[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Leafsnail]

I'm not trolling, I'm trying to make a Rosatrice theory that doesn't require us to ignore vast amounts of information as distractions.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

I wonder why no one tried creating "Kyrietrice" or "Natsuhitrice" theories yet... I think those would actually have a LOT more points going for them than "Rosatrice". Meanwhile "Evatrice" was already discussed in Umineko anyway, so it does not seem very appealing.

With Kyrietrice, it's mainly because all evidence we're presented in the text suggests that Kyrie had no idea Beatrice even existed until the weekend of the conference, or at best if she was an accomplice, some short period before that. Nothing suggests she even cares that much about the epitaph; granted, she puts some effort into solving it in a few of the episodes, but other than the ep7 Tea Party where the adults all solve it together she seems to lose interest in it. If she's so much smarter than Eva or Rosa, she probably can, she just doesn't. I don't think she cares; she has other plans in mind in every instance in which she has the opportunity.

While Natsuhitrice is easier to imagine logistically, Natsuhi pretty consistently stresses that she is distinct from Beatrice. Even in ep5, Beatrice is someone she interacts with, not who she believes herself to be. Plus she's looked at pretty close and discarded by the series itself. Although as a culprit she does at least have going for her that she's far, far better under pressure than she initially appears... but on the other hand she also has quite a temper.

Now a Genji mastermind, that's a lot more interesting. I suppose you could say he lacks a motive, but maybe not. Plus the whole furniture thing, especially given the manga backstory. Makes you wonder if there's not something more than mere devotion going on there. But there's really not enough there about him to give us any details to really get going on, so at some point it slides into ridiculous speculation. Why none of the Witch Hunters pegged Genji as a possible culprit is questionable though. I mean, the guy controlled basically everything, and the ep8 manga actually suggests the story of the bomb clock is something that was known outside the island. So one could easily propose either a Genji-as-Kinzo's-living-will theory or a Genji-as-independent-actor theory, but as far as we know nobody ever did. Then again as far as we know nobody ever looked through Fukuin's records to determine if Kanon even existed, so great research there Witch Hunters.

[Leafsnail]

Yasu was in control of the entire Ushiromiya estate including Fukuin. She could easily have falsified some records, and there were witnesses at Jessica's school who would claim to have seen him.

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Pocuma

I have to trust the purple truth, right? Because the red truth is always the truth regardless of circumstances, right? You can’t deny it. And we are told that the purple truth is basically the same as red truth unless spoken by the culprit (something neither Battler nor Beato argue against it). Therefore there is no reason to claim that the purple truth spoken by non-culprits is any less true than any other red truth. Do you have any proof that the non-culprit-purple truth IS NOT as valid as the regular red truth?

(I'm going to answer the rest as well, but that felt like the most urgent question)

The thing with the Red Truth is that there's always a context. This applies to truth in general. You just have to trust that the context that it's spoken in is relevant to the context you're thinking of.
"I'm wearing a brown shirt right now." is true now, but it won't be true tomorrow.

It's certainly true in this moment. The Purple Truth is the same: the implied context is the Murder Game. It doesn't need to be a universal truth. It just needs to be true in the context it's referring to. (Admittedly, you can ALWAYS twist the Red Truth to have it 'referring to another context' so you can pretty much get away with anything. But real life's like that, too!)

(Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?)

[jTiKey]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

The thing with the Red Truth is that there's always a context. This applies to truth in general. You just have to trust that the context that it's spoken in is relevant to the context you're thinking of.
"I'm wearing a brown shirt right now." is true now, but it won't be true tomorrow.

It's certainly true in this moment. The Purple Truth is the same: the implied context is the Murder Game. It doesn't need to be a universal truth. It just needs to be true in the context it's referring to. (Admittedly, you can ALWAYS twist the Red Truth to have it 'referring to another context' so you can pretty much get away with anything. But real life's like that, too!)

(Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?)

I so much agree with you ^_^

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

Yasu was in control of the entire Ushiromiya estate including Fukuin. She could easily have falsified some records, and there were witnesses at Jessica's school who would claim to have seen him.

This assumes Yasu was smart enough to even think of doing so, and actually bothered (or even cared about) establishing Kanon's identity intentionally. Note that "people saw him at my school!" is pretty much the only defense anybody seems to be able to raise to his existence in ep8, and from ep2 it doesn't seem like Kanon did that on purpose to make people think he was real.

