[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[SeagullCrazy]

Well, anyway, I'll try something different.

It'll be in response to everyone saying that Shkanon is the culprit.

It's about a scene in EP5, right before Erika, the detective, starts the trial.
I don't know how anyone could get around this...

Spoiler for THEORY:

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

I... I... argh! You're missing what I was getting at entirely.

What you mean is that it's a catbox right? There shouldn't be anything he can know that we can't find out. And those episodes haven't been written yet.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Judoh

What you mean is that it's a catbox right? There shouldn't be anything he can know that we can't find out. And those episodes haven't been written yet.

Yes, but I also meant that he's treating his theory as though it's something that is, with certainty, going to happen in the next two games. As though he has already read them and would be spoiling them for us if he outlined his theory.

That simply isn't true.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by SeagullCrazy

Well, anyway, I'll try something different.

It'll be in response to everyone saying that Shkanon is the culprit.

It's about a scene in EP5, right before Erika, the detective, starts the trial.
I don't know how anyone could get around this...

Spoiler for THEORY:

Ooh, nice, I missed that scene. And before anyone says something about how it's weird that they're both closing the door, the parlor has a double door.

Although, I guess this scene is still subject to the "not Erika's POV" loophole, if you're into that.

[Dlanor .A. Nox]

I want to help SeagullCrazy's theory a bit with a little theory of my own.

The culprit is aware of Battler's sin.
Battler's Sin happened six years ago.
Kanon worked for the Ushiromiya family for 3 years.
It is impossible for Kanon to be aware of Battler's sin.

If true this can eliminate Kanon as a suspect.

Also I have a question
when did Kinzo die?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Dlanor .A. Nox

Also I have a question
when did Kinzo die?

That's not certain. It's shown in episode 5 that he died maybe one to two years ago, but some people want to beleive he died fairly recently and unexpectedly.

I'll also add another theory in spoilers.

Spoiler for episode 6:

Jessica's name was never referred to in episode 6. If Jessica is the real Battler than the fact that Kanon rescued that person makes complete sense!!

Granted it rules out a candidate for Erika ball theory, (and considering episode 5 this is a complete troll on Erika since she gets rid of her detective authority in episode 6) but at the same time it explains something we can't find a motive for Kanon. Why rescue Battler? If JessicaBattler is true than it might explain the person from 19 years ago if her true birthday is really in october. That said I think the phone calls in episode 5 being from a boy might be a red herring if this theory is true.

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Dlanor .A. Nox

I want to help SeagullCrazy's theory a bit with a little theory of my own.

The culprit is aware of Battler's sin.
Battler's Sin happened six years ago.
Kanon worked for the Ushiromiya family for 3 years.
It is impossible for Kanon to be aware of Battler's sin.

If true this can eliminate Kanon as a suspect.

Also I have a question
when did Kinzo die?

According to what goes on in the first few chapters of EP5, it looked like Kinzo died shortly before the family conference of 1985. At that time, Kinzo had just died, and Krauss and Natsuhi didn't know what to do for the upcoming conference. Instead of playing it safe and leaving him in the study, they pretended he walked around outside. This made the other adults suspicious, which is why they act the way they do on the conference of 1986. If anyone tries to say that Kinzo died AFTER 1985 conference but BEFORE 1986, I don't think it's possible to explain the suspicious behavior of the adults in 1986.

And I don't think there's any evidence suggesting he died earlier than 1985.

[chronotrig]

That's just a bit of the stuff I've put together. No, I don't have a motive, but to be frank, to only solve the MYSTERY we're presented with, I don't need one.

Okay, I think you deserve an answer to this one, all things considered. It has never been said that Umineko is a mystery. In fact, Ryuukishi even went so far as to make fun of bad mysteries in EP5 (bad mysteries, not all mysteries). If you remember, there is a scene near the end when Battler asks "do the Knox rules apply to Beato's game?" And no one answered. I'm not saying that the answer here was yes or no, but this does make it pretty clear there's no guarantee that Umineko is a standard mystery.

Erika shows what happens if you try to solve Umineko as a standard mystery, even if you had the power to step into the game at times and create evidence. Since Erika failed, we can guess that the mystery approach might not be the best way to tackle Umineko. Like many people have done before (me included), Erika created a perfectly plausible solution to that single game. However, to "win" that game, Battler only had to prove that it wasn't the only solution, since he knew of an answer that made sense throughout all 5 games at that point.

Also, a standard mystery isn't allowed to even show you any magic, real or fake, so Umineko splits off into new territory pretty early on.

