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 2011-07-09, 21:27   Link #23141
rogerpepitone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Send a message via Yahoo to rogerpepitone
I have no idea about the Krauss's murder. Hideyoshi's murder was a hoax; most everybody was in on it. And yes, I think piece-Erika was involved but meta-Erika didn't have a clue. She doesn't know what her piece was doing when off-screen any more than meta-Battler did.
rogerpepitone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 21:29   Link #23142
cronnoponno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
I actually believe meta-Erika does see the scenes her piece goes through. When I first started posting on this thread, I asked a lot of questions about whether or not Erika sees certain Fantasy scenes, and after re-reading EP 6 a little, she in fact, does. She asked Battler if the ''deaths and locations of the corpses matched up to that ridiculous fantasy scene a minute ago''.

So I'm pretty sure Erika does in fact, see everything, even the things her piece does not see.
cronnoponno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 21:40   Link #23143
Roseweave
Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Used Can View Post
I also don't agree on Yasu and Beatrice being exactly the same. Whilst Beatrice was indeed born from some aspects of Yasu's - basically, pranks and "magic" - I think Beatrice, just like the first Shannon is mainly an ideal Yasu aspired to become. At first, Beatrice was an imaginary friend Yasu used to excuse herself for her clumsiness and being forgetful, but eventually she turned that illusion into a projection of herself as a witch who ruled over Rokkenjima, was free from any binding, could do magic, was beautiful, elegant and had a strong personality. After her meeting with Battler, she changed some things, like the physical form (fit to be Battler's ideal woman) and also added to Beatrice the feelings she had for Battler.

So, it is really hard to say Yasu and Beatrice are the exact same person. Beatrice is what Yasu would like to be. This is why Beatrice is weak against mirrors, because it reminds Yasu who she really is.
But importantly, Yasu becomes Beatrice. She doesn't "Become" Shannon or anyone else, even people we imagine she has to play the role of.
Roseweave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 21:57   Link #23144
rogerpepitone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Send a message via Yahoo to rogerpepitone
I think that meta-Erika and meta-Battler see the same scenes we see. No more, no less.
rogerpepitone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 22:08   Link #23145
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
I have no idea about the Krauss's murder. Hideyoshi's murder was a hoax; most everybody was in on it. And yes, I think piece-Erika was involved but meta-Erika didn't have a clue. She doesn't know what her piece was doing when off-screen any more than meta-Battler did.
Then that violates a Knox rule, because it means her perspective isn't reliable and her character is lying to her player.

Quote:
But importantly, Yasu becomes Beatrice. She doesn't "Become" Shannon or anyone else, even people we imagine she has to play the role of.
She becomes Beatrice, Shannon, and Kanon, because Multiple Personalities doesn't work that way.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-10, 09:06   Link #23146
rogerpepitone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Send a message via Yahoo to rogerpepitone
Her perspective is reliable; everything we see from Erika's perspective is accurate. She did indeed say she duct-taped the windows, but she was lying when she did so.

When he tried to declare Rudolf's "I want to talk to you ... I'll probably be killed tonight." as a clue for "Battler is MF19YA.", I lost a lot of trust that he had any understanding of clues.
rogerpepitone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-10, 10:22   Link #23147
Uberzaki
Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: United Kingdom, in a world of my own.
I believe there was a scene in EP 5 where Natsuhi and Krauss are at a festival and Krauss shows here a particular snack which makes his mouth look all bloody.

What if the problem wasn't just that Krauss would never join them, but that he would notice the faked bodies due to recognising the snack, looking back, there weren't many chances for him to be alive long enough to be able to catch this out.

Alternatively, since the murders are faked by an alternate party, they may have used these snacks instead. That's not the only alternative, considering the sea of possibilities.

On another note, if my seconf paragraph, sentence is correct; that is so subtle that most people wouldn't probably dispute it if the later part of the episode hadn't told us of the faked murders.

Damnit Ryukishi!

Also, let's take into account that Natsuhi found what Krauss did to be disgusting, this means at least one character found the trick believable, sorry if I'm stating the obvious
Uberzaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-10, 14:44   Link #23148
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
Her perspective is reliable; everything we see from Erika's perspective is accurate. She did indeed say she duct-taped the windows, but she was lying when she did so.
*froths at the mouth and thrashes around epileptically*

