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

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Raiza Sunozaki

*snip*

Battler has switched sides, yes. But should we?

Denying the witch is the same as denying magic. And magic doesn't exist. Therefore, nor can the witch.

I just don't understand how people can even consider the existence of magic at this point when it's continually presented as little more than a happy lie.

Originally Posted by Thunder Book

He already had us accepting magic and witches any time we used a red truth to prove or deny a theory. That was the true North Wind and the Sun Strategy.

This. Bloody this.

I brought up a crack theory a while back about how every single thing after the end of Ep3 was a giant troll concocted by Beatrice to make Battler truly believe in witches once and for all, but no one listened.

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Raiza Sunozaki

So what is the Meta-world to the Author Theory?

While being a little vague on what, Battler is shown to have some regret about certain things after he realizes the truth. More so, he accepts the position of Game Master after this. Why would he accept the position of a witch when he himself wants to deny them?

Even more, he wants to revive her throughout Episode 6? Why?

Here goes my take on this. It's heavily influenced by the Author Theory.

The Meta-World is a representation of the writers and readers. That's the premise I'm basing all of this on.
I posted an explanation on that a long time ago, here's the link: http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...postcount=7255

If the Game Master gets to write each story, then Beatrice wrote EP1-4, Lambda wrote EP5, and Battler wrote EP6. Bern is apparently going to write EP7.

IMO, being a 'witch' means being a 'writer'. Someone that can change the truth around to whatever they want. Battler accepts the position of a witch because, now that he knows the truth of the game, he wants to continue writing in Beatrice's absence. He doesn't want the story to stop without a resolution. If he didn't learn the truth, no one would keep writing, and the story would be lost forever.

It's also because he knows the truth that he wants to revive Beatrice. Battler tried to 'revive' Beatrice by doing his best at writing the story like she would, but he isn't that good of a writer. That's why he was unable to revive Beatrice.

It would also be a good excuse for EP5 and EP6 being extremely short. Because Lambda and Battler were the ones writing the stories, not Beatrice, so their writing styles were different.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by SeagullCrazy

It would also be a good excuse for EP5 and EP6 being extremely short. Because Lambda and Battler were the ones writing the stories, not Beatrice, so their writing styles were different.

Apparently they aren't actually that short. There's just a larger focus on the meta-narrative rather than the gameboard events, so it only seems like the game has been cut down.

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Apparently they aren't actually that short. There's just a larger focus on the meta-narrative rather than the gameboard events, so it only seems like the game has been cut down.

Which still makes sense if the gameboards = the messages in the bottles.
(and IMO the Episodes themselves felt short in comparison to the other ones)

Supposedly, in Rokkenjima-prime, the games were written like this:

-Beatrice wrote EP1 and EP2
-Hachijou/Featherine wrote EP3-6

In the Meta-World, the games were written like this:

-Beatrice wrote EP1-4
-Lambda wrote EP5
-Battler wrote EP6

I'm not sure how to connect them to each other, though.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

This. Bloody this.

I brought up a crack theory a while back about how every single thing after the end of Ep3 was a giant troll concocted by Beatrice to make Battler truly believe in witches once and for all, but no one listened.

The red is actually severely detrimental to the witch side. The reason it works at all for Beatrice is that she knows what she's doing.

If you think about it, the red is less about magic or any narrative thing and more about an author/reader trust relationship. Acknowledging not just that characters can lie, but also the author, the red creates reliable statements. They can be grossly misleading, just like anything else an author writes, but they must have some measure of truth value to exist at all.

Battler himself realizes this very early. Red hems in the writer. It closes off certain possibilities and makes others much harder to arrange without careful maneuvering around what has already been said. For a side that thrives on infinite possibilities (the witch/the writer), it is actually a very dangerous weapon to wield.

But why use it at all? Well, if you look at witch = writer, and think of this as a mystery (whether it is remains unsettled), just as Beatrice wanted Battler to solve her games, so too does a mystery writer want the reader to solve their mystery.

Creating the "greatest mystery" of all time in terms of difficulty is easy: "A man is dead. No one knows who he is. No one knows how he died. What happened?" This is the hardest possible mystery, because it's unsolvable with the information presented. Who was he? Why did he die? Did someone kill him? Who? Why? When?