[Dlanor .A. Nox]

Damn oh well, I was going to think about the portrait and when it was commissioned and the time of Kinzo's death. No use going there I guess.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Okay, I think you deserve an answer to this one, all things considered. It has never been said that Umineko is a mystery. In fact, Ryuukishi even went so far as to make fun of bad mysteries in EP5 (bad mysteries, not all mysteries). If you remember, there is a scene near the end when Battler asks "do the Knox rules apply to Beato's game?" And no one answered. I'm not saying that the answer here was yes or no, but this does make it pretty clear there's no guarantee that Umineko is a standard mystery.

Erika shows what happens if you try to solve Umineko as a standard mystery, even if you had the power to step into the game at times and create evidence. Since Erika failed, we can guess that the mystery approach might not be the best way to tackle Umineko. Like many people have done before (me included), Erika created a perfectly plausible solution to that single game. However, to "win" that game, Battler only had to prove that it wasn't the only solution, since he knew of an answer that made sense throughout all 5 games at that point.

Also, a standard mystery isn't allowed to even show you any magic, real or fake, so Umineko splits off into new territory pretty early on.

I agree with you on this point. There is no guarantee Umineko is a standard mystery So it may not follow every single one of the Knox's commandments. However at the same time: There is no guarantee that it is entirely fantasy either and there are definitely mystery elements or Knox's rules could not be said in red. So at the very least some of them must be true.

Umineko could just as easily be in the sports, gambling/boardgame, or romance genres. Just because it's possible that it's not a standard mystery doesn't mean it has to be a complete fairy tale. If it was there would be no point in introducing Knox's rules.

Also I think Knox's 9th would allow for fake magic scenes to be listened to in this case. Ryu kind of made his own loophole there.

[SeagullCrazy]

Originally Posted by Dlanor .A. Nox

Damn oh well, I was going to think about the portrait and when it was commissioned and the time of Kinzo's death. No use going there I guess.

Actually, there's a possible connection. Now, I looked at the anime for this, since it would take too long for me to get to that point in the VN, but in EP1 Shannon says that in April of 1984 Kinzo hired a painter to paint it. So at the very least, I think it's reasonable to guess that his time of death is limited to April 1984 - October 1985.

But that still leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by SeagullCrazy

Actually, there's a possible connection. Now, I looked at the anime for this, since it would take too long for me to get to that point in the VN, but in EP1 Shannon says that in April of 1984 Kinzo hired a painter to paint it. So at the very least, I think it's reasonable to guess that his time of death is limited to April 1984 - October 1985.

But that still leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

In EP 5 it sounded like Kinzo died not very long before the October 1985 conference. So I'd say he died late September, early October.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Okay, I think you deserve an answer to this one, all things considered. It has never been said that Umineko is a mystery. In fact, Ryuukishi even went so far as to make fun of bad mysteries in EP5 (bad mysteries, not all mysteries). If you remember, there is a scene near the end when Battler asks "do the Knox rules apply to Beato's game?" And no one answered. I'm not saying that the answer here was yes or no, but this does make it pretty clear there's no guarantee that Umineko is a standard mystery.

It's clear Ryukishi is a huge mystery buff himself, with all the constant references and trivia being thrown around in Ep5.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that he might have used plot devices from other stories while writing Umineko. A lot of authors do this.

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Erika shows what happens if you try to solve Umineko as a standard mystery, even if you had the power to step into the game at times and create evidence. Since Erika failed, we can guess that the mystery approach might not be the best way to tackle Umineko.

No, Erika failed because she outright fabricated evidence and ignored everything that didn't point toward her pet theory. She simply picked the easiest person to accuse and went from there.

That's not mystery, that's anti-fantasy, regardless of what Erika says she is.

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Like many people have done before (me included), Erika created a perfectly plausible solution to that single game. However, to "win" that game, Battler only had to prove that it wasn't the only solution, since he knew of an answer that made sense throughout all 5 games at that point.

Hah, I'd never in a million years call Erika's solution "perfectly plausible". It's full of holes, some of which Battler exploited in his explanation.

That "two truths" business never made any sense to me anyway. Battler showed that Erika's explanation was (ridiculously) unsound, which should have destroyed any possibility of her "truth" being the correct one.

There is, by the very definition of "truth", only one. You can have multiple interpretations (subjective truth) but only one (objective) truth.

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Also, a standard mystery isn't allowed to even show you any magic, real or fake, so Umineko splits off into new territory pretty early on.

And this is what, in my mind, makes it so bloated, pretentious, and frustrating.

[chronotrig]

Well, what I said was the truth, whether you accept it or not.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

And this is what, in my mind, makes it so bloated, pretentious, and frustrating.

