[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Going to take the "disguises are fair game" side here. The clues are given, just not in a traditional sense.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

That is one of the oldest detective rules to ever be created.

And it's wrong, and arrogant. Interpretation remains even when only a single set of possible facts remain.

Your other possibilities solve none of the mysteries, while the disguise theory is supported by a simple fact.

It is not my burden to explain anything. I am not making an affirmative claim to have figured anything out. And if my doubt is concerning, then perhaps your point could stand to be stronger. Then I wouldn't doubt it.

"If it doesn't exist, murders cannot happen."

Therefore, however stupid improbable, it must be the truth.

Even Ellery Queen, the most fair among Golden Age writers used this rule.

And this rule was openly mocked. In Umineko. The thing we're reading.

But if we drive towards "this is the only possibility left" then it's a valid answer. Process of elimination is also a clue. I remember reading a scholar's essay about how in comparison to Van Dine's 20 rules and Knox's 10 rules, Doyle only had one rule, which was the process of elimination.

I'm all for accusing Ryuukishi of cheating. But only when it's right. This isn't one of those times.

Only because you accept that premise. I do not. I would consider such a conceit fundamentally stupid. And this very form of reasoning was contradicted in ep5, you may recall, where it was pointed out that a premise can be wrong. Process of elimination is a tool of reasoning, but if we consider something "impossible" and write it off prematurely, we have put ourselves in a position where our reasoning will never be correct.

I'm the first one to accuse Ryuukishi of cheating, but this is not one of these cases. Unless you consider following Doyle's 1st and only rule in detective fiction to be cheating.

In a metafictional mystery story about mystery stories, ignoring everything I know is probably the first step.

Give me one case that had a jury made solely of divorced women.

Solely, no, but honestly I only need one or two. But again, jury selection is irrelevant unless ep8 is suddenly about figuring out a jury of people to convict the real culprit. Which I won't put past ryukishi, but it won't happen.

How would that happen? Dine's 18th forbids suicide.

Who said anything about suicide?

Originally Posted by chounokoe

So you want to say that you don't want to believe in Shkannon because it is likely to occur in a mystery?

...Yes? In playful metafiction the author is expecting you to expect the unexpected precisely because it's caught you so many times before.

I beg your pardon, but every character in Umineko is following a trope of some mystery novel or another, no matter who the culprit is, he would be following a certain convention, because the setting of Umineko in itself is so heavily inspired by tropes.
...
And so on, and so on. I you were to name a culprit I could also construct an argument why nobody should believe it because it is trope, but this is not the point of discussion.

I bet you could, but that doesn't mean that argument for their culprit status is the "correct" one. You seem to have the false assumption that where facts lead to a conclusion, that is the only conclusion. I never said that, I don't think you mean that, and it's bad reasoning. For instance, suppose Krauss were the culprit after all, but for some totally different motive than the one we're "expected" to believe he has based on his trope? Do you deny that such a thing could in fact be possible?

By your way of thinking, you are not only avoiding falling into a trap, you are avoiding to take any step at all.

Anything better than platitudes? There's nothing wrong with waiting to see what happens when you have suspicions that a writer is wasting your time or trying to pull one over on you.

Besides, sometimes every step is wrong and not taking a step is the answer. I refer you to that Bernkastel TIP. Do we act or not act? Which is correct? It is not always such a good idea to pick an idea and hope for the best.

So A) that would imply, that every character who has died so far does no longer exist in that manner, but we witnessed many times due to the red truth (in the original 4 games) that dead people do still count.
# 朱志香の死体発見時、朱志香の部屋にいたのは、戦人、譲治、真里亞、楼座、源次、郷田、紗音、熊沢、南條の みだった。
# 死体の朱志香ももちろん含む
And more important even B) if 'everybody else' is in the other room and a real substantial Kanon is not in the other room. How could he leave the other room with 'everybody' in it without breaking the seal and enter Battler's room in the first place? No...entering maybe, but how was he able to lock the door?!
I'm sorry, but death is impossible, unless he died of 'unknown reason X' the very moment he went into the closet.

No, death is completely possible, and Kanon can leave the "everyone else" room by never being in it, which also applies to the ep5 dining room and potentially anywhere a specific census is not given. When specific people are not mentioned, there could be a reason for it. Shkanon would say it's because there is no Kanon at the time of the census and stating he's in the other room directly would be a Logic Error unto itself. Some other theory would say he escaped the name check. Either way, we're clearly meant to recognize that "everyone else" is indicative of an absence of evidence that the people we are supposed to think are in there are in fact in there. This is pretty much exactly what I have been saying.

As for dying, I never said how he has to die. But it's a hundred times more plausible for a living person to die for any reason than for the insanity of personality death to hold water.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Renall

As for dying, I never said how he has to die. But it's a hundred times more plausible for a living person to die for any reason than for the insanity of personality death to hold water.

