[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Well, my personal complaint with the theory is that how in the heck would Yasu have created this whole Ikuko identity a mere few weeks at best after the incident? Ikuko has servants and a family and everything, and she's been writing manuscripts for years.

Yasu had two years before the incident to work on her Ikuko identity. In particular, the gold could only be converted into money little by little, and yet she had already amassed a huge amount by the time of the incident. There must have been some reason way ahead of time to start building up an external bank account.

Furthermore, as far as I can remember, Ikuko had not published ANY manuscripts prior to meeting Tohya. There is also no evidence of her supposed family's existence, as Tohya never met them.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

EP5, actually. And EP5 SEEMS to be an episode that Ikuko might've had greater influence over, since it doesn't seem Toya cared for it much, given Meta-Battler's behavior.

I saw EP5 (at least, the pre-replay version) as the one that neither of them wrote. It was a horrible theory vomited up by Witch Hunters on the internet that Tohya found and tried to destroy on his own.

[AuraTwilight]

Publishing her manuscripts is irrelevant, she still has seemingly hundreds lying around in her home office.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Except, that's not the case at all.

For one thing, there's Knox's Decalogue, which Beato's gameboard follows, and Dlanor uses Battler's former Detective status to combat the claim that he hallucinated Kinzo out in the rain.

I'm not asking what Detective's Authority is comprised of; I am asking what it is. What's it for? How does it function? How was this explained and when? That kind of thing.

As for me, based on the way that Erika uses it I say that Detective's Authority is a tool used from the Meta-World to permit the Player some more control over the Game Board's narrative.

This is a post of mine from a few days ago. It's what I'm basing my current theory on.

Spoiler for length:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I think Erika is just kind of a "what if" insert character. The things she does on the Game Board that aren't depicted in the Game Board narrative are just made up on the spot in the Meta-World. As long as what she makes up is possible for a human, the Game Master must accept it (this isn't a rule per se, it's just that the GM would have no logical ground to deny it).

The most clear example of this is Erika in EP6 when she kills off all the First Twilight fakers. Since we learned from EP8 that the GM knows everything that happens on the Game Board (with the exception of things done by a second Game Master), BATTLER should have known everything Erika's Piece was doing the moment it happened. This basically leaves us with these two options:

• Erika assumes incorrectly that she can take actions with her Piece without BATTLER's awareness, and BATTLER knows this and plays the fool. I don't like this explanation, mostly because I don't think Erika would make such an assumption
• Retroactive writing-in: In the context of the Meta-World, Erika's Piece had not killed anyone on the Game Board until the moment Erika said she did. Thus nothing actually happened without BATTLER's immediate awareness.

If you apply this also to the trial of EP5 then Bernkastel providing Reds and Lambdadelta "acknowledging" Erika's powers makes a lot more sense. This means that what's going on in the Meta-World as the Games progress is really a fight for control of the narrative of the given Game Boards.

So what does this mean for Piece-Erika's observational powers? These powers are not used passively; their effects are entirely made up from a Meta-World context. They are a tool for the Player to enforce their own narrative; a way for the human side to actually make the story take on certain truths that the witch's side can't reject or evade. Otherwise no matter what the human side says that they saw or did, the witch could just say they saw it wrong or didn't do what they thought they did.

So, in sum, Erika's Detective Authority powers and natural observational abilities do not exist to ensure Meta-Erika knows what her Piece sees. They exist as a tool to control the Game Board narrative from the Meta-World, not to understand it. Incidentally, trying to control rather than understand is probably Erika's fundamental mistake.

To add a couple more things and re-sum up:

• There is no Piece-Erika perspective version of End for private viewing by Bern or Meta-Erika.
• Thus discussions on Piece-Erika's perspective and its reliability are unintelligible in the context of the Meta-World.
• Of course this means that no reliable perspective for End's narrative exists at all.
• However, that's already true for us readers since we ourselves only see Battler's perspective, thus if Meta-Erika only has access to that one same narrative then she's being treated no less fairly than we readers are.
• Detective Authority, including the Decalogue, exists.
• Detective Authority has nothing to do with a "reliable perspective".
• Detective Authority's purpose is to control the Game Board's narrative from a Meta-World standpoint, not to understand it. To put it another way, Detective's Authority doesn't improve a detective's observational skills, but rather it forbids certain things from existing in the first place (i.e. It is forbidden for hidden passages to exist. etc.).
• Erika is fully aware that Detective Authority works in this way.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm sorry I can't recall all the exact details of something that was last explained almost ten pages ago. The entire conversation got sidetracked like a hundred times by different tangents.

