibility of Shkanon but I was wondering if someone from that camp can explain something to me. Maybe I don't fully understand Shkanon theory, but how do you resolve the breast-grabbing scene in ep1 when Shanon is re-introduced to Battler? I have a hard time understanding why Shkanon would allow Battler to touch his/her chest only to be found out for not having anything =/
Now... who was the one who said that all of the tragedies of umineko would have never happened if only Jessica didn't stop Battler?

Anyway, there are breast paddings that are quite realistic, there was a chance that Battler wouldn't notice, it's not like Battler actually is a breast sommelier. According to what he says he never really had any chance to touch any breast.
Even if he noticed he'd just think that Shannon padded her breast for vanity.... probably...
Or maybe Shannon wanted him to notice. If she's Beatrice then she'd want to leave things to chance. She might have seen that as an unexpected event in her plans, and Beatrice never tries to prevent unexpected events.

If you want a short answer anyway: we don't know.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:00   Link #13765
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by satisek View Post
I just finished ????? ep 6.
What do you think about last verse?


Btw, after reading ep 6 i can say it with certainty. The trapgirl from the cover of ep7 is Battler and Beatrice's daughter. This two_meters_tall_guy is propably a furniture created for trapgirl's sake.
Pretty much this? When the seagulls cry there are no survivors.

It's also the last verse in the episode 2 credits.

Basically my solution to that? Bomb or volcano theory.

And if your still skeptical about the explosion. Don't bother posting a response. I'll just bring up Ryukishi's interview confirming it that lists all the hints we already knew about and we'll call it a day.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:02   Link #13766
musouka
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Why Battler (don't give me this nonsense about his sin, the proposals of his sin are such tiny matters that even being blown out of proportion a thousand times over doesn't make sense of the things being done)?
I think Battler's sin is actually the key to everything. Always have.

You're absolutely right when you say that most proposals given for his sin are so minor as to not make sense in the context of how things end up. So, let's actually take a look at it.

I am going to assume that Battler's sin results from Battler's promise. After six episodes, this is the only thing that makes sense to me. I would be more than willing to discuss this in depth if someone takes exception to this assumption, but for the outline I am making right now, I don't think that's important.

We know a few things about Battler's sin/promise.

- It was partially responsible for the creation of Beatrice as we know her. It is the reason she went from a prankster remnant of the island's more superstitious times, to the ruler of the island.

- Beatrice has been locked into waiting for Battler for six years because of it. It's not something she can abandon, only pass on.

- It is fixed on Battler as a person. Only Battler can fulfill whatever this promise is.



Now, let's take a couple of the more common proposals as to what this promise was and why they simply don't work using the above criteria as a base.

"Battler said he would come back, but didn't."
Here's the problem. Battler DID come back. That means that if his promise was simply to come back to the island, it was fulfilled the moment he stepped off the boat. If the timeframe for him to come back was limited (say, the next year), then the promise was void after the very next family conference, and there is no need for Beatrice to consign herself to limbo because of it.

"Battler said he would take 'Beatrice' off the island."
The problem with this one is that Battler is NOT the only one that can fulfill this promise. Let us make the huge assumption that Shkanontrice is actually the solution and there is a core girl named "Sayo". In a promise like "I'll take you off the island" or "I'll take you to an aquarium to see penguins", the emphasis is not on the person fulfilling the promise, but on what the promise entails. Since this promise does not need Battler to be fulfilled, someone like George could easily take his place without any "splintering" of personalities necessary.

So, here is my suggestion.

I do not believe the promise was to Beatrice. I believe the promise was between him and Beato. In other words, it was something they had to do together.

Without one, the other could not continue and was forced to wait. It's like if you live on a island, and you are baking a cake with your beloved husband, when you realize you are out of eggs. If he has to boat to the store with your only means of transportation, you will be stuck there until he comes back with the eggs. If he doesn't come back, the cake will remain in a state of incompletion forever, no matter what you do. (Furthermore if your husband comes home two days later after you've been frantic with worry and looks at you like you're crazy when you mention eggs, I think you're going to be pretty upset with him.)

So what is the 'cake' in this scenario? Well, it could be a number of things, but I'm going to guess that it's a story.

In EP5, Battler mentioned that he has read a lot of detective novels. Tons of them. In EP6, it was mentioned that Beatrice's core has read detective novels. Tons of them.

I think they were writing something together. (I also think Beatrice and Maria were writing something together--like the message bottles.)

Just my thoughts.
__________________
雨の日も晴れの日も
いつの日も愛してた
それだけは 今もまだ
ずっと変りはしない
musouka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:06   Link #13767
satisek
Witch of Stupidity
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Polkowice, Poland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Pretty much this? When the seagulls cry there are no survivors.

