[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Wait, it didn't quite went that way:



My feeling is that if you understand everything about that world, that tale and that game you automatically can reach that position. In fact they wanted to give that position to Erika because they thought she understood everything about that world.
The fact that Lambdadelta recognized him as a wizard meant just she had acknowledged him as such. The ceremony is likely only for show (also let's not forget this is a meta that takes place in Toya's head so rules are likely less strict than they would be if this was the reality).

But like I said, Virgilia, Ronove, and Gaap would become Territory lords by that definition, and wouldn't have even needed to chaff the Siesta's in the first place.


More than Erika's title being temporary she missed the requistes as in she didn't truly understand the world she wanted to rule, differently from Battler so she was recognized as an usurper. I guess Beato could have been a co-lond if she wanted and maybe the only reason due to which the siesta were able to fire her was that at the moment Battler was the lord but he was under the control of Erika, making her lord by proxy so she could have the authorization to fire to the other territory Lady Beato.

I still think the idea that she simply couldn't be the territory lord because the seat was taken is explanation enough, after all, Willard is not a territory lord.


The stakes stake battler at the beginning of Ep 3. At the beginning of Ep 3 Battler was all fired up due to what happened to Rosa in Ep 2. The siesta targeted Battler always in Ep 3. Though Battler was firm in his idea of denying Eva Beatrice he wasn't so against witches anymore. Even if you assume he had doubts about his chances to deny witches at the beginning of Ep 3 we can't say that when he was attacked by the siesta he completely didn't believe in magic. So it's confusing. Unless you go and say that he willingly or unwillingly believed in Beato but couldn't absolutely believe in Eva Beatrice.

In this way the problem wouldn't be if he believes in magic or not but in who he doesn't believe... I hope it makes sense...
Battler only could outright blast someone away with no confidence when he saw Beatrice's innocent reaction in seeing people being killed, I don't believe that he's ever had an emotional hatred bigger than that, so most of the times he still tries to rationalize, having the spirit to fight honorably and deny it instead of ''punching your opponent in the face in a chess game'' is different from denying it to a level where it doesn't effect you, Battler outright states that he denies it probably because that is his position on the matter and what he's trying to achieve. Also, attacks in Umineko don't work even if the person hasn't stated their theory yet, as long as they eventually say it after the attack fails and they make a cool one-liner, Battler had his argument prepared at the time the Siesta's fired at him

I sadly don't know how to quote different parts of a post. I'm not very computer literate.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

First, something interesting about the episode 5 trial: Contradictory reds by the prosecution side:

• During the short break at 1:00 AM, the first two to leave the dining hall were Rosa and Eva. Until Eva returned, everyone in the dining hall remained there. After seeing Rosa off, Eva went to the waiting room and sealed it. Of course, she did not enter the room at all at this time.
  
• From 1:00 AM until the discovery of the crime, it was impossible for the crime to occur in the cousins' room!!

Thus Rosa, a victim, was never actually in the room at the same time as the crime was possible. Hence, no crime. Fakery confirmed.

That's a nice finding, but let me play the devil's advocate here for a moment, in other words let me imagine how Erika would have saved herself from such an "own goal".

If I remember correctly Erika's thesis was that Natsuhi entered inside the guesthouse between 24:00 and 1:00 AM. at one point in this timespan she entered inside the cousins' room and killed them.
Now here is the important part.
After that she went on hiding in one of the other guestrooms.
And since the only exit has been guarded until 3 AM by Erika, it means that Natsuhi didn't leave the guesthouse before that.

Therefore I guess that Erika would say that Rosa was killed inside of her room by Natsuhi. That means this second crime didn't occur in the cousin's room. The body was moved to the cousins' room later, once the crime has been already committed.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

I sadly don't know how to quote different parts of a post. I'm not very computer literate.

Don't worry about it. I'm learning as well.

But like I said, Virgilia, Ronove, and Gaap would become Territory lords by that definition, and wouldn't have even needed to chaff the Siesta's in the first place.

Maybe they don't fully understand the world they're in? In Ep 5 they didn't have full understanding of it. Or maybe since they're furniture they have already accepted to submit to the territory lord. Beato gave up on being territory lady when she married Battler.