So how does he die then?!
By sudden stroke X? Was it ever implied that Kanon had heart trouble?
By terminal illness X? Was it implied that Kanon was sick?
By mysterious murder-mechanism X? I think the story went over this so often, I think we can say it does not exist...
By randomly falling over furniture X and breaking his neck?
And you would still owe an explanation on why Kanon does no longer count into being present, while other peoples corpses obviously did.

The problem is that the point that you are forcing on us is just as well your arguments biggest flaw. You say we do not bring enough evidence that Shkannon could be true, but your only suggestion why you do not believe it is your often mentioned point that you think it is 'insane'.
Going by that description, nearly every mystery story featuring a disguise would be 'insane', yet there are enough which do feature one. Sometimes you just have to accept that fiction remains fiction and some things, as much as a work may try to be innovative, certain rules have to be followed.

Your approach, I'm sorry but I think that way, is cheap as well. You prefer to attack every theory by doubting everything, while not believing anything and therefore never reaching any truth. What bothers me the most is this, 'I can't think of something, so nobody can' approach.

Basically unless a mystery is so fair that it is boring, you never know the answer until the end, especially if certain cover up red herrings are constructed for us to be able to believe in them until the time runs out.
Let me give an example of such a description trick

Spoiler for 迷路館の殺人 by 綾辻行人:

In this novel (as part of a series) we have a character receiving a novel at the beginning of the story, which describes a story that has happened to someone close to him in recent past and in the comment written by the author, he claims that there is a real culprit who is to be found and that the reader can also try and figure out who the author is in the story (he is using a pseudonym).
The story in the story describes of a series of murders in a mansion modelled after an old greek labyrinth. The master of that labyrinth is a famous mystery author and he has invited his 4 most famous pupils and 2 editors and with them are the wife of one editor, a detective we know from previous entries in the series and an elderly maid. Also present is a doctor and before they can meet with their teacher the doctor pronounces him dead.
In his will he asks them to write a mystery novel about a serial murder within his labyrinth mansion, with themselves as the first victim. Of course after that, they start dying in a matter that they have written...

What is important is the solution, because it is a staple in description trick.

Spoiler for Solution:

By the end of the story in the story we are lead to believe that the teacher has faked his death, murdered everyone and wanted to write his own perfect mystery novel, before he succumbed to a terminal illness. Yet many things did not match up by that theory.

After that a character is confronted by the reader at the beginning and asked if he wrote that whole novel to be a message to the real culprit. The trick was, that it was implied that at the first murder scene, the head of the victim was half cut off, because the culprit wanted to conceal blood he or she had left at the crime scene.
By the description anybody thought of a woman's menstruation, but there were only 2 women in the story. Where there? No, because one of the editors was never (as the only person) referred to by gender distinctive words.

For those who read it, that may not be a very realistic scenario by any chance, but it works as a mystery. And that's what people also try to rule out here, the chance of fiction sometimes relying on the fact that they are fiction...because in reality only a finite amount of murder scenarios can be possible.

Accepting Shkannon of a possiblity does not beg the reader to bend the laws of physics or think of impossible acts not yet created by anybody. It is a simple disguise.
Disguises are implied in the story in other contexts. Those two never appear alongside each other in front of Battler. It may seem cheap, but at some point we have to reach the conclusion and sorry, if until now everything that is left possible was all just a plot then this mystery is unsolvable...which I bet it is not.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

So how does he die then?!
By sudden stroke X? Was it ever implied that Kanon had heart trouble?
By terminal illness X? Was it implied that Kanon was sick?
By mysterious murder-mechanism X? I think the story went over this so often, I think we can say it does not exist...
By randomly falling over furniture X and breaking his neck?
And you would still owe an explanation on why Kanon does no longer count into being present, while other peoples corpses obviously did.

You seem to be intentionally forgetting or ignoring methods, though I can't see why. And corpses are not counted unless an accounting of corpses is explicitly made. For some definition of "does not exist" (is dead, which has been used for Kinzo), Beatrice's statement is true. That's all it has to be.

The problem is that the point that you are forcing on us is just as well your arguments biggest flaw. You say we do not bring enough evidence that Shkannon could be true, but your only suggestion why you do not believe it is your often mentioned point that you think it is 'insane'.
Going by that description, nearly every mystery story featuring a disguise would be 'insane', yet there are enough which do feature one. Sometimes you just have to accept that fiction remains fiction and some things, as much as a work may try to be innovative, certain rules have to be followed.

That doesn't really follow.

Your approach, I'm sorry but I think that way, is cheap as well. You prefer to attack every theory by doubting everything, while not believing anything and therefore never reaching any truth. What bothers me the most is this, 'I can't think of something, so nobody can' approach.

I never said that. I don't know where you get that. I said I have nothing to prove. If you have the right answer, I will accept it. But if you present it to me, I have the right to put it to the test to make sure I'm satisfied with it. You're attacking the wrong person if I don't like a theory.

