[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[AuraTwilight]

It still doesn't matter.
2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.

Can you find a way to completely destroy the concept of Unreliable Narrator in Umineko?

3. There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.

I can do this all day long.

Fair enough on number two, but for number 3 I'd argue that Umineko is a story ABOUT a mystery.

Also, no couples are brought to the altar, and the love thing is critically important to Yasu's motives.

But can you prove he's not allowing this?

You can't prove a negative, dude. You have the burden of proof.

Besides, even if the Detective can't lie, you haven't destroyed my theory that since there were no crimes, there is no Detective in EP7 either. Since the Detective was not present for any of the crimes in EP7, it amounts to the same thing.

Bern tells Will to investigate, calls this his 'final case', and assigns Lion to him as his "Watson". On top of that, instead of taking the argument you made, he tries to use the 'A corpse must be present rule', which Bern refutes

I guess. Why can't we just say it's his interpretation of the rules, though, and call it a day?

Because we have no evidence to suggest his interpretation differs from the canonical meaning, and if it DOES differ, then he's still WRONG. It's not something left up to interpretation like the Bible or Umineko's ending.

[Toku]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Fair enough on number two, but for number 3 I'd argue that Umineko is a story ABOUT a mystery.

Also, no couples are brought to the altar, and the love thing is critically important to Yasu's motives.

Well, technically that's up to interpretation.

6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. His function is to gather clues that will eventually lead to the person who did the dirty work in the first chapter; and if the detective does not reach his conclusions through an analysis of those clues, he has no more solved his problem than the schoolboy who gets his answer out of the back of the arithmetic.

On the rare occasion that a Detective actually does reach the Truth in Umineko, it is barely explained at all. Aside from EP7, where we saw a partial explanation, but still leaving out a whole lot of the important parts and obscuring other parts. In particular, Ange did not reach the Truth in EP8 of her own accord, merely reading it from a book and then rejecting what she read.

You can't prove a negative, dude. You have the burden of proof.

True. Well, I don't remember anything which prove that he didn't allow it. But using a Devil's Proof in an argument doesn't particularly sit right with me.

Bern tells Will to investigate, calls this his 'final case', and assigns Lion to him as his "Watson". On top of that, instead of taking the argument you made, he tries to use the 'A corpse must be present rule', which Bern refutes

The mysteries that Will solved were those of previous games. As for EP7 itself, he did not solve any crimes. If he did, we didn't get to hear his conclusions. And anyway, we were only shown one crime in EP7 that isn't practically confirmed to be Fantasy: Kyrie killing Lion. The Who Dunnit, How Dunnit, and Why Dunnit were all presented to Will by Bernkastel herself, so not only did he not do any detective work of his own in this case, but he actually rejected the solution to that crime, preferring to leave it all in the cat box. A detective does not opt to leave crimes in the cat box. That is the opposite of what they are supposed to do.

Because we have no evidence to suggest his interpretation differs from the canonical meaning, and if it DOES differ, then he's still WRONG. It's not something left up to interpretation like the Bible or Umineko's ending.

I can't confirm it either way, personally, but I would like to bring up the possibility that Ryukishi's skill with English may not be very good. Consequently, he may have simply made a mistake. He's only human.

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

So no matter what Red Truth you make, future circumstances can change it. If I say I have one apple, and always have had one apple, the same is true for all days, and then someone gives me an apple tomorrow, then I have Two apples.

I can't recall specifically, but I remember having the distinct impression that among witches, it was considered "bad form" to use Gold ... at all, really, and to use Red when referring to the future.

Also, I lack the eloquence to state this opinion well, on the Ikuko issue, but I like things best if she's literally some disturbingly lonely, whimsical woman that picks a hobo up off the street, as we were told. The idea that she might be an adult Yasu not only never really jumped out at me while reading, but also makes that entire plot feel ... really creepy, and morally uncomfortable.

Of course, I'm also not really a fan of Yasu, in general. I'm not nearly as sympathetic to the girl as Ryukishi seems to want me to be, so....

[AuraTwilight]

On the rare occasion that a Detective actually does reach the Truth in Umineko, it is barely explained at all. Aside from EP7, where we saw a partial explanation, but still leaving out a whole lot of the important parts and obscuring other parts. In particular, Ange did not reach the Truth in EP8 of her own accord, merely reading it from a book and then rejecting what she read.

Aside from arguably Will, none of these took place on a Gameboard. You forget that only Beatrice's Rokkenjima Gameboard is bound by Knox's Decalogue, not the Meta-World.

The mysteries that Will solved were those of previous games.