How about you stop being a dick every time you talk to me? Every time I try and be nice to me and make up you have to waltz in and make personal jabs.

The problem is that you're not very good at following a complicated argument, but instead of accounting for that by asking questions to understand better you often choose to make up for it by arguing harder. The result is that you end up resorting to straw-man and circular arguments that you don't even know that you're making. It's very frustrating to have to go back and explain the holes in your understanding every time you do this (which is quite often), especially because you're so defiant that you don't even want to hear me lecture you on this stuff.

I'm not going to tolerate this any more, and that's why I'm being a dick to you. Deal with it as you will.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

I saw EP5 (at least, the pre-replay version) as the one that neither of them wrote. It was a horrible theory vomited up by Witch Hunters on the internet that Tohya found and tried to destroy on his own.

I've seen it this way before, too. Although Ange gives "Hachijou Touya" credit for End in EP6. What do you think that's about?

[AuraTwilight]

The problem is that you're not very good at following a complicated argument, but instead of accounting for that by asking questions to understand better you often choose to make up for it by arguing harder. The result is that you end up resorting to straw-man and circular arguments that you don't even know that you're making. It's very frustrating to have to go back and explain the holes in your understanding every time you do this (which is quite often), especially because you're so defiant that you don't even want to hear me lecture you on this stuff.

I'm not going to tolerate this any more, and that's why I'm being a dick to you. Deal with it as you will.

I could say the same thing about you, buddy. I distinctly remember having an argument with you hundreds of pages back where you refused to answer questions I asked you ,or responded by quoting earlier statements without clarifying. Other people in this discussion, like Toku, have had NO PROBLEM having a meaningful discourse of clarifications, question-asking, argument-following, and non-fallacious reasoning.

The common denominator between all your unpleasant arguments is You. Renall, and atleast Jan-Poo in one instance, have also called you out on logical fallacies and personal insults and jabs. If you're not willing to have a civil and polite discussion with me, that's your fault, not mine.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Lenyo

I am entirely not a part of these debates and speculations, but I just am gonna throw something completely unrelated in to know if anyone ever found a reason to credit or discredit the whole Ikuko may be Shkanontrice shebang?

I'm one of those who thinks Ikuko is Yasu. There are many who disagree, however.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

There are a fair number of hints.

Spoiler for my usual Ikuko=Yasu arguments:

There are actually three ways to connect Ikuko to Yasu in Ikuko's name alone:

• Touya's name came from the age 18, which was Battler's age at the time of the Rokkenjima incident. Ikuko's name can be phonetically read as 1-9; 19 was Yasu's true age at the time of the incident.
• Shannon's "real" name, Sayo, can be phonetically read 3-4; Kanon's "real" name, Yoshiya, can phonetically be read 4-4-8; Ikuko is phonetically 1-9; Touya is phonetically 10-8 (but the kanji reads the same as the number 18); and there is also her author alias Itouikukuro Reigonamu, which Ange figured out can be read in numbers as 11019960576 (or 18^8). Basically, Ikuko and Yasu share the pattern of naming people using numbers.
• The Kanji reading of Ikuko's name literally means "many children". This can be interpreted numerous ways, but I always found it interesting how Claire would constantly refer to herself as "one but many".

Other hints include:

• How mystery novels are the basis of both Battler/Shannon's relationship and Ikuko/Touya's relationship.
• Ikuko's interest in adopting somebody she found on the street, apparently without attempting to contact his family, giving this person a new name, including her own family name, only after speaking with him a few minutes.
• Ikuko bribing the doctor to not tell anyone about this person.
• If you think of Will as Touya (which makes a lot of sense to me), it explains how Will is able to gain access to information that even his Battler-memories would almost certainly not have (but Yasu would); in other words, it explains in real world terms how Will could have gained special access to Theatergoing Authority.
• I find Beatrice in EPs 3 and 4 to be too dynamic to simply be a projection; I think it makes more sense to believe she is grounded on someone currently alive in the real world. I also think the same thing for Lion in EPs 7 and 8.
• The idea that Touya wrote EP3-5 without yet having figured out Beatrice's game, yet somehow presenting Beatrice's game correctly, I find difficult to accept. The only way would be if Touya figured it out from only the first 2 episodes plus Battler's memories, but in that case Meta-Battler's seeming ignorance becomes tricky.