Basically unless a mystery is so fair that it is boring, you never know the answer until the end, especially if certain cover up red herrings are constructed for us to be able to believe in them until the time runs out.

There is a difference between a description trick and promising one thing while doing quite another.

For those who read it, that may not be a very realistic scenario by any chance, but it works as a mystery. And that's what people also try to rule out here, the chance of fiction sometimes relying on the fact that they are fiction...because in reality only a finite amount of murder scenarios can be possible.

Actually in reality you will find a much broader and more colorful array of murder scenarios; try some true crime.

Fiction is more limited, as it must account only for those murders which are actually interesting and which have solutions not readily obvious. Most real crimes are, unfortunately, not nearly as clever as the culprit seems to think they are. A writer is confronted with a remarkably daunting task, but given a degree of advantage in being able to control what is presented (where in a real crime nothing stops somebody from poking around every little place).

Accepting Shkannon of a possiblity does not beg the reader to bend the laws of physics or think of impossible acts not yet created by anybody. It is a simple disguise.

A "simple disguise" that has no purpose, is actively risky to its user to no gain, is used to no particular benefit, has no direct evidence supporting its existence, and is true primarily because it needs to be true for a theory not based in solid evidence to function.

Yes, nothing complicated about that.

Disguises are implied in the story in other contexts. Those two never appear alongside each other in front of Battler. It may seem cheap, but at some point we have to reach the conclusion and sorry, if until now everything that is left possible was all just a plot then this mystery is unsolvable...which I bet it is not.

And yet, not one person can give a reason why any of this must be true or its actual literary function, even now. Even if I accept as a means of argument everything you say about Yasu and Shkanon and disguises, you still can't explain that narrative necessity for the disguise. Why is it that this is a seemingly insurmountable goal? All it takes to make me a believer is to get the correct answer to that. If you believe it so strongly, be the one to accomplish it. An answer which relies only on ep1-4, please.

[KnightOfTwo]

I really, really, really hate to get involved in this incredibly heated discussion. I have been thinking over the whole how does Kanon disappear issue. I am trying to approach it from a way that doesn't involve Shkannon. Now this does not mean that I outright deny Shkannon because I don't, but I also do not support it (not to mention I simply don't like it). So here goes.

When Erika is examining the guestroom before the logic error, something stood out to me. After she examines the room itself and the bathroom she narrows down to the closet, at which point Dlanor "throws a spear of blue truth" into the closet.

Spoiler for screenshot:

Now if were to approach that from a less magical perspective here is what I come up with. A weapon would be needed that can get through the door without actually opening it. My thought would be a gun. This can work considering three guns are in the hands of the Krauss, Rudolf and Hideyoshi. Which if I am not mistaken leaves one still available. As for Erika actually killing someone, evidence is presented as she had just run all over the mansion killing five other people and beheading them. The manner in which she killed them is said to have varied as the beheading was only the means to confirm their death.

So lets say Erika went to shoot Battler then behead him too. She doesn't find him in the bedroom or the bathroom which leaves the closet. She shoots through the door in case the person within is actually alive (which given her past victims is likely), so they cannot fight back. This hits Kanon in the chest as described through the screenshot above and Kanon dies.

Now I could be wrong but when I read that part, it just seemed to fit with me.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Renall

Actually in reality you will find a much broader and more colorful array of murder scenarios; try some true crime.

Okay, that was phrased in the wrong way by me, sorry.
There is only a finite amount of realistic 'mystery murders' to be pulled of in real life, because of the very points you gave. A writer sometimes has to resort to the improbable, even the slightly 'insane', to make a puzzle out of something that would normally take only a few thoughts to solve.
A man murdered his brother, was shot himself during that and died in his room. That is a very boring event if you put it like that, but a writer is forced to use some skills (that might seem very far out there) to make it interesting.

A colourful murder alone just does not make a mystery. If we had found the culprit redhanded at the scene of crime, there never had been a legend of the golden witch in the first place.

All it takes to make me a believer is to get the correct answer to that. If you believe it so strongly, be the one to accomplish it. An answer which relies only on ep1-4, please.

Correct answer is difficult, but maybe a sufficient answer would be enough, okay.
Yes, when you put it that way I see where the problem lies. It's more a basic conflict of methods than a conflict of believing.
The question is what exactly Ryukishi meant to say, when he said the mystery was solvable from the start. In basic term, a mystery is solved once you know the whodunnit and the howdunnit, because as is said in EP7 a whydunnit is often neglected in mystery fiction and is filled in only later when we actually learn of the past of the culprit. That is often, becauseeven hinting at the why is often a giveaway of the who...which only leaves the how, which is interesting, but not as interesting as pinning the culprit down.

So the question that I myself can't answer so far is, if Ryukishi gave a solid key to the whydunnit during the first 4 Episodes, besides the forgotten promise.
I myself tend to solve everything on it's own merrits and leave the connection for the end, which is a strange approach but something I have gotten used to after reading some novels.
The whydunnit is of course still missing from the equation, but it's the question wether we can know or not. A mystery can easily be solvable without a why, a why just makes it solid, but often only the culprit can give us the actual why.

