[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 6 Dawn of the golden witch

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

How can you tell the difference? Most people wouldn't say "I would be #x if there were x people."

It may be possible when speaking casually to make it work, but strictly speaking, it doesn't.
"I am the 18th person" means that there are at least 18 people, and you are one of them. Furthermore, she said that she was the 18th "human", which means that she is a human. So even if you can accept that she's not really on Rokkenjima, you have to accept that she's a human named Furudo Erika.

Originally Posted by Renall

Plus, if both Erika and Battler/Beatrice's statements are taken in a fictional context... I'm not really sure they do have to be reconciled.

Chessboard thinking tells us that this is nearly impossible. If Ryuukishi puts up what looks like an impossible puzzle and then has to admit that the words have no real significance whatsoever (i.e. there's no puzzle at all), that would be a huge letdown for the readers. It's not Ryuukishi's style to do that.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

It may be possible when speaking casually to make it work, but strictly speaking, it doesn't.
"I am the 18th person" means that there are at least 18 people, and you are one of them. Furthermore, she said that she was the 18th "human", which means that she is a human. So even if you can accept that she's not really on Rokkenjima, you have to accept that she's a human named Furudo Erika.

A human what, though?

Calling oneself a "human" merely restricts the general set of information that we would assume about a person as a character. It by no means has an unshaken, absolute definition. To wit:

We know that the entirety of Umineko is a fictional story. Thus, while we can call people like Battler, Rudolf, and Krauss "humans," they are not actually human beings in any biological sense; they're words and data comprising fictional characters. "Literary humans," if you will. Even though we agree the story is fiction, we accept that within this fictional world, these people are "real" humans living in a "realistic" universe. So we seem content to say that they are "human."

But then we have a character like pre-Sorcerer Meta-Battler. The Meta-World beings call him a human. He considers himself a human, unambiguously. But he isn't a human the way the previous group is; he doesn't exist on the main stage of the game (well, arguable), and the world be does exist in is fantastic and "not real" in design. If Piece-Battler is the "mystery" Battler, Meta-Battler is the "fantasy" Battler. And yet they both are "human," yet you can't say one is "on Rokkenjima" for some reason. Or at least, Meta-Battler and Piece-Battler aren't counted as two people. It's not clear what would happen if Battler truly died before a person count, but that's a digression.

So now you have a character like Piece-Beatrice or Erika with an ambiguous existence and apparent and fluid presence in both the "mystery" and "fantasy" plane (whereas Piece and Meta-Battler generally remain entirely separate). Piece-Beato calls herself a witch and not a human, yet in several places in several games very clearly is a real-life "human" on Rokkenjima. Erika calls herself a human, yet in several places behaves as if she were her Meta-self, with awareness and knowledge that a "human" character on the "mystery" plane simply should not have.

Your sticking point, I think, is "on Rokkenjima." But if we agree with Featherine's apparent assumption that the game boards are themselves an internalized fiction within a fiction, "Rokkenjima" no longer clearly refers to "the 'mystery layer' realistic world Rokkenjima on which some event occurred in October of 1986." It's not clear what it refers to, or what rules it must obey, or what type of "human" is permitted to consider itself present in that space. Beatrice's occasional references to "this Rokkenjima" further stresses that the status "on Rokkenjima" is woefully incomplete. In fact, if one believes the Kakera Theory, it's impossible for Erika to blanket state herself "the 18th human on Rokkenjima," as in some instances, she never makes it there at all. If she were making an absolute statement, she would be wrong. If she were making a generalized or titular statement, she'd be right, but only for a certain set of "on Rokkenjima."

But that would be useless. So my question then becomes:

• What is a "human?"
• Who is a "human?"
• Can a person become or cease being a "human?"
• Can one type of "human" become another type, or is there only one type of "human?"
• What is everyone who is not a "human?" Are they a "witch?" "Furniture?" A "demon?"
• What is "Rokkenjima?"
• What does it mean to be "on Rokkenjima?"
• If one is not "on Rokkenjima," is one by necessity in a meta-layer?
• Is the Meta-Layer explicitly not "on Rokkenjima," or do individuals on it simply never count as "humans?"