That's not all but I don't feel like expending the energy to articulate any more at the moment.

Originally Posted by Lenyo

By the time of the third book, he'd be trying to convince Ikuko that Eva, the only other survivor, is clearly the culprit. Eventually, he realizes even that's wrong.

Interesting. I really like this idea.

Originally Posted by Lenyo

I don't think it's an exact mirror; so I don't think I explained myself well enough. I think it's more along the lines of Beatrice and Battler in the meta were representations of how Ikuko and Touya argued. I don't think that every time Ikuko made toast, Beatrice did, as well. Know what I mean?

I more or less think the same thing. Battler and Beatrice at that point exist as dormant concepts that can only deal with each other in the context of a Meta-World, and their interaction is actually facilitated through the mediums of Touya and Ikuko. It's kind of a neat way to bring those two "forgotten" selves to the forefront of the story.

[Remon]

I really think that you should all confirm your theories or statements before you post them here. Try rereading the novels. I was led astray many times when members declare a statement as fact. Like the one with Ikuko having published stories before meeting with Battler. Which led me to almost drop the YasuIkuko theory. However I reread the novel and it turned out to be false. That's slightly annoying.

[Toku]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Publishing her manuscripts is irrelevant, she still has seemingly hundreds lying around in her home office.

You could be referring to the description of the 1998 Hachijo's house, rather than the 1986 Hachijo.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

stuff

Just wanted to say, you've actually said a lot of cool stuff. While I don't necessarily agree with all of it, I do find that you end up saying a lot of stuff that just needs to be said. I don't really think that you've done anything wrong.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Other people in this discussion, like Toku, have had NO PROBLEM having a meaningful discourse of clarifications, question-asking, argument-following, and non-fallacious reasoning..

Actually, I've had so much trouble just trying to figure out what your definition of Erika's reliable perspective is, that I've ended up frustrated more than a few times.

The first time I argued my theory, we went off on some kind of tangent, and I couldn't figure out what you guys were trying to say in your counter-arguments, and it was apparently rejected. I had nearly given up on arguing about it, because every time I asked for details or evidence I was pretty much ignored by both you and Renall. All I could figure out was that it had somehow invalidated Erika's reliable perspective. And this time, even though I used a lot of the same arguments, it was apparently decided that it did not invalidate Erika's reliable perspective.

Though, granted, you said it was baseless and useless and a bunch of other stuff. But that's basically your opinion... And you never said that it didn't work, which is good enough for me I guess.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I've seen it this way before, too. Although Ange gives "Hachijou Touya" credit for End in EP6. What do you think that's about?

I think the "replay" narrative, which includes the entire Man From 19 Years Ago subplot, can be attributed to Tohya, along with any meta-narrative that may have existed in the text.

---

Regarding the parlor question, here are my two cents. I'll try to keep it brief.

Kealym's solution, that Kanon had his own body in EP5, has three important properties:

• It consists of only two moves, both of which are already known to be legal: "counting furniture as people" (EP3 1st twilight) and "changing the premise" (EP2 2nd twilight).
• It explicitly removes the heart of Beatrice's story in the most direct way possible.
• It does not require unrestricted speculation about the contents of a cat box to explain the characters' behavior.

Wanderer, I could accept that Kanon's presence had been falsified during the introduction scene because of the part with Kinzo in the woods later, and because Piece-Erika had no reason to believe everyone was present. However, in the accusation scene, the absence of one of the servants should have caused her to react somehow. I have trouble believing that she would proceed with the accusation before establishing what happened to the missing person, but we saw nothing like that at all from Battler's perspective. So doesn't your theory go beyond just editing in an unseen character to outright lying about the detective's own actions in a way that alters the course of the story?

[Toku]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Regarding the parlor question, here are my two cents. I'll try to keep it brief.

Kealym's solution, that Kanon had his own body in EP5, has three important properties:

• It consists of only two moves, both of which are already known to be legal: "counting furniture as people" (EP3 1st twilight) and "changing the premise" (EP2 2nd twilight).
• It explicitly removes the heart of Beatrice's story in the most direct way possible.
• It does not require unrestricted speculation about the contents of a cat box to explain the characters' behavior.

