[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 8 Twilight of the golden witch

[MeoTwister5]

The ??? Will come tomorrow when Im done with exams.

Also, Im a guy last time I checked.

[AuraTwilight]

Sorry, hard to keep track. Maybe if you stopped with all your girl signatures and avatars... :P

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Also, Im a guy last time I checked.

*shock*

Maybe if you stopped with all your girl signatures and avatars... :P

I make this mistake every time. It's getting embarrassing.

[Chron]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Sorry, hard to keep track. Maybe if you stopped with all your girl signatures and avatars... :P

Yeah I know!

God that's so frustrating trying to figure out genders when people do that.

[MeoTwister5]

I actually get this a lot even in other forums lol, even though I'm a manly man like Battler and Kanon.

[delita-umw-]

Isn't Kanon like the worst person to take as an example of a manly man in the series? If you're gonna go for manly, why not jakku bowaa?

[Player]

Originally Posted by delita-umw-

Isn't Kanon like the worst person to take as an example of a manly man in the series? If you're gonna go for manly, why not jakku bowaa?

Please.

The manliest man in the series is Sakutaro.

YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

-Also, what's the "Shkanon Whydunnit?" I honestly don't know. People have always used Shkanon as a "how was this done" as far as I've seen. What would it even be? "I dressed up as a meido, therefore murder"?

It doesn't even explain "how this was done." It just sort of explains the situation which exists (Battler not seeing the two together) by being its own reason for that situation. And giving an excuse for laser sword fights with goats I guess.

[AuraTwilight]

I wasn't going to get into that. I was just saying that "people use it AS a howdunnit."

[witchfan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I like the idea of a character becoming real and rebelling against it's author, I will admit that on the basis of my sense of romanticism. However this view is wholly compatible with regular Shkanon for the most part, anyway. Moreover...well...

It seems to make the Love Duel seem kind of petty,and not really demonstrative of a major truth like it's supposed to. I'm pretty sure Shannon didn't kill Kanon IRL; both because there's nothing implying any such thing, and the both of them keep lamenting, "We should've done this much sooner" and blah blah blah. It just seems like an obtuse explanation.

Putting aside the silliness or believability of Shkanon for a moment, it seems more reasonable to me that the Love Duel represents someone who is love-torn as we're apparently supposed to think; if it was done sooner, the conflict wouldn't have happened to this extent; Jessica's love wouldn't be ripe and Battler wouldn't be there. Moreover, if it's just a "fictional character rebelling" thing, well...Why are they fighting? If it's a fiction where both characters are treated as real people instead of Kanon being dead, why can only one of them be alive? Why can't they both have a happy ending in this fictional narrative? Why is it only one or the other? And moreover, why even bother trying? The story, and thus the romance, will be ended and/or rebooted back to where you started when the book ends.

I think I can explain the love part, tell me what you think: Shannon is in grief for Kanon's death. She wants him to "come back to life" (Kinzo parallel here, by the way), and has a difficult time accepting he is dead. She grows too attached to his fictional version, however, and finds she is consumed by her writing of him. The character's own likes and desires begins to overcome hers. Shannon sees his love for Jessica as a defining quality of him, and feels guilt that "Kanon" could not realize his love for her while Shannon, who lives on, is free to love as she will (by the way, you could very well mix her own love conflicts to this. No problem with Shannon being bisexual). She is starting to realize fictional Kanon inside herself. The "we should have done it sooner" refers to how she should not have stood "in between" her character and her herself. That way she hurts herself and her memory of Kanon. She should've torn herself away from him, or given herself completely to the character, much sooner.

What of the in-story Shannon, by the way? Her significance is becoming an avatar for author-ShannonYasu. Shannon wants to speak with Kanon on an equal level, but as an author - as an omnipotent witch - she cannot. Her avatar is a device to allow this.

(This could very well be what Battler realized, and the explanation of the "error" in later message bottles. In his games, Battler turns away from the mystery, and makes them more and more of an introspection of Shannon into herself. Once Battler is the gamemaster, Shannon is no longer restricted to the role of "Author", and can exist on an equal level with Kanon without qualms. Battler allows the contradiction of "Kanon being alive" in the games since his realization, to allow the two to confront each other on an equal level.

This can be used to understand some scenes. For example, remember the Will-Shannon chessmaster scene in EP7? Here's one explanation. Kanon being an actual person, able to be confirmed alive in red, is a complete contradiction to the mystery. Revealing this to Will would cause a logic error, as Will, having solved the mystery from the perspective of the first four gameboards, understands Kanon's limitations as a fictional character, in part that he is not allowed to live or die.

What we must keep in mind is that this was, originally, a very subtle process. Before Battler comes into the scene, this part of Beatrice's games is very well hidden, unexposed. Their function as an introspection is overshadowed by their function as a mystery. She does not expect anyone to understand her inner conflict, no matter how much she wants them to.)

How's this? If we're going for this explanation, it's actually very in-line with Shkannon. Actually, it is Shkannon, except the distinction is drawn between author and character (I am not saying real-world Shannon has a different personality, or that she is literally acting like Kanon. The Love Duel is intended as a metaphor for a very secretive, inner conflict she has, as well as a ritual for overcoming her grief). I simply think this is a more human explanation than Shannon literally acting out an imaginary servant's role.

What do you mean by "motive" in this context, by the way? Motive for the murders? Motive for Kanon to rebel against his author and try and become real and stuff? Motive for Shannon to write a living Kanon into the story? What?

I was under the impression you were asking me to also explain the motive, but I probably misread! You can replace motive here with "character study of Shannon and Kanon". I mean there doesn't have to be one explanation for the Love Duel or anything, and I'm just offering one possible theory.

Well, that's a whole other problem. Shkanon's not THE ONLY TRUTH HERP A DERP DERP, and only an idiot would think so since it's so ridiculously clear that Yasu doesn't have it in her to be a murderer on this sort of scale, but I think we do have to accept that Shannon, Kanon, and Beatrice are fictional characters of Yasu's in their entirety, and that she is synonymous with them. Whether she acted as them in the real world or simply substituted them for herself is debatable, but the latter option sort of implies that George and Jessica are dating the same person, are aware of this, and just don't give a shit, unless we say the romances are also utterly fictional. I'm not even going to entertain that option because it renders most of the text meaningless, and was spoken against by Ryukishi at the least.

