[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 7 Requiem of the golden witch

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

I wonder how long this will go back and force, probably until I finally fall asleep...at 11 in the morning

Haha, I will dance with you until you are tired. I was in the middle of thinking of an outline for my next novel, and this discussion is an excellent way of keeping my little grey cells working. Oh, I also would like to take this moment to thank you for this great discussion in case I end up falling asleep half way through it.

Still, shining above the rest is a horrible thing to expect from a novel, at least in my opinion. It has forced many writers to cook up even more insane solutions to top already insane solutions that other writers had. While I love a certain amount of over the top'ness in things I read, I still want to be able not only to guess the Who, Why and How, but also understand the working of the mind of both detective and culprit.
The Hollow Man expected as much wild guessing, as you accuse Umineko of, or doesn't it?!

Spoiler for Solution to Carr's The Hollow Man:

Don't tell me there is anyone who would expect Grimaud running across the roof, around, through the appartment, down to the door and accidently be hit by the bullet only to be able to walk all the way back to his home, while being in his costume and still playing all of it straight

While expecting a solution that shines above the rest might be expecting too much, when a writer does pull it off, it is amazing. Ever read the Inspector Mayo mysteries? Recentish, and one of them had an amazing twist that would make John Dickson Carr proud!
As for The Hollow Man, funny you would mention that one. I used to have that same opinion on it, until my editor forced me to read scholars interpretations of it. He basically assigned the 4 of us who are writing mystery novels to make our novels the most reminiscent to a certain Golden Age writer, and he had me in charge of "recreating" Carr.

There was a great essay by an English professor on why a logical mind should arrive at that answer before any other, that blew me away. I don't have it here with me, but I could send you a pdf of it later. It was amazing, and almost felt like reading The Hollow Man for the second time.

I would be quite interested in which novels you have already read. I'm currently writing my Bachelor's thesis on Japanese detective fiction and will probably center my studying for my Master's degree around it, too.
It's different, depending on which ones you read, because everyone has a different approach to the genre itself. As you probably know, pretty much everything in literature changed during the 60's and 70's.

Yes I am aware of that. Most of the novels I read so far were by Akimitsu Takagi, but I read others as well.

As you have probably already read, I wouldn't say it's about less fair, it's about being a different kind of challenge. It is no longer the Armchair detective approach (or as the Japanese would say 安楽椅子探偵), but a process that involves more active thinking and shifting around.

I don't mind active thinking. Ellery Queen could force you to be quite active a few times, while still using the single-strike approach. But the genre did change, I know that.

But, and you will notice that more and more when reading Japanese novels, every author does that. The genre has become highly selfreferential in Japan and meta-planes within a novel are nothing rare anymore.
You will meet very many detective characters, like Kyougoku Natsuhiko, Mitarai Kiyoshi or Shimada Kiyoshi, who reference Western works and authors, because how strikingly similar cases are constructed to those originals. That is something that is also to be found in Umineko, where everything seems to be constructed based on Christie's 'And then there were none', with several other indirect quotes strewn in.
And the most common criticism towards it's own genre, found in those novels is, that while pure reasoning may bring you to the truth, but it will also destroy everybody who is involved into the conflict.

I can acknowledge that if the entire Japanese genre shifted that way, it would be unfair to compare it to the Golden Age only because it references it. It would however, remain "cheating" if analyzed under Dine and Knox assuming that we consider the original intentions behind those rules.

He did not misunderstand them, as you might have interpreted it, but he has unmasked them as something as what they are generally accepted nowadays, reliable, but outdated and cruel. Prescribing that a servant can never be a culprit, or that it can never be a major criminal involved makes a mystery very predictable, because you can scrap certain theories right from the start.
What use would be there to involve a witch into this game, if you could just scream a Dine rule into the room and make it all clear.

They are outdated in the sense that the very world those stories are supposed to be set in has changed. A servant not being the culprit was a valid rule for Dine's time, as even today some misinformed people claim that 'The Butler did it' even though I personally don't recall a single novel where the Butler was actually the culprit.
I don't want the Dine rule to be my weapon, I want it to be my arena.
The intention behind those rules is one that cannot be tainted, the intention of rules set up to make a good mystery novel, and escaping cliches.
Today we have a different set of cliches than they do. The rules are outdated. But their original intention was, as I'm sure you will agree, to offer a fair solvable and fun intellectual challenge to the reader. If one chooses to "obey" Knox and Dine such as Ryuukishi, he has to submit himself to that old fashioned set of rules loved so much back in the golden age. If he had never touched Knox and Dine, I wouldn't have any problem with the series.

And look at it like that, you are very free to draw a conclusion, in fact most of them are right in front of you by the end of the 1st few episodes. Combine that with the Knox and Dine rules and you could probably make a perfect solution, like Erika did and nobody could prove you wrong so far.
That is what 新本格 is about among other things, showing how there are flaws in detective fiction as well. You even said it yourself, there are so many counter theories, even to made up books...how can you then say that there can be just one truth?!

Here is where I point towards my beginning statement. A solution that shines above all else as making more sense, being more beautiful and surprising! That is the one truth! It is perhaps too much to expect from most writers, but it is the ideal they should strive for.

Also on the subject of one truth, am I the only one who wonders how Conan(from the manga, not the writer) would do in Umineko?

"There is only one truth!"

...Yeah Conan about that, you are in the wrong place to be saying that.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

That's what I disagree with. No I'm not serious about believing Umineko is fantasy, tho I think some of the twisted logic sometimes used in theory is actually harder to accept then fantasy.

And this is actually where I don't get why you have a problem with that: why then involving witches and whatsoever? If it was supposed to follow your cutting edge mystery, you really wouldn't have an arc system whatsoever.

Twisted logic only works when people are spoonfed and doesn't go past the red truth that were presented. Even Battler speculated some red truth had some underlying meaning back in Episode 2. He even says out loud that Beatrice's refusal of saying something in red in Ep2 may be a red herring.

As for comparing Higurashi to Umineko, it's a very fair and valid argument that might be wrong but cannot be proven so until arc 8 comes out.

You just cannot compare Higurashi with Umineko, because of the actual fanbase. Higurashi was 90%+ known through the anime medium, which just screwed so badly the presentation that having a proper storytelling for "mystery solution" isn't really applicable. People would certainly think twice after seeing Keiichi's interview instead of what DEEN has plainly done.
Moreover, Higurashi wasn't bound to the detective rules: we didn't have any detective until Himatsubushi, which was left out of the leftfield until Minagoroshi kicks in with Rika.

Comparing the process of both stories and their fanbase is a grave mistake.

What I'm saying is that the ones who certainly will not be dissapointed are the "casual" fans of Umineko. I guess I could add to that the people who will be satisfied no matter what. Actually at this point even if arc 8 would be something that everyone would hate, it'd be lying to ourselves to claim we didn't enjoy most of the arcs. So in this case it's almost like he picked up a fight he already won.

And I say you are starting this train of thought, from the premise that "Ryukishi has made an unfair mystery, and so, proper thinker won't be satisfied).
I dunno, it seems you are still unable to accept the solution of the epitaph, despite the whole Qilian theory was found by people way before Episode 7 spoilers came out.

I dunno, but your statement is really arrogant: you are thus claiming that any fan who doesn't think about the mystery will be satisfied no matter what. Do you expect me to believe that thousands of fans would just follow this train of thought, without even knowing all of their expectations whatsoever? That's like claiming that Episode 8 will be X, because you have such expectations and think it is the truth.

I am not in any ways questioning the worth of Umineko itself and continues to believe it will bring an answer that's mostly satisfactory, yet I don't expect that answer to be fully fair and it doesn't bother me as long as it's not senseless. I do think however the provocation of arc 7 is uncalled for (assuming that theory is right) and is not fair of Ryukishi.