Wanderer, I could accept that Kanon's presence had been falsified during the introduction scene because of the part with Kinzo in the woods later, and because Piece-Erika had no reason to believe everyone was present. However, in the accusation scene, the absence of one of the servants should have caused her to react somehow. I have trouble believing that she would proceed with the accusation before establishing what happened to the missing person, but we saw nothing like that at all from Battler's perspective. So doesn't your theory go beyond just editing in an unseen character to outright lying about the detective's own actions in a way that alters the course of the story?

Just curious, what do you mean by "changing the premise"? I know that EP2 2nd Twilight was the one where Jessica and Kanon were killed, and Kanon was "moved" somewhere else. However, I'm not sure how that relates to this.

Also, "counting furniture as people" isn't really what this is, is it? Sure, Kanon is being counted as a separate person, but that's because he has his own human body now and can act independently and at the same time as Shannon.

Additionally, while Piece!Erika has no reason to believe that everyone is present... I think that Meta!Erika does. Unless those Red Truths were only given during the retelling and she never heard them. If Meta!Erika does have reason to believe that everyone is present in that room, though, then she should direct her Piece to confirm exactly who is in the room and who is not.

I suppose you're right about the accusation scene, though. That does make it more difficult. The only theories I can come up with for that at the moment involve Kanon is behind Gohda so... Well, I mean, unless Kanon has his own body in EP5.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Toku

Just curious, what do you mean by "changing the premise"? I know that EP2 2nd Twilight was the one where Jessica and Kanon were killed, and Kanon was "moved" somewhere else. However, I'm not sure how that relates to this.

Also, "counting furniture as people" isn't really what this is, is it? Sure, Kanon is being counted as a separate person, but that's because he has his own human body now and can act independently and at the same time as Shannon.

"Changing the premise" refers to how Beatrice redefined the number of master keys on the island, which had originally been left unspecified. It later became one of the elements of Battler's argument about Kinzo in EP4, when he claimed that Beato had altered his life-or-death status for the fourth game.

"Counting furniture as people" concerns the statement that the number of people on the island is the same as in previous games. In order to make this work out, the "number of people" for the previous games must count Shannon and Kanon separately despite them sharing a body. However, this is a legal move because Beato counted the victims of the 1st twilight in EP3 as "six people".

That move by Beato demonstrates that the restriction of "number of people" to "number of bodies" only applied to statements made after Erika requested that clarification in EP6, so freely varying the interpretation was possible for the previous games.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Toku

Just wanted to say, you've actually said a lot of cool stuff. While I don't necessarily agree with all of it, I do find that you end up saying a lot of stuff that just needs to be said. I don't really think that you've done anything wrong.

Thanks, but I really am being a dick.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

I think the "replay" narrative, which includes the entire Man From 19 Years Ago subplot, can be attributed to Tohya, along with any meta-narrative that may have existed in the text.

That's an interesting idea, but not what I was asking about. Why did Ange say (I'm paraphrasing from memory here) "In Hachijou's latest forgery, End, she killed 7 off my family members."?

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Regarding the parlor question, here are my two cents. I'll try to keep it brief.

Kealym's solution, that Kanon had his own body in EP5, has three important properties:

• It consists of only two moves, both of which are already known to be legal: "counting furniture as people" (EP3 1st twilight) and "changing the premise" (EP2 2nd twilight).
• It explicitly removes the heart of Beatrice's story in the most direct way possible.
• It does not require unrestricted speculation about the contents of a cat box to explain the characters' behavior.

The "Kanon has his own body" idea I've never completely rejected because it's simple and logically consistent; it also works even better if End was written by someone else.

But I still feel that the introduction scene and the Reds surrounding it are unnaturally suspicious. Add the fact that Battler's perspective is unreliable and for the first time he starts seeing Kanon and Shannon together; it really begins to seem like Battler sees Kanon and Shannon together because his perspective is unreliable.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Wanderer, I could accept that Kanon's presence had been falsified during the introduction scene because of the part with Kinzo in the woods later, and because Piece-Erika had no reason to believe everyone was present. However, in the accusation scene, the absence of one of the servants should have caused her to react somehow. I have trouble believing that she would proceed with the accusation before establishing what happened to the missing person, but we saw nothing like that at all from Battler's perspective. So doesn't your theory go beyond just editing in an unseen character to outright lying about the detective's own actions in a way that alters the course of the story?