I completely agree that real-world Yasu doesn't have it in her to be a murderer. At the same time, I don't like saying Shannon and Kanon are entirely fictional characters. I can see how this works for Shannon (if we simply assume she is an idealized version of Yasu), but I don't like that there is a distinction between Shannon and Kanon at the gameboard level, if we assume them to be the same at the meta level. I don't like the "slipperiness" of using the red to proclaim Shannon and Kanon's death interchangeably, but separately. Most of all, that we allow discussion of the life and death of unrealized (in the real world) fictional characters and figments of imagination is, in my opinion, an enormous flaw in a mystery that is, in my opinion, intended to reveal the truth of R-Prime. I'm not saying Umineko as a whole is a mystery - but I want to believe the stories are, in part, intended to be one. But only in part - the assumption here is that they mean much more.

I like Fictional Shkanon as an idea, but honestly, I can't deny that the original Shkanon theory is the most consistent with the text, probably what was intended by Ryukishi, and honestly doesn't create as many problems as people think.

It may be stupid, but it's not plothole-inducing, and I maintain that people are overreacting to it a bit. I admit I was fucking pissed off at first too, but it was mostly an emotional reaction because Shkanon sort of makes an 100% happy ending impossible.

If we were discussing Shkanon here (and not the plausibility of my theory), at this point I would've asked for more detail on this. Like I said, I disagree that it is the one consistent theory, but I very much understand this is a matter of taste. Not to derail the subject, however, I would prefer if we keep "which is the better theory" contests to a minimum.

-I don't think the red is being liberally abused as much as people say. We were only told that it was always true, not that it was ever objective. We know it's contextual and used in fictional stories, and is essentially "Word of God". If we can apply it to fictional characters that don't exist in the real world, such as Erika, I don't see the problem with applying it to costume personas that are accepted as real as a premise of the setting.

-I wouldn't call it "Shannon being meta-aware or red-dodging" or "Shannon having a fluke" so much as "Beatrice being a dishonest bitch like always who's writing the story to her advantage."

At this point I would simply like to avoid this argument. Right now, I am more interested in discussing the value of the theory I proposed than having it compete with Shkanon, the reason being that (I mentioned this before) it's a gigantic line of argument, very much subject to personal taste.

But yea, I like the idea that Erika killed Kanon when she shot through the door EIGHT TIMES. This idea is satisfactory with every theory and it's also fucking hilarious. I win.

Heh!

-Also, what's the "Shkanon Whydunnit?" I honestly don't know. People have always used Shkanon as a "how was this done" as far as I've seen. What would it even be? "I dressed up as a meido, therefore murder"?

I have no idea myself, to be honest. I (mistakenly) assumed that you were asking me for a motive to the crime, so I figured you were able to offer one for Shkannon. By this line of reasoning, the only motive I've heard for the Shkannon Whydunnit is some polyamory thing, which I am not satisfied with.

In the heat of the argument, I might have misunderstood something, so let me make sure: What, EXACTLY, are your complaints about Shkanon, preferably in a concise, bullet-point list (it's easy for me to gather my thoughts this way and helps flow the convo).

I will if you insist, but is this relevant? I think it's best we keep this theory the subject here, rather than get into yet another argument about Shkannon. I don't want to get into an argument of whether my criticisms of Shkannon are justified, for example, since that's an entirely different matter.

[AuraTwilight]

I think I can explain the love part, tell me what you think: Shannon is in grief for Kanon's death. She wants him to "come back to life" (Kinzo parallel here, by the way), and has a difficult time accepting he is dead. She grows too attached to his fictional version, however, and finds she is consumed by her writing of him. The character's own likes and desires begins to overcome hers. Shannon sees his love for Jessica as a defining quality of him, and feels guilt that "Kanon" could not realize his love for her while Shannon, who lives on, is free to love as she will (by the way, you could very well mix her own love conflicts to this. No problem with Shannon being bisexual). She is starting to realize fictional Kanon inside herself. The "we should have done it sooner" refers to how she should not have stood "in between" her character and her herself. That way she hurts herself and her memory of Kanon. She should've torn herself away from him, or given herself completely to the character, much sooner.

But he's still just a fictional character; is she starting to become his personality? Is Fictional Shkanon fighting the urge to become Literal Shkanon (which would be pretty lol)?

This can be used to understand some scenes. For example, remember the Will-Shannon chessmaster scene in EP7? Here's one explanation. Kanon being an actual person, able to be confirmed alive in red, is a complete contradiction to the mystery. Revealing this to Will would cause a logic error, as Will, having solved the mystery from the perspective of the first four gameboards, understands Kanon's limitations as a fictional character, in part that he is not allowed to live or die.

But Will wasn't asking to confirm Kanon's life in red or anything of the sort, he just wanted to talk to him and Shannon; he did so before, just not at the same time, and Will sees witches and magic and crap so it's not like he has a viewpoint similar to Erika's.

How's this? If we're going for this explanation, it's actually very in-line with Shkannon. Actually, it is Shkannon, except the distinction is drawn between author and character (I am not saying real-world Shannon has a different personality, or that she is literally acting like Kanon. The Love Duel is intended as a metaphor for a very secretive, inner conflict she has, as well as a ritual for overcoming her grief). I simply think this is a more human explanation than Shannon literally acting out an imaginary servant's role.

Alright, and how does Kanon's backstory come into this? Clair and Shannon apparently designed him before he showed up, and even in flashbacks, Genji and others sort of treat them as a collective that can be swapped out for Beatrice whenever convenient. When exactly did Kanon die?

I was under the impression you were asking me to also explain the motive, but I probably misread! You can replace motive here with "character study of Shannon and Kanon". I mean there doesn't have to be one explanation for the Love Duel or anything, and I'm just offering one possible theory.