Chessboard thinking tells us that this is nearly impossible. If Ryuukishi puts up what looks like an impossible puzzle and then has to admit that the words have no real significance whatsoever (i.e. there's no puzzle at all), that would be a huge letdown for the readers. It's not Ryuukishi's style to do that.

And yet... so many theories are relying on exactly that, and ep4 makes explicit that the red can refer to a name and not distinguish the specific individual to whom the name applies ("Ushiromiya Battler"). How are we to reconcile this?

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

And yet... so many theories are relying on exactly that, and ep4 makes explicit that the red can refer to a name and not distinguish the specific individual to whom the name applies ("Ushiromiya Battler"). How are we to reconcile this?

True, and I'm not trying to say that it's impossible. I just vastly prefer the Shkanon interpretation, which is based on a red text trick that was shown very explicitly at the end of EP5.

Still, there hasn't yet been a ghost-Erika theory that really explains the final closed rooms of EP6. The only one that seemed to work requires that the tip about Erika being written into the story by Witch Hunters be an outright lie. Well, I will admit that the possibility does exist, if the Hachijo scenes of EP6 were indeed Featherine's guess at the answer. She might think that all games originate from things people guessed in the future, and she might have included that tip to explain why they wrote about Erika. But if that's the case and ghost-Erika is right, it means that Featherine was probably wrong about the Author theory.

[Renall]

I think it's about even odds that either Featherine or Bernkastel is wrong about something major. What they're wrong about could be something we all believe, or it could be something we've all dismissed. But I think the notion that one or both are close to "the truth" may be misguided, so I won't be believing anything out of ep7 until the final curtain closes. I'll be waiting for some sort of "What? That's completely wrong!"

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by Renall

A human what, though?

Calling oneself a "human" merely restricts the general set of information that we would assume about a person as a character. It by no means has an unshaken, absolute definition. To wit:

We know that the entirety of Umineko is a fictional story. Thus, while we can call people like Battler, Rudolf, and Krauss "humans," they are not actually human beings in any biological sense; they're words and data comprising fictional characters. "Literary humans," if you will. Even though we agree the story is fiction, we accept that within this fictional world, these people are "real" humans living in a "realistic" universe. So we seem content to say that they are "human."

But then we have a character like pre-Sorcerer Meta-Battler. The Meta-World beings call him a human. He considers himself a human, unambiguously. But he isn't a human the way the previous group is; he doesn't exist on the main stage of the game (well, arguable), and the world be does exist in is fantastic and "not real" in design. If Piece-Battler is the "mystery" Battler, Meta-Battler is the "fantasy" Battler. And yet they both are "human," yet you can't say one is "on Rokkenjima" for some reason. Or at least, Meta-Battler and Piece-Battler aren't counted as two people. It's not clear what would happen if Battler truly died before a person count, but that's a digression.

So now you have a character like Piece-Beatrice or Erika with an ambiguous existence and apparent and fluid presence in both the "mystery" and "fantasy" plane (whereas Piece and Meta-Battler generally remain entirely separate). Piece-Beato calls herself a witch and not a human, yet in several places in several games very clearly is a real-life "human" on Rokkenjima. Erika calls herself a human, yet in several places behaves as if she were her Meta-self, with awareness and knowledge that a "human" character on the "mystery" plane simply should not have.

Your sticking point, I think, is "on Rokkenjima." But if we agree with Featherine's apparent assumption that the game boards are themselves an internalized fiction within a fiction, "Rokkenjima" no longer clearly refers to "the 'mystery layer' realistic world Rokkenjima on which some event occurred in October of 1986." It's not clear what it refers to, or what rules it must obey, or what type of "human" is permitted to consider itself present in that space. Beatrice's occasional references to "this Rokkenjima" further stresses that the status "on Rokkenjima" is woefully incomplete. In fact, if one believes the Kakera Theory, it's impossible for Erika to blanket state herself "the 18th human on Rokkenjima," as in some instances, she never makes it there at all. If she were making an absolute statement, she would be wrong. If she were making a generalized or titular statement, she'd be right, but only for a certain set of "on Rokkenjima."