But it's not really the "greatest" mystery in terms of quality, as we would probably have it. The greatest mystery would be one that is devious and hard to solve yet also eminently solvable. The writer - using red - restricts himself on purpose. In a mystery filled with fantasy elements, he must do so if he intends to present a solvable mystery.

This assumes, of course, that the work is a mystery, and that it is intended to be solvable. Just because Virgilia tells Battler he can solve it doesn't necessarily mean the story on the whole exists to be solved.

[Raiza Sunozaki]

Originally Posted by KaisosErranon

Battler has switched sides, yes. But should we?

Denying the witch is the same as denying magic. And magic doesn't exist. Therefore, nor can the witch.

I just don't understand how people can even consider the existence of magic at this point when it's continually presented as little more than a happy lie.

This is where you get into opinions, which is why there's no way Ryuukishi can end Umineko in a way that pleases everybody.
To me, magic exists in two forms in Umineko. The magic on Rokkenjima, which in reality is no different from our world's magic, all tricks and illusions. Heck, in Episode 5, denying Beato is changed to denying the Illusion of the Witch.
However, then there is the magic shown in fantasy scenes and the meta-world, which is magic in the fantasy sense. Sure, the fantasy scenes are only substitutions for what really happened, but then what about the mata-world? It's very existence is a fantasy. In it, we see Battler get staked to the point of death, and then revived so that it can be repeated. We have people appearing and disappearing. Inside the meta-world, Ange travels from apparently the future or a future from another world, and then has her body turned into hamburger meat.
There's no way these things can be accomplished by our world's terms, even by today's standards. So what do we call such incredible things? Futuristic technology that allows teleportation, revival and hamburger meat-making? If there's one fiction genre Umineko is not, it's sci-fi.

Originally Posted by SeagullCrazy

Here goes my take on this. It's heavily influenced by the Author Theory.

The Meta-World is a representation of the writers and readers. That's the premise I'm basing all of this on.
I posted an explanation on that a long time ago, here's the link: http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...postcount=7255

If the Game Master gets to write each story, then Beatrice wrote EP1-4, Lambda wrote EP5, and Battler wrote EP6. Bern is apparently going to write EP7.

IMO, being a 'witch' means being a 'writer'. Someone that can change the truth around to whatever they want. Battler accepts the position of a witch because, now that he knows the truth of the game, he wants to continue writing in Beatrice's absence. He doesn't want the story to stop without a resolution. If he didn't learn the truth, no one would keep writing, and the story would be lost forever.

It's also because he knows the truth that he wants to revive Beatrice. Battler tried to 'revive' Beatrice by doing his best at writing the story like she would, but he isn't that good of a writer. That's why he was unable to revive Beatrice.

It would also be a good excuse for EP5 and EP6 being extremely short. Because Lambda and Battler were the ones writing the stories, not Beatrice, so their writing styles were different.

I can agree with this, but I'm still preferential to a pro-meta-fantasy take on things. But there is one flaw in your theory. He was able to revive Beatrice. Not the Beatrice he spent game after game battling with, but a Beatrice which is a perfect replica of her, in a sense, the ideal reincarnation of her. So how would that place in your theory?

[Jan-Poo]

Creating the "greatest mystery" of all time in terms of difficulty is easy: "A man is dead. No one knows who he is. No one knows how he died. What happened?" This is the hardest possible mystery, because it's unsolvable with the information presented. Who was he? Why did he die? Did someone kill him? Who? Why? When?

But it's not really the "greatest" mystery in terms of quality, as we would probably have it. The greatest mystery would be one that is devious and hard to solve yet also eminently solvable. The writer - using red - restricts himself on purpose. In a mystery filled with fantasy elements, he must do so if he intends to present a solvable mystery.

This assumes, of course, that the work is a mystery, and that it is intended to be solvable. Just because Virgilia tells Battler he can solve it doesn't necessarily mean the story on the whole exists to be solved.

Yes, and this is not just something that relates to umineko, it's an universal rule.

Making an impossible to solve riddle or mystery is extremely easy. What is really hard to do is to create a riddle that completely looks as something impossible to solve while it's actually totally solvable.

This is a factor that should be considered whenever you try to find the solution to a riddle or a mystery. Sometimes I see theories that totally disregard this fact and propose scenarios taken out of the blue which, if were true, could have never been found logically.

This tells a lot of the esteem you have on the author.