Originally Posted by KnightOfTwo

So lets say Erika went to shoot Battler then behead him too. She doesn't find him in the bedroom or the bathroom which leaves the closet. She shoots through the door in case the person within is actually alive (which given her past victims is likely), so they cannot fight back. This hits Kanon in the chest as described through the screenshot above and Kanon dies.

If we assume that Chiru is more than an excersize in logic (which I don't as I already said), why would Erika then loose that battle voluntarily or in another sense, make herself the culprit?!
If there was someone in the closet to shoot in the first place it would have hit, living or dead Kanon would have been in the closet for her to hit. This would have guaranteed her victory as 'Erika shooting Kanon in the closet' = 'Kanon existed/exists in the guestroom'. The biggest flaw I see with this theory is, that I don't understand why Erika would let Battler win if she literally hit her goal.

[KnightOfTwo]

We already know he existed in the guestroom, it was stated he entered, so he had to have existed. But Erika had fired the shot, and killed Kanon. Beatrice says Kanon does not exist in this room. In that scene she opens the door to the closet, a body is there and shortly thereafter fades away. This seems to me that it is showing a dead body. The dead body is not counted as existing, though this is where I admit the largest issue in my logic exists. Classifying whether dead bodies count or not, you can come up with evidence to support either.


Besides even if I were to examine this from a Shkannon perspective it wouldn't really change. We have the deal about Kanon Erika and Battler each being their own body. Say Kanon shares this body with Shannon. Lets go with the personality death. Even if the Kanon personality is dead, he would have needed a body, Shannon, who is now left in the closet. Say we agree that dead bodies count as existing, why would it be possible for Shannon to be represented differently. In this case just because a body isn't exclusive doesn't mean it should be counted differently. "Kanon's" body would still be left, whether or not he "died". Unless you mean to argue that it is only his body when he is in use of it, which would mean that dead bodies don't count as you can't use your body when your dead.

By your logic even if Kanon isn't separate from Shannon, he would still have had to enter the room and go into the closet where personality then dies. Which would mean Kanon personality dying in closet = Kanon exists/existed in closet.

I am merely trying to examine this from multiple angles and I doubt my own theories. I'm simply trying to explore all possibilities until confirmation or denial of anything. I don't like locking myself to a single way of thinking unless I am told it is necessary.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Oliver

The logic of the bottles being the coverup, or prediction, or plan, however, is irrational. If you don't want anyone to ever figure out what happened, you do everything except make them think about it. Everyone would settle on a wrong story about an accident and that would be it. So you would definitely never send out more than one bottle, if you would send one at all. You can only create a fantasy if no bottle exists. The only way bottles are useful is when they are misdirection from start to finish and have nothing to do with what happened at all.

You know, I don't think I ever agreed with you so much before.
The messages in the bottles can't possibly be a cover up. Quite apparently the incident covered up himself perfectly, everything suggests that the case would have been closed and died forever.
What really made the investigations reopen are the messages in the bottles themselves. So if their intended plan was to create a cover up, whoever did it failed miserably. But I don't think we are dealing with a stupid culprit here, plus it's hinted that the messages were written by Beatrice.

Originally Posted by KnightOfTwo

We already know he existed in the guestroom, it was stated he entered, so he had to have existed. But Erika had fired the shot, and killed Kanon. Beatrice says Kanon does not exist in this room. In that scene she opens the door to the closet, a body is there and shortly thereafter fades away. This seems to me that it is showing a dead body. The dead body is not counted as existing, though this is where I admit the largest issue in my logic exists. Classifying whether dead bodies count or not, you can come up with evidence to support either.


Besides even if I were to examine this from a Shkannon perspective it wouldn't really change. We have the deal about Kanon Erika and Battler each being their own body. Say Kanon shares this body with Shannon. Lets go with the personality death. Even if the Kanon personality is dead, he would have needed a body, Shannon, who is now left in the closet. Say we agree that dead bodies count as existing, why would it be possible for Shannon to be represented differently. In this case just because a body isn't exclusive doesn't mean it should be counted differently. "Kanon's" body would still be left, whether or not he "died". Unless you mean to argue that it is only his body when he is in use of it, which would mean that dead bodies don't count as you can't use your body when your dead.

By your logic even if Kanon isn't separate from Shannon, he would still have had to enter the room and go into the closet where personality then dies. Which would mean Kanon personality dying in closet = Kanon exists/existed in closet.

I am merely trying to examine this from multiple angles and I doubt my own theories. I'm simply trying to explore all possibilities until confirmation or denial of anything. I don't like locking myself to a single way of thinking unless I am told it is necessary.

I think LyricalAura proposed this theory before, and if you read further it is actually said that Erika shot several rounds to the closet during her duel with Beatrice.