Alright, for a second I thought you were complaining that Shkanon doesn't solve the whydunnit of the murders and I'm like "what?!" Lol, thanks for clearing that up. So basically you're identifying Shkanon as effectively the same thing but only for the fictions as an internal symbolism?

I completely agree that real-world Yasu doesn't have it in her to be a murderer. At the same time, I don't like saying Shannon and Kanon are entirely fictional characters. I can see how this works for Shannon (if we simply assume she is an idealized version of Yasu), but I don't like that there is a distinction between Shannon and Kanon at the gameboard level, if we assume them to be the same at the meta level. I don't like the "slipperiness" of using the red to proclaim Shannon and Kanon's death interchangeably, but separately. Most of all, that we allow discussion of the life and death of unrealized (in the real world) fictional characters and figments of imagination is, in my opinion, an enormous flaw in a mystery that is, in my opinion, intended to reveal the truth of R-Prime. I'm not saying Umineko as a whole is a mystery - but I want to believe the stories are, in part, intended to be one. But only in part - the assumption here is that they mean much more.

I honestly don't see why this is a big deal. Everyone on the island accepts Shannon and Kanon as real, separate people, even if they aren't. This includes most of the meta-characters. This is exactly the premise Beatrice establishes as magic: A lie everyone believes in becomes the truth. She proposed this as early as episode one. What is a fiction? A lie you're letting yourself believe in for the purpose of reading it.

Kanon and Shannon both being accepted as real is a premise of the Gameboard. The Red Truth is "absolutely true", but it's a premise that has to be accepted; there's nothing really prevented text from being colored red, because it's not actually a magical phenomena.

If we were discussing Shkanon here (and not the plausibility of my theory), at this point I would've asked for more detail on this. Like I said, I disagree that it is the one consistent theory, but I very much understand this is a matter of taste. Not to derail the subject, however, I would prefer if we keep "which is the better theory" contests to a minimum.

I didn't mean to say it was "the one consistent theory", I'm not that arrogant. I'm just stating that I still personally think it's the best we got, and that's my personal opinion. I apologize if I gave the wrong idea.

I have no idea myself, to be honest. I (mistakenly) assumed that you were asking me for a motive to the crime, so I figured you were able to offer one for Shkannon. By this line of reasoning, the only motive I've heard for the Shkannon Whydunnit is some polyamory thing, which I am not satisfied with.

The polyamory thing would merely be a motive to continue it; it's clear it didn't start because of this love mess. I think the fact that servants have reported seeing Beatrice running around is enough evidence to suggest that Yasu insists on costume play and taking up her roles, in order for them to be accepted as real. Hell, it's pretty much all Beatrice ever fucking talks about.

I will if you insist, but is this relevant? I think it's best we keep this theory the subject here, rather than get into yet another argument about Shkannon. I don't want to get into an argument of whether my criticisms of Shkannon are justified, for example, since that's an entirely different matter.

Fine :P

[witchfan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

But he's still just a fictional character; is she starting to become his personality? Is Fictional Shkanon fighting the urge to become Literal Shkanon (which would be pretty lol)?

You're right, that would be pretty ridiculous . I'm pretty sure she won't become "Kanon" as in, start to dress and behave like Kanon (personally, I'd say the result of the Love Duel is predetermined, but the evidence I have in mind is up for interpretation). Perhaps it's a more mental thing, or perhaps this is what she, in her grief, feels - she feels that her inability to separate (grow up) from Kanon is controlling her actions. Ever heard of those mothers that refuse to believe their child died? You might walk up to one, tell her how sorry you are that it happened, and she won't have any idea what you're talking about. This is entirely subconscious - she will genuinely believe her child is still alive. Maybe we could see Yasu as a less extreme variant of that. Alternatively - it could be seen as a more extreme variant, although we'd have to assume YasuShannon is still sane to think straight enough to conceive her gameboards.

If we assume the more extreme variant, I still won't go as far as saying she will believe entirely "Kanon is alive and inside of her", that she will act like Kanon in the open -- at least convincingly enough that no-one would suspect something and lock her in a hospital. She might harbour such thoughts deep inside, though, which eventually express themselves in writing. Of course, I am not talking about "actual Shkannon" here, because if we assume she writes fictional Kanon to be alive - it would take a very ill mind to write something about her and Kanon being the same person. One that, certainly, can't think straight enough to reveal the truth in her stories (this, by the way, is related to a complaint I have about Shkannon - but that's not important).

But Will wasn't asking to confirm Kanon's life in red or anything of the sort, he just wanted to talk to him and Shannon; he did so before, just not at the same time, and Will sees witches and magic and crap so it's not like he has a viewpoint similar to Erika's.

The way I understand Will, is he's a brilliant guy who solved the mystery and found the truth by EP4 (is he even aware of EPs 5-6?). He also has the power to extract a confession out of anyone (and he was definitely going to use it). So I don't think fooling him with magic would work. Moreover - I don't think fooling him at all would work, or Shannon wouldn't have had a problem with his request. She had to genuinely believe Will would be walking himself into a checkmate - or she's one hell of a bluff (which isn't that unbelievable, except it was EP7, and it was Will).

Assuming she believes Will would be walking himself to a checkmate - we need to ask "why?". Let's assume Shkanon is true, for a moment. Even if we assume it's true, I'm not sure there's a Logic Error here - Shannon would simply have to admit she's been tricking everyone. So I think it has to be something different, but still something that is strictly related to Shannon and Kanon. This is the first thing that comes to mind, and, if you assume the theory is true, I think it fits pretty well - again, especially because Will was going to use his Spectator Authority.

Alright, and how does Kanon's backstory come into this? Clair and Shannon apparently designed him before he showed up, and even in flashbacks, Genji and others sort of treat them as a collective that can be swapped out for Beatrice whenever convenient. When exactly did Kanon die?