Falsifying records is also, well... it's possible, but falsifying the effects are not. You could fake a set of documents for Kanon - it's probably not that easy though, a lousy forgery of government documents would be pointless and a really good one would take skills that neither Yasu nor Genji possess and connections that are potentially traceable - but you can't suddenly make other people who should have known him remember that he actually existed prior to the point where he started working for the family. He's not going to have friends, nobody his own age will remember he existed at the orphanage, he has never attended school as a student at any point (ever), nobody is known to have hung out with him outside of work, and for all we know he didn't even have his own residence (at best he was "rooming with Shannon," so what did the police find at "their" place in Niijima?).

Even if Yasu or Genji planted a birth certificate or whatever legal documentation orphans get, all that means is that people rightfully ought to follow up on it. Even if the servants are uninteresting, they're still victims, and either the police or Witch Hunters after the fact would've wanted to know something about them in case it was relevant. Given that it can't have been a secret that George was seeing Shannon, it's not impossible to think it was widely known that Kanon once showed up in Jessica's company at school.

So they might have some connection, let's go look them up and see who they w- oh it seems this "Kanon" kid never existed before 1984, somehow. And [there's no records either / there's records of his birth and the charity taking him in, but nobody remembers him being around for the 14 years he has to have been alive prior to coming to work for the family]. Well gee, that's weird!

[Leafsnail]

Yeah I've also realized Yasu has no real reason to forge records. It might've been one of the reasons why the message bottles were known to not actually correspond to reality, along with the fact that Eva survived.

I guess the narrative just obscures that fact from us via selective information. I don't think we ever see anyone acting like Kanon actually exists in the future (ie, no-one accuses him of being the culprit, even though he's insanely suspicious in both Legend and Turn). The narrative did the same thing to obscure the fact that a bomb went off right up until episode 7, even though that would've been completely obvious to everyone after the fact.

[jTiKey]

This is actually really interesting.

Knox and Dine aren't circumstances of death, scenes or alibies. So, as your beloved manga EP8 says, apply them to all the game boards, please (at least the ones that are in red).

Let the fun begin:
Are Shannon and Kanon servants?




Is there any red truth disprooving this?
Is there any red truth refering to them as servants?

The only master keys are the ones that each servant holds, one per person

Are there any other servant's on the island on that day?
- No.
Are there 5 servant that were named before?
- Yes.

Last question:
Can a servant be the culprit?

It is forbidden for a servant to be the culprit! ...Van Dine's Twenty Rules, Rule #11

[Pocuma]

Kinda long answer for jTiKey here, so I’ll try putting some of the it under tags to take up a bit less space.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

I believe Shannon and Kanon knew about Rosa.

Thanks, this was never made clear enough for me regarding this theory. Are all the savants “in on it” then? (Well, except Gohda because he’s Gohda.) But if the servants are aware of what’s going on… what are their motives for going along with it?

Originally Posted by jTiKey

What about EP6 where he talks about all the dissapointment and hate for Battler and his family? A motive isn't the prove for a crime. It is just nessasery. And he killes Eva-Beatrice?

Spoiler for regarding that scene:

I added the “except possibly Battler” since I remembered that George seems to have some serious inferior-complex and jealously towards the guy. x3
And I always thought of the George-kills-Evatrice scene as metaphorical of how he was basically ready to disown her if she kept trying to interfere with his life anymore. After all, Erika is the one who kills the “victims” of the first twilight in the 6th episode, so George could not actually have killed Eva. And there would be no reason for him to actually kill his father since Hideyoshi seem to be pretty chill about the whole thing. (And I personally found the fact that Jessica just killed Kyrie randomly to be more disturbing since that made absolutely no sense at all motive-wise… but that might just be me. ^^U )

Spoiler for Answering stuff about Yasu:

Originally Posted by jTiKey

Isn't Yasu male? that's why I said Kanon.

That’s a debate that is probably never going to be settled. Lion’s (and therefore Yasu’s) gender is supposed to be a mystery. So it leaves it to the reader to decide gender. I have a habit of referring to Yasu as a “she” since the majorities of the main identities are females, but it varies.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

You can't just blame a new character that was introdused in EP 7 for everything that was done before O_O

“Yasu” is short for Yasuda, and the character him/herself is not actually “new”. We just got a possible surname for Sayo (if we assume Shannon told the truth about her first name).