Provocation? what provocation?

[crazysjd89]

Originally Posted by TehChron

It could imply anything, to be honest. But then, its a nice touch that Battler's birthday is one half of the code, what was the rest of it again? I remember it being applicable to a date, but I honestly dont recall what it was.

1129, the same date Yasu solved the Epitaph.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Umineko consists of around 80 pieces of a hundred-piece puzzle. Sure we can guess what the final picture looks like, but that is not the same as solving. Not everything will fall in place until the author decides to tell us. And that is a bastardization of the mystery genre.

As a long time mystery fan myself, and someone who loves logic puzzles and puzzles in general, I disagree with this.

Solving a puzzle is more about observation then it is about deduction. For example, most people go for the easiest observations first 'These are corners and sides, so it's easy to place them', and after that, you use what's on the pieces to fit it together in the puzzle.

I think what you described would be more like a mystery then a full puzzle. You have to use observation to put the 80 pieces together, and you use deduction and the information you have (the 80 pieces) to figure out what would be on the other 20 pieces.

It would be unfair if all 20 pieces were missing from the same location (such as missing from the top left corner), but if they are all spread around, you can more or less deduce what's on any one piece.

Then again, my definition of 'fair' is also skewed by the fact that the more challenging something is, the more I enjoy it. I think if you can go back through a mystery, reading it, and go 'Oh, that does match with the solution', then it's fair. For me, something that I ended up not being able to solve, but could have solved it, is more enjoyable then something I can look at and very easily solve.

I'm sure you know, but there's a very thin line mystery writers walk (you even mention it). They have to put clues in the story, in order to give a challenge to the reader. But if they make those clues too obvious, then it becomes an easy and disappointing solution. But this line isn't concrete, since the solution can be very challenging to the point where it might feel like guessing.

And this is where I agree with that line about 'Wanting a fair mystery etc.' Because by many people's idea, a fair mystery isn't 'I could have solved it' but one where they go 'I did solve it' or 'I almost solved it'. Sadly, there are a lot of people who hate certain mystery books because they 'did not solve it' and not because 'they could not solve it'. I think this is what he meant by 'fair' and not what you seem to think he meant by 'fair' (I easily could be wrong, this is just an assumption.) But, as long as there are clues to the solution, no matter how difficult it is to reach that deduction, it is still 'fair', or at least in my opinion.


In Ryukishi's case the mystery is very challenging and subtle where it may be necessary to make guesses, but he repairs this by adding a different sort of clues, which is the red truth.

Although, this red truth is probably the biggest problem I have if shkanon is true. I sort of dislike the idea of saying 'x is dead because he was just a personality'

Another thing that may or may not be seen as clues is fantasy scenes in the real world (Such as Virgillia fighting Beatrice, or Gohda, Shannon, and George in Natsuhi's room). Since Episode 3, I have strongly believed that these scenes, while not what really happened, were very close to what did actually happen.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Ryuukishi has said that the novel is "solvable" as of episode 4.

That is where I accuse him of cheating. He assumes that "solvable" and "guessable" are interchangeable.

There are tons of solutions we could propose right now, of varying probabilities of being right. His recurring theme of alternate truths hinders the novel from being fair. He basically tells us that the answer is a number between 1 and 10, and wants us to guess which one it is. Sure we can get the right answer, but even if we do, it won't be because we solved his puzzle.

I disagree with this, because it's possible to apply this to many mystery novels. Not every reader will come to just before the detective declares the solution and have the correct answer. If everyone did this, there would be no point to reading mystery.

People come up with solutions that they think are plausible, but are wrong. Some may have been mislead or some may really be plausible, or perhaps they just missed the clues, but not everyone reaches the correct solution at the end.

What I believe Ryukishi is saying is not 'there are 10 truths, pick 1 - 10', but 'there may seem to be many possibilities, but only one will really fit'.

Let me use And Then There Were None, for example. And keep in mind I haven't read it for awhile, so my memory of the facts may be wrong. Instead of the real culprit, you could just as equally say 'Emily Brent faked being injected with poison'. This might seem like a good solution, but in truth, there are several small problems with it as far as the story goes. But these problems are small enough where you might not realize them, so you think it's a possibility. For example, she did not really have a way to know of all the people on the island and her crime did not stand-out like the true culprit's did.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Ryuukishi wants us to come up with possibilities because he wants us to play his incredibly rigged game. He has the upperhand in an unfair way. Again, once he declared the mystery to be solved, he should not present us with evidence that changes the way we think.

This is true in a conventional sense, but Ryukishi's novel isn't. Most novels are only written as one story. And most mystery novels don't put much emphasis on other genres, if any at all.

His is one where he planned to spread it across 7 or 8 novels, and aside from mystery, he also included a lot of other genres. So he is not solely writing mystery. In a mystery novel, it would have been common to, after saying Episode 4 made it solvable, to put the solution in Episode 5. But he's got several characters and relationships developed, and while in mystery it is acceptable to ignore them, in things like romance, tragedy, or drama, it is suppose to slowly work out all the problems.
In Episode 5, he made Battler come to the realization of his 'sin'.
In Episode 6, he gave Battler repentance, and proof that he understood his sin and Beato.
In Episode 7, he is revealing more about not only Beatrice, but of other characters as well.

In a normal mystery, these are things that no one would care about. But, in my opinion, Umineko, while mainly a mystery, also has several other genres it is defined under. I think that if you read it as just a mystery it will be unsatisfying.

Giving us clues in Episode 5 -7, I think, is more like the detective very slowly saying how the murder was committed. In other words, the detective flat out says the clues, and gives the reader more time to work out their theories. And while he does this, he prepares the story to be ended off on his other genres.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Kyrie and Rudolf as the culprit? Why not go with Krauss and Natsuhi as the culprit? You can make a case for either one. The fact your theory matched the truth presented in the game board is not evidence that the mystery is solvable.

By the commandments of mystery, there is a fair possibility of saying that Krauss and Natsuhi are not the culprits. Because they were seen by 'the detective', Battler. And that was before Nanjo's death to.

Nanjo's death would be the big clue, and everyone instantly jumped to the three who died in the mansion, specifically Kyrie and Rudolph.

To flip your argument around, what clues do you have that Natsuhi and Krauss are the culprits? Particularly, their motive. Krauss seemed to really believe this would be the last family conference before he would get his big break. To kill everyone and go into hiding would be wasting away his efforts. It is a similar argument to why someone who is blackmailing another person wouldn't kill the person they are blackmailing. The only reasonable cause would be self-defense, but it seems unlikely Krauss would pull off such an elaborate scheme on the fly, with self-defense.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Seeing guessing as an evolution to solving is a mistake.

I agree and disagree with this. Guessing is certainly not in the same category as solving. But sometimes guessing can help solve, by eliminating possibilities. A better way to put it would be guessing can help you find clues you missed before.

Like what I said up there, someone may 'guess' Natsuhi and Krauss are the culprit, but then someone else may bring clues that they hadn't thought of before to their attention, which rewarps the way they think.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Hypothesizing demands a basis, while blues do not. You can argue that "Krauss killed Kinzo because he punched a goddamn goat therefore he can do anything" and it would have to be struck down by a red in order for your move to be invalid. You would not get any counter if you were just hypothesizing.

I agree with this. The blue is not like hypothesizing. I likened the blue to more 'asking a person who already read the book if your solution is correct, being told it isn't, and trying to solve it again.' Of course, this means anyone could do what you just said, and make wild guesses until they hit.