Hmm, let's break this up into three separate questions:

() About preconceiving Kanon: Can you tell me what point of the story we're talking about? I mean, I remember they *talked* about a 'little brother' and a 'servant' before he arrived, but I don't remember they actually designed him in detail. If they did, though, we'd have to see if we should take this at face value: maybe, for example, Yasu overheard Genji talking about a new male arrival, and she simply came to believe that ClairBeatrice - the all-powerful witch - revealed this to her in her dream (remember, the story doesn't have to be entirely accurate - recall the red guts scene, or Kinzo's confession. It's simply what the person telling it came to believe).
() About a collective that can be swapped out for Beatrice: I'll have to ask which point of the story we're talking about, since this is slightly ambiguous. Can you give an example of several events where this happened, and in what way?
() About Kanon's backstory, and when he died: I honestly have no goddamned clue. Perhaps it's something mentioned in the story, but perhaps it isn't. If we think about it, Kanon's backstory is not really integral to the story. We may never know who he is, what's important is what he means. This is interesting, because we might be able to say here that Kanon's background is intentionally not detailed - in part, to conceal the 'lie', and in part, because we are supposed to assume he and Shannon are very close (so she feels no need to talk about him).

Alright, for a second I thought you were complaining that Shkanon doesn't solve the whydunnit of the murders and I'm like "what?!" Lol, thanks for clearing that up. So basically you're identifying Shkanon as effectively the same thing but only for the fictions as an internal symbolism?

Well, not Shkanon in the sense that Shannon goes around fooling everyone about how she's Kanon, but... in a way, yes. We can think of it as a metaphor for the author's personal, mental struggle, and, once Battler takes over, for her therapy and eventual healing.

Everyone on the island accepts Shannon and Kanon as real, separate people, even if they aren't. This includes most of the meta-characters. This is exactly the premise Beatrice establishes as magic: A lie everyone believes in becomes the truth. She proposed this as early as episode one. What is a fiction? A lie you're letting yourself believe in for the purpose of reading it.

Kanon and Shannon both being accepted as real is a premise of the Gameboard. The Red Truth is "absolutely true", but it's a premise that has to be accepted; there's nothing really prevented text from being colored red, because it's not actually a magical phenomena.

I just wanted to quote this because it's almost the gist of my theory. In my theory, the existence of fictional Kanon is accepted for granted. For this reason, it is not "magic" - it is really the truth, and we may even say the detective can acknowledge him.

But, let's discuss red text for a moment. What can we say about it? We know it's no more than a contract - a contract between the reader and the author. At the same time, we understand that, if we trust the author, we must take red text to be the objective (if ambiguous) truth of the gameboard. But we can say more than that - we can say some red texts discuss universal themes, such as Kinzo's death or Battler's parents. Because of the nature of the games - because we assume they contain the truth - once we see a red that discusses the past before the conference, unless stated otherwise, we assume it is a universal, objective truth, across the entire game set. This may or may not be true. But, if you assume it's true, and you agree to take this one step further - that is, assume such red text is also true for the hypothetical R-Prime, you can surmise most of my theory.

I didn't mean to say it was "the one consistent theory", I'm not that arrogant. I'm just stating that I still personally think it's the best we got, and that's my personal opinion. I apologize if I gave the wrong idea.

Yeah, don't apologise. This wasn't levelled at you in any way. I was (clumsily) talking about exactly what you just said: how it's the best we've got. This is what I don't agree with (or, at the very least, I don't agree that it's good enough), and I understand this is a matter of taste.

The polyamory thing would merely be a motive to continue it; it's clear it didn't start because of this love mess. I think the fact that servants have reported seeing Beatrice running around is enough evidence to suggest that Yasu insists on costume play and taking up her roles, in order for them to be accepted as real. Hell, it's pretty much all Beatrice ever fucking talks about.

You know, this is something I've been trying to understand. I know the polyamory is supposed to either lead to it, or motivate Yasutrice to continue it, but I don't understand how. How is being in love with multiple people related to her motive? How can we tie the purpose of her crime to polyamory? The only explanation I heard is that she got "pushed into a corner and decided to kill everyone ahaha.wav" - but I think we can both agree this doesn't fit the facts.

[AuraTwilight]

I'm pretty sure she won't become "Kanon" as in, start to dress and behave like Kanon (personally, I'd say the result of the Love Duel is predetermined, but the evidence I have in mind is up for interpretation). Perhaps it's a more mental thing, or perhaps this is what she, in her grief, feels - she feels that her inability to separate (grow up) from Kanon is controlling her actions. Ever heard of those mothers that refuse to believe their child died? You might walk up to one, tell her how sorry you are that it happened, and she won't have any idea what you're talking about. This is entirely subconscious - she will genuinely believe her child is still alive. Maybe we could see Yasu as a less extreme variant of that. Alternatively - it could be seen as a more extreme variant, although we'd have to assume YasuShannon is still sane to think straight enough to conceive her gameboards.

Wow, you managed to make Yasu more crazy than canon without even having to dress up like multiple people. That deserves some kind of award.

The way I understand Will, is he's a brilliant guy who solved the mystery and found the truth by EP4 (is he even aware of EPs 5-6?). He also has the power to extract a confession out of anyone (and he was definitely going to use it). So I don't think fooling him with magic would work. Moreover - I don't think fooling him at all would work, or Shannon wouldn't have had a problem with his request. She had to genuinely believe Will would be walking himself into a checkmate - or she's one hell of a bluff (which isn't that unbelievable, except it was EP7, and it was Will).

Will's read Episodes 5 and 6, since he mentions Erika in conversation and brings up elements in those games. Bern showed him everything so he was up to speed and not fighting at a disadvantage.

I don't see why Will talking to Shannon and Kanon at the same time would checkmate him in any way...UNLESS doing so was impossible. Since your theory has Kanon continuing to exist on the Gameboard as a fictional character, there shouldn't be a problem with him meeting both; I mean, it's not like Lion is actually real either.

Assuming she believes Will would be walking himself to a checkmate - we need to ask "why?". Let's assume Shkanon is true, for a moment. Even if we assume it's true, I'm not sure there's a Logic Error here - Shannon would simply have to admit she's been tricking everyone. So I think it has to be something different, but still something that is strictly related to Shannon and Kanon. This is the first thing that comes to mind, and, if you assume the theory is true, I think it fits pretty well - again, especially because Will was going to use his Spectator Authority.