There is no problem with the interpretation of "Kanon died therefore he doesn't exist", after the many discussion in EP6 no one was ever able to debunk this. So yes it works.


Now EP7 didn't confirm/denied Shkanon, didn't confirm/denied ghosterika, it barely had any conclusive info that would help us settle this matter... except for one thing.

EP7 debunked the theory that Kanon was selected as the new heir.

EP7 really made clear that the new heir is Yasu/Lion, even legally speaking. There is even a testament. Kinzo always wanted Lion to be the new heir, he never had any intention to name a heir after himself. From 1984 Lion is the new heir, there can't possibly be any other.

A small correction. Kanon can be the new heir... if he's Lion, but then you either deny shannontrice (which is very hard to do at this point) or accept shkanon (and then the Kanon/Kinzo theory no longer have any purpose).


Ironically Renall always stated that Shannontrice and shkanon are not really related, but I think we have reached the point where you can't deny shkanon if you accept shannontrice.

In addition Kanon real name cannot be Kinzo. It was confirmed that the servant names are made using the first Kanji of their real names and adding the "on" kanji. You'd have to come up with a very unlikely theory to still say his real name is Kinzo.

As a matter of facts the anti-shkanon faction lost one of their best theories after EP7. Then the only option that remains to explain how Kanon escaped from the cousin's room without using shkanon is that ridiculous theory about Kanon escaping between the small time gap where Erika asked everyone's positions and sealed the doors.

However this is quite lame, because assumes Erika's incompetence. Both in the metaworld where she could have used a retroactive move, both in the real world, where she should have sealed the windows in advance, or at least check everyone's position just a sec before sealing the doors. It really doesn't make any sense to do otherwise unless you are retarded.

[KnightOfTwo]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

You know, I don't think I ever agreed with you so much before.
The messages in the bottles can't possibly be a cover up. Quite apparently the incident covered up himself perfectly, everything suggests that the case would have been closed and died forever.
What really made the investigations reopen are the messages in the bottles themselves. So if their intended plan was to create a cover up, whoever did it failed miserably. But I don't think we are dealing with a stupid culprit here, plus it's hinted that the messages were written by Beatrice.



I think LyricalAura proposed this theory before, and if you read further it is actually said that Erika shot several rounds to the closet during her duel with Beatrice.

There is no problem with the interpretation of "Kanon died therefore he doesn't exist", after the many discussion in EP6 no one was ever able to debunk this. So yes it works.


Now EP7 didn't confirm/denied Shkanon, didn't confirm/denied ghosterika, it barely had any conclusive info that would help us settle this matter... except for one thing.

EP7 debunked the theory that Kanon was selected as the new heir.

EP7 really made clear that the new heir is Yasu/Lion, even legally speaking. There is even a testament. Kinzo always wanted Lion to be the new heir, he never had any intention to name a heir after himself. From 1984 Lion is the new heir, there can't possibly be any other.

A small correction. Kanon can be the new heir... if he's Lion, but then you either deny shannontrice (which is very hard to do at this point) or accept shkanon (and then the Kanon/Kinzo theory no longer have any purpose).


Ironically Renall always stated that Shannontrice and shkanon are not really related, but I think we have reached the point where you can't deny shkanon if you accept shannontrice.

In addition Kanon real name cannot be Kinzo. It was confirmed that the servant names are made using the first Kanji of their real names and adding the "on" kanji. You'd have to come up with a very unlikely theory to still say his real name is Kinzo.

As a matter of facts the anti-shkanon faction lost one of their best theories after EP7. Then the only option that remains to explain how Kanon escaped from the cousin's room without using shkanon is that ridiculous theory about Kanon escaping between the small time gap where Erika asked everyone's positions and sealed the doors.

However this is quite lame, because assumes Erika's incompetence. Both in the metaworld where she could have used a retroactive move, both in the real world, where she should have sealed the windows in advance, or at least check everyone's position just a sec before sealing the doors. It really doesn't make any sense to do otherwise unless you are retarded.

Ah, I did not know that this was already proposed, and yes I did see the multiple shots part.

As for the whole Shkannontrice ordeal, yeah, it is getting rather difficult to deal with now. Though like I said, I neither support it or deny it, I simply don't like it. If it turns out to be right, not surprising, if it turns out to be wrong, I would be happy. I'm still just trying to approach things from as many different angles as possible. Shkannontrice is one of them, and arguably one of the bigger pieces to make fit in EP1-4. At least until George is named the culprit in EP8.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

You know, I don't think I ever agreed with you so much before.
The messages in the bottles can't possibly be a cover up. Quite apparently the incident covered up himself perfectly, everything suggests that the case would have been closed and died forever.
What really made the investigations reopen are the messages in the bottles themselves. So if their intended plan was to create a cover up, whoever did it failed miserably. But I don't think we are dealing with a stupid culprit here, plus it's hinted that the messages were written by Beatrice.