Originally Posted by jTiKey

"Kanon and Shannon did kill in EP1-4, but here is Yasu, a brand new person, who will tell her motive that somebody else did". O_o

Yasu is simply used as a “collective” name for the body, and as I mentioned above a possible surname. But how about we replace it with “Sayo” then. Does it become easier then? “Yasu” is simply the name of the body when it’s not acting the role of Shannon or Kanon.

And Haguruma mentioned something about the personality/identity dilemma:
“It is not "personality death" it is "identity death" and that is two different things. Nowhere in mystery rules was it ever defined that the culprit may not be allowed to continue acting in another person's guise. If you are referring to Knox's 10th, "It is forbidden for one character to disguise as another without ample clues," (from the original: Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them) the important part are the "ample clues."
Even one of the central classical mysteries of contemporary Japanese detective fiction, The Zodiac Murder Case, which is also mentioned by Erika and Battler in EP6, uses it as a device”.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

Show be just one Sherlock Holms or other classic mystery novel story, where "dead" was something else then a corpse.

Spoiler for Spoilers for the book which Shelock Holmes confronts Moriarty (I don’t remember the name):

Sherlock’s supposed death by falling of a cliff together with Moriarty in their struggle? Sherlock was considered dead even though they could not find a body, since there was supposedly no way for him to have gone anywhere else than down the cliff without Watson meeting him on the way back. Here we have no corpse, but Sherlock was still considered dead by everyone.

Sorry, but I just found your example in this case hilarious. xD

Originally Posted by jTiKey

They could, if the culprit would set the time back. So the clock ring they here wasn't at 12:00, but…

I feel like I am gonna have to replay ep5. I don’t remember enough to make a proper argument here. Sorry. I’ll get back to it once I have the time to re-read it.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

All those connection can be made, but they are all subjective. I can't prove it to you, I can just make up something that would make sence for me.

This! This is what I meant. It doesn’t have to be perfect. But if it makes sense to you, I want to hear it! I like hearing different views of things like this. True, I might not agree, but at least it gives me the chance to look at it from a new perspective.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

There is no single hit about two different persons having one body. And even if it was, there is no such thing in the real world.

Spoiler for Actually...:

This is actually very debatable. Battler brings up the concept of multiple personalities/personas (don’t remember the exact wording right now) in ep 3 when he suggest that even though “Jessica” did not kill Nanjo, another personality sharing her body could have (once again, I do not recall the exact wording… is there anyone with easy access to the episodes who’s able to check this?). Evatrice counters with that Jessica’s body did not commit murderer, but she never shot down the possibility of multiple-personas. Same thing when Battler asked in ep4 for Beato to deny that one person could carry more than one name.
And if such things exist in real life… isn’t that still an ongoing debate?

Originally Posted by jTiKey

Also, Purple truth is just Bern's tool for her game, that has nothing to do, with the Beatos game. It just shares the same characters.

Spoiler for Purple truth stuff:

While most of them are situation-bound and therefore only applies to Berns game, there’s some of of those truths that are general/character related. Such as “Maria-chan couldn't kill anyone.” or “George onii-chan couldn't kill an adult. He could kill a kid though.”. I really don't understand why these are not considered valid... just because Bern was the gamemaster? Would that nog be like throwing out ep5 just because Lambda was the gamemaster? While Bern’s game was more of an intellectual challenge than a story, it still used Beato’s gameboard as a base. Shouldn’t that mean that she has to follow Beato’s rules at the very least somewhat in that case (kind of like Lamda in ep5)? Once again, I am asking as a genuine question, because that’s how I saw it.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

Isn't red truth something that Beato created for her games? If that wouldn't have any affection to Beato's games, why would it be red?

Since character like Dlanor and Featherine, who originated "outside" of Beatos games, uses the red truth as well I thought it was something that was “normal” for so called witches/demons/heavenly messengers (or whatever we’re supposed to call them all). And I can’t speak for the others, but personally I thought that sentence was said in Red to give us a feeling that Will was in some kind of court-ish situation, kind of like the end of ep5, but less dramatic.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

What do you mean by that?