The way the Spectator Authority works, it seems to FORCE people to comply with what he's asking, unless the Gamemaster intervenes. This includes allowing the piece in question to recall memories from other kakera as if it ain't no thang.

Thus, Shannon is being forced to do something that is impossible, causing her broken robotic freak out thing. If he had forced her to get Kanon so that he was greeting both of them, under Shkanon theory, this would be impossible, and might just fucking break everything. If, as you suggest, Shannon merely has to admit she's lying, it would probably break the "Shannon" and "Kanon" characters and make it impossible for Will to gain any more information.

() About preconceiving Kanon: Can you tell me what point of the story we're talking about? I mean, I remember they *talked* about a 'little brother' and a 'servant' before he arrived, but I don't remember they actually designed him in detail. If they did, though, we'd have to see if we should take this at face value: maybe, for example, Yasu overheard Genji talking about a new male arrival, and she simply came to believe that ClairBeatrice - the all-powerful witch - revealed this to her in her dream (remember, the story doesn't have to be entirely accurate - recall the red guts scene, or Kinzo's confession. It's simply what the person telling it came to believe).

"He'll be a One-Winged Servant who'll directly serve Kinzo! Won't that be cool?" And they also talk about GIVING a brother to Shannon to ease her loneliness. They're not saying one's coming, they're deciding one is coming, and deciding what his role will be. Yasu isn't the Head yet, so she doesn't have the authority to decide this kind of shit. Meaning Kanon is made up.

Yes, Yasu's testimony isn't absolutely reliable, but even if you take away the fantasy elements, we have Shannon designing another character during one of her "world revisions." She made up this new male servant and then the Shannon characters says that she heard about a new servant showing up.

() About a collective that can be swapped out for Beatrice: I'll have to ask which point of the story we're talking about, since this is slightly ambiguous. Can you give an example of several events where this happened, and in what way?

The example that most springs to mind is when Shannon and Kanon are with Genji when he's giving the hint, without him really addressing them both, just addressing AT them. Then afterwards, Shannon and Kanon vanish and are replaced by Beatrice.

Add that, before either romances even started, both characters are the only ones on the island that can talk to Beatrice (which was, personally, one of the biggest Shkanon hints to me).

() About Kanon's backstory, and when he died: I honestly have no goddamned clue. Perhaps it's something mentioned in the story, but perhaps it isn't. If we think about it, Kanon's backstory is not really integral to the story. We may never know who he is, what's important is what he means. This is interesting, because we might be able to say here that Kanon's background is intentionally not detailed - in part, to conceal the 'lie', and in part, because we are supposed to assume he and Shannon are very close (so she feels no need to talk about him).

Still, the placement of when he dies is important. For your idea to work as you suggest, he has to die incredibly recently so that the Jessica romance and the Shannon siblinghood are both strong enough that Yasu decides that Kanon must continue existing. If we consider the above point I made, it implies that Kanon died before he even went to the school festival, which was, if I remember right, set a year before 1986. So Kanon died a year after being hired?

But, let's discuss red text for a moment. What can we say about it? We know it's no more than a contract - a contract between the reader and the author. At the same time, we understand that, if we trust the author, we must take red text to be the objective (if ambiguous) truth of the gameboard. But we can say more than that - we can say some red texts discuss universal themes, such as Kinzo's death or Battler's parents. Because of the nature of the games - because we assume they contain the truth - once we see a red that discusses the past before the conference, unless stated otherwise, we assume it is a universal, objective truth, across the entire game set. This may or may not be true. But, if you assume it's true, and you agree to take this one step further - that is, assume such red text is also true for the hypothetical R-Prime, you can surmise most of my theory.

Now hold the fuck on a moment. This is incredibly important.

At no point, ever, is the Red Truth ever described as "objective." And being "absolutely true" and being "objective" are entirely different things. Infact many of the very valid tricks in the red rely on the Red Truth NOT being objective.

You know, this is something I've been trying to understand. I know the polyamory is supposed to either lead to it, or motivate Yasutrice to continue it, but I don't understand how. How is being in love with multiple people related to her motive? How can we tie the purpose of her crime to polyamory? The only explanation I heard is that she got "pushed into a corner and decided to kill everyone ahaha.wav" - but I think we can both agree this doesn't fit the facts.

You don't seriously buy that Yasu actually killed anyone, do you? It's so obvious that she's bullshitting us and playing the martyr AGAIN. I honestly can't believe that someone too timid to make a phone call can honestly organize a mass murder. Her Shannon and Kanon characters may be the culprits in the games she wrote, but I think this is to cover up for the real culprit, who is probably someone she loves, romantically or otherwise.

Yasu continuously exhibits a strong attachment, kindness, and empathy with the Ushiromiya family and the servants. She has no motive to kill them. She also sees herself as disgusting and undeserving of love and even living. She has every reason to take the fall for the crimes of someone dear to her.

[witchfan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Wow, you managed to make Yasu more crazy than canon without even having to dress up like multiple people. That deserves some kind of award.

With all fairness, I think my 'diagnosis' makes her less, not more crazy. But hold it, canon?

Will's read Episodes 5 and 6, since he mentions Erika in conversation and brings up elements in those games. Bern showed him everything so he was up to speed and not fighting at a disadvantage.

I don't see why Will talking to Shannon and Kanon at the same time would checkmate him in any way...UNLESS doing so was impossible. Since your theory has Kanon continuing to exist on the Gameboard as a fictional character, there shouldn't be a problem with him meeting both; I mean, it's not like Lion is actually real either.

The way the Spectator Authority works, it seems to FORCE people to comply with what he's asking, unless the Gamemaster intervenes. This includes allowing the piece in question to recall memories from other kakera as if it ain't no thang.

Thus, Shannon is being forced to do something that is impossible, causing her broken robotic freak out thing. If he had forced her to get Kanon so that he was greeting both of them, under Shkanon theory, this would be impossible, and might just fucking break everything. If, as you suggest, Shannon merely has to admit she's lying, it would probably break the "Shannon" and "Kanon" characters and make it impossible for Will to gain any more information.