But anyone who is looking clearly wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim in the first place, otherwise they would be doing it for a very long time.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

That contradicts the unwritten rules of this gentleman's duel, as the reader should be allowed to confirm his solution through logic before going into the final chapter.

It is true that you should be able to confirm your solution, but it doesn't mean that you won't feel uneasy about your solutions, because there are other possibilities that seem right but have one error that you have not thought of.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

He mocks the idea of a single truth.

He wants us to think of multiple truths.

I do not think he was doing this. I think he was simply emphasizing that you can't make a single truth without looking at other possibilities. This is why there are 'suspects'. The suspects are a list of 'possibilities'. And you look at how each could have committed the murder, and using all that, you should be able to solve who did it and how.




This has been a bit of a long post, and I'm sorry for responding to things severa posts ago, I just want to close by saying:

Umineko, once again is a bit different from other mysteries as far as length is concerned. And he gives the multiple different worlds thing for each episode. The volume of information we are given makes it possible to make even more theories then an average mystery novel, which means, at the same time, there will be more solutions that seem like the right answer, but have a glaring error that the person overlooked.

I hope no offense was taken from this post, I just wanted to state my opinion.

[UsagiTenpura]

Feels like I'd have to resume too many posts but I guess I'll try.
In a few words no, I do not like the answers brought by arc 7. That's okay, that's not because Ryukishi is bad or wrong, it's just me who doesn't like it.
Even before the arc came out tho, because of my understanding of Bernkastel, I was more or less assuming that arc 7 would mostly be fan made theories weaved together and that it'd be mostly wrong. Around the time it came out I started to think that was unlikely because I didn't see much of the point in doing so.

Then a theory was presented in which arc 7 exists solely for the purpose of showing us where twisted logic and these theories lead, and that the truth of arc 7 were made to fire us up so much and make us despise the arc 7 answers so much that we'd want to prove them wrong no matter what and actually start to make much more serious and better theories then what's presented to us.

Seeing as I was already inclined to disregard arc 7, that theory sorta appeals to me, however if this is true then I think that, in short, if he himself basically meant to attack us by making us reject arc 7 as unsatisfactory because of it's hard to accept logic, then he's claiming himself his own answer IS satisfactory and doesn't contain the sort of logic argument that's suppose to fire us up within arc 7. Then comes expectations about what arc 8 and doubts as if he's able to deliver such expectations.

If that theory is wrong, then all that amounts to nothing. I end up being a person who doesn't find the answers provided by arc 7 satisfying and that's just the end of it. Ryukishi didn't do any wrong.

If that theory is right, however, I can't help but think it's a really insulting attitude of Ryukishi unless he can really satisfy our expectations. Since I feel like it won't affect him much even if we're dissapointed, I think he's not taking risk in the process. I think most fans wouldn't mind too much if he used a lot of deus ex machina as part of his "truth". I don't think he's going to really use that, but seeing as I see Umineko as a riddle rather then a simple equation to find the solution of, I think that not only more then one answer can coexist but that neither is inherently of superior satisfaction. Unless, as I said in my example of the cheese riddle, that a solution exists that has both the qualities of "3" and "1" at once. Such a thing would be amazing but I have troubles believing it exists because of the variety of expectations toward what would be satisfying from people.

After all some people are wholly satisfied by the truths explained in arc 7.

So I'm not sure if that theory is right or wrong. If it's wrong that's sorta the end of it. If it's right then basically I like Umineko better as a story overall but think that arc 7's existence is nothing but a giant troll. I basically think if that theory is right it makes arc 7 worst then if arc 7 is actually the truth, seeing as in the later case it's really just me (and some others) who doesn't like it.

Most recent posts were made in the optic that this theory is right.
I am not the creator of that theory either.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

The reason behind that is because you simply cannot make a "only one theory" before Episode 4. This is because, due to the approach of Ryukishi (as, showing several tales and features such like red truth etc), the story itself is already a melting pot of various genres at once, which means you already cannot compare it to golden age mystery. This is another take of mystery from an author that has nothing to do with the famous western authors.

It doesn't make his mystery any contradictory. In fact, Episode 5 was made to actually show that "multiple truths" can be effective, -but- this is only applicable as long as the cat box isn't opened (therefore, like any mystery novel: when the solution is brought to light).
From the very beginning, as soon as he introduced the "multiple truths", he made sure that people were actually trying to find potential solutions, but CONFRONT them to see if it makes sense.
As far as it goes, I really can't see how Umineko didn't portrayed a "single truth" before the interview, considering the various concepts and red truths, implying "what is really going on".

If multiple truths are possible, then that means that until we get to the last chapter(opening the box) we won't be able to know if our answer is correct, even if we can see a contradiction with our theory(that contradiction being that another theory is equally plausible) unlike most mystery novels.

As a long time mystery fan myself, and someone who loves logic puzzles and puzzles in general, I disagree with this.

Solving a puzzle is more about observation then it is about deduction. For example, most people go for the easiest observations first 'These are corners and sides, so it's easy to place them', and after that, you use what's on the pieces to fit it together in the puzzle.

I think what you described would be more like a mystery then a full puzzle. You have to use observation to put the 80 pieces together, and you use deduction and the information you have (the 80 pieces) to figure out what would be on the other 20 pieces.

It would be unfair if all 20 pieces were missing from the same location (such as missing from the top left corner), but if they are all spread around, you can more or less deduce what's on any one piece.

I can agree with you there. The debatable part would be how many pieces are missing and from where they are from. While it certainly looks like they are from the same corner, I acknowledge that maybe a shining solution is available and I just can't see it.

Then again, my definition of 'fair' is also skewed by the fact that the more challenging something is, the more I enjoy it. I think if you can go back through a mystery, reading it, and go 'Oh, that does match with the solution', then it's fair. For me, something that I ended up not being able to solve, but could have solved it, is more enjoyable then something I can look at and very easily solve.

I agree. However my problem with Umineko is precisely that. It is possible to have a solution, and have no contradictions arise from it while still being wrong.

I'm sure you know, but there's a very thin line mystery writers walk (you even mention it). They have to put clues in the story, in order to give a challenge to the reader. But if they make those clues too obvious, then it becomes an easy and disappointing solution. But this line isn't concrete, since the solution can be very challenging to the point where it might feel like guessing.

And this is where I agree with that line about 'Wanting a fair mystery etc.' Because by many people's idea, a fair mystery isn't 'I could have solved it' but one where they go 'I did solve it' or 'I almost solved it'. Sadly, there are a lot of people who hate certain mystery books because they 'did not solve it' and not because 'they could not solve it'. I think this is what he meant by 'fair' and not what you seem to think he meant by 'fair' (I easily could be wrong, this is just an assumption.) But, as long as there are clues to the solution, no matter how difficult it is to reach that deduction, it is still 'fair', or at least in my opinion.

If Ryuukishi meant things the way you are suggesting them, I would be in agreement with him. But the way he implied it, it felt a bit different. I am fine with "could have solved it." I could have solved the murder of Roger Ackroyd. I did not. I lost. But it still remains a fair mystery to me. Ryuukishi's anti-fantasy theory is that so long as the answer is possible, even if ridiculously hidden and unfair, it is still valid. If he meant as you assume he did, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

In Ryukishi's case the mystery is very challenging and subtle where it may be necessary to make guesses, but he repairs this by adding a different sort of clues, which is the red truth.

Although, this red truth is probably the biggest problem I have if shkanon is true. I sort of dislike the idea of saying 'x is dead because he was just a personality'

Another thing that may or may not be seen as clues is fantasy scenes in the real world (Such as Virgillia fighting Beatrice, or Gohda, Shannon, and George in Natsuhi's room). Since Episode 3, I have strongly believed that these scenes, while not what really happened, were very close to what did actually happen.