("that" being my comment about Rosatrice-fans I've seen)

Spoiler for *Just me explaining*:

Sorry, in hindsight that must have sounded rude, this was not my intention. But it seems like every time I have seen someone asks a Rosatrice-fan to explain something about the theory, they either avoid answering, says something that more or less sounds like “if you can’t figure it out on your own, you’re just an idiot who can’t think for yourself” or simply turn it around and starts insulting the “official explanation”. It has left me with quite a bad taste in my mouth to be honest…

Originally Posted by jTiKey

It's funny, because I feel like you all never answer them, just try to dance arount it. And I didn't answer like 2-3 times at the same question, but people still ask the same.

Hmm… in that case I guess it must not have been clear enough what the answers where. I think part of the problem right now might be that to people is trying to ask to many things at once… it might be easier if we made some kind of list of what we actually want answered, and then try to answer them like that. Because a lot of times it’s hard to tell what’s actually been answered.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

And I don't see, where I am rude here. I came here seeking for answers, but all just started fighting, reportion for flaming and stuff.

It’s kinda like I assumed then. You are not actually trying to be rude, but some of your wording is quite harsh, which make it sound rude. Although I can agree that some of the comments from the rest of us might have come across as harsh as well. I don’t actually think that was anyone’s intention, but I think it’s because a lot of time when Rosatrice is brought up, it’s either someone who’s just around to troll people, or it’s one of those fan’s that I mentioned above. Perhaps everyone should take a breath and try to start over this? Maybe it would be easier if we made a list of questions and when from there? You asked about ep3 correct? And I believe someone quoted some old questions regarding Rosatrice a bit back, how about looking at that one?

Originally Posted by jTiKey

Beatrice did. If Ryu'd do that, it would be no mystery anymore. Obvious connection's are death for mystery novels.

My only problem there is that with that logic, anyone who’s suspected to be Beatrice could be assign with a similar goal with the same reasoning…

Originally Posted by jTiKey

How is this rude?

Spoiler for explanation:

The “And if you needed to hear the confession of the culprit to solve the mystery - you failed” part made it sound like you implied that I was stupid. I can tell now that was not your intention, but it’s easy to read it that way

Originally Posted by jTiKey

That is the rule of mystery novels. If you needed to read the testimony before you were sure about the culprit, you surely wasn't SURE enough.
The sad thing is, that Skanon is NOTHING without EP7. All the "confirmations" are there, but there are non in the games. You need proofs before the confession.

Spoiler for ansrwer:

I did not want a confession to hand the answers to me on a plate, I wanted one to se if I had managed to at least score some point in the mystery. Some kind of confirmation whatever I got it right or not. If I managed to “beat the witch” and “understand the heart”.
And regarding if there’s evidence in the earlier arcs… I am afraid that we will probably have to agree to disagree. I believe that there’s a lot strong points towards ShKanontrice… and it gets confirmed as much as it can without being spelled out in red in ep7 and manga version of ep8… while I cannot find anything that would actually confirm Rosatrice anywhere. That’s why I have some trouble with Rosatrice. It feels, to me, unfulfilling. It doesn’t actually get any in-game conferment, while ShKanontrice actually does. But if you feel differently, then you are off course free to feel so.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

Also, Ryu did tell, that he didn't wanted a copy\paste answer (though you may interpret anyhow).

I don’t really think ShKanontrice is a copy/paste answer either to be honest… it’s quite complicated to explain it all.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

And Tohya Hachijo didn't show the truth to the readers. I assume, Ryu did sit silent about the real culprit all the time. And he won't tell it or will simply like about it. He don't want to loose 999 of 1000 readers.

Spoiler for my take on that:

I thought this was about the Prime-culprit… As in what actually happened on the so called Rokkenjima-prime. Most people here seems to be in an agreement that the gameboards and the prime-verse doesn’t necessarily have the same culprit. Actually, most people seem to believe that Yasu/Sayo was NOT the culprit of prime, but still part of the reason for the cataclysm.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

I really had fun replying you. You may be the only polite user i met here. Thank you for your answer.

Thanks? I feel like I have a habit of ending up being over-polite out of fear that I might offend someone… But I really enjoy debating, and it's always more fun when people have different oppinions.