It's also the last verse in the episode 2 credits.

Basically my solution to that? Bomb or volcano theory.

And if your still skeptical about the explosion. Don't bother posting a response. I'll just bring up Ryukishi's interview confirming it that lists all the hints we already knew about and we'll call it a day.
Sorry but, what is Vulcano/Bomb theory? Can you give me a link to this interviev? I want to read it.
__________________
Sorry, for my english, i'm from poland ; dd
satisek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:09   Link #13768
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
The problem with making this argument is that you have a record, Renall. Dozens of times over, I've made certain points that you have then ignored, forcing me to post the same things again. Of course my theory isn't the only possible answer, but I think it describes a possible answer.
For the longest time, we spoke directly. Irrespective of any posts you've made, I have heard your theory, and directly from you. I raised these same questions every time, and the answer was always evasive. You could never answer certain questions when asked. That behavior led me to the conclusion that you could not answer them because you had no answer for them. So I'm the last person to call out for not understanding your collected thoughts. You worked very hard trying to convince me in personal communication.

I shouldn't be asking these questions, still, if the answers were satisfying and comprehensible to a person of average intellect and investment in the series. My dissatisfaction speaks to a deep and serious flaw. It may not be in your theory. Your theory may be right. But then it speaks to a problematic and serious flaw in the original work, and I'm not sure I like that any better.

If there are "too many questions to answer," that may be a sign that a theory isn't answering enough questions with its essential elements. Granted, "the answer" may, in the end, prove unsatisfactory. There is always the chance ryukishi's grand experiment will fail. I apologize in advance if I'm faulting you for flaws inherent in the writing. It could simply be that there are "too many questions" raised in Umineko than the author has any intention of giving us the means to answer. But I don't believe any existing theory even comes close to properly and competently answering even a significant majority of them.

But I suspect otherwise. Before ep6, I was never particularly dissatisfied with the style of writing (I have serious reservations about the lazy production of red text in ep6, which is nobody's fault but the author's). Now, I'm divided between whether this is a work of great ambition and lean payoff, or a particularly nasty gotcha to people who are looking for a theory that seems to fit all the elements, sense of satisfaction be damned. Since the author has, as yet, shown great competence, I do not believe he will engage on a path which will lead to a low-quality resolution. Your theory is a low-quality resolution, as are pretty much all major theories out right now (nobody wants Shkanon and Erika-Doesn't-Exist to both be demolished than me, believe me, they're both insipid). As an answer, as an ending, they do not fit the ambition of a series on this scale. There are a few that get close, though they require subscribing to aspects of the story (Author Theory, etc.) which are more subjective than I think the "right answer" would hinge upon.

I've said it before. The answer on the fundamental level should resolve the mysteries through an entirely explicable and simple set of baseline explanations. On the higher level, it should justify the development of every character present, not just Battler and those immediately connected to him. On the highest level, it should coherently speculate on the higher-level literary themes raised by the work (love, uncertainty, misdirection, mystery, genre, the role of the author, etc.).

I think the author is capable of these things, but I'm shaken, and that is why I would rather throw in against unsatisfactory answers and believe they are presented as traps than to shelve my dozens upon dozens of questions and accept one which can only answer a handful of them. I simply will not do the latter. Ever. And if the author eventually produces his "answer" and it isn't any more satisfactory... well then, he screwed up. But I've not entirely lost faith in him yet.

EDIT: That's a very, very interesting line of thought, musouka. I think it merits significant exploration, though I can't say where you'd look for it.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:10   Link #13769
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by musouka View Post
I think they were writing something together. (I also think Beatrice and Maria were writing something together--like the message bottles.)

Just my thoughts.
My compliments, that is actually something new and needed to have been put forward.
__________________
"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 2010-07-13, 15:16   Link #13770
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by satisek View Post
Sorry but, what is Vulcano/Bomb theory? Can you give me a link to this interviev? I want to read it.
You've never heard of it before? Well I'll give you a quick run down and then you read the interview. In Episode 4 it was revealed that what happened on Rokkenjima was an "accident" and that people who thought it was a murder called it "the Rokkenjima suspicion". It's also revealed that the mansion and the dock for arriving to it are no longer on the island, but the dock to Kuwadorian is still there, and from the backgrounds and the map from the anime it looks like that all that's left from that area is a huge hole.

If you add in Taiwan theory for the epitaph, which at the end says Beatrice = B0mb. You get the explosion accident theory. Which is mentioned in Ep 6 tips.