But that would be useless. So my question then becomes:

• What is a "human?"
• Who is a "human?"
• Can a person become or cease being a "human?"
• Can one type of "human" become another type, or is there only one type of "human?"
• What is everyone who is not a "human?" Are they a "witch?" "Furniture?" A "demon?"
• What is "Rokkenjima?"
• What does it mean to be "on Rokkenjima?"
• If one is not "on Rokkenjima," is one by necessity in a meta-layer?
• Is the Meta-Layer explicitly not "on Rokkenjima," or do individuals on it simply never count as "humans?"

And yet... so many theories are relying on exactly that, and ep4 makes explicit that the red can refer to a name and not distinguish the specific individual to whom the name applies ("Ushiromiya Battler"). How are we to reconcile this?

Isn't this the point of them referring to the number of bodies/corpses instead of the number of people? It would be better to refer to them as "bodies" instead of "human" or "people" which would mean that Erika's body/corpse is there but not a "human" Erika

[Jan-Poo]

Renall, I don't mean to say my interpretation is correct, by I believe it's not so hard to determine which is a "human" in the context of the gameboard in a way that it's at least consistent within itself.

First off, according to the author theory the reds reflect the truth of the gameboard. So that whole argument that "they are fictional data" makes no sense under this perspective. In the story there are 17 living humans. In the story they are humans. What they actual are from a real world perspective is totally not the point.

Second. The Meta-characters are not part of the gameboard and no red exists which states that a meta-character is a human. Meta-characters do not exist in the gameboard, simply by the fact that by rules magic cannot exist in the gameboard. Whenever a red truth stated by a meta-character involves a "I" or "you" it always refers to their piece counterpart in the gameboard.

That being said. I believe that in the gameboard of umineko the concept of "human" is seen in a pure biological sense. In other words a human is a human body. And human must be a living human.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Renall, I don't mean to say my interpretation is correct, by I believe it's not so hard to determine which is a "human" in the context of the gameboard in a way that it's at least consistent within itself.

First off, according to the author theory the reds reflect the truth of the gameboard. So that whole argument that "they are fictional data" makes no sense under this perspective. In the story there are 17 living humans. In the story they are humans. What they actual are from a real world perspective is totally not the point.

Second. The Meta-characters are not part of the gameboard and no red exists which states that a meta-character is a human. Meta-characters do not exist in the gameboard, simply by the fact that by rules magic cannot exist in the gameboard. Whenever a red truth stated by a meta-character involves a "I" or "you" it always refers to their piece counterpart in the gameboard.

That being said. I believe that in the gameboard of umineko the concept of "human" is seen in a pure biological sense. In other words a human is a human body. And human must be a living human.

But then what would be the whole point of "by X number of people, you mean X number bodies?" That question pops up every now and then, so its safe to say that using the term "human" might be a little... short- handed.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Renall, I don't mean to say my interpretation is correct, by I believe it's not so hard to determine which is a "human" in the context of the gameboard in a way that it's at least consistent within itself.

To the contrary, I think it's quite a problem.

First off, according to the author theory the reds reflect the truth of the gameboard. So that whole argument that "they are fictional data" makes no sense under this perspective. In the story there are 17 living humans. In the story they are humans. What they actual are from a real world perspective is totally not the point.

Question: Is Ange the exact same kind of human as Rudolf? How do you know this?

Second. The Meta-characters are not part of the gameboard and no red exists which states that a meta-character is a human. Meta-characters do not exist in the gameboard, simply by the fact that by rules magic cannot exist in the gameboard. Whenever a red truth stated by a meta-character involves a "I" or "you" it always refers to their piece counterpart in the gameboard.

The mere fact that no red exists does not eliminate the problem of everyone calling Meta-Battler "human." He may not be "a human" but he is "human," and this term was not clearly regulated or defined. Even if Meta-Battler never was "human," people spoke of him as if he were.

That being said. I believe that in the gameboard of umineko the concept of "human" is seen in a pure biological sense. In other words a human is a human body. And human must be a living human.

As was said, the difference between "person," "human," and "body" appear to be up in the air definitionally as of ep6.

[EndlessMugen]

The point of chapter 5 as Lambdadelta described "...All verdicts are overshadowed by new truths!!"

There is also the significant hint that all games are a direct consequence of the previous games.

There is also the untold rule that actions by the pieces can fly in the face of blue truths presented by players, and as a consequence disolve the Blue Truth presented.