Edit: And a friendly advice jTiKey: when you are arguing for a theory that is against what's been “openly declared” as the cannon answer, you might want to try a bit more of a humble tone to avoid accidently offending someone. If you have an argument, feel free to speak. But try to avoid sounding as every word you say is an absolute truth. Even if it’s not you intention, it’s very easy to read it like that. Once again, no offence intended on my part, just a tip that might be good to keep in mind.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by jTiKey

Knox and Dine aren't circumstances of death, scenes or alibies. So, as your beloved manga EP8 says, apply them to all the game boards, please (at least the ones that are in red).

Originally Posted by Episode 5, bold emphasis mine

BATTLER: ".........That's an interesting way to interpret it. ......However, I've heard that not all of the detective novels around the world follow the Decalogue all the time, right? .........When you bump into one of those, won't you feel tricked...?"

DLANOR: "Even the Decalogue is nothing more than a single INTERPRETATION, and it does not apply to all mystery STORIES. ......Though among fundamentalists of my father's work, it seems there are those who harshly criticize works which violate the Decalogue and call them HERESY..."

There's no end of arguments like this in the mystery world. Was this or that famous detective novel really a fair mystery--in other words, one that followed Knox's Decalogue? That sort of argument is already an eternal theme of the mystery world. In fact, in mystery discussions, arguments like these sometimes become more heated than talk about the actual tricks......

BATTLER: "I can understand why they'd want to criticize it. ......They try to solve it, believe it's solvable and follow the Decalogue, but it's actually not made to be solvable at all. I can understand how that'd get pretty annoying."

That's right. When fighting with the Decalogue, ......there's just one thing you want guaranteed from the beginning. In other words, .........you want a guarantee that this detective novel will adhere to the Decalogue. If a work labels itself as an orthodox mystery, then you have nothing to worry about. However, the mystery genre contains many unorthodox sub-genres within it. .......Does that mean that trying to use reasoning in an unorthodox detective novel is a complete waste of time......?

BATTLER: "......Looking at it that way, ......it really does feel arrogant."

DLANOR: "YES. I also find it extremely sad that my father's Decalogue has been used as such an arrogant weapon."

BATTLER: "............Though you just fought with Beato using the Decalogue as a weapon. ......Can I take that as proof that this game world of Beato's follows the Knox Decalogue......?"

When I asked that, ......there was a strange silence. Virgilia, Dlanor, ...and of course, Beato... ...all remained silent for a while...... Almost as though my question had touched at the core of something...

VIRGILIA: "That......is something I cannot answer myself."

BATTLER: "Why...?"

VIRGILIA: "This is a game that this child made. ......A game to decide which of the two of you will win. ......This child has called it a confrontation between mystery and fantasy. But unfortunately, she has never called it an orthodox mystery. That means you have no guarantee that it follows the Decalogue."

Dlanor uses her rules, but they might not apply to Beatrice's game, but it's stated to be solvable anyway. Will uses his rules (and only a handful of them in red), and never uses them when solving things for Clair, draw your own conclusion.

[Valkama]

Somethings caught my eye about Rosatrice in EP3.

KNM states in his theory that George gave Shannon a fake death drug but Rosa poisoned it so George unknowingly killed her.
The six people were not killed by traps
Would this be considered a trap? Would this be considered an accidental death?(Which Beatrice would have denied if not for Ronove)

Also it suggest George snuck out of the guest house to kill Kyrie, Rudolph and Hideyoshi but once again this is weird because I distinctly recall Krauss and Natsuhi guarding the first floor so there is no way for him to get back in if he were to say escape from the second floor windows.

I really would like these fixed up jTiKey

[jTiKey]

So, I own an apology to all who was offended by my posts.

From what I learnt, not many here actually know what Rosatrice actually represents. So here is the basis:

First of all. Red truth > everything.

If there is a red statemented, but we see the there is told something otherwise - we see it as a lie. If a servant is forbidden to be the culprit, that means that Yasu isn't the culprit, or that she\he isn't a servant.

White text is false only of there is magic involved, or a red statement that is agains it.
Thought, magic scenes may be an interpretation.

Second. Both Knox and Dine do apply.

Rosatrice serves as the key of Rokkenjima Prime. She is the one, who is that human form of Beatrice on the island. She believes that performing the ritual will resurect the dead, and lost love will be returned. George has his reasons, so he helps here. Dr. Nanjo needs money for his grandson, he doesn't kill, but he does lie and does what he is told to.