I still think the idea that she simply couldn't be the territory lord because the seat was taken is explanation enough, after all, Willard is not a territory lord.

Well, we don't know if Willard could become one or not. Also he wasn't interested in and it might be the fact he's on a different plane is a problem for him.

Battler only could outright blast someone away with no confidence when he saw Beatrice's innocent reaction in seeing people being killed, I don't believe that he's ever had an emotional hatred bigger than that, so most of the times he still tries to rationalize, having the spirit to fight honorably and deny it instead of ''punching your opponent in the face in a chess game'' is different from denying it to a level where it doesn't effect you, Battler outright states that he denies it probably because that is his position on the matter and what he's trying to achieve. Also, attacks in Umineko don't work even if the person hasn't stated their theory yet, as long as they eventually say it after the attack fails and they make a cool one-liner, Battler had his argument prepared at the time the Siesta's fired at him

Sorry but it still sounds confusing. If it's disbelief in magic what stopped the siesta from attacking he should have had it also when the stakes attacked him.
Battler had arguments both times.
However the siesta attacked him before hearing his arguments. Usually the argument has effect once is stated.

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Sorry but it still sounds confusing. If it's disbelief in magic what stopped the siesta from attacking he should have had it also when the stakes attacked him.
Battler had arguments both times.
However the siesta attacked him before hearing his arguments. Usually the argument has effect once is stated.

It's not disbelief entirely, strong disbelief without rational-thinking is only something permitted to shameless goats who give up on thinking, Fantasy-Wise I think that's why their skin and physique are described as grotesque and zombie-like, Battlers was more of ''You're a fucking crazy opponent, if you're not gonna take this honorably than you're full of shit'', and the denial of the game in general was what made him not become goat-like, Battler didn't give up on thinking, he just said ''fuck this game'' and left, and Beatrice can't do anything to stop that, when you invite someone to a tea party you can't force them to stay.


On the matter of the Stakes slicing Battler to bits, they did it as soon as they countered his argument, meaning he had no time to think of another one(I'm pretty sure), sort of like how the sisters were pleading Beatrice to escape before Dlanor could pull Satan out of her chest. But an example of an unjustified attack would be Beatrice shooting Erika with a blue stake in EP 5, and only after she was impaled did Erika ask her the reasoning behind the stake. Erika could not counter the argument, so it pierced her, even though she didn't believe in magic, Battler had an argument that could deny the Siestas shot, so it didn't hit him. If you notice when Kinzo turns into a dragon to attack Battler, he stops as soon as Battler sounds as if he has an answer to counter him, why? Because at that point touching him would be suicidal.

This is just possible what-ifs, I'm not saying if it's true, I'm interested in this manner as well and would like to hear how this could be wrong.

[jjblue1]

Okay so I was reconstructing the timeline of Ep 5 but I noticed a problem.

When it was almost 24:00 the siblings decided to take a break from the family conference.
Genji is called, Natsuhi and Krauss leaves, Shannon and Kanon brings food and tea.

When the clock sound midnight someone knocks at the door of the dining room.

The door is opened, no one is found then the text says:

Barely an hour ago, Shannon and Kanon had come in to serve tea. At that time, everyone had seen that nothing lay in that spot.

... am I misunderstanding the sentence or this should mean Kanon and Shannon were there a hour before short after midnight when they actually arrived short before midnight?

Or it's a case of time jump and the scene is as following:

- Kanon and Shannon arrived short before midnight
- At midnight there was the knocking

Although the sentence mentioning when Kanon and Shannon arrived is positioned at this point in the text it actually took place after all the things that are mentioned as happening after this sencence in short:

- The siblings opening the letter, finding the ring talking about it and so on?

Suggestions?

[cronnoponno]

While it wasn't generally accepted because it was red-dodgy, I think the knock can be explained with Genji knocking on Natsuhi's door, they went through the trouble of showing us Genji looking for Natsuhi, so the obvious location first would be to check her room, Servants must knock before entering(the knock was a servant knock), meaning Erika's reasoning was sort of close, the wording made it deniable though.

[Jan-Poo]

Barely an hour ago, Shannon and Kanon had come in to serve tea. At that time, everyone had seen that nothing lay in that spot.