Does that play well with the assumption that Will solved the games, or are we assuming he was bullshitting us? Also, how does Shannon admitting her lie = leads Will to a checkmate? If Spectator Authority works like you said, Shannon has to talk whether she likes it or not.

"He'll be a One-Winged Servant who'll directly serve Kinzo! Won't that be cool?" And they also talk about GIVING a brother to Shannon to ease her loneliness. They're not saying one's coming, they're deciding one is coming, and deciding what his role will be. Yasu isn't the Head yet, so she doesn't have the authority to decide this kind of shit. Meaning Kanon is made up.

Yes, Yasu's testimony isn't absolutely reliable, but even if you take away the fantasy elements, we have Shannon designing another character during one of her "world revisions." She made up this new male servant and then the Shannon characters says that she heard about a new servant showing up.

Do we even know real Kanon serves the head directly, or is that just part of Yasu's game? In whichever case, I'll just go with retrospectively coming to believe that's how things happened. Like Kinzo. I mean, come on, it's Shannon, and she thinks a witch is telling her this. That's not hard to believe, is it?

The example that most springs to mind is when Shannon and Kanon are with Genji when he's giving the hint, without him really addressing them both, just addressing AT them. Then afterwards, Shannon and Kanon vanish and are replaced by Beatrice.

Can you recount the scene for me? First things I would ask are: can we assume Shannon and Kanon immediately get replaced by Beatrice? Can we safely say Kanon is not next to Beatrice, and is not simply hidden as a sprite (like what might happen if the Beatrice scene was taking place in YasuShannon's mind)? Is it plausible to say this is simply an event that happens a few minutes later (say, after Kanon left)?

Add that, before either romances even started, both characters are the only ones on the island that can talk to Beatrice (which was, personally, one of the biggest Shkanon hints to me).

In EP2? My personal belief is that Kanon very well knew of Shannon's delusions. Otherwise, that might just be some embellishment on Yasu's part (it goes well with what I said up until now, about her grief).

Still, the placement of when he dies is important. For your idea to work as you suggest, he has to die incredibly recently so that the Jessica romance and the Shannon siblinghood are both strong enough that Yasu decides that Kanon must continue existing. If we consider the above point I made, it implies that Kanon died before he even went to the school festival, which was, if I remember right, set a year before 1986. So Kanon died a year after being hired?

I won't promise you that (I'll need to reread the story), but I'll say it's more likely than not, if we know the festival happened in 1985. Ignoring the timeline, we can probably know the location of his death, too. There's some red text in EP2 saying that. I think it was the boiler room (the one with Kinzo's corpse?)?

Now hold the fuck on a moment. This is incredibly important.

At no point, ever, is the Red Truth ever described as "objective." And being "absolutely true" and being "objective" are entirely different things. Infact many of the very valid tricks in the red rely on the Red Truth NOT being objective.

I suppose that's correct. What I meant was more along the lines of "it's not entirely subjective" (we can phrase it in subjective terms - say, talk about Beatrice and not Shannon - but there has to be a single truth concealed behind it). What's important about it, though?

You don't seriously buy that Yasu actually killed anyone, do you? It's so obvious that she's bullshitting us and playing the martyr AGAIN. I honestly can't believe that someone too timid to make a phone call can honestly organize a mass murder. Her Shannon and Kanon characters may be the culprits in the games she wrote, but I think this is to cover up for the real culprit, who is probably someone she loves, romantically or otherwise.

Yasu continuously exhibits a strong attachment, kindness, and empathy with the Ushiromiya family and the servants. She has no motive to kill them. She also sees herself as disgusting and undeserving of love and even living. She has every reason to take the fall for the crimes of someone dear to her.

I'm torn here. On one hand there's this talk about her being the culprit and shit, EP7. And then there's the stuff about implying she was actually planning to do as she said in EPs 1-4 (she most likely did do it in EPs 1-2). On the other hand, you know, she doesn't seem the type. And actually, there's the EP8 thing that she was intentionally portraying herself as the culprit. But, if that's true, who exactly is the culprit? What character(s) in the story can we blame, to make it a proper Whydunnit?

[AuraTwilight]

With all fairness, I think my 'diagnosis' makes her less, not more crazy. But hold it, canon?

Yasu's pretty crazy, isn't she?

Does that play well with the assumption that Will solved the games, or are we assuming he was bullshitting us? Also, how does Shannon admitting her lie = leads Will to a checkmate? If Spectator Authority works like you said, Shannon has to talk whether she likes it or not.

He's forcing her to do something that's impossible. The blame would call on him because he's basically moving her piece, meaning he's making an illegal move.

Do we even know real Kanon serves the head directly, or is that just part of Yasu's game? In whichever case, I'll just go with retrospectively coming to believe that's how things happened. Like Kinzo. I mean, come on, it's Shannon, and she thinks a witch is telling her this. That's not hard to believe, is it?

One-Winged Servants serve Kinzo directly. That's what it means. And, again, how can Shannon know this before he shows up? The One-Winged Eagle is a badge you must earn.

Can you recount the scene for me? First things I would ask are: can we assume Shannon and Kanon immediately get replaced by Beatrice? Can we safely say Kanon is not next to Beatrice, and is not simply hidden as a sprite (like what might happen if the Beatrice scene was taking place in YasuShannon's mind)? Is it plausible to say this is simply an event that happens a few minutes later (say, after Kanon left)?

The two are with Genji, who gives the hint. Neither Shannon or Kanon really say anything that is specific to them as a character, and if you ignored the sprites it seems like one person is talking with Genji. After Genji (and they) leave, Beatrice immediately shows up, having been easedropping on them in spirit form.

In EP2? My personal belief is that Kanon very well knew of Shannon's delusions. Otherwise, that might just be some embellishment on Yasu's part (it goes well with what I said up until now, about her grief).

But so do Genji and Kumasawa. How come they don't have magical Beatrice-seeing powers?