Battler's sin is the main drive for George's cooperation.

Battler does look alike Kinzo. Maybe Rosa thought of him like Kinzo's reincarnation, that's why she wanted to be understoon by him.

So, using these 3 people it is posible to solve all games from 1 to 6 without any other accomplices.

In game 3 and 5 the epitaph is solved, thus Rosa stops the ritual, but George doesn't care. Rosa is killed always after the epitaph is solved, because it is dangerous for George to have an alive eye witness.

Also, Rosa is the one who gives hints about the epitaph. She find the gold in EP3, thus she didn't get any hints and never finds it again, why? She finds the gold few minutes after Eva and doesn't kill her? There is no good reason to leave Eva alive, when she can have the gold for herself. And what about saying Eva to tell everyone about the gold? She even says, that she will tell everybody, if Eva doesn't. What good reasons does Rosa has for this behavior? If the would be Beatrice, it makes sence that she came to congratulate Eva.

Also, Rosa knows for some reason about Kinzo's death, but never actually tells anybody about that in any game.

Rosa calls the servant's furniture in the 2nd game.

Also, there is a good explanation why Beato "couldn't" revive Sakutaro.

A world where magic that isn't mine certainly cannot exist
magic was not able to revive Sakutarou

Let's imagine this is told in the real world, where Rosa is dressed as Beato. She says that she can't revive Sakutaro with magic... and that's absolutely true, cuz all she can do are trick, like switching candies and putting them under a cup. Her magic is fake in the real world.
She simply didn't want to give another Sakutaro, so she lied to Maria, cuz her interaction with Sakutaro made them trouble.
We see that she lied, because ANGE-Beatrice did revive him, replacing him with an cheep copy.

As I told before, any obvious connections between Rosa, George, Nanjo and the culprit musn't be in the story.

Other hints. Every time Rosa's death is proclamed in red, there is a change in the meta world. Game 3 - Beato gives the head to EVA, and in game 5 even the meta creatures are shocked that there is another killed and that he does the magic circles pretty badly.

in this theory, Shkanon is a deception to fool the readers that don't want to dig lower.

Also, Rosa is the one who wrote all the letter in the bottles.

KNM said, he believes game 2 is the true one, but I think it is game 1. And all of the other are like a purgatory for both Rosa and Battler.

Ange's future isn't the same fragment as Primes. "no one escapes, all die" is a general statement. In Ange's future Eva did survive, which means, all that is a lie. Also, there are to many magic things going on with Ange, so that can't be the real future.

So here you go.

Would this be considered a trap?

A trap is a device that kills. That poisioning was indirect killing by Rosa, she was doing it intentionally. Even the bomb explosion wasn't theated as a trap.

[GreyZone]

That Van Dine and Knox are red truth, doesn't mean they apply for the gameboard or reality. It just means that, e.g.:

"It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the STORY!" = Knox 1st

...is the truth

Nothing more and nothing less. After all there has never been a red truth like "Not even once unknown drugs were used in any game" or something like that.


e.g. The scene with the cigarettes in EP3 outright clashes with Van Dine #20.



EDIT: Not to mention "There is but one culprit" is broken by EP3, when Eva shot Battler.

[jTiKey]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

That Van Dine and Knox are red truth, doesn't mean they apply for the gameboard or reality. It just means that, e.g.:

"It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the STORY!" = Knox 1st

...is the truth

Nothing more and nothing less. After all there has never been a red truth like "Not even once unknown drugs were used in any game" or something like that.


e.g. The scene with the cigarettes in EP3 outright clashes with Van Dine #20.

I didn't take my argument up from the air. It is said by Battler the Game Master himself.

Dlanor uses her rules, but they might not apply to Beatrice's game,

Battler afterwards confirms all red truth, except the one of the death, scenes and alibies, to be applied to all games.

e.g. The scene with the cigarettes in EP3 outright clashes with Van Dine #20.

I'm talking about the one's in red.
And please, cant you tell the difference between the cigarettes of the culprit and the cigarettes of the victum?
Read, please, your arguments before you write them.

EDIT: Not to mention "There is but one culprit" is broken by EP3, when Eva shot Battler.