This sentence was not stated in red.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

It's not disbelief entirely, strong disbelief without rational-thinking is only something permitted to shameless goats who give up on thinking, Fantasy-Wise I think that's why their skin and physique are described as grotesque and zombie-like, Battlers was more of ''You're a fucking crazy opponent, if you're not gonna take this honorably than you're full of shit'', and the denial of the game in general was what made him not become goat-like, Battler didn't give up on thinking, he just said ''fuck this game'' and left, and Beatrice can't do anything to stop that, when you invite someone to a tea party you can't force them to stay.

Well, Battler gave up onthinking more than once... Also not all the goats gave up on thinking. Some came up with crazy arguments the same way Battler did.

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

On the matter of the Stakes slicing Battler to bits, they did it as soon as they countered his argument, meaning he had no time to think of another one(I'm pretty sure), sort of like how the sisters were pleading Beatrice to escape before Dlanor could pull Satan out of her chest. But an example of an unjustified attack would be Beatrice shooting Erika with a blue stake in EP 5, and only after she was impaled did Erika ask her the reasoning behind the stake. Erika could not counter the argument, so it pierced her, even though she didn't believe in magic, Battler had an argument that could deny the Siestas shot, so it didn't hit him. If you notice when Kinzo turns into a dragon to attack Battler, he stops as soon as Battler sounds as if he has an answer to counter him, why? Because at that point touching him would be suicidal.

This is just possible what-ifs, I'm not saying if it's true, I'm interested in this manner as well and would like to hear how this could be wrong.

Hum... when the siesta were going to shot at him the discussion still has to take place. And Battler in that moment didn't use any blue truth to push them back.

Then the siesta could have fired at him later, once he failed to find an argument against Eva-Beatrice? It's possible but it's still weird.

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Well, Battler gave up onthinking more than once... Also not all the goats gave up on thinking. Some came up with crazy arguments the same way Battler did.

Battler gave up on thinking in the Rosa trial, and was mincemeat for the goats, because he wanted to protect his families innocence, not because he wanted to destroy and kill a delusion. The goats in EP 8 were given different values based on their intelligence, different sized goats and everything appeared at that time, some more violent-looking than others.


Hum... when the siesta were going to shot at him the discussion still has to take place. And Battler in that moment didn't use any blue truth to push them back.

Then the siesta could have fired at him later, once he failed to find an argument against Eva-Beatrice? It's possible but it's still weird.

Because, Battler has to acknowledge that Beatrice is a witch, Magic that isn't acknowledged is a delusion, killing Battler would totally ruin the goal, Eva tried to kill Batter first, but when Ronove explained it to her, well, the Siesta's already chicken-shitted out of the scene, and Ronove probably explained that what she did was a bad idea.In fact, perhaps it was Ronove who blocked their shots at Battler.

Blue truth was not introduced as a rule in EP 3, so all he could really do was ''deny and block'' attacks, blue truth rather forces red out of the opponent, but that doesn't mean he can't cause their existence to overwrite it's paradox by giving illogical, yet possible explanations to their tricks.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

This sentence was not stated in red.

Nope. It however sounds like a logic error in the narrative.

If I say:

"Shannon and Kanon arrived before midnight. At midnight there's a knock, the sibling open the door and see a letter. Shannon and Kanon arrived a hour ago. The siblings open the letter."

I basically imply that the siblings took a hour before opening the letter (so they opened it around 1 AM). But at 1 AM was proclaimed the end of the family conference (though they kept on discussing anyway). Wouldn't have been more logic to put the sentence there?

Plus after opening the letter, reading its content, handing the ring to Battler Krauss came back and the family conference continued with them arguing over the ring so it's not like the handing the ring to Battler happened when it was about to be 1 AM.

[DukeLawliet]

Hm, let me raise a point that we're all kind of violating here. Despite it being so much fun, Umineko is about the futility of literary criticism. We're enjoying it like Bern here, softly enjoying it on a first read, and then ripping its guts out. I call it "The Poor Dead Hobbits". "The Hobbit" was a favorite book of mine....until I had to analyze it, ripping it into indiscernible pieces. The deeper meaning of a novel is irrelevant, the "truth" pales in it's beauty to a personal truth that will make you happy. Let's take a bit to discuss the heart of the mystery, eh? A small break from the dastardly fun of playing the villain. What themes did you take from Umineko? Any messages?