There are a couple ways to look at it, depending on what dictates Piece-Erika's behavior. Piece-Erika does not have an independent perspective from Bernkastel/Meta-Erika but is still entirely controlled from the Meta-World, either by Bern or Lambda (or the "original story" itself if that's something different from Lambda's game).

• If it's Bern controlling Piece-Erika, she's doing it based off of the idea that both Kanon and Shannon are in the room.
• If it's Lambda controlling Piece-Erika then Piece-Erika's actions make sense if you suppose she never even met a second ShKanon servant (did Piece-Erika ever mention each of their names at some point in EP5?), thus Piece-Erika wouldn't think a person was missing if only the one servant appeared.
• Piece-Erika knew that Kanon and Shannon were the same person but didn't care. After all, her concern was Natsuhi.

Maybe there's more possible explanations.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

"Counting furniture as people" concerns the statement that the number of people on the island is the same as in previous games. In order to make this work out, the "number of people" for the previous games must count Shannon and Kanon separately despite them sharing a body. However, this is a legal move because Beato counted the victims of the 1st twilight in EP3 as "six people".

Kinzo was also one of those people, but he never counts for the "people on the island".

We know from EP6 with BATTLER's trick answer to Erika's "everyone else is in the cousins' room" question that Kanon doesn't count as a person when Shannon is "active". The love duel especially supports this. Thus even though Kanon and Shannon can each be "dead" "people" at the same time, they can never both be counted as "people on the island" at the same time.

That's the way I see it.

[AuraTwilight]

You could be referring to the description of the 1998 Hachijo's house, rather than the 1986 Hachijo.

I'm referring to when Ikuko and Toya just met, and he noticed all her unpublished manuscripts.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

We know from EP6 with BATTLER's trick answer to Erika's "everyone else is in the cousins' room" question that Kanon doesn't count as a person when Shannon is "active". The love duel especially supports this. Thus even though Kanon and Shannon can each be "dead" "people" at the same time, they can never both be counted as "people on the island" at the same time.

not as "humans", but as people they can, however it is impossible for them to exist at different places at the same time. If you take the example from EP6, then you see that it is impossible for one to be in the "cousins room" and the other to be in the "next room over".

But counting them as different poeple in itself is a valid red truth, including Kinzo. In EP3 it was said: "6 people: Kinzo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, Gohda, and Kumasawa are dead!"

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm referring to when Ikuko and Toya just met, and he noticed all her unpublished manuscripts.

Yasuda had much time (2 years i think) after becoming "head of the family". And she was indeed able to spend some of it outside the mansion (e.g. Shannon's and George's Date)

It is possible, that she was already preparing a new identity as Hachijou Ikuko back then. And she also tried to be an author. Her lack of confidence is also reflected in the scene, where Ikuko doesn't want to publish her stories, which is fitting Yasuda's character.

[Bluemail]

If End is originally a story made by Witch Hunters, that would explain why it's a replay of a game Battler didn't participate in on it's original run.

Perhaps in the forgery on which End was based on, the writer believed Natsuhi was the culprit. They added in Erika after hearing about her accident, as an avatar of themselves solving the case. We can attribute this to Bernkastel actually, as she says she "added herself on the gameboard as a piece". Bernkastel is implied to be a collective voice of the Witch Hunters as well. If you want to believe in the "everything is Meta" -theory, the Witch Hunter/player/forger/whatever could just be Bernkastel.

But Lambdadelta was the Gamemaster, not Bernkastel. So maybe the product that catched Tohya/Ikuko's interest was a discussion between two parties, rather than a simple writing. Lambda is implied to know the truth however... If Ikuko=Yasu, maybe she used another false name on the internet. Maybe Ryukishi07 was doing this himself? I don't know.

Anyway, back to Erika. Maybe the Piece-Erika in End is like Battler in Legend. After that game was finished, she ascended to Meta, like Battler. Another parallel to the first question arc in the first core arc sounds plausible.


