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

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

The whydunnit doesn't need to be a grandiose thing, Christie had people being killed because they didn't pay for ballet lessons! She had people being killed off because the culprit though the detective was a smug bastard. As long as you can fit the evidence thats presented and weave an entertaining story that compels people to try and solve it you've succeeded in making a mystery novel.

Ryukishi said he's trying to make it so we enjoy the whydunnit in his interviews. He's highlighted that it's important in Chiru very heavily too. It doesn't have to be overly complicated, but something overly simplified would be just as bad.

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Edit: It was certainly not needed to catch Higurashi's culprit, and even after we heard her story it didn't excuse the first thing she did. It also had relatively low relation to most arcs and other characters.

You didn't need her motive to figure out it was Takano, but Rika needed the motive to convince Irie and Tomitake of what she was capable of. So they actually did need it to catch her.

[UsagiTenpura]

Ah well, no debate there, if that's what R07 meant.
If the culprit can be stopped the chars on the board will need the motive to be able to convince the culprit to stop and the rest of what's going on, and if it already happened and is too late Ange will need to understand why this all occurred to reach a conclusion on her own and possibly move on.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

No, evidence is the strongest weapon you have to find the culprit and if characterization was used as a tool to determine the culprit its usually by determining who is the least likely person that could have committed the crime. Its usually him/her!

First off Knox's 8th. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented.. That means you have to actually read the story and gather clues and think about them to reach a conclusion. I could even go so far as to cite Featherine's dialogue here.

Second in comparison to the what I just quoted you saying THIS is a logical fallacy. The absence of something making somebody a culprit does not mean that they are. EVER. Otherwise there wouldn't be a concept of "fairness" in how you give clues to the reader when writing mystery novels. The classic scene in a mystery novel where the detective points to the culprit at the end and states all of the evidence and the conclusions he came to leading to who the culprit is would be the death tariff to your logic here. Even Erika understood this. The culprit is the person who has the bread crumbs leading to him/her.

I don't see any difference between what you are saying here, from the approach the theories about Kinzo and Natsuhi had at all.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by Judoh

First off Knox's 8th. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented.. That means you have to actually read the story and gather clues and think about them to reach a conclusion. I could even go so far as to cite Featherine's dialogue here.

Second in comparison to the what I just quoted you saying THIS is a logical fallacy. The absence of something making somebody a culprit does not mean that they are. EVER. Otherwise there wouldn't be a concept of "fairness" in how you give clues to the reader when writing mystery novels. The classic scene in a mystery novel where the detective points to the culprit at the end and states all of the evidence and the conclusions he came to leading to who the culprit is would be the death tariff to your logic here. Even Erika understood this. The culprit is the person who has the bread crumbs leading to him/her.

I don't see any difference between what you are saying here, from the approach the theories about Kinzo and Natsuhi had at all.

I dont understand why you're harping at this, I said evidence was the most important thing for the detective in solving the mystery. We as a reader though could determine who the culprit is by targeting one of the least likely persons, I never meant for the detective to actually do this!

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Have you even read Chiru? It's like you learned absolutely nothing from the example of Erika.

Which one? Both of EPs 5 truths are impossible, the red states it. EP6? Battler screwed up his game because of his sin which inadvertently got the people killed. again. My theory regarding EP6 is that theres a reason why the game started earlier than normal, theres a reason as to who the victims where, theres a reason as to why it was only Rosa and Maria that where not in a room with a chain lock.

RK07 stated theres a good chance EP8 would be low key, that it would answer all the questions but it wouldn't have a lot of jumping and flying around.

[Judoh]

I dont understand why you're harping at this, I said evidence was the most important thing for the detective in solving the mystery. We as a reader though could determine who the culprit is by targeting one of the least likely persons,

Because I disagree?? What does least likely mean anyway? Least likely to who? And you said that no evidence is the best weapon we have to find the culprit. Do you have examples of where that's happened? Because you talk about it like it's fact. If you don't want me to harp on you clarify what you mean first.

I never meant for the detective to actually do this!

Well the reader sort of is the detective in Umineko isn't he? Really what's the difference?

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Which one? Both of EPs 5 truths are impossible, the red states it. EP6? Battler screwed up his game because of his sin which inadvertently got the people killed. again. My theory regarding EP6 is that theres a reason why the game started earlier than normal, theres a reason as to who the victims where, theres a reason as to why it was only Rosa and Maria that where not in a room with a chain lock.

It's not about the 'truths' they arrived at. It's about the process in creating the theories. Why do you think most of ep 6 was 'I acknowledge this reds'? Red text doesn't matter as much as you think it does. We have to follow it and adjust to it, but the text in the story is much more important. It can draw the lines between who is innocent and who is guilty.

Your present problem is not to explain the villainy of the guilty: it's to explain the stupidity of the innocent.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Because I disagree?? What does least likely mean anyway? Least likely to who? And you said that no evidence is the best weapon we have to find the culprit. Do you have examples of where that's happened? Because you talk about it like it's fact. If you don't want me to harp on you clarify what you mean first.

