[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[LyricalAura]

Well... Maybe we're supposed to doubt that development. Turning the conditional around, if Battler is not pulled out of the ocean several years later, he doesn't become Hachijou Tohya. That would make Ikuko the sole author of the stories, right? And the ending of EP8 becomes the miraculous ending she promised fictional-Ange to make her happy.

Because Ikuko and Tohya are recluses, nobody can deny that it's what actually happened. That's also an interesting conclusion, in its own way...

EDIT:
However, I think it's pretty much a moot point because たら is being used in a past context. When you do that, it isn't interpreted as a conditional statement anymore, but as "when X happened, there was a surprising result Y". For example:

家に帰ったら、誰もいなかった。
- When I went home, there was no one there. (unexpectedly)

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

My Japanese is not perfect, but the bolded ら makes the sentence look conditional to me, like "Many years later, if he was pulled from the sea then he had lost his memories and become Hachijou Touya." Maybe the ら means something else and I'm just not getting it, or maybe it's so nuanced that any meaning that comes from the ら won't be expressed in an English

The "past tense + ら" is indeed a conditional, but it also works for "when" or "after".

So, the sentence translates as: "Several years later, by the time he had been retrieved from the sea, he had lost his memories and became Hachijō Tōya."

[MainCharacter]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Dead is dead, there are no semantics involved there. Semantics where used in EP5 to get by the "Corpses" and the red involved around them, that was actually used effectively.

The problem comes that the rules dont really apply to Yasu or any of the other personalities. Shannon and Kanon count as people but Beatrice doesn't. The whole issue of being dead and then bringing them back at will. Doing something in the real world for the sole purpose of dodging something in the meta world, etc.

Semantics ARE in play, though. Shannon and Kanon can both count as people, but Kanon can "die" without the physical body of Yasu dying. That's why it appears to create a contradiction within stories where we aren't aware of Yasu yet and we get things like the Zombie Kanon in... episode 2, was it?

[Cao Ni Ma]

I understand that, the problem comes from things like I described earlier. Yasu decides what rules are in play and how its interpreted. The problem is that, sometimes, when you think that you understand a rule, there are exceptions that should have been counted. But for whatever reason they aren't. This gives us the sensation that Yasu is cheating to maintain the illusions.

Anyways, what Used and Lyrical have mention is interesting. This does make it look like Battler really wasn't alive at the time and that everything in the epilogue is false. Now why would Ikuko decide to give Ange that ending? Why would she feel that sense of obligation to her?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Used Can

The "past tense + ら" is indeed a conditional, but it also works for "when" or "after".

So, the sentence translates as: "Several years later, by the time he had been retrieved from the sea, he had lost his memories and became Hachijō Tōya."

Oh thanks, those are the small factors that you just have to have had somewhere before in order to know them...at least I haven't read it in a dictionary so far.
Still I'd say it's rather: "Several years later, by the time he had been retrieved from the sea, he had lost his memories and become Hachijō Tōya." not only because it's なった but also because it's all a matter of things in the past.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Anyways, what Used and Lyrical have mention is interesting. This does make it look like Battler really wasn't alive at the time and that everything in the epilogue is false. Now why would Ikuko decide to give Ange that ending? Why would she feel that sense of obligation to her?

Not really...it makes it possible that it was meant as a conditional, but apparently it can also be used in a way of "when...then".

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Well... Maybe we're supposed to doubt that development. Turning the conditional around, if Battler is not pulled out of the ocean several years later, he doesn't become Hachijou Tohya. That would make Ikuko the sole author of the stories, right? And the ending of EP8 becomes the miraculous ending she promised fictional-Ange to make her happy.

Because Ikuko and Tohya are recluses, nobody can deny that it's what actually happened. That's also an interesting conclusion, in its own way...

An interesting idea indeed. I hadn't thought of this possibility, that everything, even episode 8's ????, is in-world fiction. It's certainly viable. Although as far as being a recluse, in episode 8 there was a bunch public fuss over Ikuko revealing "The Text of The One Truth" (which was often equated to being Eva's diary; I always wondered how Ikuko could have gotten a hold of Eva's diary).

Originally Posted by Used Can

The "past tense + ら" is indeed a conditional, but it also works for "when" or "after".

So, the sentence translates as: "Several years later, by the time he had been retrieved from the sea, he had lost his memories and became Hachijō Tōya."

Ah yes this clears things up, at least in regards to the timeline. I'm still wondering who "retrieved" him though. Years or not, there's still a significant blank between jumping off the motorboat and being found memoryless in the middle of a raining street. And the use of passive form here really suggests to me that he got help from someone.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Anyways, what Used and Lyrical have mention is interesting. This does make it look like Battler really wasn't alive at the time and that everything in the epilogue is false. Now why would Ikuko decide to give Ange that ending? Why would she feel that sense of obligation to her?