Other hints include Maria's jaw in Episode 1, which is the only part of her corpse said to be found and suggest fire. And Nanjo Jr. saying his father's corpse was never discovered.

now here is the interview,

Spoiler for explosion:

Last edited by Judoh; 2010-07-13 at 15:28.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:34   Link #13771
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
@Renall

Just to make sure. Do you really think that I am even slightly satisfied with the theories we have now? Do you really think that the mere confirmation of the current theories would satisfy me?

There is absolutely no theory or cluster of theories that could answer all the questions about umineko in a completely satisfactory way. Not even half of them.

That's why I don't understand you. Why do you expect that much from a theory?
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:37   Link #13772
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Well... I mean if a theory is claiming to be right, then I don't see why I shouldn't expect that, unless you're saying even ryukishi's own theory will not satisfy those questions. In which case, isn't that kind of a problem?
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:41   Link #13773
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
I can make once again the example of Kinzo. The mere theory of "Kinzo is already dead" didn't explain half of the issues related to it.

All the suggestions or attempt to explain how why when... they were all pointless. useless guesswork.

Nonetheless the theory itself was correct. By itself it didn't explain much, but it was correct. That's the extent of what I'm expecting from a theory.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:42   Link #13774
musouka
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
EDIT: That's a very, very interesting line of thought, musouka. I think it merits significant exploration, though I can't say where you'd look for it.
I'd say there are some pretty strong, but odd hints.

For example, the fact that both the human and magic side of are allowed to write the story. This has been sort of subtly implied in previous chapters, with Beato "giving" Battler the blue, which allows him to fill in holes in the manuscript they are creating through the playing of the game. And then in EP6, it's pretty much outright stated. Erika used this design to create the logic error in the game, but that's because she has no interest in the outcome (ie, the story that results at the end).

Let me put it this way. Beato wants Battler to succeed in "beating" her. What is the most firm end result if Battler actually wins? We don't know if he will survive. We don't know if he will get his family back.

The only thing that seems, to me, will be the end result is a devilishly hard murder mystery story. One with fantastical closed rooms that defy thought, but can still be solved through human means, like any good closed room mystery. Battler is filling the gaps her closed rooms have, creating a complete story with no plot holes.

Had Erika played fairly, we would have ended up with the story Beato wanted. As it was, she forced a hastily written ending, with a tacked on happy wedding at the end. I believe that is why Battler asked Beato if she was sure right before they blew Erika away. Doing that meant that the ending they wanted to write was impossible. The story would remain imperfect. But they would also survive and get a "happy ending".
__________________
雨の日も晴れの日も
いつの日も愛してた
それだけは 今もまだ
ずっと変りはしない
musouka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 15:53   Link #13775
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
A valid point. One question: How then was Battler supposed to demonstrate that he understood what Beatrice wanted? With Erika as his opponent, he had to know that she was not sincere about the collective storytelling exercise. In a sense, that's exactly what "Beatrice is my only opponent" means, even if Battler didn't fully understand why. How, then, could he demonstrate his understanding when working with someone who had no intention of behaving herself?
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 16:19   Link #13776
musouka
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
A valid point. One question: How then was Battler supposed to demonstrate that he understood what Beatrice wanted? With Erika as his opponent, he had to know that she was not sincere about the collective storytelling exercise. In a sense, that's exactly what "Beatrice is my only opponent" means, even if Battler didn't fully understand why. How, then, could he demonstrate his understanding when working with someone who had no intention of behaving herself?
Battler was careful to restrict her role more heavily than in EP5, where Lambda let Bern have relatively free reign. He was, basically, trying to make her into the sort of editor that can't actually make revisions, only suggest them.

When he was convinced of Erika's goodwill in regards to writing the story together, he metaphorically put a pen in her hand, and allowed he access to a couple of select pages to revise a few scenes to her liking. Much like Beato did in regards to giving him the blue.

But instead of making a better mystery, Erika used that to make a plot hole that made the rest of his story collapse in on itself. It ultimately had to be abandoned.

Well, all of this is entirely theoretical. To a point where I'm sort of uncomfortable with it. But that's a potential answer to your question.

(The real problem is that Battler had to "win" in order to prove he understood Beato's game. But I don't think Beato wanted a "fantasy" story, which is what we ended up with.)
__________________
雨の日も晴れの日も
いつの日も愛してた
それだけは 今もまだ
ずっと変りはしない
musouka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 16:20   Link #13777
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
@Renall:
Well, I'll probably go point by point later, but I think we have one huge disagreement here. It seems you cannot be happy with any answer unless every minor detail of the backstory can be proven to be on specific thing beyond any reasonable doubt. On the other hand, I think doing that is completely unnecessary. "Solving" the game can mean just finding the culprit, finding the most likely motive, and explaining how it was done. The backstory is needed to set that up, but to require that every minor detail of the backstory be provable seems a bit excessive.

