[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 7 Requiem of the golden witch

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

However I will not allow any statement like "the truth is right there and there are no hidden tricks" to be made.

I think there are plenty tricks to be made. I also believe Yasu is the solution, but I don't know the full shape of it. In fact, instead of presenting my theory (I don't have a grand unified theory), let me present the holes in Yasu. Since no one else was willing to do it in a reasonable manner, I'll do it myself.

1. What EXACTLY are Shannon and Kanon and the rest of the clown car to Yasu?
There are times when Shannon and Kanon seem to act in a unified way that hints at them being "played" by a single person. Then there are other times where they seem like entities unto themselves. You could probably use the fiction idea to explain this, but it bothers me that there's no real unified way to "read" Yasu. Is she really DID meido? Is she Oscar-worthy actress? I don't know.

2. Along those lines, why did Yasu fall in love with George and Jessica under the guise of Shannon and Kanon?
According to EP7, Shannon was [implied to be] created in service of Yasu. (Someone to aspire to) Beatrice was created to explain a phenomenon. (Why do I keep losing all my stuff?) Kanon was created in service of Shannon. (To help her create another universe after her heartache) Notice something about this? They're all created to "help" Yasu in some form or another--even if that form seems to be once removed. So that becomes very odd when you throw romances with other people in the mix. Like, if your persona of "super maid Shannon" is helping you dust extra well, it then seems sort of weird to lead people on when they fall in love with your fictional "super maid Shannon".

3. What's the deal with Shannon and Kanon in the EP7 Tea Party?
Unlike quite a few people, I do believe that the Tea Party is the truth about Rokkenjima, because I believe it ties in very strongly with the themes of "fiction" and what that concept means to people, and how when you strip that away, what you're left with is only the ugly, painful things about life and how people act. But moving along from that. When we meet Beatrice in EP7, she's practically a walking corpse already. We see no sign of that with Shannon and Kanon, and that bothers me. Even if we're going for the DID theory, it bothers me.

4. What does Yasu hope to gain from the roulette?
EP7 makes it pretty clear what Kinzo is trying to accomplish by pushing people to solve the epitaph. EP7 makes it about as clear as a brick wall as to what Yasu is trying to accomplish by using it as her game of chance. When you think about it, the only clear outcome she'll get out of it is committing suicide when the bomb goes off, or going to jail after being caught if she's actually murdered people--if someone doesn't kill her out of emotion first. There was a chance of Kinzo getting what he wanted because all the epitaph did was reward the person who figured it out. The risk was all on his end. With Yasu, the risk seems about equal on both ends. Damn, if I can figure out why, though.

5. Motive, please?
I think you can build a motive from what has been given to you in EP7, the problem is with how much sense it really makes. A motive for Yasu, according to EP7, has to encompass and explain a number of things. One, the scene in the Tea Party when they are upset about their body. Two, the talk about how if Battler had been a year late or a year early, things would have been different. Three, Shannon and Kanon as concepts. Four, the fact that Yasu seemed pretty stable at the end of EP7. Five, why was Yasu planning things so far in advance? Six, what part were the bank cards supposed to play? I'm sure you can think of more.


So, with all those problems, maybe you're wondering why I am so firm in the Yasu idea as being the solution. Well, because it explains things that are nearly impossible to explain otherwise.

It explains not only Kinzo's ranting, but also why Nanjo would say that he died at peace in EP5.
It explains why Shannon has been there for ten years when Natsuhi obviously doesn't view her as a proper playmate for Jessica.
It explains the formation of Beatrice and why she loves Battler.
It explains Battler's sin in the only way supported by the narrative with actual text to back it up.
It explains why some of the servants call themselves furniture, but not others.
It explains the challenge letters.
It explains Maria's relationship with Beatrice.
It explains a good chunk of Genji and Kumasawa's actions.
It explains where the meta characters came from and why they're named the way they are.
It explains the locked rooms.
It explains where the bottle letters came from.
It explains the emphasis on mystery novels.
It explains the man from nineteen years ago.
It explains the cryptic message about the nature of Beatrice in EP6, and why Shannon and Kanon agreed with it.

It explains a whole heck of a lot.

You can create alternate explanations for most of those, I imagine, but not an explanation that encompasses all of them the way the existence of Yasu does. Therefore I can't help but assume that my problems with Yasu are because I'm not thinking the right way or there's something I missed.

I was hoping for someone to challenge me with specific problems so that we could actually have a discussion, instead of a pissing contest about whether or not my ability to think has been compromised for daring to like the message of EP7. Unfortunately, it's not very fun or interesting to argue against myself.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Oliver

The ones said in red are the 1st, 7th and 11th. Episode 6 tips mention Wright's "12 wedges". The red given for 1, 7 and 11 matches a short phrasing of Dine's original rule with the same number in the same fashion as what we get for all 10 Knox rules. 1st is covered by Knox as well and is definitely true, and there's no question there's at least some corpses, so 7th is also true throughout.

So my opinion is that the first 12 rules are meant to be given in red, but the rest are discarded. There is scant little in Ep7 to which Dune rules may apply at all, (what mystery?) so my opinion is also that they apply to the entire narrative.