If you think that the solution is something completely impossible to reach with the given hints, then it's as if you claim that the author just created an impossible to solve riddle, which is something extremely easy to do. And you don't need to be a great author to do something that easy.

However if you think that the solution can be reached through a reasoning grounded on the hints given, then you acknowledge that the author really thought it through a lot.


The best riddle is the one that makes you resign in frustration after many many times you've uselessly tried to solve it, and then when you learn how it is done you "facepalm" yourself and scream "OF COURSE!"

A not so good riddle is the one that you can solve easily, or the one that when you learn the solution just makes you think that it was lame and doesn't make you feel stupid because "really... that wasn't solvable".

[Raiza Sunozaki]

Jan-Poo, there isn't really much I can say besides "I agree."

[Renall]

The question in the immediate topical sense is, are we heading toward an "OF COURSE!" ending or a "Come on, how were we ever supposed to think of THAT?" ending. I'm going out on a limb and assuming that, if nothing else, he hasn't made the story actually unsolvable. That would be a disaster.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Renall

The question in the immediate topical sense is, are we heading toward an "OF COURSE!" ending or a "Come on, how were we ever supposed to think of THAT?" ending.

The latter is exactly what Higurashi is (except for the identity of the culprit, which really isn't even a mystery).

Hopefully Ryu07 has learned from his mistakes, eh?

[Laserworm]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

The latter is exactly what Higurashi is (except for the identity of the culprit, which really isn't even a mystery).

Hopefully Ryu07 has learned from his mistakes, eh?

Higurashi wasn't that insane. It had lots of hints. It was more that we didn't understand Ryu07's approach yet. But he knows that Higurashi wasn't that well done, he even said so. I believe the hints are there and it will be a combo some people will think. "How was I supposed to think that." while others will think. "I should have got it!"

[Jan-Poo]

Ryukishi is facing a big limit compared to other novel authors.

Usually novels are meant to be read individually, and in a similar fashion riddles are meant to be solved that way, at max you just have a small group of friends discussing about it.
However the "when they cry series" is meant to be talked and discussed intensively among very large groups of people for a very lengthy amount of time.

The "of course!" scenario is therefore almost impossible, because if even a single person were to find the solution before the end of the game, then logically most people would recognize the theory as true and they'd lose interest, not having to speculate anymore.

A more probable outcome that can be expected is more mild "yeah, a few people actually 'thought that", which if Ryukishi isn't lying, already happened.

So the solution is probably not something that would inevitably strike as true when you read it, but still something that can be seen analyzing the hints, even if not with a 100% certainty.

If you think about it, during the course of the last years there has been several theories that were later confirmed as true or heavily hinted to be true in the most recent episodes, however none of them convinced the whole audience at first.

So I think there are two factors that should be expected:

1) Most of the "truth" has been speculated already, it won't shock you when you'll see it confirmed. The only parts that will "shock" you will be those that Ryukishi willingly left without hints (like some background stories).

2) You are probably going to realize that it was possible to understand the truth, but you won't admit that with the given hints it was the only and/or most logic assumption.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

The latter is exactly what Higurashi is (except for the identity of the culprit, which really isn't even a mystery).

Hopefully Ryu07 has learned from his mistakes, eh?

I think he has, with all the stuff about Knox rules. No more 'oh a magical virus that made people do things.' 8)

But I think the best example of his knowledge of this was the Cheese Cutting problem after dinner in EP6. It was an example of one of those, 'ohhh, of course!' problems but he also went out of his way to show us how he obfuscated the solution. By priming us with unnecessary information... 8)

So I think that was one of his answers. Somewhere in the sea of information that we've been tracking for Umineko, we have been introduced to some information that was not really a central issue to identifying the culprit. Or something.

[Laserworm]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

So I think that was one of his answers. Somewhere in the sea of information that we've been tracking for Umineko, we have been introduced to some information that was not really a central issue to identifying the culprit. Or something.

I think that some scenes are probably don't help us, but most do. After all Ryu07 said that if we analized every scene we would drown in a sea of clues. Which means that the clues are all over the place. Carefully and cleaverly hidden.

[Jan-Poo]

the cheese cutting problem didn't positively impress me.

the use of the particular case of a paper-thin slice of cheese is blatantly in contrast with the given data of a "big cheese".

[ijriims]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

the cheese cutting problem didn't positively impress me.

the use of the particular case of a paper-thin slice of cheese is blatantly in contrast with the given data of a "big cheese".