I have that same problem with Shkanon. It feels...Cheap.

I disagree with this, because it's possible to apply this to many mystery novels. Not every reader will come to just before the detective declares the solution and have the correct answer. If everyone did this, there would be no point to reading mystery.

People come up with solutions that they think are plausible, but are wrong. Some may have been mislead or some may really be plausible, or perhaps they just missed the clues, but not everyone reaches the correct solution at the end.

What I believe Ryukishi is saying is not 'there are 10 truths, pick 1 - 10', but 'there may seem to be many possibilities, but only one will really fit'.

Let me use And Then There Were None, for example. And keep in mind I haven't read it for awhile, so my memory of the facts may be wrong. Instead of the real culprit, you could just as equally say 'Emily Brent faked being injected with poison'. This might seem like a good solution, but in truth, there are several small problems with it as far as the story goes. But these problems are small enough where you might not realize them, so you think it's a possibility. For example, she did not really have a way to know of all the people on the island and her crime did not stand-out like the true culprit's did.

I would argue that And Then There Were None was not a fair mystery, but that's beside the point. I don't think every reader reaches the truth before the detective does. I think that every reader should have the RIGHT to do so. Most writers tip the balance towards the real solution more heavily than Ryuukishi does, which makes the whole thing so complicated.

Not realizing and not being able to solve it even if you realize it are two different things!

This is true in a conventional sense, but Ryukishi's novel isn't. Most novels are only written as one story. And most mystery novels don't put much emphasis on other genres, if any at all.

His is one where he planned to spread it across 7 or 8 novels, and aside from mystery, he also included a lot of other genres. So he is not solely writing mystery. In a mystery novel, it would have been common to, after saying Episode 4 made it solvable, to put the solution in Episode 5. But he's got several characters and relationships developed, and while in mystery it is acceptable to ignore them, in things like romance, tragedy, or drama, it is suppose to slowly work out all the problems.
In Episode 5, he made Battler come to the realization of his 'sin'.
In Episode 6, he gave Battler repentance, and proof that he understood his sin and Beato.
In Episode 7, he is revealing more about not only Beatrice, but of other characters as well.

In a normal mystery, these are things that no one would care about. But, in my opinion, Umineko, while mainly a mystery, also has several other genres it is defined under. I think that if you read it as just a mystery it will be unsatisfying.

Giving us clues in Episode 5 -7, I think, is more like the detective very slowly saying how the murder was committed. In other words, the detective flat out says the clues, and gives the reader more time to work out their theories. And while he does this, he prepares the story to be ended off on his other genres.

I don't quite agree with "most mystery novels don't care about other genres."
Also, Battler's "sin" relates to possible motive someone would have for murder. Which is important for a mystery.

By the commandments of mystery, there is a fair possibility of saying that Krauss and Natsuhi are not the culprits. Because they were seen by 'the detective', Battler. And that was before Nanjo's death to.

Nanjo's death would be the big clue, and everyone instantly jumped to the three who died in the mansion, specifically Kyrie and Rudolph.

To flip your argument around, what clues do you have that Natsuhi and Krauss are the culprits? Particularly, their motive. Krauss seemed to really believe this would be the last family conference before he would get his big break. To kill everyone and go into hiding would be wasting away his efforts. It is a similar argument to why someone who is blackmailing another person wouldn't kill the person they are blackmailing. The only reasonable cause would be self-defense, but it seems unlikely Krauss would pull off such an elaborate scheme on the fly, with self-defense.

Krauss' business skills are questionable at best. That something went terribly wrong and he lost everything he gained has been foreshadowed enough(for Umineko's standards) and would be enough motive for murder.

First Twilight of the first game: He had half his face left. He hid part of his body in the other side of the wall. It has been done in a novel by Ellery Queen before. It would explain Natsuhi's calm posture despite her husband's death. He hid in Eva and Hideyoshi's room, and killed them. Kanon, being a servant, respected the will of the new head to a religious degree and faked the room being closed in the first place. All murders in the first game are easily explainable if Krauss faked his death. While the identity of all bodies has been confirmed, their death was never confirmed. Krauss could have been lying there. Nanjo was shown to be easily bribed at least twice before, so it isn't a stretch to assume he was an accomplice.

He of course, would not go into hiding. He would probably frame someone as the culprit, and then claim self defense.

I agree and disagree with this. Guessing is certainly not in the same category as solving. But sometimes guessing can help solve, by eliminating possibilities. A better way to put it would be guessing can help you find clues you missed before.

Like what I said up there, someone may 'guess' Natsuhi and Krauss are the culprit, but then someone else may bring clues that they hadn't thought of before to their attention, which rewarps the way they think.

Like you said it yourself, I agree and disagree with this. Guessing can be useful to sharpen your blade of logic before you strike, but it should not be your weapon.

It is true that you should be able to confirm your solution, but it doesn't mean that you won't feel uneasy about your solutions, because there are other possibilities that seem right but have one error that you have not thought of.

I agree. But you should have at the very least good enough reasons to think you are right.

I do not think he was doing this. I think he was simply emphasizing that you can't make a single truth without looking at other possibilities. This is why there are 'suspects'. The suspects are a list of 'possibilities'. And you look at how each could have committed the murder, and using all that, you should be able to solve who did it and how.

Hmm this is a matter of interpreting what he said. If he meant it as you say he did, I would be fine with it. But to me it sounds like "IT IS ARROGANT TO THINK YOU ARE RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT" which is the wrong mindset for a mystery writer in my opinion.

This has been a bit of a long post, and I'm sorry for responding to things severa posts ago, I just want to close by saying:

Umineko, once again is a bit different from other mysteries as far as length is concerned. And he gives the multiple different worlds thing for each episode. The volume of information we are given makes it possible to make even more theories then an average mystery novel, which means, at the same time, there will be more solutions that seem like the right answer, but have a glaring error that the person overlooked.

I hope no offense was taken from this post, I just wanted to state my opinion.

Don't worry and no offense taken. Feel free to respond as much as you wish, I love arguments like this one.

[Leafsnail]

Anyone seeing similarities with episode 3? I mean, in that, Battler just takes Eva as the culprit and says how she could've done all the murders without any explanation as to why.

[crazysjd89]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

I agree. However my problem with Umineko is precisely that. It is possible to have a solution, and have no contradictions arise from it while still being wrong.

You acknowledge this in your previous paragraph, but, as you said, there is a possibility there is a solution that sticks out of the rest, and there's also a possibility of some oversight and something seems to be correct and uncontradictory.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

I would argue that And Then There Were None was not a fair mystery, but that's beside the point. I don't think every reader reaches the truth before the detective does. I think that every reader should have the RIGHT to do so. Most writers tip the balance towards the real solution more heavily than Ryuukishi does, which makes the whole thing so complicated.

Not realizing and not being able to solve it even if you realize it are two different things!

I agree with this, I guess it's just a matter of opinion on if what Ryukishi presented was solvable or not. I will acknowledge that Ryukishi makes it really hard. You likened it to 'fighting a knight with a bone', which might be a fair comparison. But for me, doing that, as far as a battle of wits go, is even more fun then being on fair ground, heh. Although I can understand why others might be upset by such a thing.

May I ask what book you consider a fair mystery?

Originally Posted by Will Wright

I don't quite agree with "most mystery novels don't care about other genres."
Also, Battler's "sin" relates to possible motive someone would have for murder. Which is important for a mystery.