Spoiler for Umineko ch 5:

Example, if we assume game 5 had continued, the servants and Dr Nanjo who already knew about the death of Kinzo could confess to the fact that he had been dead before the family meeting.

Such a confession would have indeed created an air of confusion akin to what was the result of the Final Trial in game 5, also Natsuhi had presented the story of being harrased by the mysterious "man from 19 years ago" created sympathy for her loss (at the very least among the servants and Dr Nanjo) and making her insted of the accused culprit simply another victim among those present.

Obviously, not enough evidence was presented to pin point who was the real culprit, as such the trial was adjourned as such.

[Jan-Poo]

The real question here is:

Are the definition of the words used in red truths consistent through the various games?
In other words, do a word maintain a constant meaning through various reds?

Whenever a definition was explicitly stated, like in the case of the closed rooms, that meaning was always respected, it didn't change not even after the GM changed.

It would be logical to assume the same goes for every word.

But let's suppose it isn't so, then what kind of value reds have? If the meaning of a word can change without notice and arbitrarily, how exactly can they be trusted?

Question: Is Ange the exact same kind of human as Rudolf? How do you know this?

Ange doesn't exist in the gameboard. Why are you even asking that question?

The mere fact that no red exists does not eliminate the problem of everyone calling Meta-Battler "human." He may not be "a human" but he is "human," and this term was not clearly regulated or defined. Even if Meta-Battler never was "human," people spoke of him as if he were.

Who the hell cares? The only problem here is determining what "human" means in the red truths. And meta-characters are totally irrelevant for that purpose.

As was said, the difference between "person," "human," and "body" appear to be up in the air definitionally as of ep6.

Even if you believe so, it is possible to think of a consistent definition of human. And if a consistent definition of human exist, it's still better to think that's the correct one than believing it doesn't exist at all.

[Leafsnail]

I'm just looking forwards to when Wizard Hunting Wright interrupts a romance scene with "Love interests must not be the primary purpose of the story!!".

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I don't know about Erika but for what concerns the example Judoh made, the girl simply couldn't say that in red because she was the 5th member only in her mind and not in reality.

Your taking things too seriously. It's just an example, a metaphor, I don't have to make it completely compatible with how you think the red works because it's completely hypothetical.

[Renall]

So wait. Ange isn't a "human" because she's not "on the game board?" Then what exactly is she? Being "on Rokkenjima" has nothing to do with being human, just whether you're part of the "humans on Rokkenjima" count... whatever that means.

[EndlessMugen]

Ange condition is akin to Rika's in Higurashi for ch 6, she has some of the memories from the previous chapter she was present in and as such is able to interact with Featherine on an observable level.

Ange understands some of the concepts of what is going on, but has not reached the "Truth" like Battler has.

There is also the fact that without the third party view for Ange and Featherine, there would be a conflict created for ch 7 if Featherine simply "suddenly existed".

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by EndlessMugen

Ange condition is akin to Rika's in Higurashi for ch 6, she has some of the memories from the previous chapter she was present in and as such is able to interact with Featherine on an observable level.

I think there is a big difference. No she doesn't really have memories like your saying, but she's read the tales so she has an understanding, but it's different..

What I find funny is Okonogi's use of a portable shrine as a metaphor in the tea party. In Higurashi they used it as a metaphor for working together since you work together to carry it. Okonogi seems to be using it to imply that she's a pain in the ass to deal with.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

But let's suppose it isn't so, then what kind of value reds have? If the meaning of a word can change without notice and arbitrarily, how exactly can they be trusted?

Here's the flaw in your argument. This question you're asking is the same as "what if we can't solve a detective novel because they don't give us enough clues?" Obviously, this is a pointless question, since the rules of the detective genre require that all games be solvable.

In other words, there's nothing wrong with word definitions changing (and as I've said, it's even more ridiculous to have a whole Death Note-style dictionary for all words) as long as there are enough hints for us to figure out what they mean in each context. Just like how a footprint doesn't necessarily mean that the person who owns those shoes was there, but can still be used to find the answer.