I won't promise you that (I'll need to reread the story), but I'll say it's more likely than not, if we know the festival happened in 1985. Ignoring the timeline, we can probably know the location of his death, too. There's some red text in EP2 saying that. I think it was the boiler room (the one with Kinzo's corpse?)?

So how did Kanon die in the boiler? Why did he die? Occam's Razor is sharpening it's blade.

I suppose that's correct. What I meant was more along the lines of "it's not entirely subjective" (we can phrase it in subjective terms - say, talk about Beatrice and not Shannon - but there has to be a single truth concealed behind it). What's important about it, though?

What's important is that the Red Truth is only valid when it's accepted as valid. Erika can state she's the 18th person even though she's not, for example. Battler can be stated to be dead even though he's not. Battler is alone on the island but someone is right there, right now, going to kill him.

It's not objective. The Red Truth is subject to the personal viewpoints of the speaker and the listener. Really, the only rule we do have for it is that the speaker can't LIE in it, and it has to be "true" (but the context of "true" is never defined).

I'm torn here. On one hand there's this talk about her being the culprit and shit, EP7. And then there's the stuff about implying she was actually planning to do as she said in EPs 1-4 (she most likely did do it in EPs 1-2). On the other hand, you know, she doesn't seem the type. And actually, there's the EP8 thing that she was intentionally portraying herself as the culprit. But, if that's true, who exactly is the culprit? What character(s) in the story can we blame, to make it a proper Whydunnit?

Well, she's probably the culprit of the games, and that's what "matters."

As for the culprit? I don't know. For an example, let's say it's George for the sake of argument. She loves George. George is capable of familicide. He could threaten Yasu into cooperating. And she has motive to take the fall for him...unless Battler can understand her in time.

[witchfan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yasu's pretty crazy, isn't she?

The degree to which she's crazy is not canon.

He's forcing her to do something that's impossible. The blame would call on him because he's basically moving her piece, meaning he's making an illegal move.

This is if you assume Spectator Authority forces someone to act how you want him to, regardless of whether it is logically possible. This may be necessary for Shkannon to work, but it isn't necessary for my theory (I don't find it particularly plausible, either).

One-Winged Servants serve Kinzo directly. That's what it means. And, again, how can Shannon know this before he shows up? The One-Winged Eagle is a badge you must earn.

You're confusing two things here: real Kanon, and fictional Kanon. Furthermore, are you sure you understand what I'm saying here? My claim is that the timeline of Yasu's story versus what really happened doesn't have to be linear.

The two are with Genji, who gives the hint. Neither Shannon or Kanon really say anything that is specific to them as a character, and if you ignored the sprites it seems like one person is talking with Genji. After Genji (and they) leave, Beatrice immediately shows up, having been easedropping on them in spirit form.

Doesn't look like there's a problem, then. As for Genji speaking with one person: I don't see a problem here, if we were trying to find an interpretation based on the motive I gave, but I also don't think we have enough evidence to conclude whether he was talking to one person, or just being, you know, Genji.

But so do Genji and Kumasawa. How come they don't have magical Beatrice-seeing powers?

Don't they? And besides, they are nowhere near as close to Shannon as Kanon.

So how did Kanon die in the boiler? Why did he die? Occam's Razor is sharpening it's blade.

Occam's razor is only applicable when the system discussed is philosophically simple enough to determine the base amount of assumptions (Classically, William of Occam talks of "entities", Newton talks about causes) it makes, as well as their weight and plausibility. It most certainly does not mean "the simplest explanation is more correct", if that's what you're getting at, and the classical definition (which, to use, we must presuppose many things about the "entities" William of Occam was talking about) absolutely does not apply here.

With that said, I never stated I had all the details of the theory down to the smallest point. This may very well be implied somewhere in the story. There's no need for me to be the only person doing the thinking here - from what I've seen, you remember the story better than I do. What do you think? Is there a part of the story you think we can find some answers in?

What's important is that the Red Truth is only valid when it's accepted as valid. Erika can state she's the 18th person even though she's not, for example. Battler can be stated to be dead even though he's not. Battler is alone on the island but someone is right there, right now, going to kill him.

I simply don't agree with this. Again, it may be necessary for Shkannon but it isn't the case for my theory. Both Erika's red (I explained this in the post where I introduced my theory) and that "going to kill you now" reds are simple cases of ambiguity. As for the last one - I'm inclined to believe if I planted a fucking bomb, died, and then the bomb exploded and blew Battler up to gold dust, I would be able to say I am here and I killed him.

It's not objective. The Red Truth is subject to the personal viewpoints of the speaker and the listener. Really, the only rule we do have for it is that the speaker can't LIE in it, and it has to be "true" (but the context of "true" is never defined).

I know Ryukishi talks about multiple truths and that stuff, but the assumption that two people can believe in two contradictory things and say them in red sounds ridiculous to me. For example, what are we supposed to make of scenes where a person chokes while trying to say some red text? I don't think this is what you meant, so perhaps you can explain. The only thing that comes close to this is when red is ambiguous and context-dependent - a la EP6 final reds.

With that said, even if we assume this, I still don't understand why it's particularly problematic for my theory.

Well, she's probably the culprit of the games, and that's what "matters."

As for the culprit? I don't know. For an example, let's say it's George for the sake of argument. She loves George. George is capable of familicide. He could threaten Yasu into cooperating. And she has motive to take the fall for him...unless Battler can understand her in time.

I would like to mention that this is my exact argument about the circumstances of Kanon's death.

[AuraTwilight]

The degree to which she's crazy is not canon.

Even if she doesn't dress up as Kanon, she does dress up as Beatrice. She's still a crazy cosplayer. We can't escape this no matter what form of Shkanon we use, even if none at all.

This is if you assume Spectator Authority forces someone to act how you want him to, regardless of whether it is logically possible. This may be necessary for Shkannon to work, but it isn't necessary for my theory (I don't find it particularly plausible, either).

We do know Spectator's Authority does have elements of that, though. It's not a "Shkanon" thing. It's a "Will demonstrates he can fucking boss people around and he even says that the Authority is forbidden without a Senate approval" thing.