Here's a thought: Why do we believe the message bottle stories' stories? Not the actual stuff written in the bottles, I mean. The stories about how they are found. Oliver and I went over this. Tell me, does the following sequence of events really make sense? Note that I am assuming the two bottles are ep1 and ep2, though it's remotely possible they were not:

• Immediately following the incident, the police discover a message in a bottle amidst wreckage (presumably from the explosion) which lead them to believe that the bottle is authentic. Inside the bottle is a detailed story talking about a bizarre serial murder incident following a witch epitaph. Regardless of whether the contents are ep1 and ep2, they contain mention of the Stakes of Purgatory jabbed into bodies.
• The police also discover, allegedly, Maria's diary (which is somehow intact even though Maria herself is not) and the Stake of Mammon. If they have the message bottle story, they know Mammon's stake, or a stake like it, was used in that story as a weapon.
• The police consider none of this important or even remotely interesting evidence, and release the stake and diary to Ushiromiya Ange, but not the message bottle (for... some reason?).
• Nobody seems to think anything of the incident, except that some of the media speculate Eva might somehow be responsible. However, she is not prosecuted and the incident is ruled an accident.
• About half a year later, Eva is in desperate financial straits and must sell large portions of the Kuwadorian library.
• The library collection circulates and is gradually recollected. The legend of Kinzo as a black magician surfaces in the public consciousness.
• Sometime around this time the Rokkenjima Witch Hunt probably forms. Professor Ootsuki and others in occult and academic circles in Japan are likely the early members.
• Around the time public interest in the mystical nature of the Witch Hunt is peaking, suddenly now a fisherman reveals that he "found" a message bottle. This bottle has to have also depicted a bizarre crime on the nearby island of Rokkenjima, but he had no interest in sharing it with anyone until now.
• Gradually, the message bottles somehow wind up being seen by Ootsuki, enough that he recognizes their handwriting. Ootsuki is led to believe, and communicates to Ange in ep4, that one bottle was found by police, and the other bottle was found by a fisherman. I am very curious what proof he has to back this up.

The whole thing smacks of a hoax to me. Ootsuki is inclined to believe that the bottles are mysterious letters set adrift on the sea, but that doesn't make sense as a delivery mechanism no matter what the writer's objective is in making the bottles.

• If you want the bottles to be found, you won't set them adrift and risk them sinking and being lost forever.
• If you don't want the bottles to be found, you wouldn't set them adrift. You'd burn the pages or just not write anything or sink the bottles into the sea uncorked.

The other options I can think of immediately would be they were accidentally set adrift (but that requires some intent to bottle them, so you meant to do something with that), or that they were never set adrift at all, and were provided to the Rokkenjima Witch Hunt specifically to fuel Beato-mania.

We're given a fact: That the handwriting in the message bottles matches Maria's diary. We are thus led to believe that all of these things predate the explosion. However, I don't see a single thing that makes me feel actual confidence that these items can be dated to pre-Rokkenjima Incident. If you wanted to fabricate these things after the fact, it probably isn't too hard to do. You've got a following of devoted fans willing to believe almost anything about Rokkenjima, no matter how mysterious or crazy (and the more mysterious and crazy, the better). All we know for sure is that the person doing it is the same person in all three cases, not necessarily that they did it before the explosion.

Why? I don't know, but obviously I'm insinuating here that "Beatrice" would still be alive, or at least someone carrying on in her role. Random theories would be that both "Beatrice" and Battler survived, and the message bottles were given to the group that would give them maximum exposure so that Battler would eventually find and read them. Or Battler survived and wrote the bottles and possibly the diary himself. Probably not. I don't know.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Renall

And it's wrong, and arrogant. Interpretation remains even when only a single set of possible facts remain.

Dear God no.
First of all, that saying also accounts for interpretation. Once alternative interpretations are made impossible, the one that remains is the truth.

It is not my burden to explain anything. I am not making an affirmative claim to have figured anything out. And if my doubt is concerning, then perhaps your point could stand to be stronger. Then I wouldn't doubt it.

You made the action of doubting an argument. Therefore, you must explain why you doubt it. You explained it by saying that there was no evidence to support it and compared it to insane scenarios. I pointed out why they are not comparable.
When did I ever claim Shkanon to be true? I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic.

And this rule was openly mocked. In Umineko. The thing we're reading.

No it...wasn't? In fact that's the purpose of the blue truth? That's what Ange told Battler to use the blue as? I...what? This is literally the only mystery rule that Ryuukishi follows.

Only because you accept that premise. I do not. I would consider such a conceit fundamentally stupid. And this very form of reasoning was contradicted in ep5, you may recall, where it was pointed out that a premise can be wrong. Process of elimination is a tool of reasoning, but if we consider something "impossible" and write it off prematurely, we have put ourselves in a position where our reasoning will never be correct.

A premise can be wrong, but it can also be right. The only misstep in a mystery story is to never take a step at all. Wrong turns may lead you to an abyss, but you will have more information once you come out of it than if you had just stay put.