It also probably implies that at least part of the rules numbered 13-20 are broken, which is why the list cuts off at 12. In particular, rule 16 is definitely broken, rule 20 has been used as almost a checklist of things to try, rule 18 is very probably broken but isn't much of an issue due to how many times everyone died. Rule 13 is not listed as a further red herring because in Higurashi a secret society did unambiguously exist, even though in Umineko they probably don't... Jury's out on Okonogi's involvement though.

As the self-appointed Golden Age specialist here, allow me to try to analyze each rule(and Dine's intentions behind them, as Ryuukishi may reinterpret them)

1. The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.

Taken at face value, this doesn't mean that the mystery must be fair. Just that it must be as unfair to the detective as it is to the reader.

Dine included that rule in order to make the "fair play" genre...Play fair. That was what he thought detective fiction should be all about. Fairness.

Does it apply to Umineko?
Possibly. The jury is still out on whether it's fair or not, but Ryuukishi certainly seems to think it is. So that he would have included such rule is no surprise.
You could twist it around and say that because Battler knows his sin and we don't, he has a better chance of solving it than we do. But that is really nitpicking.

2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.

In other words, if such rule is to be correct, episode 7 is a giant troll against Will by Bern(which...makes sense) and episodes 1-4 are Beatrice trolling Battler(which...makes sense) if we assume that the magic scenes and such were there to trick Battler, not just us.

Which makes sense. Dine put it there so that writers could screw with the reader, so long as they were also screwing with the detective. Which is exactly what Ryuukishi is doing.

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.

People everywhere assume that Umineko slaughters this rule. I assure you, it does not.

Dine wrote this rule so that the mystery would take priority over love. By that, I mean that he wrote the rule so that no love sub-plot could be introduced while having no impact in the mystery. So long as love was a motive, or merely had something to do with it, Dine was perfectly okay with it. His own novels demonstrate as much.

I am aware that is open for debate.

4. The detective himself, or one of the official investigators, should never turn out to be the culprit. This is bald trickery, on a par with offering some one a bright penny for a five-dollar gold piece. It's false pretenses.

Well, it could be true. But there are times when the detective's 'holiness' is not established and he could be used as a culprit. Dine has never shown an extreme distaste for any of his rules been broken, only for those who broke it badly, however snobbish he was.

I think it can best be explained by the car analogy a teacher of mine was fond of using. "It is one thing for a skilled driver to bend a few rules and speed during a yellow light, it is another for a beginner or unskilled driver to do the same."

She used to refer to essay writing like that. It is the same here.

That said, nothing in Umineko contradicts it. I am going off topic.

5. The culprit must be determined by logical deductions — not by accident or coincidence or unmotivated confession. To solve a criminal problem in this latter fashion is like sending the reader on a deliberate wild-goose chase, and then telling him, after he has failed, that you had the object of his search up your sleeve all the time. Such an author is no better than a practical joker.

...I am very afraid Ryuukishi is going to break this rule. But let's have faith and assume he didn't.

Grey territory here.

6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. His function is to gather clues that will eventually lead to the person who did the dirty work in the first chapter; and if the detective does not reach his conclusions through an analysis of those clues, he has no more solved his problem than the schoolboy who gets his answer out of the back of the arithmetic.

Again, up for debate. Episode 6...I could make an argument that a culprit exists who is not Erika, therefore making her the detective. But it would be small bombs combined with "Tanaka George" level.

Van Dine set up this rule so that 1)A novel had a clear protagonist, who showed it was a mystery novel 2)That the reader was allowed to rest easy knowing that he had to read through the entire novel to get the answer.

There a few minor other reasons he made that rule, but that's better left to be debated in a detective forum(...which unfortunately doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge) than here.

7. There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better. No lesser crime than murder will suffice. Three hundred pages is far too much pother for a crime other than murder. After all, the reader's trouble and expenditure of energy must be rewarded.

No point in even arguing this. Episode 6 was breaking this until Erika came along.

.

8. The problem of the crime must he solved by strictly naturalistic means. Such methods for learning the truth as slate-writing, ouija-boards, mind-reading, spiritualistic se'ances, crystal-gazing, and the like, are taboo. A reader has a chance when matching his wits with a rationalistic detective, but if he must compete with the world of spirits and go chasing about the fourth dimension of metaphysics, he is defeated ab initio.

Tricky, but Dine created this so that the reader could match wits fairly against the detective. Since the 'fantasy'(red) is explained, I would say it does not violate Dine's original intention with the rule even if it violates his wording.

9. There must be but one detective — that is, but one protagonist of deduction — one deus ex machina. To bring the minds of three or four, or sometimes a gang of detectives to bear on a problem, is not only to disperse the interest and break the direct thread of logic, but to take an unfair advantage of the reader. If there is more than one detective the reader doesn't know who his codeductor is. It's like making the reader run a race with a relay team.

One detective per episode, no more. No problem here, Dine's original intention is also clear. He feels that more than one detective is unfair to the reader. Dine had a very strict approach about fairness.

10. The culprit must turn out to be a person who has played a more or less prominent part in the story — that is, a person with whom the reader is familiar and in whom he takes an interest.

This would mean that the boat captain cannot be the killer. Dine's rule is simple. No mysterious person X can be the killer. It has to be one of the suspects! Hiding a culprit in shadows is allowed, but hiding him in an alternate dimension is not.