And, we already have proof that Ryuukishi doesn't work that way. Sure, you probably could have guessed most facts about Kinzo's death and the coverup before EP5, but could you have proven all of those flashback scenes true before that game was released? I don't think so.

"Solvable" means that it's possible to find the solution, not that it's possible to prove your solution correct. In fact, Featherine said as much near the end of EP6, if you remember.
__________________
"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 2010-07-13, 16:25   Link #13778
m0h
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Uhm, can i make a couple of comments?

1) Why do we think that Umineko HAS TO BE a literary masterpiece, with full optionals in-dept details of every single piece of information? I'd like to point out that Umineko is a game, not a Book from Dante Alighieri. I seriously doubt that HAS TO be a DEEP PROFOUND reason why a piece is presented.
Illusions are made to confuse , not to be analyzed.
Even if a piece is used in a stupid way, if it kept us distracted it would have been a wonderful achievement.

2) We see too much diseases in my opinion. We are almost putting aside the most simple task: ACTING. I don't think every piece that has 2 identities ( instead of the Illusion of the Witch, we may talk about the Illusion of Kanon at the same way without diving into the medicine branch) is sick with some kind of mental disease.

Perhaps we should focus on seeing the story within a simple context. After all we faced the Illusion of Kinzo, and there was no really deep significance in his lingering presence on the gameboard.
We were also hinted a lot about the Kinzo ghost existence: it was simply meant to point out that Krauss and the other regular inhabitant of the island CAN MAINTAIN the illusion of someone who really doesn't exist.
m0h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 16:39   Link #13779
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
It's been said Houdini was a master locksmith. However, not all locks are the same, and Houdini could tell which ones were hard from a brief examination. A story goes that when he would perform certain tricks, he would accept handcuffs from police or other individuals as proof that he was not using false cuffs. His logic was that he could break free of any "standard" pair of handcuffs. Whenever he'd get a pair that looked too difficult to break quickly (and when his life was on the line, that risk was one he couldn't afford to take), he would explain that the pair was not "standard," and ask that they be replaced with an "ordinary" pair. In doing this, Houdini actually turned a potential problem (that a situation would make his trick too difficult) into an enhancement of his escape acts (he was rejecting "trick" cuffs for "regular" ones, thus proving he was not cheating). In truth, however, he was just controlling risk and making things easier on himself.

Debate, of course, is a bit different from magic tricks. In an argument, I think it's unethical and unfair to hide behind the aegis of "Well, obviously you can't expect a solvable answer to address every aspect of the story! It's unfair to ask me to prove that when I can demonstrate the solution generally!" when a problematic criticism or question is raised. You're free to essentially be selective in your answers, choosing the "standard" questions which a theory can address, while ignoring or rejecting the ones that may be "difficult" (but still, perhaps, answerable). A good and workable theory, while it may not have perfect answers, and may guess wrong on who knows what, can as an off the cuff matter at least provide an answer to any particular question that is raised.

Using only information from ep1-4, "Kinzo is dead" can field pretty much any question I can think of about Kinzo's status and behavior around his existence. Its fundamental precepts are fairly simple (Kinzo is dead, and someone does not want this to be known), and from that, most questions about it - even difficult questions like "Who has to know about this?" or "Why would someone gain from burning his corpse?" - can be answered with some modicum of confidence.

I think, at the moment, that most "comprehensive" theories run into massive brick walls when put to this test. You might argue that there are simply too many things to address for any one answer to actually get to them all. You may be right, and that would be ryukishi's fault. But I think to remain certain of the correctness of your opinion when these problems unquestionably exist is unfair to everybody who still has these lingering, and not insignificant, doubts.

I don't mean that uncharitably. I just don't want people who ask a lot of questions being written off because they ask too many. "Kinzo is dead" did raise a lot of questions, but it answered more than it raised. I still have questions about why some things happen as a result of the revelation that Kinzo is dead, but I can rationalize most of them.

As to the "literary gravity" of the work: A work is to be taken as seriously as its author asks us to take it. Umineko is asking us to take it seriously as a meditation on the mystery genre, and to take it seriously as a mystery of significant difficulty. Therefore, I will hold it to that standard.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-13, 17:00   Link #13780
Leafsnail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Although, if Shkannon isn't a solution, there needs to be another, seriously important twist behind the scenes to represent the other half of Beatrice's heart, right? And, what's more, Serious Twist X needs to be responsible for getting Battler out of his logic error...
Leafsnail 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 03:04.


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