It makes sense if Ikuko is Yasu.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Although as far as being a recluse, in episode 8 there was a bunch public fuss over Ikuko revealing "The Text of The One Truth" (which was often equated to being Eva's diary; I always wondered how Ikuko could have gotten a hold of Eva's diary).

What we know from EP8, an aquaintance of her worked in the hospital where Eva was cared for. When they were cleaning up her belongings they found her diary (if I remember correctly, lodged between the head of the bed and the wall). Being lucky she was offered the diary (although not quite legally) and kept it ever since.
THE author on Rokkenjima fiction having a source in the hospital where the sole survivor of the tragedy is spending her final days is not even that farfetched...and considering she and her fellow Witch Hunters have spent some money on even weirder personal belongings it's not strange for her to buy it through shaddy sources.

The only thing you could argue about is that maybe a room so closely guarded as Eva's would probably not have been cleaned without some of the securities having a close eye on what everybody is doing. Considering the Sumadera's were planning to overthrow the Ushiromiya corporation, Okonogi wouldn't have let some hospital staff just rumage the room...Eva could have stored anything in there.

[AuraTwilight]

Originally Posted by MainCharacter

Still not sure what you mean by this.

I don't remember any point in time when Beatrice was like "Yasu is dead!" and then Yasu wasn't dead. They obviously don't even mention Yasu until Episode 7. Unless you are talking less specifically about Shannon or Kanon, in which case that would be semantics and vague interpretation regarding what constitutes as a "person" and "dead", not "someone died but they were faking it". You can say "that part of me died" and interpret it as "Kanon died", because you weren't talking about a physical death or a real physical person, the other person just assumed you were. And it's mentioned in-game that this kind of vague wordplay is at work, so I don't see a problem with it.

Yasu, Shannon, and Kanon are all the same person. It's not like it's three people living in one body, or anything. She's literally the same individual wearing different costumes. Therefore, if "Shannon is Dead", unless Shannon is an ACTUAL CORPSE COUNTED AMONG THE DECEASED, the statement "Shannon is Dead" is a LIE.

There is nothing you can do about this unless you redefine the term "death" when you don't do so for any other people, like Hideyoshi or Kyrie or whoever.

It's fucking bullshit and it makes Ryukishi to be a dishonest cock who's not playing fairly.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It's fucking bullshit and it makes Ryukishi to be a dishonest cock who's not playing fairly.

Just to make sure, would you consider it equivalently dishonest for Maria to say in red that "Sakutaro is dead" after Rosa tore his vessel apart?

Come to think of it, "Sakutaro cannot be revived" is pretty much equivalent, and that was said in red.

[AuraTwilight]

The Sakutaro Maria was talking about was ripped physically in half, and he was replaced with a replica. This isn't equivalent in any way to someone playing dead, then getting up. Maybe if Shannon and Kanon were lifesize remote control mannequins it'd be in any way comparable, but they're not.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The Sakutaro Maria was talking about was ripped physically in half, and he was replaced with a replica. This isn't equivalent in any way to someone playing dead, then getting up. Maybe if Shannon and Kanon were lifesize remote control mannequins it'd be in any way comparable, but they're not.

...If you think so, then let me give you a hypothetical scenario. Suppose Maria has two imaginary lion friends, Sakutaro Blue and Sakutaro Red. They use the same stuffed animal as a vessel (which should be fine since it was already done with Mammon's stake), but only one of them is around at a time, according to whether the stuffed lion has a blue or red scarf.

Presumably you're still okay with them both being dead if the stuffed animal is destroyed. But what if Maria has another rule, "a lion dies if his scarf is unraveled"? If only the blue scarf is burned up in a fire, would it be okay for Maria to say "Sakutaro Blue is dead and Sakutaro Red is alive" with red truth, and then carry on playing with Sakutaro Red?

What I'm trying to get at here is that the vessel doesn't intrinsically matter. The important thing is, what are the rules governing the game board that the piece exists on? That idea was already well-established by the end of EP4.

[AuraTwilight]

Alright, fine.

But Sakutarou was never alive in the first place. He's fucking imaginary. Shannon and Kanon are an actual flesh and blood person. If he wanted to erase them from the board while leaving Yasu open to do things, he should've used dodgy wording, like "Shannon is no longer on the board" or "Kanon no longer exists" or "Shannon has been destroyed."

But don't fucking give the same word two fucking meanings without giving us any indication of how to differentiate between them until later. That's not fair in any sense, and it's inherently dishonest.

[MainCharacter]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

She's literally the same individual wearing different costumes.