Please don't say things like this until you've figured out why "magic" appears onscreen in Umineko. There is a reason, and it's one of the cores of this puzzle.
This is exactly what the Ryuukishi used Erika to show. There's nothing wrong with an author trying to create a new genre, as long as it works. If you can't accept that, then it's probably best that you stop reading Umineko, because the odds are, you won't like what you get.

愛が無ければ視えない。(Without love, it cannot be seen.)

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Dlanor .A. Nox

I want to help SeagullCrazy's theory a bit with a little theory of my own.

The culprit is aware of Battler's sin.
Battler's Sin happened six years ago.
Kanon worked for the Ushiromiya family for 3 years.
It is impossible for Kanon to be aware of Battler's sin.

If true this can eliminate Kanon as a suspect.

A little modification:

Beatrice is aware of Battler's sin, so it's impossible for Kanon to be Beatrice on the basis of Dlanor's argument. However, there's no proof that Beatrice and the culprit are the same person, so Kanon could still be the culprit.

On the other hand, Beatrice insisted that the sin wasn't against her and that she didn't bear a grudge against Battler for it. There is a possibility that she's actually a close friend of the person who was sinned against, and learned of the sin from that person.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

No, Erika failed because she outright fabricated evidence and ignored everything that didn't point toward her pet theory. She simply picked the easiest person to accuse and went from there.

That's not mystery, that's anti-fantasy, regardless of what Erika says she is.



Hah, I'd never in a million years call Erika's solution "perfectly plausible". It's full of holes, some of which Battler exploited in his explanation.

That "two truths" business never made any sense to me anyway. Battler showed that Erika's explanation was (ridiculously) unsound, which should have destroyed any possibility of her "truth" being the correct one.

There is, by the very definition of "truth", only one. You can have multiple interpretations (subjective truth) but only one (objective) truth.

Well she definitely has an anti fantasy human perspective. She only created alibis by making so only people in certain rooms could be the murderer.

I find it interesting that Erika doesn't actually appear in the meta world until the trial scene after 24:00. She talks to the meta characters from the game board during the scene with the letter and other stuff, but she doesn't talk to them in the meta world until the game is over at the ???. So before 24:00 she represented Bernkastel, but after that she becomes her own individual meta peice. Which is kind of like early Battler in a way I guess.

[chronotrig]

That's not mystery, that's anti-fantasy, regardless of what Erika says she is.

Please show me a flaw in Erika's theory that doesn't use information from earlier episodes.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Please don't say things like this until you've figured out why "magic" appears onscreen in Umineko. There is a reason, and it's one of the cores of this puzzle.
This is exactly what the Ryuukishi used Erika to show. There's nothing wrong with an author trying to create a new genre, as long as it works. If you can't accept that, then it's probably best that you stop reading Umineko, because the odds are, you won't like what you get.

This is only true IF the magic scenes actually are metaphors for what's really going on, or if they're simply convenient, obfuscating 'outs'.

What I'm getting at is that Ryukishi can simply write off every single contradictory event (or, indeed, anything not from Battler's viewpoint) as an "oh, that never happened". This is the extreme danger (for the reader) when any author is writing fake scenes. But this is retreading discussion that I know we've all had before.

And yes, if the solution is something as inelegant and contrived as "Nanjo's granddaughter" or "Shannon and Kanon are the same person and in love with everybody" then yes, I will be visibly upset. This isn't what I signed up for at all! :HEH:

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Please show me a flaw in Erika's theory that doesn't use information from earlier episodes.

Erika's theory is set up deliberately to convict Natsuhi (as should be obvious, if we look at the timing of all her movements) but if you're looking for a flaw, to be honest, no, I can't think of one right now.

I was more referring to Meta-Erika, in any case. ...But why would using information from earlier episodes NOT be mystery?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Please show me a flaw in Erika's theory that doesn't use information from earlier episodes.

The meaning of "Anti-Fantasy" is as the words say. "Fantastic" phenomenon cannot exist in the world we live in. Those dream-like fairy-tales are nothing more than fiction. Even if someone believes in their existence, it's really nothing more than an exaggerating, politically-inclined delusion.

Oh please. It's not about not having hints. It's about how the entire purpose of her theory was to deny a magic witch legend rather than simply show how the murders happened. It didn't matter who it was because no matter who she chose there would be no love in her theory. At this point one person murdering everyone in every episode is just ridiculous there are obviously several accomplices and there is obviously a conspiracy of some sort on Oct of 1986. There are tons of hints for this.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Please show me a flaw in Erika's theory that doesn't use information from earlier episodes.

This is actually Bern's screwup, but at the end of the trial when she was hounding Natsuhi, she accidentally eliminated all of the places a living Kinzo could exist at midnight.