I should have worded that a bit better. It's not that they don't care about it, but they don't put as much emphasize on it. Battler's sin relates to the motive for sure, but in a novel that is pure mystery, there would be no need for all Ryukishi has written on it. As I described Episode 6 is like Battler's 'redemption', which in a pure mystery novel, would most likely never be put in.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Krauss' business skills are questionable at best. That something went terribly wrong and he lost everything he gained has been foreshadowed enough(for Umineko's standards) and would be enough motive for murder.

First Twilight of the first game: He had half his face left. He hid part of his body in the other side of the wall. It has been done in a novel by Ellery Queen before. It would explain Natsuhi's calm posture despite her husband's death. He hid in Eva and Hideyoshi's room, and killed them. Kanon, being a servant, respected the will of the new head to a religious degree and faked the room being closed in the first place. All murders in the first game are easily explainable if Krauss faked his death. While the identity of all bodies has been confirmed, their death was never confirmed. Krauss could have been lying there. Nanjo was shown to be easily bribed at least twice before, so it isn't a stretch to assume he was an accomplice.

He of course, would not go into hiding. He would probably frame someone as the culprit, and then claim self defense.

Krauss's business sense IS questionable, but he seemed completely sure of the fact that this would succeed. And while he is known for getting cold feet on projects, I don't think someone could execute this scheme on a sudden whim.

I agree that the murders are possible for Krauss. He and Shannon are the ones I found most suspicious in game 1, because of the sharp contrast of only having 'half their faces' smashed. I believed that one was the culprit while smashing the other's face half way in order to avoid suspicion of being the only one.

But I was more referring to game 3, since the tea party seems to most heavily appeal to that game. Ange is looking for the truth, if Krauss had been alive and claimed self-defense, she either 1.) Would have met Krauss and questioned him or 2.) Would have accepted that truth.

Well, even for other games, I still think it would be hard to convince people your whole family died on accident and only you survived from self-defense. I can't imagine he would have much confidence in getting away with that.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Hmm this is a matter of interpreting what he said. If he meant it as you say he did, I would be fine with it. But to me it sounds like "IT IS ARROGANT TO THINK YOU ARE RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT" which is the wrong mindset for a mystery writer in my opinion.

Well, I would agree with that, actually. It is arrogant to think you are right no matter what, and such people are the ones who get mad at the mystery genre books when they are wrong about them.

But I think I understand what you mean, that a mystery writer shouldn't make it possible to have several different interpretations that could fit.

I guess that, once again this is a matter of opinion on if you think every possibility has been ruled out by the clues or not, which is hard to debate until Episode 8 comes out, heh.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Then a theory was presented in which arc 7 exists solely for the purpose of showing us where twisted logic and these theories lead, and that the truth of arc 7 were made to fire us up so much and make us despise the arc 7 answers so much that we'd want to prove them wrong no matter what and actually start to make much more serious and better theories then what's presented to us.
[...]
Most recent posts were made in the optic that this theory is right.
I am not the creator of that theory either.

My big problem is that, from the moment I stumbled upon that theory, I had the feeling that Episode 7 could have been any solution at all this theory would have come up. Be it Shkannontrice, George-culprit, Eva-culprit, Jessica/George Curlprit, Outside Person X Culprit, presenting all people in a good light or in a bad light, it would have always been that theory anyway, because it existed before the Episode was even released.
The theory does not exist because it was created while reading this Episode, but certain people seem to have approached Episode 7 solely to force that theory upon it, in case their own theory or concept of the series would prove wrong.

If we don't start believing certain hints now, we could as well say that anything up until now was a lie (that may include or exclude the red truth). We are reaching the finale here and as much as the final Episode might be big, it has not infinite place and some answers we already have will be right, at least that is what I hope.

It's not that I have anything against those people who still want to go another path than what Episode 7 offered them, but it is the apparent intent of proving that Episode 7 was wrong from the start, which has made it very hard to take that theory seriously. It's like playing jury on a cake contest with the intent of not liking any of those cakes.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

If multiple truths are possible, then that means that until we get to the last chapter(opening the box) we won't be able to know if our answer is correct, even if we can see a contradiction with our theory(that contradiction being that another theory is equally plausible) unlike most mystery novels.

I think I have found that little spot I was searching for.
Your concept of Umineko is that of one piece of mystery fiction, but instead it is 8 pieces of mystery fiction within a mystery fiction. What we are presented in each Episode is already a deduction of what might happen or might have happened on Rokkenjima.

Imagine knowing that tommorrow somebody will enter your house and murder everybody in it, but you are unable to do anything other than send an email containing an idea what might happen (as impossible as it sounds, this is fiction, so I think we can all bear with that). Probably your idea of the murder will miss certain things, because you could misjudge what people will do or how they will react even though you know them. This is probably what happened with the bottle letters (Episode 1 & 2).
Imagine writing a detective story about an actuall unsolved murder case, many years later. Of course your solution could be the right one, but probably you will be missing something because you weren't actually there. This is what happend in the case of Hachijo Toya (Episodes 3-7).
And then there is the actuall event that transpired, but nobody is able to write it down while it happens and if there is no survivor, willing to talk, then you can of course never reach the ultimate truth, being the actuall event.

In Umineko you are given various versions of those events, each (at least if we trust Ryukishi) giving you part truth and part fiction. So you as the 'detective' have to figure out what is actually a logical chain of events that transpired.

Yes it is different from a mystery where there is only one recollection of the events, but depending on the novel, those things can also be highly misleading.
Again think about Ackroyd and...well other novels I could name right now would be all Japanese novels, but it is an often used trick especially in modern fiction, to deceive the reader by omitting or rephrasing certain scenes in a way that it might confuse him. As long as it is obvious enough for the reader to notice that he is being deceived I think it is fair.
And honestly...isn't a cackling, demon-stake wielding, cake eating, 1000 year old witch as a culprit a pretty obvious deception?!

I agree. However my problem with Umineko is precisely that. It is possible to have a solution, and have no contradictions arise from it while still being wrong.

That you cannot possible know, because probably we aren't even seeing the contradictions, which Ryukishi thinks are perfectly obvious.
Let's take for example Krauss and Natsuhi, or at least Natsuhi:
From Episode 1 on we know, that she did not know about the existence of the gold until around 13:00 on Obtober 4th 1986, when Krauss showed her that one gold ingot. Adding to that the fact that the tragedy had been foreseen by the author of the bottled letter even before the typhoon started, which is around 18:00 that day and she was the last to face the murderer and die by a bullet that was not from her own rifle, it is pretty much impossible for her to be the murderer.
Those are just small things, but they do contradict.

I think the much bigger problem is, that so far nobody has been able to create a theory that involves a culprit who can exist reasonably in any given scenario.

All murders in the first game are easily explainable if Krauss faked his death.

Then why did he shoot Natsuhi in the end and why was she making the remark that she was doubting her opponents existence up to this moment and can still not believe it completely even now?!
If her opponent was Krauss and she knew, her reaction would be different.
If her opponent was Krauss and she didn't know, her reaction would be different.
Why was she so voluntary to shoot her opponent? She was shown to be a loving wife and mother on many occassions, so why should she shoot her husband?

Her opponent has to be someone whose existence in said form she did not expect to appear and whom she has no trouble shooting because her personal relationship is weaker than the danger he or she poses.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

I think I have found that little spot I was searching for.
Your concept of Umineko is that of one piece of mystery fiction, but instead it is 8 pieces of mystery fiction within a mystery fiction. What we are presented in each Episode is already a deduction of what might happen or might have happened on Rokkenjima.