Who said anything about suicide?

How else would he die?

That said, I'm not completely for Shkanon. But to deny the possibility without considering it is...eh. Ryuukishi is not cheating so much as abusing loopholes here.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

How else would he die?

Trauma from having just jumped out of the window and landed on something sharp, for example.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Trauma from having just jumped out of the window and landed on something sharp, for example.

Dine's 18th.A crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide.

Accident is covered by that.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Dine's 18th.A crime in a detective story must never turn out to be an accident or a suicide.

Accident is covered by that.

Since when saving someone is a crime? A crime in this particular story is what Erika is doing.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Since when saving someone is a crime? A crime in this particular story is what Erika is doing.

An accidental death is not a crime either. The wording here implies that the mystery behind each death should never turn out to not be a crime. If somebody dies in a story, it better be because of murder.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

How else would he die?

Oh come on, use your imagination and you can think of a dozen different totally plausible ways a person could die in this scenario. Expand your thinking and ask whether a person who enters a room must be perfectly healthy in the first place. "Heart Attack X" is silly, but the idea of walking into a room with some kind of mortal condition is expansible to plenty of actually plausible eventualities.

That said, I'm not completely for Shkanon. But to deny the possibility without considering it is...eh. Ryuukishi is not cheating so much as abusing loopholes here.

I have considered it. It has no purpose. It makes no sense. It's liked because of groupthink and intentionally circumstantial information that has been playing close to the chest for ages now. You don't write a great mystery by dangling the answer in front of the reader's face. You write it by slipping the answer right under their nose. You would have to be blind and slow not to have heard about that debate by now. It's probably the finest piece of misdirection in the series. He barely even has to touch on it, just enough to keep the vitriol flowing. It's perfect when read for that purpose. For any other purpose, its presence in the story simply cannot be explained without a kludge.

How many times have I said "assuming <theory> is true," even for things I don't like? A lot. And when I take those theories places, they don't get where people say they should be getting. How often does someone in favor of this purposeless identity assume it false and demonstrate how many things simply don't work without it? Almost never. What conclusion can I draw from that? That they refuse to? That they can't? That they could but won't?

The right answer does not require such cowardice to defend. The right answer is right, isn't that the idea? So if you have the right answer you should be able to cleanly and immediately demonstrate to me that, for any situation that relates to the crimes you can possibly think of, assuming your (correct) answer is wrong makes those situations' resolutions unreasonable. On the weight of demonstrating this for every single mystery, you will demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that any other solution cannot possibly work.

The right answer in a mystery can do this. Even where an alternative exists for one situation, the right answer will make sense for that situation and all others. If you show that to me I will have no choice but to believe it.

I've asked that from the beginning and no one can give it to me. So if somebody here or anywhere has the correct answer, they haven't shared it with me. In the alternate, they have, and the answer is bad. But none of us want that, surely.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Renall

Oh come on, use your imagination and you can think of a dozen different totally plausible ways a person could die in this scenario. Expand your thinking and ask whether a person who enters a room must be perfectly healthy in the first place. "Heart Attack X" is silly, but the idea of walking into a room with some kind of mortal condition is expansible to plenty of actually plausible eventualities.

Accidents and suicide are covered by Dine. Natural death is not, of course. But Kanon was never hinted to have any kind of disease...Unless we assume that Kanon bonded with Jessica because they are Ashma bros.

I'll accept your challenge and use my imagination a bit though. I won't use the death trick though. Instead...

-At the time of the logic error, Shannon was already inside the closet. So she didn't go in or out in the first place. She and Battler were making out. Shannontrice was into some very weird stuff. Kanon appeared and was like "what." and "saved" Battler from the weird stuff. Then Battler went out. Kanon and Shannon were inside the closet for a second, until Kanon was like "screw it I'm not staying inside a closet with my pervert of an adoptive sister" and left. Shannon then locked the room one more time.

Shannon never went in or out during the logic error because she was already there in the first place.

...What? It could happen!

I have considered it. It has no purpose. It makes no sense.

No, there is one purpose. It explains the logic error, Kanon's body disappearing...Among other things. Not to say that those things can only be explained with Shkanon. I can find a way out of both of those without breaking Knox or Dine easily. But Shkanon seems like a simple solution.

It's liked because of groupthink and intentionally circumstantial information that has been playing close to the chest for ages now. You don't write a great mystery by dangling the answer in front of the reader's face. You write it by slipping the answer right under their nose.

Going to have to refer the mysterious affair at styles to you. Sometimes, the most obvious answer...Really is the answer.

You would have to be blind and slow not to have heard about that debate by now. It's probably the finest piece of misdirection in the series. He barely even has to touch on it, just enough to keep the vitriol flowing. It's perfect when read for that purpose. For any other purpose, its presence in the story simply cannot be explained without a kludge.