DETECTIVE'S AUTHORITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. THE RULE ABOUT RELIABLE PERSPECTIVE MEANS THAT THE DETECTIVE CAN NEVER DECEIVE THE READER IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE DETECTIVE IS HIMSELF ALSO BEING DECEIVED. EVERYTHING THEY SEE AND SAY IS TANTAMOUNT TO RED TRUTH.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-10, 14:52   Link #23149
Oblivion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
In some episodes Rudolf tells Battler he has to tell him something about his family. But he also says he'll be killed or so he says, everytime he says this. I have an idea of what he's going to tell Battler but don't understand why he'd be killed.
Oblivion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-10, 14:59   Link #23150
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblivion0101 View Post
In some episodes Rudolf tells Battler he has to tell him something about his family. But he also says he'll be killed or so he says, everytime he says this. I have an idea of what he's going to tell Battler but don't understand why he'd be killed.
I think the consensus on this is that you shouldn't take the line literally. You've heard people joke about someone killing them for saying something that could upset someone right? It's an expression implying they'll be angry. The fact that he does die later doesn't necessarily mean he was killed for this reason.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-10, 15:20   Link #23151
cronnoponno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblivion0101 View Post
In some episodes Rudolf tells Battler he has to tell him something about his family. But he also says he'll be killed or so he says, everytime he says this. I have an idea of what he's going to tell Battler but don't understand why he'd be killed.
If Episode 8 is anything to go by

Spoiler for Spoiler about that comment:


Also, yes, the detective cannot falsify their perspective. Battler used this as proof that he wasn't the detective against Dlanor, by ''seeing Kinzo'', Dlanor said it was based on the 9th(exclusive to Umineko), however Battler said he had ''lied about seeing Kinzo'', thus it became known that he was not the detective, because the detective is not allowed to falsify their perspective no matter what the reason is.The only way around this is to deceive a detective.
cronnoponno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-10, 21:51   Link #23152
rogerpepitone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Send a message via Yahoo to rogerpepitone
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
*froths at the mouth and thrashes around epileptically*

DETECTIVE'S AUTHORITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. THE RULE ABOUT RELIABLE PERSPECTIVE MEANS THAT THE DETECTIVE CAN NEVER DECEIVE THE READER IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE DETECTIVE IS HIMSELF ALSO BEING DECEIVED. EVERYTHING THEY SEE AND SAY IS TANTAMOUNT TO RED TRUTH.
Where does it say that in Knox's rules? Van Dine's rules state "2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.", which is thrown out the window by showing the "Natsuhi meets Kinzo" scene, let along scenes like when the servants are preparing the Oct. 4 dinner in Legend.

A detective lying to deceive the villain is a fairly common device in mystery fiction.
rogerpepitone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-11, 00:28   Link #23153
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Again, since we aren't sure what's in the actual text or what Erika actually saw, since she almost never narrates within ep5, what exactly she can or can't be in on is questionable. I'd hold with the idea that Meta-Erika can't be willfully deceived by anything Piece-Erika actually saw or presumably would have seen.

Piece-Erika could therefore only lie within the story if Meta-Erika was fully aware of it, and if that deception would already be known to a reader of End of the Golden Witch (that is, the actual text). Of course we haven't the slightest idea if End was narrated by Erika (and my guess is that it was not; it was probably still narrated by Battler). It's possible it was something of a Roger Ackroyd played on Erika at some point.

But I don't know. Meh.
__________________
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 2011-07-11, 00:36   Link #23154
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerpepitone View Post
Where does it say that in Knox's rules? Van Dine's rules state "2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.", which is thrown out the window by showing the "Natsuhi meets Kinzo" scene, let along scenes like when the servants are preparing the Oct. 4 dinner in Legend.

A detective lying to deceive the villain is a fairly common device in mystery fiction.
It was drawn out pretty clearly in EP5, that the Detective is not allowed to falsify their perspective - this was the entire point of the discrepancy of Battler being allowed to a.) "witness" Kinzo and b.) be an accomplice. This does NOT mean the Detective can never tell a lie - Battler lies to Maria about the scorpion charm in Legend, and Erika accuses Natsuhi of whoring it up with Kinzo, even though Erika, even on the gameboard, seems to be pretty damn aware that he's dead already.

The territory is probably murky, but it probably plays out like this:
Battler is the detective. He sees a sheet in the breeze. He can lie and say "I saw Kinzo", but the reader / Meta-characters know with certainty that he only saw a sheet, and chose to lie

OR Battler is not the detective. He claims to see Kinzo. Perhaps he is lying, perhaps he is not.

Also, Umineko violated Van Dine ALL OVER THE PLACE. So much so that it's pretty much the consensus that Will lost his EP7 fight with Bern because he didn't want to shatter Beatrice's Game with all the glaring inefficiencies it has when held up to his rule set.
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-11, 03:48   Link #23155
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
Where does it say that in Knox's rules? Van Dine's rules state "2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.", which is thrown out the window by showing the "Natsuhi meets Kinzo" scene, let along scenes like when the servants are preparing the Oct. 4 dinner in Legend.

A detective lying to deceive the villain is a fairly common device in mystery fiction.
It's called inductive reasoning. And, no, you're misunderstanding the rule completely. Showing Meta-Erika fantasy scenes doesn't count because it's not tricking what Piece-Erika, the actual Detective, actually perceives. Nor does a Detective lying to the Villain count as falsifying perspective. It is only when the Detective lies to US, THE READERS is the rule violated.