Imagine knowing that tommorrow somebody will enter your house and murder everybody in it, but you are unable to do anything other than send an email containing an idea what might happen (as impossible as it sounds, this is fiction, so I think we can all bear with that). Probably your idea of the murder will miss certain things, because you could misjudge what people will do or how they will react even though you know them. This is probably what happened with the bottle letters (Episode 1 & 2).
Imagine writing a detective story about an actuall unsolved murder case, many years later. Of course your solution could be the right one, but probably you will be missing something because you weren't actually there. This is what happend in the case of Hachijo Toya (Episodes 3-7).
And then there is the actuall event that transpired, but nobody is able to write it down while it happens and if there is no survivor, willing to talk, then you can of course never reach the ultimate truth, being the actuall event.

In Umineko you are given various versions of those events, each (at least if we trust Ryukishi) giving you part truth and part fiction. So you as the 'detective' have to figure out what is actually a logical chain of events that transpired.

Yes it is different from a mystery where there is only one recollection of the events, but depending on the novel, those things can also be highly misleading.
Again think about Ackroyd and...well other novels I could name right now would be all Japanese novels, but it is an often used trick especially in modern fiction, to deceive the reader by omitting or rephrasing certain scenes in a way that it might confuse him. As long as it is obvious enough for the reader to notice that he is being deceived I think it is fair.
And honestly...isn't a cackling, demon-stake wielding, cake eating, 1000 year old witch as a culprit a pretty obvious deception?!

Ryuukishi gave us warning of deception, but warning you that you will be hit by a nuclear bomb within 3 seconds isn't fair. I might be analyzing Umineko as an one-piece murder when it's an eight piece murder(...hopefully just 8. But I think that my argument about fairness stands.

That you cannot possible know, because probably we aren't even seeing the contradictions, which Ryukishi thinks are perfectly obvious.
Let's take for example Krauss and Natsuhi, or at least Natsuhi:
From Episode 1 on we know, that she did not know about the existence of the gold until around 13:00 on Obtober 4th 1986, when Krauss showed her that one gold ingot. Adding to that the fact that the tragedy had been foreseen by the author of the bottled letter even before the typhoon started, which is around 18:00 that day and she was the last to face the murderer and die by a bullet that was not from her own rifle, it is pretty much impossible for her to be the murderer.
Those are just small things, but they do contradict.

I think the much bigger problem is, that so far nobody has been able to create a theory that involves a culprit who can exist reasonably in any given scenario.


Then why did he shoot Natsuhi in the end and why was she making the remark that she was doubting her opponents existence up to this moment and can still not believe it completely even now?!
If her opponent was Krauss and she knew, her reaction would be different.
If her opponent was Krauss and she didn't know, her reaction would be different.
Why was she so voluntary to shoot her opponent? She was shown to be a loving wife and mother on many occassions, so why should she shoot her husband?

Her opponent has to be someone whose existence in said form she did not expect to appear and whom she has no trouble shooting because her personal relationship is weaker than the danger he or she poses.

I will get back to this later, I really need to sleep now. I'm exhausted! I promise I will get back to it later.

[UsagiTenpura]

I think I should add it's entirely possible that arc 7 isn't the truth but it's purpose isn't to fire us up but something else. For instance it could be someone using the right facts but badly weaving her theory from it (Bern). In that case arc 7 would give us the right elements to use in the equation but we're left to make said equation on our own, and simply shown a result of what it is not.

I probably can enjoy such a solution better. It doesn't create additional expectations and doesn't make arc 7 into a giant troll. Again such a solution would allow us to attack various points of arc 7 based on it's credibility but would still leave it as an "answer arc" even if it does contains a lot of lies. There's probably other ways to perceive arc 7.

Now depending on which part of arc 7 is true or not, it drastically changes the possibility of my appreciating it or not, but it still leaves the possibility that I find the "actual true elements" of arc 7 to be really bad. That's just an opinion at that point tho.

There's things however like the epitaph, which independently of if you find satisfying or not, it makes Ryukishi's words doubtful if is true. He said that one who could figure it out could figure out what happened in the rest of arc 5 and 6. I haven't seen the Qilian solution proving any sort of solution for that, or even anyone trying to do so based on it (I guess it's possible it exists tho).

However tho, anyone who doesn't like the answer of arc 7 (as me), I think, shouldn't be too certain the answers of arc 8 will be something we'll really like a lot more. I'm not saying it's impossible, I certainly hope for it, but I do not assume it is so.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

In a few words no, I do not like the answers brought by arc 7. That's okay, that's not because Ryukishi is bad or wrong, it's just me who doesn't like it.

It actually depends what "answers" are, and there is not even any evidence they are "answers" but perhaps simple clues or red herring.

Even before the arc came out tho, because of my understanding of Bernkastel, I was more or less assuming that arc 7 would mostly be fan made theories weaved together and that it'd be mostly wrong. Around the time it came out I started to think that was unlikely because I didn't see much of the point in doing so.

But why did you have such weird expectation anyway? Bernkastel was shown as a character that does not really pay attention to the pieces and motives (an ulterior motive behind this attitude is left to speculation). Thus, why would you expect her to weave fanspeculation theory? That does not make any sense at all. You would rather see her either delivering a fragment not bound with Beatrice usual antics, or a fragment that is mercilessly impossible to misunderstand if you take it with "facts" alone, without paying attention to motives etc.

Then a theory was presented in which arc 7 exists solely for the purpose of showing us where twisted logic and these theories lead, and that the truth of arc 7 were made to fire us up so much and make us despise the arc 7 answers so much that we'd want to prove them wrong no matter what and actually start to make much more serious and better theories then what's presented to us.

What theory? Yasuda Rion = Claire = Shannon = Kanon?
Or Kyrie going on rampage?
"Make -us- despise"? Again you are starting the premise of Requiem was bad because -you- didn't like it. So far, I saw little to no explanations about X or Y points that make you think this episode was bad.

Also, Ryukishi has no obligation to present only answers. He can also keep setting noises and whatnot. For instance, in Tsumihoroboshi, there were points that just didn't make any sense, despite we were already in the second arc of kai.

Seeing as I was already inclined to disregard arc 7, that theory sorta appeals to me, however if this is true then I think that, in short, if he himself basically meant to attack us by making us reject arc 7 as unsatisfactory because of it's hard to accept logic, then he's claiming himself his own answer IS satisfactory and doesn't contain the sort of logic argument that's suppose to fire us up within arc 7. Then comes expectations about what arc 8 and doubts as if he's able to deliver such expectations.

Again, WHAT theory? Would you please not beating around the bush? There are still several theories floating around, and you keep focalising on a single "disturbing theory", claiming it is a provocation while I really doubt Ryukishi's intent was splattered all around.
And I really wonder how come you can already decide by yourself the solution based on "that" theory doesn't have any logic without knowing the content of Episode 8.
To begin with: did you read Episode 7, or did you base your judgment on summaries alone?

If that theory is wrong, then all that amounts to nothing. I end up being a person who doesn't find the answers provided by arc 7 satisfying and that's just the end of it. Ryukishi didn't do any wrong.

Again, who said they were answers?
This is the likely reason why the core arcs are not called "kai", but "chiru" instead. I believe people are taking Episode 5-6-7 as the counterpart of Meakashi, Tsumihoroboshi and Minagoroshi, which is just taking me offguard.

If that theory is right, however, I can't help but think it's a really insulting attitude of Ryukishi unless he can really satisfy our expectations. Since I feel like it won't affect him much even if we're dissapointed, I think he's not taking risk in the process. I think most fans wouldn't mind too much if he used a lot of deus ex machina as part of his "truth". I don't think he's going to really use that, but seeing as I see Umineko as a riddle rather then a simple equation to find the solution of, I think that not only more then one answer can coexist but that neither is inherently of superior satisfaction. Unless, as I said in my example of the cheese riddle, that a solution exists that has both the qualities of "3" and "1" at once. Such a thing would be amazing but I have troubles believing it exists because of the variety of expectations toward what would be satisfying from people.