11. A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person — one that wouldn't ordinarily come under suspicion.

Oh boy this one is tricky. It makes Van Dine sound snobbish. Which...He was. But mostly this is an anti-cliche rule. Naturally, a servant would have the most opportunity to kill someone. So they mustn't do it. Because a good mystery goes for the opposite of obvious. Ceasing being a servant would NOT make you able to suddenly kill people.

It was already said in red, so no point for me to even keep saying anything about it.

12. There must be but one culprit, no matter how many murders are committed. The culprit may, of course, have a minor helper or co-plotter; but the entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature.

This is one more of Dine's fair-play clauses. He believed the author to have too much of an advantage(or rather, thought of himself as so much better than the reader) that he set up this unbelievable play-field for himself.

Umineko can have used it without a problem.

13. Secret societies, camorras, mafias, et al., have no place in a detective story. A fascinating and truly beautiful murder is irremediably spoiled by any such wholesale culpability. To be sure, the murderer in a detective novel should be given a sporting chance; but it is going too far to grant him a secret society to fall back on. No high-class, self-respecting murderer would want such odds.

Again we come back to Dine's fairness. He believes that a murderer backed by a secret organization has a better chance at winning than the detective himself.
One interesting thing to note here is that it's the rule that best describes Van Dine's attitude towards the genre.

"To be sure, the murderer in a detective novel should be given a sporting chance"
The murderer represents the author, and in Umineko terms, the witch side. He believes it to be an intellectual game that both sides should play equally.

" but it is going too far to grant him a secret society to fall back on. No high-class, self-respecting murderer would want such odds."

Here what he means is "no writer would want to win his duel against the reader like this."

Considering Ryuukishi's similar flamboyance, I think he follows this rule, as he wouldn't have his ego damage by it. But that's up for debate.

14. The method of murder, and the means of detecting it, must be be rational and scientific. That is to say, pseudo-science and purely imaginative and speculative devices are not to be tolerated in the roman policier. Once an author soars into the realm of fantasy, in the Jules Verne manner, he is outside the bounds of detective fiction, cavorting in the uncharted reaches of adventure.

Episode 6 has stated as much. Regardless of the fantasy, there is still a mystery that does not affect it.

15. The truth of the problem must at all times be apparent — provided the reader is shrewd enough to see it. By this I mean that if the reader, after learning the explanation for the crime, should reread the book, he would see that the solution had, in a sense, been staring him in the face-that all the clues really pointed to the culprit — and that, if he had been as clever as the detective, he could have solved the mystery himself without going on to the final chapter. That the clever reader does often thus solve the problem goes without saying.

Dine's rants on fairness last for most of those rules. I agree with him. But that not withstanding, we have to wait for episode 20 for us to know for sure.

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.

The key here is Dine's original intent rather than the wording. He wants mystery novels to be about the mystery, nothing else.

Which is not tolerated by today's standards. But above all, Umineko's characterization is necessary for solving the mystery.

Van Dine allows for characterization to be used as a clue.

So it's possible.

17. A professional criminal must never be shouldered with the guilt of a crime in a detective story. Crimes by housebreakers and bandits are the province of the police departments — not of authors and brilliant amateur detectives. A really fascinating crime is one committed by a pillar of a church, or a spinster noted for her charities.

Self-explanatory, but we must await for episode 8. Perhaps it will break the rule somehow.

18. A crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide. To end an odyssey of sleuthing with such an anti-climax is to hoodwink the trusting and kind-hearted reader.

Van Dine, fairness, you know the drill by now if you are reading this long post.
I am an atheist, but I am literally praying that this isn't broken because of the very reason Dine states.

19. The motives for all crimes in detective stories should be personal. International plottings and war politics belong in a different category of fiction — in secret-service tales, for instance. But a murder story must be kept gemütlich, so to speak. It must reflect the reader's everyday experiences, and give him a certain outlet for his own repressed desires and emotions.

If episode 7 is true, 19th is broken. Kinzo's gold from the war is against this rule, and Van Dine's intention. He liked closed circles, and disliked war related matters. Even though he...Eh not important.

I will leave my "Van Dine's tsundere attitude towards certain rules" rant for later.

Also I'm fairly sure I'm the first person to ever describe Van Dine as a tsundere.

20. And (to give my Credo an even score of items) I herewith list a few of the devices which no self-respecting detective story writer will now avail himself of. They have been employed too often, and are familiar to all true lovers of literary crime. To use them is a confession of the author's ineptitude and lack of originality. (a) Determining the identity of the culprit by comparing the butt of a cigarette left at the scene of the crime with the brand smoked by a suspect. (b) The bogus spiritualistic se'ance to frighten the culprit into giving himself away. (c) Forged fingerprints. (d) The dummy-figure alibi. (e) The dog that does not bark and thereby reveals the fact that the intruder is familiar. (f)The final pinning of the crime on a twin, or a relative who looks exactly like the suspected, but innocent, person. (g) The hypodermic syringe and the knockout drops. (h) The commission of the murder in a locked room after the police have actually broken in. (i) The word association test for guilt. (j) The cipher, or code letter, which is eventually unraveled by the sleuth.