I think I should make myself clear right now. I despise Shkanon. I hate that theory. But it's possible to affirm it.

How many times have I said "assuming <theory> is true," even for things I don't like? A lot. And when I take those theories places, they don't get where people say they should be getting. How often does someone in favor of this purposeless identity assume it false and demonstrate how many things simply don't work without it? Almost never. What conclusion can I draw from that? That they refuse to? That they can't? That they could but won't?

The right answer does not require such cowardice to defend. The right answer is right, isn't that the idea? So if you have the right answer you should be able to cleanly and immediately demonstrate to me that, for any situation that relates to the crimes you can possibly think of, assuming your (correct) answer is wrong makes those situations' resolutions unreasonable. On the weight of demonstrating this for every single mystery, you will demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that any other solution cannot possibly work.

That is my problem with Umineko. I like my solutions to shine above the rest. But Umineko is not like that. It's a gross and unfair mystery. I'm afraid that Ryuukishi is going for a dumb solution at this point.

I've asked that from the beginning and no one can give it to me. So if somebody here or anywhere has the correct answer, they haven't shared it with me. In the alternate, they have, and the answer is bad. But none of us want that, surely.

That is my stance with Shkanon. It's probably right, but dear God that's terrible. Until proved otherwise, I prefer my Krauss culprit Shannon/Kanon exist but switch places a lot theory if only because two Shannons would explain ninja Shannon moving from one place to another so fast in episode 2.

There are clues for it. It could be an answer. That is the point I'm trying to make it.
I don't even want it to be the answer. I would rather have something else. But yeah.

[cmos]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Shannon never went in or out during the logic error because she was already there in the first place.

# [Request: 'At the time of the deconstruction of the closed rooms, none existed within the rooms except the VICTIMS (Natsuhi, Eva, Kyrie, Rosa, Maria, Battler)'.] Acknowledged.
# [Request: 'After the deconstruction of the closed rooms, then excluding me, only Krauss, Rudolf, Hideyoshi, and Gohda entered the rooms'.] Acknowledged. [However, this only applies to the current point in time. It's possible that some later development in the game will cause more people to enter.]

But 'later developments' were denied by Erika's retroactive seal:
"Allow me to REPORT. ......Battler's guest room was sealed at the time of Lady Erika's inspection of the CORPSE."
So it's impossible for someone to exist there.



And Dine's rules don't really apply to the previous games (if at all). See episode 4, for example, and try to explain every death without suicide/accident, so that in the end Battler will be alone on the island.

[Will Wright]

[However, this only applies to the current point in time. It's possible that some later development in the game will cause more people to enter.]

"Allow me to REPORT. ......Battler's guest room was sealed at the time of Lady Erika's inspection of the CORPSE."

There is a gap between those two. It's reasonable to assume that someone entered those rooms after the inspection but before Erika came, it's entirely plausible.

Of course, it would then beg the question of how they got out of their own locked rooms. But that's easy enough to solve.

And Dine's rules don't really apply to the previous games (if at all). See episode 4, for example, and try to explain every death without suicide/accident, so that in the end Battler will be alone on the island.

Now that would be some terrible decision making by Ryuukishi. Why would he introduce Dine to the story if it didn't apply? Now THAT would be cheating.

When is his next interview? I have a feeling Dine will probably come up there.

So you want me to solve episode 4 without violating Dine? Fine. I'll take you on.

The killer is Jessica. After she killed everyone, she set off the bomb, and died from Asthma. Natural death is not covered as either accident or suicide. Therefore she will murder Battler even though she is already dead. Her physical condition has been foreshadowed before, so it wouldn't be a surprise if she died due to the stress of the events. This satisfies foreshadowing conditions, the one culprit condition, and the no suicide condition.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Renall

On the weight of demonstrating this for every single mystery, you will demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that any other solution cannot possibly work.

This is a fallacy. In any work of mystery fiction, there are always alternatives. Rather than any other solution not working, the correct solution will have the most elegant explanation. You are not only asking for a solution, you are asking for it to somehow wipe out all of the other solutions people come up with. In other words, you are asking for the impossible.

That is why no one has been able to convince you, not because the evidence isn't there.

[cmos]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

There is a gap between those two. It's reasonable to assume that someone entered those rooms after the inspection but before Erika came, it's entirely plausible.

There is no, actually. After the inspection they immediately went to the meta-world, where Battler confirmed the people who entered the rooms. And retroactive seal is just that - it seals the room "in the past", when Erika completed her inspection.
And this solution isn't better than 'gap between guesthouse rooms' sealing'.

Now that would be some terrible decision making by Ryuukishi. Why would he introduce Dine to the story if it didn't apply? Now THAT would be cheating.

He only used 2 of his rules, and we have no TIP about the rest of them. Bern just used him as a detective, she didn't rely on his rules, unlike with Knox.

The killer is Jessica. After she killed everyone, she set off the bomb, and died from Asthma.

I didn't know that asthma causes your head to explode.