Wasn't Battler's and Erika's answer "a six-bend shape cheese"? It hadn't specified the cross-sectional area

And, a paper-thin cheese can still be big.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Most of the "truth" has been speculated already, it won't shock you when you'll see it confirmed. The only parts that will "shock" you will be those that Ryukishi willingly left without hints (like some background stories).

I still like to think there must be SOME aspects of the Answer that are solvable, yet so cleverly hidden that no one has thought of them yet.

Pretty much the only reason I read detective novels is for that wonderful feeling of being trolled...

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

So I think there are two factors that should be expected:

1) Most of the "truth" has been speculated already, it won't shock you when you'll see it confirmed. The only parts that will "shock" you will be those that Ryukishi willingly left without hints (like some background stories).

2) You are probably going to realize that it was possible to understand the truth, but you won't admit that with the given hints it was the only and/or most logic assumption.

I don't really think I've ever agreed with you more. The revelation will probably be a bit lukewarm, confirming one or more speculative threads that have been long-since made old news among the speculation crowd. Still, it can hopefully be executed well.

What worries me is your #2, which I also kind of agree with. I think that the "answer" will, in the end, be something we all acknowledge was hinted at and is at least marginally comprehensive. At the same time, I'm not sure it will be the "best" answer. I'm not sure there is a "best" or even "good" answer at this point. As you've said, a long-term episodic mystery is just not something people normally do. And a riddle mused over by thousands of people over a very long time? Well, either there's no solution, we've already found it, or it isn't particularly impressive.

For the series to go out with a bang, something needs to happen to shake that up (in a good way). But I really don't know what sort of twist could be thrown in that wouldn't upset a large body of the readership. Honestly, I expect answering anything at all to upset certain subsets of the Umineko fanbase (not anyone who posts here, generally speaking).

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

I still like to think there must be SOME aspects of the Answer that are solvable, yet so cleverly hidden that no one has thought of them yet.

Much as I'd like to think that too, it's not an easy trick to fool thousands of people from a dozen+ countries for several years at a stretch. At least if ryukishi is an honest writer. Also, those aspects may not be major ones. For instance, we may discover something about Kumasawa that is neat, but not epic. No one thought of it, but does anyone really care that much?

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by ijriims

Wasn't Battler's and Erika's answer "a six-bend shape cheese"? It hadn't specified the cross-sectional area

And, a paper-thin cheese can still be big.

No it was a normal slice of cheese thin enough to be bent.

an "odd shape" was actually what I thought as a possible solution at first, chronotrig imagined that as well.


However the "odd shape" solution is still something that doesn't really impress me, because you need to think about "preexisting extraordinary conditions" that allow you to solve the problem as opposed as an "extraordinary clever action" to solve the problem.

this kind of things are a lot cooler when you realize you could take a brilliant move to solve an apparently unsolvable problem, rather than realizing that the problem setup itself was a lot more manageable than you thought it was.

If you were to solve this problem in practice you would instantly realize that the "big cheese" is actually a slice of cheese or that it has an odd shape.


It is very disappointing for me, when I try to solve a logic problem starting from the idea that I am required to take a particular intelligent move and then I realize that the riddle teller just "forgot" to inform me about a very unusual detail on the setup.

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Raiza Sunozaki

I can agree with this, but I'm still preferential to a pro-meta-fantasy take on things. But there is one flaw in your theory. He was able to revive Beatrice. Not the Beatrice he spent game after game battling with, but a Beatrice which is a perfect replica of her, in a sense, the ideal reincarnation of her. So how would that place in your theory?

When Beatrice was revived, Battler was still trapped in the logic error. So I don't think he was the one who revived Beatrice. It's just a metaphor for how Beatrice's style of writing came back after it was lost.

It's even pretty obvious when you compare their fighting styles. Battler tried to fight Erika by seemingly creating a logical contradiction (like Nanjo's murder in EP3), yet having an actual solution. But that strategy was really risky, and he accidentally created the logic error because he couldn't think of a solution. Compared to that, Beatrice refused to repeat a lot of things in red on the basis that "she did it with magic". That was something that Battler didn't say even once. And that's the main difference between their fighting styles. Battler acknowledged too much with the red in an attempt to confuse Erika, but ended up confusing himself. Beatrice didn't repeat reds that could be explained with magic to keep Erika guessing.