Van Dine did that rule only to get an even number of rules. Aesthetics above all else I say! Moreover, it isn't broken...Unless (j) is counted, considering the riddle. But (j) wasn't even respected by writers during Van Dine's time, much less Ryuukishi. Arthur Conan Doyle broke half of...Screw it, he literally broke every single item in 20) and is still a great writer.

Ryuukishi broke 20, but it doesn't mean anything even as far as my super conservative viewpoint is concerned.

Now, I apologize for this gigantic post.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Van Dine, fairness, you know the drill by now if you are reading this long post.
I am an atheist, but I am literally praying that this isn't broken because of the very reason Dine states.

My rationale for saying that Rule 18 is probably broken is that it is quite possible that Beatrice which is not a culprit at all exists, but accidentally causes Battler's death in most cases, by having set the bomb without intent to actually kill him with it, and not being responsible for any other murders in the entire text. Since she probably dies earlier, killed by the real culprit, she is unable to disarm the bomb, which produces the accidental deaths in the endgame event.

As has been previously argued, if you have a bomb, there is no reason to kill anyone manually at all, luring everybody into a room that cannot be unlocked from inside, of which a number exist on the island, is far more than sufficient if you can pull a crater 1km in diameter and 10m deep.

[Judoh]

2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.

Wait two problems here. The deception about Kinzo being alive has been placed on the reader from the first game, Natsuhi isn't the culprit, and the Kinzo deception is placed on the adults not the detective. So this should be broken. Unless the reader is the detective, but I digress.

This also would mean that unless this rule is broken Shkanon can't exist without being a deception to Battler in the first four arcs. Which lacks in motive as well.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Oliver

My rationale for saying that Rule 18 is probably broken is that it is quite possible that Beatrice which is not a culprit at all exists, but accidentally causes Battler's death in most cases, by having set the bomb without intent to actually kill him with it, and not being responsible for any other murders in the entire text. Since she probably dies earlier, killed by the real culprit, she is unable to disarm the bomb, which produces the accidental deaths in the endgame event.

As has been previously argued, if you have a bomb, there is no reason to kill anyone manually at all, luring everybody into a room that cannot be unlocked from inside, of which a number exist on the island, is far more than sufficient if you can pull a crater 1km in diameter and 10m deep.

The moment you set off a bomb big enough to kill everyone in the island...
...Hell Umineko might be Shkanontrice's way of trying to kill everyone in the island because Kinzo set the bomb to go off anyway so she wants to make sure they all die and meet in the "golden land" which she is convinced exists.

Originally Posted by musouka

I was hoping for someone to challenge me with specific problems so that we could actually have a discussion, instead of a pissing contest about whether or not my ability to think has been compromised for daring to like the message of EP7. Unfortunately, it's not very fun or interesting to argue against myself.

Fear not. Will Wright, or as close as you are going to get to him, is here.

I think there are plenty tricks to be made. I also believe Yasu is the solution, but I don't know the full shape of it. In fact, instead of presenting my theory (I don't have a grand unified theory), let me present the holes in Yasu. Since no one else was willing to do it in a reasonable manner, I'll do it myself.

I was hoping for the theory rather than the holes, since you are doing the job for me. But I will take your sword if you wish to use mine.

1. What EXACTLY are Shannon and Kanon and the rest of the clown car to Yasu?
There are times when Shannon and Kanon seem to act in a unified way that hints at them being "played" by a single person. Then there are other times where they seem like entities unto themselves. You could probably use the fiction idea to explain this, but it bothers me that there's no real unified way to "read" Yasu. Is she really DID meido? Is she Oscar-worthy actress? I don't know.

Alternatively, Yasu might have partial amnesia and a case of mistaken identity. Shannon and Kanon might have been real people at some point, and she took their identity at some points. This could even be foreshadowed by episode 6 when Beatrice "revives." as she gets her memory back.

2. Along those lines, why did Yasu fall in love with George and Jessica under the guise of Shannon and Kanon?
According to EP7, Shannon was [implied to be] created in service of Yasu. (Someone to aspire to) Beatrice was created to explain a phenomenon. (Why do I keep losing all my stuff?) Kanon was created in service of Shannon. (To help her create another universe after her heartache) Notice something about this? They're all created to "help" Yasu in some form or another--even if that form seems to be once removed. So that becomes very odd when you throw romances with other people in the mix. Like, if your persona of "super maid Shannon" is helping you dust extra well, it then seems sort of weird to lead people on when they fall in love with your fictional "super maid Shannon".

Love isn't something you can explain. Moreover, that is addressed within Umineko itself. Kanon thinks he doesn't have the right to love Jessica. Why is that? Because he is not his own person. Ryuukishi's writing seems to imply that you shouldn't think about that. They were lonely, they wanted to be with someone. Also once someone is that screwed up, falling in love with more than one person is rather expected.

3. What's the deal with Shannon and Kanon in the EP7 Tea Party?
Unlike quite a few people, I do believe that the Tea Party is the truth about Rokkenjima, because I believe it ties in very strongly with the themes of "fiction" and what that concept means to people, and how when you strip that away, what you're left with is only the ugly, painful things about life and how people act. But moving along from that. When we meet Beatrice in EP7, she's practically a walking corpse already. We see no sign of that with Shannon and Kanon, and that bothers me. Even if we're going for the DID theory, it bothers me.