My theory is this:

• Erika is the self-insert piece added on Rokkenjima by a Witch Hunter to present their solution to the mystery.
• In the original End Erika was a piece in Kanon did have a body, as the writer hadn't realized Shannon and Kanon were the same person, and were after Natsuhi instead.
• The replay is a revision of the original that follows Beatrice's heart. What we see as End of the Golden Witch is partially twisted by Meta-Battler/Tohya and unreliable Piece-Battler's perspective and perhaps writing. Ikuko might also have edited things before Tohya saw the original.
• The red truths Erika and Bernkastel use on the gameboard and Natsuhi's trial are based on trust in Knox rules, Detective's authority, gameboard evidence and the player wanting to force their solution.
• Lambdadelta didn't use the reds regarding the number of people in the original end, because they were only needed to convince Battler to accept the unfamiliar new piece.
• The other Meta-things Erika does are purely the original player/writer breaking the fourth wall, and not about existing in the same layer as Meta-Battler and Meta-Beatrice.
• Meta-Erika is the ascended form of the Piece-Erika from the original End. After ascension, she never takes the perspective of Piece-Erika in End again. She witnessing both Shannon and Kanon remains in her memory. That's why she finds nothing odd in Battler seeing them both and wasn't able to figure out the truth in EP6.

I think this is thematically very consistent with EP5, and gives some insight into how the gameboard works as well.

Come to think of it, maybe Beatrice's death has to do with her accepting the Natsuhi culprit theory as the final answer to her mystery, because she couldn't wait for Battler to arrive at the right solution anymore. That's why Erika became a Witch of Truth, until she was deprived of that when Battler finally found the truth.


About Ikuko=Yasu, as people have said before me, the two years we didn't see and the huge pile of gold she owns might have enabled Yasuda to create a fake identity. Maybe her game on Rokkenjima also served as some kind of funeral for Shannon, Kanon and Beatrice, if she couldn't go with any the cousins.
And what stops her from having written a lot of those unpublished manuscripts during the six years before the incident?

[AuraTwilight]

Yasuda had much time (2 years i think) after becoming "head of the family". And she was indeed able to spend some of it outside the mansion (e.g. Shannon's and George's Date)

They were not short manuscripts by any means. Even if we assume Yasu had six months of free time per year, and thus an entire year of leisure, she would not have the time to literally write hundreds of manuscripts.

[GreyZone]

It was never stated how many manuscripts exist exactly. It could have been 3000, 300 or just 30.

Also, as Bluemail stated, there is still the possibility that she already started much earlier with the manuscripts and later let them be transported by Genji to her... "future home". She did have her own room and EP7 showed her interest for mystery books (which she had earlier already though, when she shared and discussed them with Battler). So who would stop her from trying to write manuscripts?

[AuraTwilight]

It just stretches my suspension of disbelief. Ikuko and Yasu don't really have anything in common aside from a name pun, to me.

And if her Ikuko identity was created like two years before the incident, why does her name translate to "19"?

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It just stretches my suspension of disbelief. Ikuko and Yasu don't really have anything in common aside from a name pun, to me.

And if her Ikuko identity was created like two years before the incident, why does her name translate to "19"?

It doesn't translate to "19", it translates to "many-child", as in "I am one yet many". The 19 comes from goroawase the same way you get 18 from Tohya. That said, you make a valid point about her age, but we don't know when Yasu's birthday is. It could have been up to a year ago in late 1985, and the actual creation of the new identity could have taken place anywhere in that period.

Also, "19" is a significant number to Yasu in another way. In her mysteries, Beatrice is the mysterious 19th person, right?

[Lenyo]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

They were not short manuscripts by any means. Even if we assume Yasu had six months of free time per year, and thus an entire year of leisure, she would not have the time to literally write hundreds of manuscripts.

I'm going to very possibly piss you off in saying I think that Ryukishi, if he did intend Ikuko to be Yasu, would have wrote the story exactly how it is written. Yasu would be a famous writer (I don't see any reason to believe Yasu didn't write a fuckton of manuscripts in... Well, the 19 years she was alive.) You don't think Ikuko is Yasu, or that Ryukishi intended this and I understand, but if you're saying "If we assume Yasu was Ikuko and had x amount of time, it makes no sense." I just think it does if x=19.

Also, Touya doesn't have anything in common with Battler. At all. That's because it's very blatantly said that Touya is not Battler. He just has Battler's body and eventually his memories. I also think Ryukishi was pulling in Alexandre Dumas (if you've read Count of Monte Cristo, I'm referring to how in a very literary sense, Edmond Dantes dies when he jumps into the ocean, though his body and mind still very much exist, he's just a completely demented person.) I think Battler and Yasu died, but what was leftover of them wrote and sorted out the tales after it all happened quite conveniently so we, the readers, did not have to.

I'm kinda just throwing my shit for each episode out as a response.