"The classic detective story often contained certain elements that defined the genre including a notable investigator, numerous suspects; the guilty person was the least likely suspect, a locked room murder, and the story ending with a final plot twist."

We could say that this story is different and the most likely suspect is the culprit but I dont want to believe that.

e-Also I agree about the red truth, its red for a reason. Its mostly used as a matter to distract (like red herrings!) and even battler alludes to that. The point is that the red is used to constrict the possible truths and trying to understand the effects or the reasons as to why a character uses them or doesn't should be important in the story. Example, in EP 6 battler could have restricted Erika and prevented her from creating a truth where she killed those 5. At one point he refuses to acknowledge one of Erika's arguments, he could have given a limited response saying "After this point, no murders will be committed IN THESE ROOMS" (The point being after the rooms stopped being 'locked') this would have prevented her from killing the family members later.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

"The classic detective story often contained certain elements that defined the genre including a notable investigator, numerous suspects; the guilty person was the least likely suspect, a locked room murder, and the story ending with a final plot twist."

We could say that this story is different and the most likely suspect is the culprit but I dont want to believe that.

The point is that least likely and most likely are completely opinionated things that depend on what one person thinks over another. I don't beleive there is a something like that in Umineko anymore.

The least likely suspect IMO would be the person whose been completely ruled out by the red. But that's also about perspective.

What I don't want to beleive is that this author would pull a culprit out of thin air purely for shock factor. It would be a major cop out at this point in the game and for most of the characters it would just seem cartoony. Especially when he states we should look back at the story after the reveal.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

At the same time even if it is needed to make full sense out of everything, which I agree, it doesn't mean it has to be grandiose. In fact there's no such things as a grandiose reason for mass murder.

I would gladly take that challenge, because there totally is such a thing. It ain't pretty, it ain't happy, but grandiose? Oh yes, I can think of ways it would seem like the most important thing in the world to the people wrapped up in it.

In fact, I'd say the more ramped up a murder spree in a short time period gets, the more grandiose the reason has to be for the killer to be able to justify it to him/herself without merely being a psychopath.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by Renall

I would gladly take that challenge, because there totally is such a thing. It ain't pretty, it ain't happy, but grandiose? Oh yes, I can think of ways it would seem like the most important thing in the world to the people wrapped up in it.

In fact, I'd say the more ramped up a murder spree in a short time period gets, the more grandiose the reason has to be for the killer to be able to justify it to him/herself without merely being a psychopath.

What possible reasons? The siblings would be money, that much is obvious. Jessica and George could be their love interest. Natsuhi would be revenge, thrown baby battler would be revenge as well you could even argue Kyrie falls into this. The servants would be... I dont know proving they aren't furniture? Its just that of the evidence just doesn't add up (if you take into consideration Dyne's and Knox's laws).

If the events before the games are constant, then the envelopes with money should have been sent before all the games. Was the person that sent them the culprit? Was it allied with the culprit? If they had that amount of money from the start then you could argue the motive isn't money so that eliminates the syblings. So is it revenge? Battler and Natsuhi have been eliminated as candidates with red so that leaves Kyrie, Jessica and George. All of which at one point or another have ended with a stake somewhere in their body or with their heads smashed.

You could argue about a clever suicide method like in And then there where none, or them feigning death. But what would they kill themselves after pulling out say their grand revenge? The only reason Wargrave killed himself afterwards was because he was already dying for a terminal disease. Has any reason pop up for Kyrie wanting to kill herself?

[AuraTwilight]

You're missing the really simple and really obvious answer to Renall's challenge. Think "bomba" and go from there.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

You're missing the really simple and really obvious answer to Renall's challenge. Think "bomba" and go from there.

So kinzo wanted everyone dead and planted a bomb and the riddle is to reach it and disarm it? Im sorry, I dont buy that.

[Renall]

I didn't give a reason because I don't mean to imply that I necessarily believe that the reason is grandiose, only that when dealing with explosions, ritual murders, a hidden cache of pure and unmarked gold, and a dead patriarch kept alive by conspiracy, there's plenty of ways for an elaborate and excessively self-justified plot to take root.

But it's also possible that there isn't such a thing. But could there be? Absolutely, and the crazier things get the easier it is to believe it.

[UsagiTenpura]

The killer might claim their reason is grandiose and might at best/worst feel that way. It doesn't make it a grandiose thing.

Edit: The more the killer feel grandiose about it the most petty a reason it is likely to be, like Takano.

[Renall]

Grandiosity is not a subjective standard. If the killer aspires to grandiosity, then his or her rationalization and/or execution is grandiose. Period.