4. What does Yasu hope to gain from the roulette?
EP7 makes it pretty clear what Kinzo is trying to accomplish by pushing people to solve the epitaph. EP7 makes it about as clear as a brick wall as to what Yasu is trying to accomplish by using it as her game of chance. When you think about it, the only clear outcome she'll get out of it is committing suicide when the bomb goes off, or going to jail after being caught if she's actually murdered people--if someone doesn't kill her out of emotion first. There was a chance of Kinzo getting what he wanted because all the epitaph did was reward the person who figured it out. The risk was all on his end. With Yasu, the risk seems about equal on both ends. Damn, if I can figure out why, though.

Hm? Yasu was never stated to be the culprit. Just Yasu. Not only that, but your theory assumes that Yasu killed people and expected to either die or get caught. How about "Yasu killed people in hope that Battler would remember her?"
It's a terrible theory that I hate myself for even thinking of it, but it's valid.
Death or jail are the expected outcomes for any murderer. What we have to see is the third option. It could even be greed. She/He/Screwit,IT could have expected to meet resistance from the family about the gold.

5. Motive, please?
I think you can build a motive from what has been given to you in EP7, the problem is with how much sense it really makes. A motive for Yasu, according to EP7, has to encompass and explain a number of things. One, the scene in the Tea Party when they are upset about their body. Two, the talk about how if Battler had been a year late or a year early, things would have been different. Three, Shannon and Kanon as concepts. Four, the fact that Yasu seemed pretty stable at the end of EP7. Five, why was Yasu planning things so far in advance? Six, what part were the bank cards supposed to play? I'm sure you can think of more.

I submit that Yasu is not the killer, just a possible motive for the killing. If you insist that Yasu is the killer, I submit he/she/it is just a psycho. Terrible solution, but it works and has been foreshadowed to hell and back.

So, with all those problems, maybe you're wondering why I am so firm in the Yasu idea as being the solution.

Not really. I forgot we had switched positions half way through my post. But I would prefer to deny Yasu(well, not so much deny. Just question it very strongly.)

Well, because it explains things that are nearly impossible to explain otherwise.

Nearly.

It explains not only Kinzo's ranting, but also why Nanjo would say that he died at peace in EP5.
It explains why Shannon has been there for ten years when Natsuhi obviously doesn't view her as a proper playmate for Jessica.
It explains the formation of Beatrice and why she loves Battler.
It explains Battler's sin in the only way supported by the narrative with actual text to back it up.
It explains why some of the servants call themselves furniture, but not others.
It explains the challenge letters.
It explains Maria's relationship with Beatrice.
It explains a good chunk of Genji and Kumasawa's actions.
It explains where the meta characters came from and why they're named the way they are.
It explains the locked rooms.
It explains where the bottle letters came from.
It explains the emphasis on mystery novels.
It explains the man from nineteen years ago.
It explains the cryptic message about the nature of Beatrice in EP6, and why Shannon and Kanon agreed with it.

And there are other adequate explanations for it, if we just stop to think about it. I'm not saying Yasu is wrong. I'm saying that it isn't convincing enough for me.

It explains a whole heck of a lot.

You can create alternate explanations for most of those, I imagine, but not an explanation that encompasses all of them the way the existence of Yasu does. Therefore I can't help but assume that my problems with Yasu are because I'm not thinking the right way or there's something I missed.
[/QUOTE]

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

The moment you set off a bomb big enough to kill everyone in the island...

...you may genuinely intend to lead everyone to safety, but then fail through being dead.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Oliver

...you may genuinely intend to lead everyone to safety, but then fail through being dead.

...But why in the holy name of Father Brown would you do such a thing if you intended to lead everyone to safety?

Originally Posted by Judoh

Wait two problems here. The deception about Kinzo being alive has been placed on the reader from the first game, Natsuhi isn't the culprit, and the Kinzo deception is placed on the adults not the detective. So this should be broken. unless the reader is the detective, but I digress.

This also would means that unless this rule is broken Shkanon can't exist without being a deception to Battler in the first four arcs. Which lacks in motive as well.

Kinzo's deception was also placed on Battler. He thought he was alive until he reasoned it was possible he wasn't. The kinzo deception was placed on Battler, no matter how you slice it. He didn't know the truth about it. Battler, as the detective, did not know about it. Battler is arguably being shown the fantasy scenes, which would include things such as fake-kinzo and everything. Episode 5 arguably confirms that Battler is being shown scenes he was not a part of.

This rule means that the reader is only allowed to be deceived if the detective is also deceived. Battler was tricked by Shkanon, so were also allowed to be tricked.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

...But why in the holy name of Father Brown would you do such a thing if you intended to lead everyone to safety?

I can imagine a number of reasons, not all of them any good but they do exist.