Oh? Is this confirmed somewhere in Episode 8? Because that's not what I took from the series at all. I don't think she has multiple personalities or anything, but the "games" we have been seeing have been clearly metaphorical and written by someone with barely fragmented memories of people and events. The way I took it, just like "Gaap", "Virgilia", and even "Beatrice" all represent something, so does "Shannon" and "Kanon". They represent different parts of Yasu's heart or whatever, or different "characters" she created in order to cope and live with the events around her. So those things can be "killed" in an abstract way, and that can then be used to say "Shannon is dead" to mislead the reader/detective.

The idea of Yasu actually running around in a bunch of different costumes is really silly to me, so I'd rather not think that is what is actually going on. Especially since none of the "games" we have seen really happened anyway.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

But don't fucking give the same word two fucking meanings without giving us any indication of how to differentiate between them until later. That's not fair in any sense, and it's inherently dishonest.

A battle with a witch is not supposed to be fair or honest.

[AuraTwilight]

Oh? Is this confirmed somewhere in Episode 8? Because that's not what I took from the series at all. I don't think she has multiple personalities or anything, but the "games" we have been seeing have been clearly metaphorical and written by someone with barely fragmented memories of people and events. The way I took it, just like "Gaap", "Virgilia", and even "Beatrice" all represent something, so does "Shannon" and "Kanon". They represent different parts of Yasu's heart or whatever, or different "characters" she created in order to cope and live with the events around her. So those things can be "killed" in an abstract way, and that can then be used to say "Shannon is dead" to mislead the reader/detective.

So? They're still the same person. All those emotions belong to a single mind. It doesn't matter how you dress it up with shit about identities, personas, characters, or whatever. She is either dead or alive. She can't be a third or two thirds dead, or whatever.

The idea of Yasu actually running around in a bunch of different costumes is really silly to me, so I'd rather not think that is what is actually going on. Especially since none of the "games" we have seen really happened anyway.

Well, the existences of Shannon and Kanon are collaborated in reality, and Ange, who read the stories, doesn't find their existence suspicious ("Wait a moment who the fuck are these two?")

A battle with a witch is not supposed to be fair or honest.

Ryukishi isn't a witch, and he proposes that this is a mystery story, and mysteries are intended to be fair. If he's not going to play honestly, then don't give us fucking lectures in your novel about trusting the author and believing in their fairness and "as long as you keep thinking it's solvable."

This is explicitly a problem where there is no evidence given until you apply data given during the solution. It's like fucking Heavy Rain, a game notoriously criticized for having a twist that makes no sense within the context of the narrative, and doesn't improve any repeated viewings of the game, and even LIES to you about what a character is thinking and doing even if you're watching them...not to be clever, but to protect a twist, and not resolve the plot holes this twist creates afterward.

This is the same deal. He created a rule, he broke that rule, he has no justification for that rule aside from "because I said so."

The rule of the Red Truth was created so we could trust the words coming out of Beatrice's mouth, and not have to question the validity of what she's saying. However, she LIED with the red truth, undermined the validity of her own rule, and destroyed our ability to trust her at face value because apparently any word can mean any other fucking word.

If I said I'm a woman despite being a man, what do we do about the fact that I said this red truth? Oh, well, you see, I'm a woman because that's what people always assume I am on the internet.

This crayon is blue. What? It's Yellow? Sorry, I'm fucking colorblind, yellow and blue are the same color to me. Red Truth valid.

My mom is dead. What? You just talked to her? Well I hate that bitch and I cut her out of my life, she's dead to be in a figurative sense. STILL VALID.

HERP A DERPITY DOO.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

What I'm trying to get at here is that the vessel doesn't intrinsically matter. The important thing is, what are the rules governing the game board that the piece exists on? That idea was already well-established by the end of EP4.

We understand this is how it works. It's still cheating, because there was dishonest intention behind it. We - and Battler, for that matter - were led to make a particular assumption based on the representation that these supposed true statements actually are true in some comprehensible fashion, rather than in the wholly subjective fashion of the person crafting them. Yes, of course, all red statements are by necessity subjective. However, abusing the commonality of linguistics to lie while allegedly "telling the truth" according to one's own subjective criteria is, to use the technical literary term, fucking bullshit.

For things to work the way Ryukishi wanted them to work, he had to intentionally omit the necessary information and hide it while advancing the red text as a methodology that was actually not the true methodology for finding truth in his story. It turns out we should've been taking Jessica and Maria absolutely literally. Naturally, one would attempt to reconcile this hinted information with the red, but again, that's not what one actually should have done. In matter of fact, we should've simply ignored the red because it was (effectively) meaningless.

Originally Posted by MainCharacter

A battle with a witch is not supposed to be fair or honest.

Beatrice keeps her promises. She promised to speak the truth when speaking red. I move for a Logic Error. To hell with worthless personal subjectivity! It takes two people to create a world, doesn't it? People have to be on the same wavelength to have a game, otherwise it's just Beatrice trolling Battler while masturbating over her own cleverness. It's disrespectful to her opponent and it's disrespectful to the reader.