[DukeLawliet]

Double post to show my beautiful new signature!

[cronnoponno]

Well, I wouldn't say that's always the case, I think Bernkastel is a different type of audience, not all of us are representing her, and besides, if you couldn't analyze Mystery what would it be for? If there's nothing to solve and analyze about it, it'd be like watching a soap-opera.

[DukeLawliet]

Heh, kidding around, don't mean to judge, I like the mystery part too. And I happen to like soap operas! Umineko is like if Carl Jung and Agatha Christie wrote "Dynasty"!

[Wanderer]

I don't have time to respond to everything by everyone right now. I'll get other stuff later.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

That's a nice finding

Thanks. I noticed it even in my first read-through, and it drove me crazy how Battler, Beato, Lambda and everyone just ignored the contradiction until finally it was addressed in "Dlanor's Court Report".

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Let me play the devil's advocate here for a moment, in other words let me imagine how Erika would have saved herself from such an "own goal".

If I remember correctly Erika's thesis was that Natsuhi entered inside the guesthouse between 24:00 and 1:00 AM. at one point in this timespan she entered inside the cousins' room and killed them.
Now here is the important part.
After that she went on hiding in one of the other guestrooms.
And since the only exit has been guarded until 3 AM by Erika, it means that Natsuhi didn't leave the guesthouse before that.

Therefore I guess that Erika would say that Rosa was killed inside of her room by Natsuhi. That means this second crime didn't occur in the cousin's room. The body was moved to the cousins' room later, once the crime has been already committed.

Ah very nice that works. Though it still requires some deceptive red, about "the crime" actually having to refer to one of multiple crimes. Also (white, but it was Lambdadelta's verdict):

• "......At 24:00 on October 4th, 1986, the defendant, Ushiromiya Natsuhi, left before the others while pretending to return to her room to sleep, and murdered George, Jessica, Maria, Rosa, and Genji one after the other during the one hour period before 1:00 AM!"

And Dlanor's official report was also a little different, but still contradictory: It was as you describe: Natsuhi went to the cousins' room between 24:00 and 1:00, waited until between 1:00 and 3:00 to kill everyone in the cousins' room, then hid in another room until after 3:00 to make her escape. And "From 1:00 AM until the discovery of the crime, it was impossible for the crime to occur in the cousins' room!!" was said after that.

[Sherringford]

Originally Posted by DukeLawliet

Hm, let me raise a point that we're all kind of violating here. Despite it being so much fun, Umineko is about the futility of literary criticism.

Quite a big claim here, and one I don't really agree with. Umineko seems to have been simply written as a game between the author and his fanbase, followed by his ramblings on the mystery genre and a love story.

His complaints against criticism felt much more like rebelling against the fanbase that demanded a few things the author didn't quite feel like giving than anything else really. I seriously doubt that it was intended to strike against criticism.

And even if it Umineko was truly about that, I'd pause for a moment, listen to that point, and reject it as completely ludicrous.

We're enjoying it like Bern here, softly enjoying it on a first read, and then ripping its guts out. I call it "The Poor Dead Hobbits". "The Hobbit" was a favorite book of mine....until I had to analyze it, ripping it into indiscernible pieces. The deeper meaning of a novel is irrelevant, the "truth" pales in it's beauty to a personal truth that will make you happy.

I frankly don't think that analyzing a novel means you'll stop enjoying it. And happiness is subjective. For example, let's take...err Carr's He Who Whispers as an example. I enjoyed the novel at first for its great atmosphere and pretty decent puzzles.

Then later I enjoyed it even more when I analyzed and saw how careful Carr was in its plot construction, I enjoyed it even more. Or when I first read one of ryunosuke akutagawa's short stories just yesterday--I'd like to ask for people not to t crucify me for not reading him up until now, I am repenting to my sins--and immediately re-read the story as soon as I was done, and was left with a smile on my face and wondering why the hell I didn't read more Japanese authors.

...Then I remembered my backlog involving obscure mystery writers from the west. But that's beside the point.