• You know murders have been committed, and you know there is no way most of the Ushiromiya, even though they are not the culprit, will come away clean, because various skeletons will be extracted out of their respective closets in the inevitable investigation -- or you believe the murders to have been accidents, when they in fact weren't. Burying the evidence is the only way to ensure normal life for the survivors, and you can leave the real culprit out of the rescue too, if you know of one.
• You believe that discovery of the gold will only cause a massacre a-la Kyrie Rampage. Revealing the culprit means revealing the gold because they have discovered it. To prevent one massacre replacing another, you decide to get rid of the gold too, but the only way available to you is the bomb -- nothing else will get rid of ten tons of metallic gold.
• Alternatively, you discover the gold before anyone dies, imagine the Kyrie Rampage, and decide the family will be better off without the gold, so you start the bomb. Just when you have gathered people to tell them about the bomb so pack your families and go, they become the First Twilight together with you.
• You have been recently made aware that the bomb is unstable and can explode at any moment randomly -- with 50 year old naval explosives, this is quite possible. Deliberately triggering it is the only safe way to destroy it.
• You trigger the bomb as a blackmail argument against the culprit whom you are aware of, intending to disarm it before it blows. Unfortunately the option to disarm it is later denied to you for whatever reason, so you can only lead the survivors to safety after that. Alternatively, the culprit just kills you before they get to hear your argument.

I could probably go on for quite a while if I were less sleepy.

[ArcticHelm]

Big risks, magical pay off, etc. >.>a

[MeoTwister5]

The only real complaint I have with the Yasu presentation is that it's a bit too... convenient. I'm not saying that it's wrong but we don't really know that it's right either. His/her existence gives a very complete explanation for the issues at hand, solves much of locked rooms and mysteries by way of multiple identities, gives a lot of credence to individual suspicions and the like.

Personally while I'm inclined to believe in his/her existence on the island as a person not wholly DEFINED by the board and the accepted truths in previous games, I'm not so much inclined to think that the entire mystery centers on him/her and Battler. I STILL think s/he's primarily involved but not to such an extent that all the fault is directly attributable to him/her and the Battler relationship.

It's a bit too straightforward and I have this sneaking suspicion that there's something skewed or missed out in Yasu's presentation. Remember that Bern doesn't give two shits so much for the whole picture as it is just getting down to the truth of everything, and based on this premise and personality, I'm inclined to think that Bern's presentation misses something that would clinch something due to it's attempt to be straight to the matter at hand.

Which is why I think that the very direct manner in which Bern presented the board here, while it reveals a lot, misses a lot too in the process. The more subtle contents might be lost due to the very nature of how Bern is simply trying to get everything presented straight and plain.

I STILL think there's a piece missing that would clinch everything for the Yasu theory, assuming it IS true, but it we have yet to see it. I may have seen something in Ep7 to suggest this missing piece and I'm hoping to either come upon it again or disregard it when I finish the summaries.

I might be able to put some up later if I have time.

[Oliver]

...oh, forgot a good reason.

Quantum suicide. Same reason Kinzo is described having the bomb in the first place. You don't know who the culprit is, but you're very sure one exists.

If no murders happen, you will disarm it, if murders will happen, honour of the family will be saved. Unfortunately, someone sends the message bottles.

[ArcticHelm]

Haha. I actually had thought for a while that it was some version of quantum suicide, especially if things with Battler didn't end up working. o -o)

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by ArcticHelm

Haha. I actually had thought for a while that it was some version of quantum suicide, especially if things with Battler didn't end up working. o -o)

I don't know about Battler, but you can be completely blameless of any actual murders with that logic, be Beatrice, and kill Battler in Ep4 endgame event.

You know a culprit exists. You don't know who it is. You believe you're completely powerless to stop it due to overestimating the culprit, or because you think you're not trustworthy with your story, or for some other reason, and you are sure none except the culprit will be left alive. You are not completely sure of your findings of the culprit's very existence though, even though you are sure of your conclusions following if the culprit exists.

So you set the bomb. If nobody dies, that will be it, you will come and disarm it. If anyone at all dies, you think you can't stop it, so you leave the bomb on, secure in knowing that they will be avenged and the culprit will get justice -- after all, the culprit will kill everyone, or so you think. Unfortunately you're wrong, some people beside the culprit do survive, and you end up committing manslaughter.

[ArcticHelm]

Indeed. Although that sort of ending would be terribly depressing. xD

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by ArcticHelm

Indeed. Although that sort of ending would be terribly depressing. xD

It would be extremely tragic, indeed. But it would have nobility to it that I find the Yasu story lacking as it currently is.

[DgBarca]

I just think of something that looks a bit obvious now.
Clair's truth is in a book right ?
A book...what if it's in fact a book written by Hachijo Toya ?
As AuAu is the witch of THEATREGOING...all this theatre thing make more sense if you link it with AuAu.

AuAu for Umineko Final Boss yeah. (well, if AuAu is behind EP7, then if EP8 make a truth that doesn't match EP7 the opponent will be AuAu)

[Renall]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

The only real complaint I have with the Yasu presentation is that it's a bit too... convenient. I'm not saying that it's wrong but we don't really know that it's right either. His/her existence gives a very complete explanation for the issues at hand, solves much of locked rooms and mysteries by way of multiple identities, gives a lot of credence to individual suspicions and the like.

This part I cannot accept. A locked room has no elegance if the answer is simply "a person unaccounted for through rule trickery wandered around doing it." Moreover, I don't think it quite fits:

Ep1 First Twilight: Someone is alive among the corpses. This is a fine enough solution. But how do they get out? Ideas like First Twilight Fakery are thrown about, but I'm not sold. An accomplice fixes this easily, but who has the opportunity?