Holy shit, people really need to understand these goddamn rules, it's not difficult.

Quote:
Also, Umineko violated Van Dine ALL OVER THE PLACE. So much so that it's pretty much the consensus that Will lost his EP7 fight with Bern because he didn't want to shatter Beatrice's Game with all the glaring inefficiencies it has when held up to his rule set.
NO, IT DIDN'T. THIS IS AN ERROR CREATED BY PEOPLE THINKING THE RULES ARE PROSCRIPTIVE AND LITERAL, INSTEAD OF DESCRIPTIVE AND ACTING ON ETHIC OF NARRATIVE.

For instance, the rule forbidding "A servant being the culprit" doesn't mean that a person that is a servant can never be the murderer. What the rule actually fucking means is that the culprit can't be an expendable, effectively emotionless character that can be tossed under the guillotine without any real drama (would anyone really give a shit if the culprit turned out to be Genji or Gohda or something?)

Meanwhile, someone like Shannon would not fall under this rule. Yes, they're a servant. But they're also a major love interest, a significant character full of drama, emotion, and perspective value, and are at the crux of everything even if you don't posit that they're a murderer or an accomplice. Shannon being a murderer is valid in Dine Rules without ever having to go to "She was only pretending to be a servant as the Head."
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-11, 11:56   Link #23156
Roseweave
Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
It's called inductive reasoning. And, no, you're misunderstanding the rule completely. Showing Meta-Erika fantasy scenes doesn't count because it's not tricking what Piece-Erika, the actual Detective, actually perceives. Nor does a Detective lying to the Villain count as falsifying perspective. It is only when the Detective lies to US, THE READERS is the rule violated.

Holy shit, people really need to understand these goddamn rules, it's not difficult.



NO, IT DIDN'T. THIS IS AN ERROR CREATED BY PEOPLE THINKING THE RULES ARE PROSCRIPTIVE AND LITERAL, INSTEAD OF DESCRIPTIVE AND ACTING ON ETHIC OF NARRATIVE.

For instance, the rule forbidding "A servant being the culprit" doesn't mean that a person that is a servant can never be the murderer. What the rule actually fucking means is that the culprit can't be an expendable, effectively emotionless character that can be tossed under the guillotine without any real drama (would anyone really give a shit if the culprit turned out to be Genji or Gohda or something?)

Meanwhile, someone like Shannon would not fall under this rule. Yes, they're a servant. But they're also a major love interest, a significant character full of drama, emotion, and perspective value, and are at the crux of everything even if you don't posit that they're a murderer or an accomplice. Shannon being a murderer is valid in Dine Rules without ever having to go to "She was only pretending to be a servant as the Head."
Beatrice wasn't the culprit though, anyway, and even if she was, technically she's the Ushiromiya family head posing as a servant so it works for games where she/Kanon/Shannon was the culprit. She can't be a servant and the head of the family, it doesn't work like that. Yeah, it's jammy, but Umineko was always meant to be a frustrating, twisted mystery.
Roseweave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-11, 14:58   Link #23157
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
She can't be a servant and the head of the family, it doesn't work like that.
But she very clearly is. She's the head of the family, but she doesn't tell anyone. Then she does servant work and collects a servant's paycheck. And at any time she can pull her rank to everyone and take charge if she felt like it.

Quote:
Beatrice wasn't the culprit though, anyway
Prove it.

But your response doesn't really hit the core of what I said anyway. The point is that people vastly misunderstand the Knox and Dine rules to the point of embarassment.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-11, 16:43   Link #23158
cronnoponno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Didn't you guys say earlier in an interview that Ryu didn't ''follow every Van Dine'' rule? Kind of hard to violate something you don't follow, I figured that would've been why Will lost against Bern(that or if she really is supposed to be based on the internet, anonymous sort of kicks the ass of any truth out there).

Besides, didn't Battler ''learn the truth'' after only using the Knox rules?

Finally, I really cannot fathom how Erika would even dream to take part in some sort of prank, scheme, or ''fake detective mystery'', she doesn't want to be a pretend detective.
cronnoponno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-11, 16:53   Link #23159
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
It was never even explicitly stated that Beatrice followed Knox. Battler asked Dlanor and Virgilia and they were evasive on the matter. Conventional wisdom would seem to be that Beatrice "respected" rules such as Knox and Van Dine without explicitly holding to them as absolute rulesets.
__________________
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 2011-07-11, 16:58   Link #23160
cronnoponno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
It was never even explicitly stated that Beatrice followed Knox. Battler asked Dlanor and Virgilia and they were evasive on the matter. Conventional wisdom would seem to be that Beatrice "respected" rules such as Knox and Van Dine without explicitly holding to them as absolute rulesets.
Ah, this makes sense. Still, what I was saying about that was ''Battler, and the reader was never introduced to Van dine till AFTER battler figured out the truth''.
cronnoponno 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 22:57.


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