(this is from memory of when I first sorted this all out one day while doodling in calc, so it'll be a little fuzzy. Point out shit to me and shove shit I don't get in my face. Please. This is basically how Ikuko=Yasu applies to the games. If this is what other people think, well I didn't see it on the last page and that's about how not lazy I am to look for it or think of a word that means not lazy.)
(I also tend to get silly, but not while making my point any less.)
Episode 1's pretty easy explanations are that Yasu was the culprit with the servant's help. Ikuko probably thought "Oh well bippity doppy dooda I probably went and killed everyone, huh? Sucks for me lol I'ma write it as a confession." And at the end of writing it and makin' it all famous under the name of Ushiromiya Maria, she finds Touya, picks him up, dusts him off, talks to him about Ep1 and he's all like "wtf man, no"
I think Touya actually understood Legend as a mystery book, solved it with Yasu and refused to accept that.

And he says that Ikuko is wrong so she's gonna make another manuscript and he's gonna offer his input.

Quick Magicese-to Real translation
"This means magic did it!"- Yasu was the culprit.
"I refuse to believe that." - Touya cannot believe Yasu did it for reasons he's not positive about.


I honestly don't remember what bullshit I thought up for Episode 2.

But Ep3, as I said before and will now restate, is Battler bein' all "oh well herpy derp lookat me! Eva is the culprit because she is alive. Take that. Zippaty doo" but is unable to make a fully convincing argument in even this. I mean, come on. He said zippaty doo.

Episode 4 is Touya actually slowly starting to regain his memories and make more clueless conjecture that starts to be right. Ikuko starts to become extremely distraught with how Touya is so disconnected from Battler that she asks him if he even remembers the promise he never kept, which the amnesiac Battler does not. (He remembers confessing to Shannon at one point, but never that it was such a weighty ordeal. His mind could only recall the events, but he wasn't Battler so he didn't know the importance of them.

Episode 5 is Battler giving up on finding any truth and sitting most of the writing out. However, I think Erika is actually supposed to represent Ange to an extent, or really just anyone obsessed with finding the truth of Rokkenjima no matter what. Once episode 5 is almost done, Touya gains Battler's memories and tells the real world equivalent of Erika in some form or another that if they think they've got it all figured out by figuring out one culprit, he'll do it just as easily by naming another possible culprit. (I also think this could be symbolic Battler kinda trying to get Ange to ease away from figuring things out, as Touya does not want to be figured out by Ange.)

Basically, I think his memories came with him believing that he was a culprit and so then he made the jumbly garbly Episode 6 where not many people die or whatever. I think Episode 6 is him writing a story with Ikuko to give himself closure and convince himself that neither he nor Yasu are the culprit. Towards the end of the book's making, Ikuko is as convinced by the whole shebang that she helps the Battler in Touya reach that end.

Episode 7, however, is Touya really starting to not believe that he is Battler, but just has Battler's memories. (Basically Touya is Will, but Battler is not.) So Touya takes on the whole tale from a very objective point of view, pretty much making clear sense out of anything he feels like.

I never really applied this to Episode 8 (I sorta lost interest in analyzing this series after I read Episode 8, for some reason.)

Anyone who thinks I'm dumb as shit, please tell me and I will respond. If you think otherwise, great.

Edit because I forgot: Also, Clair and her stories about growing up as Yasu is actually really sad if Will is Touya, because that would mean Ikuko was spilling her guts to Touya and Touya couldn't really care more than feel sorry for her.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

not as "humans", but as people they can, however it is impossible for them to exist at different places at the same time. If you take the example from EP6, then you see that it is impossible for one to be in the "cousins room" and the other to be in the "next room over".

But counting them as different poeple in itself is a valid red truth, including Kinzo. In EP3 it was said: "6 people: Kinzo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, Gohda, and Kumasawa are dead!"

Except that:
At the time the next room over was sealed, Hideyoshi, George, Kumasawa, Shannon, and Nanjo were in it. And, the number of people in the next room over was five. No one existed there except for those to whom those five names referred! All people can only use their own names!!

And since everyone else was in the cousins' room, that means Kanon did not exist at all at the time, or at least did not exist as a countable person.

This is why I think ShKanon never counts as two living people and never has. At any given time Yasu is either Shannon, Kanon, or neither; she's never both.

Of course you can just say that ShKanon can just count as 1 or 2 people as the the Red-speaker desires. But my interpretation is logically consistent and keeps the Red Truth tighter.