[bigemperor]

So anyone resolve the trick from battler’s close room? How kanon could scape from the close room? If i was Erika I will motion another logic error XD I really can’t think of a way kanon left that room except for some cheap trick like kanon end his duty to save battler and then he is no more the servant kanon but is still inside the close room

I also think maybe Erika is the 18 person in rokkenjima because she maybe the first person to arrive there after the accident and she is trying to resolve all the mysteries from the muss murders, although I really don’t like how they said in red that she killed rosa maria kyrie eva and natsuhi, THE DETECTIVE CANNOT BE THE CULPRIT even she left that role for a while.

[EndlessMugen]

Originally Posted by bigemperor

So anyone resolve the trick from battler’s close room? How kanon could scape from the close room? If i was Erika I will motion another logic error XD I really can’t think of a way kanon left that room except for some cheap trick like kanon end his duty to save battler and then he is no more the servant kanon but is still inside the close room

I also think maybe Erika is the 18 person in rokkenjima because she maybe the first person to arrive there after the accident and she is trying to resolve all the mysteries from the muss murders, although I really don’t like how they said in red that she killed rosa maria kyrie eva and natsuhi, THE DETECTIVE CANNOT BE THE CULPRIT even she left that role for a while.

Spoiler for Umineko ch 6:

Beatrice confirmed that "Kanon is not in the room" with red, this means that Battler never escaped the room. Erika ended up creating multiple logic errors against herself, such as claiming herself being the detective which undermines her earlier statement that she killed the rest of the family members that were playing possum.

Erika effectively got bait and switched, Beatrice created a fantasy story about Kanon escaping the cousins room, being dazzeled by her inability to deny the statement outright Erika was forced to follow it due to her own pride. Unable to see past Beatrice ruse, she ended up creating more statements that simply cornered herself.

Once Game Master BATTLER conscious was revived, he was able to use the trump card of "there are only 17 people on the Island".

As Game Master, Battler could in the aftermath rewrite the story to avoid any logic errors, Erika as only a player and cannot, thus her existence was ultimately denied.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by EndlessMugen

Spoiler for Umineko ch 6:

Beatrice confirmed that "Kanon is not in the room" with red, this means that Battler never escaped the room. Erika ended up creating multiple logic errors against herself, such as claiming herself being the detective which undermines her earlier statement that she killed the rest of the family members that were playing possum.

Erika effectively got bait and switched, Beatrice created a fantasy story about Kanon escaping the cousins room, being dazzeled by her inability to deny the statement outright Erika was forced to follow it due to her own pride. Unable to see past Beatrice ruse, she ended up creating more statements that simply cornered herself.

Once Game Master BATTLER conscious was revived, he was able to use the trump card of "there are only 17 people on the Island".

As Game Master, Battler could in the aftermath rewrite the story to avoid any logic errors, Erika as only a player and cannot, thus her existence was ultimately denied.

Actually...

Spoiler for Correction:

Erika dropped her detective's authority purposely as a handicap, so its not logic error. Also, it is said that Battler left the room because BATTLER wrote it so that he disappeared, which caused the logic error in the first place. Then, BATTLER couldn't just rewrite the story so that it could exclude her, Erika wasn't his piece and had existed before he became Game Master. Especially since she is still the 18th according to the game prior. Now, as for the closed room, the duct tape given to Erika gave her the ability to use the red (well, Dlanor's red), so everything about it that was said was as true as it can be. Battler wasn't in the room and so wasn't Kanon, and the door was locked from the inside, so how did they leave?

[EndlessMugen]

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

Actually...

Spoiler for Correction:

Erika dropped her detective's authority purposely as a handicap, so its not logic error. Also, it is said that Battler left the room because BATTLER wrote it so that he disappeared, which caused the logic error in the first place. Then, BATTLER couldn't just rewrite the story so that it could exclude her, Erika wasn't his piece and had existed before he became Game Master. Especially since she is still the 18th according to the game prior. Now, as for the closed room, the duct tape given to Erika gave her the ability to use the red (well, Dlanor's red), so everything about it that was said was as true as it can be. Battler wasn't in the room and so wasn't Kanon, and the door was locked from the inside, so how did they leave?

It was never established Battler had left the room on the game board.

Spoiler for Umineko ep 6:

Battler is hiding under the bed while Erika "searches" the closet with her blue gun. The game board is never resumed to confirm or deny if Battler is hiding under the bed, Erika's existence is denied before that truth is established.