Ep1 Second Twilight: If we posit the whole Yasu = Kanon = Shannon thing, this is actually a harder closed room to solve, as Kanon is reported outside the room (whereas if Shannon is separate and alive, she can be inside the room until it's broken). The solution, a lie about the chain status, works but is unsatisfying as it means this wasn't a locked room at all. It also implicates Genji, or else we have to explain how Genji was hoodwinked too.

Ep2 Closed Room: This actually comes closest to a classical closed room in that both Battler and Will seem to believe that it was locked by someone inside who later died. A contention is whether everyone inside - notably Shannon - is dead, which some people think is unambiguous but others apparently don't. It isn't, in my mind, necessary that Shannon/George/Gohda have anyone in their group remain alive. Technically, no culprit needed to create it either (Gohda is dying, locks door, the end), though it implies the fear of a culprit outside the room if so. I doubt a dying anybody would lock a room just to throw a mystery story cliche at the survivors.

Ep3 First Twilight: The "solution" to this is just absurd. It works, but is needlessly theatrical and quite ridiculous. It's also a bit unfair, as Battler is merely told about all the bodies and never actually has a chance to go see any of them. Well, they could've said Kanon was trampled to death by the Hidden Elephant of Rokkenjima for all it would've mattered if we're just getting his death reported to us. The difference between that and other episodes is Beatrice doesn't bother going out of her way to make assurances regardless like in 2 and 4.

Ep4 Kyrie: The solution accorded by Yasu would be "Shannon and Kanon persona-died and Yasu had all the time in the universe to kill and stake Kyrie." That's no locked room, that's just... a room the killer locked behind themselves.

It also throws up a huge question mark about Kyrie's behavior, as she just told Battler a story in which Kanon and Shannon died before she did, and as far as Kyrie seems to know, she's one of the last people still alive. But a Yasu theory basically necessitates Kyrie knowing at this point, because she cannot have seen Kanon and Shannon together (no matter how good an actor, she can't play two people at once).

If Yasu is the murderer hunting her down, it's bizarre to protect her if there's a risk she might go kill Battler too. The whole "believe" speech seems to be Kyrie trying to give Battler the impression that he will take away from Rokkenjima as a survivor. This means Kyrie believes that Battler will not just be immediately thereafter killed by the culprit, as otherwise telling him anything but "watch your back" is going to be futile. Telling him both personas belonging to the culprit which he is aware of are dead is all but guaranteed to get him killed off.

So Kyrie, at least, thinks Battler is going to be alive at the end. Yet she is also willingly complicit in this Yasu thing. The two don't square up if Yasu is the culprit. Obviously, if she isn't, it works fine, although we'd have to explain some reason why Kyrie would consent to being killed and/or staked (perhaps if she was dying anyway, or if she was the killer and asked to tell Battler the gentle lie before Yasu/Shannon killed her for her crimes). Kyrie's death is one that requires someone else still be alive after she is dead. Therefore, Kyrie has to believe that whoever is still alive after she dies won't hurt Battler. It also suggests she does not know about the bomb, as giving him the survivor's burden and not telling him to get the heck outta the blast radius is once again a futile gesture.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Renall

This part I cannot accept. A locked room has no elegance if the answer is simply "a person unaccounted for through rule trickery wandered around doing it." Moreover, I don't think it quite fits:

Ep1 First Twilight: Someone is alive among the corpses. This is a fine enough solution. But how do they get out? Ideas like First Twilight Fakery are thrown about, but I'm not sold. An accomplice fixes this easily, but who has the opportunity?

Ep1 Second Twilight: If we posit the whole Yasu = Kanon = Shannon thing, this is actually a harder closed room to solve, as Kanon is reported outside the room (whereas if Shannon is separate and alive, she can be inside the room until it's broken). The solution, a lie about the chain status, works but is unsatisfying as it means this wasn't a locked room at all. It also implicates Genji, or else we have to explain how Genji was hoodwinked too.

Ep2 Closed Room: This actually comes closest to a classical closed room in that both Battler and Will seem to believe that it was locked by someone inside who later died. A contention is whether everyone inside - notably Shannon - is dead, which some people think is unambiguous but others apparently don't. It isn't, in my mind, necessary that Shannon/George/Gohda have anyone in their group remain alive. Technically, no culprit needed to create it either (Gohda is dying, locks door, the end), though it implies the fear of a culprit outside the room if so. I doubt a dying anybody would lock a room just to throw a mystery story cliche at the survivors.

Ep3 First Twilight: The "solution" to this is just absurd. It works, but is needlessly theatrical and quite ridiculous. It's also a bit unfair, as Battler is merely told about all the bodies and never actually has a chance to go see any of them. Well, they could've said Kanon was trampled to death by the Hidden Elephant of Rokkenjima for all it would've mattered if we're just getting his death reported to us. The difference between that and other episodes is Beatrice doesn't bother going out of her way to make assurances regardless like in 2 and 4.

Ep4 Kyrie: The solution accorded by Yasu would be "Shannon and Kanon persona-died and Yasu had all the time in the universe to kill and stake Kyrie." That's no locked room, that's just... a room the killer locked behind themselves.