You're confusing two things here: real Kanon, and fictional Kanon. Furthermore, are you sure you understand what I'm saying here? My claim is that the timeline of Yasu's story versus what really happened doesn't have to be linear.

Look, it doesn't really matter. We have Shannon dreaming about an ideal servant brother, complete with prestigious position, and immediately after she wakes up and remarks that a new servant is showing up today. Bringing in "mixed up timeline non-linearity" crap isn't at all implied in the text, and it contradicts the very idea of Yasu's testimony, especially since we're given timestamps for what's happening.

You're changing things to fit your theory, instead of the other way around. This is bad form regardless of what the idea is or how valid it may be.

Don't they? And besides, they are nowhere near as close to Shannon as Kanon.

Bullshit they're not. They're like a mother and father to her, and aside from Kanon and her love interests, they're the people she loves most. And yes, Beatrice says outright that Kanon and Shannon are the only people who can see her (atleast until October 4th/5th where shit just gets out of control).

Occam's razor is only applicable when the system discussed is philosophically simple enough to determine the base amount of assumptions (Classically, William of Occam talks of "entities", Newton talks about causes) it makes, as well as their weight and plausibility. It most certainly does not mean "the simplest explanation is more correct", if that's what you're getting at, and the classical definition (which, to use, we must presuppose many things about the "entities" William of Occam was talking about) absolutely does not apply here.

This is a nice way of dodging the point that your theory requires more unfounded assumptions, completely fabricated events, and alternate character interpretation than the standard Shkanon theory.

With that said, I never stated I had all the details of the theory down to the smallest point. This may very well be implied somewhere in the story. There's no need for me to be the only person doing the thinking here - from what I've seen, you remember the story better than I do. What do you think? Is there a part of the story you think we can find some answers in?

It's not my job to justify a theory I don't believe in.

I simply don't agree with this. Again, it may be necessary for Shkannon but it isn't the case for my theory. Both Erika's red (I explained this in the post where I introduced my theory) and that "going to kill you now" reds are simple cases of ambiguity. As for the last one - I'm inclined to believe if I planted a fucking bomb, died, and then the bomb exploded and blew Battler up to gold dust, I would be able to say I am here and I killed him.

But you're not there. You may have killed him by proxy of the bomb, but YOU are dead and long fucking gone. It's absolutely, inarguably, undeniably metaphorical, and proof that the red truth can make non-literal statements. You may disagree, but the series text disagrees with you.

I know Ryukishi talks about multiple truths and that stuff, but the assumption that two people can believe in two contradictory things and say them in red sounds ridiculous to me. For example, what are we supposed to make of scenes where a person chokes while trying to say some red text? I don't think this is what you meant, so perhaps you can explain. The only thing that comes close to this is when red is ambiguous and context-dependent - a la EP6 final reds.

With that said, even if we assume this, I still don't understand why it's particularly problematic for my theory.

Your theory is dependent on Kanon's life/death status being outside of the Red Truth's usual treatment what with his fictional status and being dead before "the catbox". You're basically saying that the Red Truth needs to work a specific way to justify it. But if it turns out that "The Red Truth can essentially say whatever it wants so long as it's true one way or another" as the series implies, well...

I would like to mention that this is my exact argument about the circumstances of Kanon's death.

What the hell does the culprit have to do with Kanon's death?

[witchfan]

We've been going on for a while now mostly about a very specific issue: does the possible Author explanation I provided explain everything? While I think this is an interesting question in itself (despite being a lot less specific than can an explanation with my theory in mind explain everything), I also think you can almost endlessly raise objections and I can endlessly continue fleshing it out (or revising it), until we've covered every nook and crane of every possible question twice over, and more. In some places, I think I've even explained things with more detail than Shkannon, which has been circulating here for over a year now. But, look, while I think this is an important issue, I don't think it's where the meat of the discussion lies. As I said, even if you really are extremely unsatisfied with this explanation to the degree no revision or clarification I can give will solve the problem (which, I don't think you are, because you did say you liked the gist of it), this is only one possible explanation, not integral to my core theory in any way.

With that said, even if we go back to my core theory, I think there are tons of things we haven't covered. My question is: to what end? I'd like to remind that my purpose here is very simple: I want to convince you (also, plural you) that my theory is not utterly impossible, or completely awful. I'm not interested in whether you think it's better or worse than Shkannon, my question is, have I managed to convince it's an alternative? Consider this from a neutral point of view.

In the end, I don't have the patience to continue this without a clear goal in view. I'm sure you disagree with me on many issues (like how to interpret the text), and that there are many places I have yet to clarify (many of which I'm sure I haven't thought of yet). At the same time, I want to ask whether I clarified enough that you can see I'm not being a ridiculous dumb-ass? On my end, I think you raised some good questions, some bad ones. You helped me revise and thrash several parts of the theory, as well as flesh out others. In some ways I can also see where you might be coming from about Shkannon now, although, the validity of my own theory aside, I still don't think it's the best answer we've got (despite thinking better of it now).

At this point, I really want to call it a day (a week?). I'll admit I'm bored of this. I can't say the subject is so interesting that I want to spend even more time reading and responding. I want to make this one of my last posts on the subject, so maybe you can give closure on your end as well.

[AuraTwilight]

does the possible Author explanation I provided explain everything?

Yes, but any explanation can explain everything if you make up information and events out of nothing. I mean shit, I posted a theory that Ange is the culprit.

I want to convince you (also, plural you) that my theory is not utterly impossible, or completely awful. I'm not interested in whether you think it's better or worse than Shkannon, my question is, have I managed to convince it's an alternative? Consider this from a neutral point of view.

That's never been in question. It's simply an inferior alternative that doesn't explain things as satisfactorily or as concisely. From a neutral point of view, Shkanon also requires less assumptions and conjuring information out of nowhere. That's all I've been arguing.

[witchfan]

That's never been in question.

That's good enough for me. I obviously don't agree with the rest of the paragraph (minus the last sentence you ungodly nitpickers), but I can't say I have the patience to continue arguing about that.