That is the reason, why the author showed Eva kill Battler. Eva is a killer, but she isn't the culprit. But anyway, I said about the ones confirmed in red.

Please, leave Dine alone, you cleary don't understand his rules.

[GreyZone]

What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the post from me, that you quoted...

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

That Van Dine and Knox are red truth, doesn't mean they apply for the gameboard or reality. It just means that, e.g.:

"It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the STORY!" = Knox 1st

...is the truth

Nothing more and nothing less. After all there has never been a red truth like "Not even once unknown drugs were used in any game" or something like that.

Hmm, I don't think I agree with that interpretation. If the Knox reds are just statements about the content of the laws rather than showing they apply, it makes some of Battler's counterarguments in EP6 empty statements, and I'm loathe to ascribe that kind of foul play to him.

I think that, to the extent that laws were stated in red truth, those specific laws apply to the specific games in which they were stated, while Knox and Dine in general don't necessarily apply.

Re: Dine in particular, Ryuukishi's version of Knox is significantly different in meaning from the original, so I don't think we can even make meaningful claims about what the Dine laws are other than the specific ones Will quoted, let alone whether they apply to Beatrice's games or not.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by jTiKey

Second. Both Knox and Dine do apply.

But we have explicit statements that they cannot be known to apply. See above.

You also don't seem to understand that section of the ep8 manga. Battler is saying that there are two kinds of red truth:

• Things which are true only on a specific board; and
• Things which are generally true.

Battler does not go on a tremendously long tangent explaining which reds are which, but he gives us a general overview. The only examples he gives of the latter are numbers of people (which contradicts Lambda in ep5, note, so either her red is wrong or Battler's categories aren't meant to be taken as absolutes), and people's personalities. In no sense is he listing everything that is true for every situation, nor can I recall him doing so at any point in the manga (which I have read past that point; have you?).

Battler's game in ep6 may conform to Knox explicitly. That does not mean anything. It's possible that Knox's Decalogue is applicable solely to his own game and not to Beatrice's (because, again, that ep5 script I referenced states that Battler cannot know if her game did follow it, and Dlanor acknowledges that's fine as long as it's solvable). Beatrice never says her game obeys certain rules, and she certainly never says so in red. Bern only cares about some of Van Dine's rules and others explicitly don't work when she decides they don't. This all is evidence to suggest that mystery rule applicability is solely within the discretion of the Game Master and thus, Knox applicability is in the first category of red truth and not the second. That you could draw the second conclusion from that panel is confusing; is English not your first language?

For someone arguing that red is more important than everything, it's a bit hypocritical of you to assume a priori that something not stated in red by Beatrice holds for her games.

EDIT: Oh, and there is one point I can't find in the script but do recall where Will sort of thinks about his rules and considers one which could pretty much destroy Beatrice's game outright. That rule is most likely one of:

• 3. There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.
• 16. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations. such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude.

It's not clear how these would be reformulated in Umineko's canon because Will never actually brings them up, but they happen to be in Wright's list. Love, personal and direct, is a critical thematic element of Beatrice's mystery, regardless of who you believe Beatrice to be. Likewise, the stories are deeply concerned with the character of the culprit and victims and a number of side issues. As a work, Umineko cannot possibly conform to all of Van Dine, nor can (most of) its sub-stories.

EDIT EDIT: Battler's ep6 game explicitly can't follow Van Dine, either: It has no detective.

[haguruma]

I do admire the gusto you put behind your theory making, but it does still seem a little shaky here and there.

Originally Posted by jTiKey

First of all. Red truth > everything.

If there is a red statemented, but we see the there is told something otherwise - we see it as a lie.

Then I want to redirect to one point.
I know the English translation of the EP8 manga is not up to speed, but that doesn't make it less existent. So how do you stand towards Will's Red statement that at the time of Nanjo's death both Rosa and George were dead, additional to the fact that Eva-Beato also cleared up in game 3 that neither Eva, Battler nor Jessica killed him.
Before the murder of Dr. Nanjo, Kinzo, Krauss, Natsuhi, Hideyoshi, Rudolph, Kyrie, Rosa, Maria, George, Gohda, Kumasawa, Genji, Shannon and Kanon are already dead! That is a pretty strong argument that you cannot really go around without "identity death", even with a Rosatrice theory.