It also throws up a huge question mark about Kyrie's behavior, as she just told Battler a story in which Kanon and Shannon died before she did, and as far as Kyrie seems to know, she's one of the last people still alive. But a Yasu theory basically necessitates Kyrie knowing at this point, because she cannot have seen Kanon and Shannon together (no matter how good an actor, she can't play two people at once).

If Yasu is the murderer hunting her down, it's bizarre to protect her if there's a risk she might go kill Battler too. The whole "believe" speech seems to be Kyrie trying to give Battler the impression that he will take away from Rokkenjima as a survivor. This means Kyrie believes that Battler will not just be immediately thereafter killed by the culprit, as otherwise telling him anything but "watch your back" is going to be futile. Telling him both personas belonging to the culprit which he is aware of are dead is all but guaranteed to get him killed off.

So Kyrie, at least, thinks Battler is going to be alive at the end. Yet she is also willingly complicit in this Yasu thing. The two don't square up if Yasu is the culprit. Obviously, if she isn't, it works fine, although we'd have to explain some reason why Kyrie would consent to being killed and/or staked (perhaps if she was dying anyway, or if she was the killer and asked to tell Battler the gentle lie before Yasu/Shannon killed her for her crimes). Kyrie's death is one that requires someone else still be alive after she is dead. Therefore, Kyrie has to believe that whoever is still alive after she dies won't hurt Battler. It also suggests she does not know about the bomb, as giving him the survivor's burden and not telling him to get the heck outta the blast radius is once again a futile gesture.

Ep1's First Twilight is practically impossible unless someone WAS actually faking death.

The Second Twilight is iffy. Genji being an accomplice is made more relevant by Ep7 on the assumption that he is pro-Yasu, which makes the possibility that the lock on the room where Eva and Hideyoshi are killed fairly possible.

Ep2 Closed Room in Natsuhi's room is problematic because again going by a Yasu killer theory and the assumption that the psycho Kanon is really ShKanon, it makes no sense for the other servants to stick by Shannon after fighting off psycho Kanon. Realistically speaking this is one of those room where I cannot pin it on a Yasu personality as the killer, UNLESS psycho Kanon is someone else. This for me is probably one of the most difficult rooms to assign blame on Yasu.

Ep3 First Twilight is arguably THE hardest puzzle to solve without a multiple identity theory, which is why I mentioned why I dislike Yasu as purely the culprit because it makes the solution to this mystery far too easy to solve, almost like a dead giveaway. Even if it were, I've argued before that whoever the killer is this is one HUGE Xanatos Gambit for one person to execute perfectly in placing everyone right in the correct places and shifting blame away from anyone inside the rooms.

Ep4's Kyrie murder, as you have said, makes sense again assuming Yasu has no intentions of hurting Battler in the first place. This could exist regardless of whether or not Kyrie would reveal the "truth" to Battler assuming again Yasu never intended for Battler to get hurt in the first place. This also "solves" the bigger problem here that Kanon supposedly died but the tunnel was closed and sealed and thus death cannot be confirmed. Kyrie is NOT necessarily an accomplice because it MAY be possible that she had learned of the "truth" of Yasu and, quite possibly, knows about Yasu's plan for Battler, and perhaps understands that Battler will not get out of the island but at least probably stay alive. It would follow that she has no reason to put any more stress on Battler because she has accepted the eventuality of what is to transpire for him.

Now here's the thing with Yasu: Yasu's intentions, assuming s/he wants Battler alive, doesn't necessarily mean that Battler HAS to get out of the island alive. At this point it's already highly possible that his/her mind is already very warped and twisted. The Golden Land events of Episode 2 suggests the possibility that Yasu-Beatrice wants Battler alive with her on her Golden Land: the remains of the island post-catastrophe. Considering that Battler's status is is more or less unknown at the end of the first 4 games, there is a likelihood that he is the only intended survivor of the catastrophe, and that Yasu intended to keep him alive by some means.

[Renall]

The problem is the breakdown in Kyrie's knowledge and intentions, whether she thinks Battler is in danger, whether he actually is, and how she feels she should react to that.

For instance: Kyrie and Yasu are chilling in the room where she dies. She's dying because of whatever reason (she was shot by the killer whom she and Yasu killed, she was the killer and is repentant, Yasu is the killer but only for certain people, whatever). Yasu makes an assurance to Kyrie that she has no intention of harming Battler. Let's say Kyrie believes it. Kyrie calls, tells Battler the story, and asks what will happen next. Yasu says she'll go get Battler and they'll leave for Kuwadorian or something. Kyrie then either expires or allows Yasu to kill her. Yasu stakes the body and leaves. However, after confronting Battler last night, Yasu gets depressed and decides to kill herself as Shannon at the well. She won't kill Battler, but she can't bring it upon herself to survive.

Of course there's still the problem of who killed Maria. I see no reason Maria couldn't be entrusted to Battler's care, nor why "Beatrice" would harm a founding member of her alliance. It may be an uncharacteristically merciful death, but it's still death.

[MeoTwister5]

AFAIK it wasn't even ever shown that Maria's dead in Ep4, unless I read the end scroll wrong. The only thing I have to go by is the assumption that above all things, Yasu wants Battler alive. The pact with Maria in the Mariage Socier could be relegated to the subjugate Beatrice persona and, in reality, poses no real importance to Yasu, so s/he doesn't consider Maria to be important enough to be left alive.