[Wanderer]

It's not Beatrice's definition of "dead" that should be examined in these cases, but the definitions of "Shannon" and "Kanon". There was always a lot of care in defining whether Shannon and Kanon were human or not. What does it mean for "furniture" to be dead? If I said my couch is dead, you wouldn't call me a liar, would you? However Beatrice was also fully aware that saying Kanon is dead would be misleading to Battler, so that part of her was trolling.

As we saw in episode 6, Beatrice herself is kind of two separate entities. Their respective roles in comprising Beatrice are illustrated by the candy magic trick scene where Moetrice used Golden Truth to legitimatize Beatroll's slight of hand. Moetrice innocently believes in magic, and Beatroll actually performs magic tricks. These two seemingly incompatible personality traits somehow fit together to make Beatrice; and this is how she can both believe in magic (like Kanon), yet at the same time be aware of how magic doesn't objectively exist.

[AuraTwilight]

It's not Beatrice's definition of "dead" that should be examined in these cases, but the definitions of "Shannon" and "Kanon". There was always a lot of care in defining whether Shannon and Kanon were human or not. What does it mean for "furniture" to be dead? If I said my couch is dead, you wouldn't call me a liar, would you? However Beatrice was also fully aware that saying Kanon is dead would be misleading to Battler, so that part of her was trolling.

I would say that you're making an absolutely meaningless statement, because your couch was never "alive" in the first place. It's not an organism, or even ANIMATE like, say, a car. It's a fucking couch. It has no meaningful way of altering states. You could say it's BROKEN, but BROKEN and DEAD are not equivalent terms at all. It doesn't matter how you define Shannon or Kanon because if you're going to define them as non-human entities you need to redefine how Alive and Dead apply to them. There's no getting around it.

Beatrice lied with the Red. Sorry.

[battle22]

guy's why does maria say that she got the umbrella from kinzo? unless yasu told her to lie?
ps. has maria ever seen kinzo untill he died?

[MainCharacter]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

So? They're still the same person. All those emotions belong to a single mind. It doesn't matter how you dress it up with shit about identities, personas, characters, or whatever. She is either dead or alive. She can't be a third or two thirds dead, or whatever.

It's not that simple and this story has NEVER been that simple.

You learn very early on that Red Truth is subjective fact and is open to interpretation and vague wordplay. If you didn't learn that early on then that is your fault because I know that I did. He never lied about how the game worked. If you weren't expecting there to be moments where we were misled into missing the truth because of what we were told with the Red Truth then what did you think the entire point of a Witch using the Red Truth was? Just to be fair?

And we were giving plenty of hints that the "death" of Shannon and Kanon were not as simple as they were. Specifically, once you realize the events we are seeing are more metaphorical than psychically happening, it should be relatively easy to put it together. Did you think Zombie Kanon was a red herring? I mean, people were figuring out this stuff pretty much around Episode 5, weren't they? Obviously it wasn't impossible.

[AuraTwilight]

guy's why does maria say that she got the umbrella from kinzo? unless yasu told her to lie?
ps. has maria ever seen kinzo untill he died?

She's probably met Kinzo before. But Beatrice told her that Kinzo knows magic, and Maria judges people by behavior instead of appearances, so if Yasu acts like Kinzo and claims to be him, she'll think that Kinzo is using magic to possess Shannon's body, then say "Uu, Grandpa gave it to me!"

But when the hell does she ever say she got it from Kinzo, anyway?

You learn very early on that Red Truth is subjective fact and is open to interpretation and vague wordplay. If you didn't learn that early on then that is your fault because I know that I did. He never lied about how the game worked. If you weren't expecting there to be moments where we were misled into missing the truth because of what we were told with the Red Truth then what did you think the entire point of a Witch using the Red Truth was? Just to be fair?

Vague wordplay isn't the same as completely redefining a term. Battler has no penis. Oh by the way I defined 'penis' as 'rooster' because both terms can be called a cock. HURP THAT VAGUE WORDPLAY RIGHT?

And we were giving plenty of hints that the "death" of Shannon and Kanon were not as simple as they were. Specifically, once you realize the events we are seeing are more metaphorical than psychically happening, it should be relatively easy to put it together. Did you think Zombie Kanon was a red herring? I mean, people were figuring out this stuff pretty much around Episode 5, weren't they? Obviously it wasn't impossible.

That's not what I said. I said the information needed to understand why Shannon and Kanon were special only comes until after the solution is given. It's a twist that exists only to justify itself.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm one of the few people who likes and accepts Shkanon. My problem isn't with them. It's the fact that they're used to break the game and destroy our ability to trust a single damn thing.

Goddamn how can you not see the problem here? The Red Truth was treated as different from white text but it's exactly the same; the same word tricks are used in both.