My point is simply that criticism doesn't make you enjoy something less if the work is truly good. For example, Kindaichi Case Files doesn't hold under criticism because of its borrowed plots and insane hammy criminals, but I'd argue that the other famous Japanese manga, Detective Conan, holds up quite well as a mystery series even if subjected to criticism. The Tattoo Murder Case by Akimitsu Takagi is also another example of a good novel that holds up even after criticism(well, at least to me).

I'm getting both sidetracked and dangerously close to talking about more Japanese authors than Western ones which would make me lose my Golden Age cred, so bear with me for a second while I randomly namedrop Edgar Wallace, Ambrose Bierce* and G.K Chesteron just to even things out.

*Oh he counts, he counts! Okay maybe he doesn't but he was in a "crime collection" together with a few other authors mentioned here that I read recently.

So uh like I was saying before getting sidetracked by myself, I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Saying that the "truth" of the novel pales in comparison to your own personal image is a huge leap, don't you agree?

I think that sometimes a novel is even more amazing than I first thought, something I often find within the impossible-crime subgenre.

Let's take a bit to discuss the heart of the mystery, eh? A small break from the dastardly fun of playing the villain. What themes did you take from Umineko? Any messages?

"Don't pander to your fanbase and ruin what could have been a perfectly good series" comes to mind.

To be honest, I didn't take many themes from Umineko. I saw a lot of intended themes, but I can't say any got their message across in an effective manner. I did have a lot of fun reading it though.

[DukeLawliet]

Lol, sorry to have brought it up ^^ Its clear im in the minority. I took some themes, but Ill save for another day.

Its less I was claiming that it was wrong to analyze, more claiming that.....the intricacies are more a side dish to the main course ^^ Not that my mental picture is better, but mostly that...everyone sees whats best for them. Im sorry if I offended anyone, I love Chesterton too, and I am, in my own way, over analyzing it. I'm terribly sorry ^^ I do hope we can all still be friends.

Also: It's the definition of "The discovery of the crime" that bothers me. Theres something about that thats very vague. From whos discovery? Battler's? Erikas? Can someone summarize where we can pinpoint the time of death between? And oi, with them referring to everything as "the crime", such a vague term. Other stuff, lots of things...oh, Umineko, you're not the best thing to ponder at midnight.

[Sherringford]

You don't need to apologize for having a point of view different from mine, relax. I'm not the almighty know it all who understands how every single little thing in the world works. It's perfectly fine to hold a point of view other people don't agree with. I mean I'm nearly ignorant on Japanese mystery fiction, among other things.

If I come off as a jerk, I apologize. Regardless of how I come off as, I know I'm not right all the time. I used to be muuuuch more critical of Umineko back when episode 8 came out, but after some points made I see it's not a sign of Ryuukishi's undeniable incompetence but rather of simply how he was forced to write the series, even if I still dislike how the series turned out.

We all like discussing things here, and you don't need to apologize for having an opinion different than mine. Hope I didn't offend you either.

[Wanderer]

@Re: Character strength in the Meta-World:

I see it as a character's strength is based on strength of their conceptual foundation. Deny the concept of the character, weaken the character. Affirm the character's concept and strengthen the character.

@jjblue1

Re: episode 5 "corpses":

Episode 5 Battler was shown to be unreliable, and he was a piece controlled by the witches. The whole story itself was designed to destroy Natsuhi, not just Battler. But, yeah they could have been playing dead. Or not there. Either way works pretty much the same.

Re: episode 5 mysterious letter with the knock.

That whole part is full of narrative deception. There was no knock.

@Dukelawliet

Welcome to the discussion. Re: "the discovery of the crime" vagueness, it really leaves a lot to assumptions. even Ronove in the end of episode 5 called it "so called 'discovery of the crime'".

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

• "......At 24:00 on October 4th, 1986, the defendant, Ushiromiya Natsuhi, left before the others while pretending to return to her room to sleep, and murdered George, Jessica, Maria, Rosa, and Genji one after the other during the one hour period before 1:00 AM!"

Heh yes they really messed up there. Now it would be hard to prove whether it's Ryuukishi that made an error or he made it on purpose.

This wouldn't be however the first time when a sentence wasn't precise or put in a bad manner. Think for example of when the cousins said it was the best family meeting in years because Battler was there and all cousins were gathered (poor Ange...).

jiblue1 also found what seems to be an error.