Why would he be so "unaffected"? It seems you are expecting Ryukishi to be your average author who just make a game and doesn't give any after thought. Why is he talking about people theories in interviews? Why is he changing the difficulty of his tale midway after fans were complaining?
As far as his behavior and writing style went, he cares the most about readers reactions and how he is going to deal with it (Featherine comments in Episode 6 are not innocent at all).
The risk is having a tale that does not satisfy people who were invested in such mystery tale for 2-3 years already, which is normally what an author -dreads the most-.

Umineko was first a riddle as to stay within the theme of "was it the doing of a human or a witch?" giving a drastic context of "battle of wits" before actually finding the culprit (why of course, since finding the culprit by the end of episode 1 is impossible, due to the format and the intent of the author).

I see nothing but loss of faith because of "ONE theory" and color me surprised to see such hasty conclusion, from a tale that is arguably portrayed as a "multiple theory meltypot" due to one single disturbing theory, which I just still can't guess WHICH one.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

Again, WHAT theory? Would you please not beating around the bush? There are still several theories floating around, and you keep focalising on a single "disturbing theory", claiming it is a provocation while I really doubt Ryukishi's intent was splattered all around.

He is referring to the conversation that I had the misfortune to start a few pages up the thread and related arguments. I wouldn't call it a theory myself, but it is my opinion.

[Winar]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

Anyone seeing similarities with episode 3? I mean, in that, Battler just takes Eva as the culprit and says how she could've done all the murders without any explanation as to why.

I see similarities with episode 4. But this game very "meta", trust that at first twilight was killed Beatrice very similar with Battler's "small bombs" theory

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

What theory? Yasuda Rion = Claire = Shannon = Kanon?
Or Kyrie going on rampage?
"Make -us- despise"? Again you are starting the premise of Requiem was bad because -you- didn't like it. So far, I saw little to no explanations about X or Y points that make you think this episode was bad.

As I said I'm not the one who made that theory. I tried my best to resume the flow of the conversation but I can't beat around the bush when it's not even my bush.

I could probably start to search the last 5-6 pages (if not more) to find the proper posts to links but so could you at that point. Olivier and Renal mostly pointed out elements that they at least believe support that. I'm not trying to explain why that theory exists or trying to defend it, I'm writing why I don't like it mostly, and what sort of implications it creates.

As thus it feels very odd to be attacked on that ground. It's like you're asking me to defend a theory that I'm saying if is true is something I really don't like. How am I suppose to do that?

As for Bernkastel, well as I said that's my comprehension of her. She's "us", that's what I get from her, the ruthless side of us trying to basically just win the game, and who enjoys seeing stories where people get killed over and over again (the love of raw meat she developped thanks to Featherine who's basically a writer). As thus I saw the scene in arc 6's end where Bern inherits a copy of the gameboard as basically the task of unveiling the truth being left to us (for arc 7 at least). It followed that arc 7 would be picking up fan theories and putting them together into a story.

However as I said I ended up feeling that would make arc 7 into a pointless arc and started to think this is wrong. However it is not senseless to believe it can be so. That's being ridiculously arrogant to claim so.

Edit : However I'm really uncertain if that theory is right or not in the end, and to some extent it doesn't matter because I don't really like it either way. As things are right now I'm inclined to believe a version of Olivier's idea is probably true. I think however it's probable that Ryukishi didn't mean for us to doubt arc 7's credibility based on if we're satisfied with the answer or not. It's probably more related to the depicting of characters. Something along the lines of, suppose Kyrie did kill the people we were shown to kill, the situation that lead her to do that and the motives for her to do so as presented by arc 7 were entirely wrong. That's more my actual thoughts on the arc but even so I cannot be certain, and it's possible all the arc could've been spoken in red or all of is exists to anger us, and many other possibilities.

[Oliver]

Sorry to break the conversation on literary theory, but while you people are chewing on it, I had another burst of research activity related to military hardware.

Whatever, the submarine story says, I can very definitely conclude that the image of the submarine used to illustrate it does not depict what the story says it does, that is, a WWII era diesel submarine.

I have found a reference that lists all warships Italy had in WWII, with pictures. Not a single one matches the image of the submarine even close, in fact, none of them have diving planes on the sail at all. I don't think any boat of the era actually did. The only thing that looks even remotely like the picture is a german Type XXI, and these don't have diving planes on the sail either. Having diving planes on the sail is generally rare, except a certain era of US submarines designed in 1950-1970, and the most modern post-Cold-War Russian designs. The image actually looks the closest to Ethan Allen, Thresher/Permit and related classes, but does not match any of them exactly in terms of relative dimensions.

I did find another interesting thing though. Italy actually had two submarines intended explicitly for transport between Europe and Japan, "class R", which had a cargo capacity of 600 tons. They were used to transport strategic materials.

Unfortunately both of these are known to have been sunk in 1943.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

As for Bernkastel, well as I said that's my comprehension of her. She's "us", that's what I get from her, the ruthless side of us trying to basically just win the game, and who enjoys seeing stories where people get killed over and over again (the love of raw meat she developped thanks to Featherine who's basically a writer). As thus I saw the scene in arc 6's end where Bern inherits a copy of the gameboard as basically the task of unveiling the truth being left to us (for arc 7 at least). It followed that arc 7 would be picking up fan theories and putting them together into a story.

I'm sorry, but I can't see why that should be so at all. I mean Bernkastel might have presented herself as our ally, but she was never us. Basically we were never anybody, because we read everything as what it is supposed to be in the Umineko universe itself, recollections of an actuall event.
If we are someone at all, I think we would be the viewers, that Bern referred to alongside Auaurora. We are nothing more than the other witches, trying to keep ourselfs from being bored. But I don't think we are Bern, as we have never any actuall perceived influence on the gameboard.

Originally Posted by Oliver

I did find another interesting thing though. Italy actually had two submarines intended explicitly for transport between Europe and Japan, "class R", which had a cargo capacity of 600 tons. They were used to transport strategic materials.

Unfortunately both of these are known to have been sunk in 1943.

Well it's not that good not to have a more accurate picture of a submarine turning up, but I think we shouldn't read too much into that. Many things we see on the background images of the mansion also does not exactly coincide with what we are told, because some events require slight altering of scenery or reusing backgrounds. I think they just desperately needed a submarine outline for that scene...
(unless of course somebody knows that anybody in 07thexpansions graphic team is a total WWII mecha otaku)

And well, the actuall ones may have both sunk, but some suspension of disbelief should be approapriate here.
There is also no hidden base on Rokkenjima, because there is no Rokkenjima in the first place. I think you can book those events under 'fictional history'.

[UsagiTenpura]

Oh I think we do have a lot of influence on gameboards, our theories shapes some of the logic battle of the meta world, and in return that battle shapes some of the events on the gameboard. It's not like outside the meta world Bernkastel even exists on the gameboard, so she's not directly influencing it, same as us.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

I think they just desperately needed a submarine outline for that scene...
(unless of course somebody knows that anybody in 07thexpansions graphic team is a total WWII mecha otaku)

My beef with it is that I'm not a WWII mecha otaku either, but I can do better in under ten minutes - and much better if I'm allowed to use a game screenshot. That when he knows about chlorine being generated when batteries are flooded with seawater, when I didn't.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

As I said I'm not the one who made that theory. I tried my best to resume the flow of the conversation but I can't beat around the bush when it's not even my bush.

I'm still calling it "beating about the bush" when you use "that theory" mention several times without even mentioning which one it was (you don't need to explain it to me, but at least indicate it. Otherwise, should I start complaining about a theory without even mentioning it? People wouldn't realize what I'm talking about unless they were deeply connected to that thing). Please do not assume everyone can read the subject you have in mind, especially how the discussion is going on a cluster.