If there are two guys who robbed a bank, and one guy says "I did it because my family was hungry and I needed money" and the other guy says "I did it to call attention to the feeble state of security people experience in their daily lives, even in 'safe' places like banks, so I robbed a bank even though I didn't really want the money," the first guy had no grandiose motive and the second guy did, even if their robberies were identical in execution.

Likewise in implementation: Between the guy who shoots someone once and the guy who stabs with a ritualistic implement, then mutilates the corpse and paints a magic circle on a wall and later blows up everything anyway, the former plan cannot ever be called grandiose by any standard where the latter is quite literally the dictionary definition of awe-inspiring, overambitious excess.

If a person were to, say, aspire to a series of ritualistic stabbings following a cryptic epitaph to be blamed on a fictional witch, and did so out of some vast and sweeping belief that greed and distrust have driven a sinful family to the brink of Hell and that an uncontrollable outside force murdering them would absolve them of sinfulness, that wouldn't be a justified act, but it would certainly be grandiose in just about every imaginable way.

[UsagiTenpura]

Being insane, incoherent and outright ridiculous (depending on which examples you said) isn't what I consider grandiose sorry. Grandiose is in the goal, that's fine with me, but that still doesn't apply to ... well at least these cases.

No one would ever murder an entire family out of that completely nuts and coming out of nowhere belief unless they have a bad chemical balance in their brains, or have been conditioned to it by someone. In any case I'd never believe anyone actually thinks that and if that's what R07 is trying to make us swallow won't work on me. Killing up to the 9 years old kid, the guy who left the family for six years and even the nowhere cook makes it especially obvious that any such given reason is totally BS.

[Renall]

Look, you're wrong. You're arguing the definition of a word. You can't do that.

grandiose, adj.
1. large and impressive, in size, scope or extent
2. pompous or pretentious

A ridiculous serial murder followed by an explosion is grandiose. A high-minded and self-delusional "higher end" motive is grandiose. Whether a person is right or wrong in their justification has nothing to do with whether the rationalization they are using to attempt to justify it meets a certain property.

[AuraTwilight]

So kinzo wanted everyone dead and planted a bomb and the riddle is to reach it and disarm it? Im sorry, I dont buy that.

That's not what I was getting at, at all. You know, it'd be really helpful if I knew how far you've read. I don't know how indepth I should allow myself to go on some things.

No one would ever murder an entire family out of that completely nuts and coming out of nowhere belief unless they have a bad chemical balance in their brains, or have been conditioned to it by someone. In any case I'd never believe anyone actually thinks that and if that's what R07 is trying to make us swallow won't work on me. Killing up to the 9 years old kid, the guy who left the family for six years and even the nowhere cook makes it especially obvious that any such given reason is totally BS.

You're confusing "This person's reasoning or motive is grandiose" with "This person's reasoning or motive is right/justified" or even "This person's reasoning or motive isn't fucking batshit crazy."

If that's what you think grandiose means, you're mistaken. Furthermore, since we have reds saying that Beatrice (assuming "Beatrice" means "culprit") didn't kill for money, revenge, etc., we're left only with either A) It's a Red Truth trick and it wasn't referring to the culprit at all because Beatrice is absolutely innocent, B) She killed for love (see Battler's promise herp a derp), or C) She killed for a grandiose, even if sane or mistaken, purpose.

I dare you to find another option that doesn't fall under one of those three.

[UsagiTenpura]

And I'm saying it cannot apply to mass murder, because the killer never honestly feels that way. A killer might claim their reason is grandiose but no I will never accept that someone isn't aware that mass murder is extremly petty unless they're basically not in control of their own actions (such as someone with a massive disorder).

And no I am not confusing the two. You can have a grandiose war, most likely, but not a grandiose mass murder of a family.


Edit: She killed by accident, how's that? Tho don't get me wrong I agree with you these, tho I believe C to be unthinkable and B to be ridiculously unsympathetic ,.... tho I cannot rule it out, I think killing for love wouldn't bring much forgiveness to Beato. Emo teens tho are too absorbed in their emotions has become quite a boring thing. Remains A she's absolutely innocent... of murder.

Here's something to think about tho, in the way nutso kind of way. What if Beatrice was the culprit and she did all she did because she wants her sole believer, Maria, to be proven right in her beliefs.

[AuraTwilight]

And I'm saying it cannot apply to mass murder, because the killer never honestly feels that way.

Well look at little miss Esper. Can you read the killer's mind?

A killer might claim their reason is grandiose but no I will never accept that someone isn't aware that mass murder is extremly petty unless they're basically not in control of their own actions.

Or if they're crazy...or overtaken by emotion...or have no frame of reference for the real world, if we want to implicate a certain servant girl who's been on a closed island all her life with nothing else but some detective novels.

Honestly, if you don't think a person can have a grandiose reason for mass murder of a family, you haven't taken a basic criminology course.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's not what I was getting at, at all. You know, it'd be really helpful if I knew how far you've read. I don't know how indepth I should allow myself to go on some things.

Im inside this thread, you can assume that I've read at least till EP6.