So, using these 3 people it is posible to solve all games from 1 to 6 without any other accomplices.

Well, EP3 causes a major hickup I think.
How did George kill Rosa and Maria when he was with the cousins and/or Shannon?
How did George kill Hideyoshi, Kyrie and Rudolph in the mansion and sneak back inside?
Who killed Dr. Nanjo?

Rosa is killed always after the epitaph is solved, because it is dangerous for George to have an alive eye witness.

So it would be Georgetrice and not Rosatrice?

She finds the gold few minutes after Eva and doesn't kill her? There is no good reason to leave Eva alive, when she can have the gold for herself.

This one is actually just logical planning on her side.
If she is not the culprit then she does not know about the bomb, so if she kills Eva she will have to answer to that at one point or the other. The gold is just that, illegal gold, so it couldn't even buy her out of a murder trial.

Ange's future isn't the same fragment as Primes. "no one escapes, all die" is a general statement. In Ange's future Eva did survive, which means, all that is a lie.

That seems a little to convenient, because it practically also erases all hints towards what Beatrice's larger scheme could have been, the diary, the letters to the relatives, the money in the bank. But then this begs the question, what is the reason for putting this into the narrative if it is a lie.
This is actually a much harsher break with mystery fiction conventions, since it poses the question of how to deduce what is white noise and what is actual description.

[ALPHA-Beatrice]

I'd like to propose a different culprit other than Yasu and/or Shannon/Kanon(tackling this from a different angle).

In the Fourth game, as we're well aware Beatrice attempted to stop the game via psychologically shocking Battler with the fact that he wasn't Asumu's son.

Logically, there's no way Yasu would know or get hold of this information. I mean, for the past 6 or so years, she's a young girl(or boy, or whatever) growing up basically playing games inside his/her head. The only ones who might know would be Kinzo(Implied in the 8th game) and maybe Genji. I can't imagine the other adult relatives knowing because they hate each other's guts half the time

If Culprit=Beatrice. Then the Culprit has to be someone who figuratively would be close enough to either Kyrie/Rudolf to get this vital piece of information. (Of course, it could very well be Kyrie herself. But ignoring Bernkastel's theory because that's all too easy).

Let's go back to Rosatrice. Rosa is the youngest sibling. What if a stressed out Rudolf confessed what he did with Kyrie's baby and trusted Rosa to keep quiet.

Similarly to how he felt he knew Eva(in Game 7 trying to murder her), maybe he felt as though Rosa who was the bottom of the totem pole could be trusted with such a secret.

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice

I'd like to propose a different culprit other than Yasu and/or Shannon/Kanon(tackling this from a different angle).

In the Fourth game, as we're well aware Beatrice attempted to stop the game via psychologically shocking Battler with the fact that he wasn't Asumu's son.

Logically, there's no way Yasu would know or get hold of this information. I mean, for the past 6 or so years, she's a young girl(or boy, or whatever) growing up basically playing games inside his/her head. The only ones who might know would be Kinzo(Implied in the 8th game) and maybe Genji. I can't imagine the other adult relatives knowing because they hate each other's guts half the time

If Culprit=Beatrice. Then the Culprit has to be someone who figuratively would be close enough to either Kyrie/Rudolf to get this vital piece of information. (Of course, it could very well be Kyrie herself. But ignoring Bernkastel's theory because that's all too easy).

Let's go back to Rosatrice. Rosa is the youngest sibling. What if a stressed out Rudolf confessed what he did with Kyrie's baby and trusted Rosa to keep quiet.

Similarly to how he felt he knew Eva(in Game 7 trying to murder her), maybe he felt as though Rosa who was the bottom of the totem pole could be trusted with such a secret.

Rudolf admitted in EP8 that he was going to confess this at the conference. Evidence for this has been there since EP1. Anybody at the conference would have access to this information, if Rudolf decided to tell it in R-Prime. (Including the true ruler of the Ushiromiya family...)

I don't think it's odd for Yasu to use this against Battler in EP4, since her feelings were really hurt because Battler couldn't remember his promise. She stopped the battle (lol) with him as a defense mechanism. She couldn't stand to hear that Battler had forgotten something so pivotal to her, so she asserted that "this Battler is a fake."

That's my take on it, anyway.