I could probably start to search the last 5-6 pages (if not more) to find the proper posts to links but so could you at that point. Olivier and Renal mostly pointed out elements that they at least believe support that. I'm not trying to explain why that theory exists or trying to defend it, I'm writing why I don't like it mostly, and what sort of implications it creates.

And that's my problem: you may dislike a theory, but why are you doing an amalgam between a theory speculated by some readers, and the intent of the author, possibly the purpose of an Episode altogether? That's just a single interpretation that doesn't seem to be broad or generalized as truth for Episode 7. And I think it is even weirdier to conclude about that, when it seems you didn't read Episode 7 yourself before reading between the lines of Oliver's opinion.

As thus it feels very odd to be attacked on that ground. It's like you're asking me to defend a theory that I'm saying if is true is something I really don't like. How am I suppose to do that?

I'm not asking you to defend that theory. I'm asking you why you are taking such theory as the premise of an episode, while it is arguably not something you can brand as "this is the episode purpose".
It is only an interpretation, and yet you are basing your premise and critic on that, despite Episode 7 is arguably not something that stiff.

As for Bernkastel, well as I said that's my comprehension of her. She's "us", that's what I get from her, the ruthless side of us trying to basically just win the game, and who enjoys seeing stories where people get killed over and over again (the love of raw meat she developped thanks to Featherine who's basically a writer). As thus I saw the scene in arc 6's end where Bern inherits a copy of the gameboard as basically the task of unveiling the truth being left to us (for arc 7 at least). It followed that arc 7 would be picking up fan theories and putting them together into a story.

As chounokoe said, she cannot be us. In fact, it is impossible since we are presented the tale, and we have no control over it. While Bernkastel is an actor on the meta scale, and has at her disposal tools (more indepth comprehension of the tale, without the whole truth at her disposal, when the red truth can be applied or not etc).
Bernkastel's attitude is a caricature of a reader that does not care about what's going on, yet she cannot be your average umineko reader considering her complete implication in Beato's game. Beato's game is all about Battler's understanding about her tale, and possible what's presented to Lambda and Bern (and of course Featherine and other meta characters like Ange). Meanwhile, we are even outside of this circle, forced to select and filter what we were presented and have our own interpretation and theories left in our mind until something pertinent confirm or shatter one of our own thought.

However as I said I ended up feeling that would make arc 7 into a pointless arc and started to think this is wrong. However it is not senseless to believe it can be so. That's being ridiculously arrogant to claim so.

This is also the reason why I'm confronting your worry with the simple fact that Ryukishi wouldn't put events and the like without any ulterior motive. So far, even the "most useless" portions (such like the so called "boring" Ange flashbacks) all contributed to concepts, clues and all kinds of possible grounds for motive, and the likes. That's why suddenly claiming "Episode 7" is useless under a specific unconfirmed theory/opinion just leaves me speechless. It is like believing the queen carrier theory back in Higurashi without trying to confirm it or not: relying on things that aren't facts, alienating the purpose of an episode as result rubs me really in the wrong way.

Originally Posted by Oliver

My beef with it is that I'm not a WWII mecha otaku either, but I can do better in under ten minutes - and much better if I'm allowed to use a game screenshot. That when he knows about chlorine being generated when batteries are flooded with seawater, when I didn't.

Except we don't know what are the critera of selection for Ryukishi in this case. You can even say that he just wanted a submarine in a cavern setup, for all we know.
That or it can be a earnest mistake. Seriously, you are reading too much into it.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

I'm still calling it "beating about the bush" when you use "that theory" mention several times without even mentioning which one it was (you don't need to explain it to me, but at least indicate it. Otherwise, should I start complaining about a theory without even mentioning it? People wouldn't realize what I'm talking about unless they were deeply connected to that thing). Please do not assume everyone can read the subject you have in mind, especially how the discussion is going on a cluster.

I didn't assume that much but thought it was obvious my post were addressed to the ones who replied to my earlier posts. I guess it wasn't and it ended up being a situation that was confusing for both sides. I just sorta didn't want to quote them all cause there's been too many of them.

And that's my problem: you may dislike a theory, but why are you doing an amalgam between a theory speculated by some readers, and the intent of the author, possibly the purpose of an Episode altogether? That's just a single interpretation that doesn't seem to be broad or generalized as truth for Episode 7. And I think it is even weirdier to conclude about that, when it seems you didn't read Episode 7 yourself before reading between the lines of Oliver's opinion.

Because it's a theory about the author's intent. Maybe I should call it an idea. I don't think Ryukishi necessarily did that, but if he did I think it's a pretty bad move for him. I didn't conclude anything. However yes I lost faith in many things about the final answer. Ryukishi is amazing at creating character we become attached to and even make us accept them acting in sometimes rather amoral ways. He has clearly a lot of talent, at least from my perspective. However that doesn't mean that the final answer is something I'm going to like. I might love it, I might be completely shocked at how amazing it is, and someone else could find that same answer to be really bad. What I think right now doesn't start from arc 7 alone. I have plenty of reasons to think that I shouldn't trust the final answer to be something I'm going to really like. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't count on it. Is that wrong?

I'm not asking you to defend that theory. I'm asking you why you are taking such theory as the premise of an episode, while it is arguably not something you can brand as "this is the episode purpose".
It is only an interpretation, and yet you are basing your premise and critic on that, despite Episode 7 is arguably not something that stiff.

Again I'm not saying that theory is the truth, I was showing that if it's the truth it creates a lot of bad point. That's sorta exactly my point, I don't think Ryukishi would do something that low. However I cannot rule out he didn't do it. I almost wonder why you seem to be able to do so. From my pov, it's an idea that could be right, and could be wrong.

As chounokoe said, she cannot be us. In fact, it is impossible since we are presented the tale, and we have no control over it. While Bernkastel is an actor on the meta scale, and has at her disposal tools (more indepth comprehension of the tale, without the whole truth at her disposal, when the red truth can be applied or not etc).
Bernkastel's attitude is a caricature of a reader that does not care about what's going on, yet she cannot be your average umineko reader considering her complete implication in Beato's game. Beato's game is all about Battler's understanding about her tale, and possible what's presented to Lambda and Bern (and of course Featherine and other meta characters like Ange). Meanwhile, we are even outside of this circle, forced to select and filter what we were presented and have our own interpretation and theories left in our mind until something pertinent confirm or shatter one of our own thought.

That's an opinion, there's no objective way to prove this is wrong. Notice most of what I write constantly have things such as "if this is right" rather then "this is right" or "this is my understanding" rather then "this is what we're supposed to understand". It seems you tend to write most things you think as facts and assume that others are the same way.

This is also the reason why I'm confronting your worry with the simple fact that Ryukishi wouldn't put events and the like without any ulterior motive. So far, even the "most useless" portions (such like the so called "boring" Ange flashbacks) all contributed to concepts, clues and all kinds of possible grounds for motive, and the likes. That's why suddenly claiming "Episode 7" is useless under a specific unconfirmed theory/opinion just leaves me speechless. It is like believing the queen carrier theory back in Higurashi without trying to confirm it or not: relying on things that aren't facts, alienating the purpose of an episode as result rubs me really in the wrong way.

Again this is just a theory based on your own expectations of what Ryukishi can deliver. I'd be glad if that was true but if I cannot follow Umineko without questioning Ryukishi's talents at times then at this point it's a religion, not a fanbase. I don't think he himself intends for that, but almost anything with a cult following such as Umineko ends up having people who thinks attacking the worth of any parts of it is basically blasphemy.

Edit : There's so many huge posts today.