And he didn't invoke Dine for them.

As for EP7 itself, he did not solve any crimes. If he did, we didn't get to hear his conclusions.

He solved what he was told to solve, so let's replace the world 'crime' with 'puzzle' or 'challenge'. In any case, he did give his conclusions on that. You're getting way too hung up on semantics, in a game where semantics is used to trip up people like Battler and Erika constantly.

A detective does not opt to leave crimes in the cat box. That is the opposite of what they are supposed to do.

Excuse me, Will explained everything. It's not his fault you're no good at riddles. :P

I can't confirm it either way, personally, but I would like to bring up the possibility that Ryukishi's skill with English may not be very good. Consequently, he may have simply made a mistake. He's only human.

Then he fucked up and his thoughts on the matter should be disregarded.

[cronnoponno]

Originally Posted by Kealym

I can't recall specifically, but I remember having the distinct impression that among witches, it was considered "bad form" to use Gold ... at all, really, and to use Red when referring to the future.

Also, I lack the eloquence to state this opinion well, on the Ikuko issue, but I like things best if she's literally some disturbingly lonely, whimsical woman that picks a hobo up off the street, as we were told. The idea that she might be an adult Yasu not only never really jumped out at me while reading, but also makes that entire plot feel ... really creepy, and morally uncomfortable.

Of course, I'm also not really a fan of Yasu, in general. I'm not nearly as sympathetic to the girl as Ryukishi seems to want me to be, so....

Why is everyone treating Ikuko (who may or may not be Yasu) as if she's some crazy mastermind who totally chains Battler up to a bed as a sex slave and denies him medical treatment? I believe Tohya did say at one part Ikuko told him he could get brain surgery if he wanted to try to recover his memories, it was Tohya who chose not to, I doubt Tohya was like ''I'm dying! Please take me to the hospital'' where Ikuko was like ''Heheheheh........no, now read this for me''.

During the time at which she did bribe the person who checked up on Tohya, Tohya was in shock and barely able to make decisions for himself, Ikuko would have forced him to receive treatment, at which later he apparently doesn't want that.

Maybe it's possible that whatever fit Battler went into caused him to actually attempt to start going to hospitals, at some point or another, he has been to a hospital, so I doubt Ikuko was keeping him captive and just suddenly decided to start letting him go.


I also don't understand how it's such a horrible thing for Ikuko to be Yasu, I wasn't here like, 10 pages ago or wherever this point was brought up, it's getting harder and harder to keep up with you guys XD.

[Toku]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Aside from arguably Will, none of these took place on a Gameboard. You forget that only Beatrice's Rokkenjima Gameboard is bound by Knox's Decalogue, not the Meta-World.

Well, I was talking about Van Dine here, but you're right...

Wait just a moment, do ALL of these conflicting Van Dine rules have loopholes that barely allow them to work in Umineko? It feels like Ryukishi just tried his very best to stretch the limits here and make it look like this is impossible.

...I can't find any which don't have loopholes anymore... Wow, Ryukishi. Alright, fine, I'll accept the use of Van Dine now. And, sure, why not, I'll use them in my arguments too.

He solved what he was told to solve, so let's replace the world 'crime' with 'puzzle' or 'challenge'. In any case, he did give his conclusions on that. You're getting way too hung up on semantics, in a game where semantics is used to trip up people like Battler and Erika constantly.

7. There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better. No lesser crime than murder will suffice. Three hundred pages is far too much pother for a crime other than murder. After all, the reader's trouble and expenditure of energy must be rewarded.

...Wait, no. Will used that, and Bern used a Devil's Proof to reject it. Is there actually a corpse?? Bernkastel never confirmed that there was one. Lion was described as "the dead cat" but... He/she was apparently alive until Kyrie came along... Someone who's alive cannot be a corpse.

You're kidding... Clair is the corpse? But doesn't that violate... Knox's 7th. It is forbidden for the detective to be the CULPRIT!!

So if you choose that option, you'll be taking away Will's status as the Detective.

Excuse me, Will explained everything. It's not his fault you're no good at riddles. :P

No, that's not what I mean. He did explain the truth of Yasuda, and all of the mysteries of EP1-4. However, he didn't explain how Lion died, and instead, rejected Lion's murder, sealing it in the cat box.

So you can't choose that option, because that's a murder he didn't solve. In short, neither the "dead cat" nor the "living cat" can be the corpses in EP7...

Then he fucked up and his thoughts on the matter should be disregarded.

You were the same person who argued that, if an author leaves a plot hole in the story, it's alright because all humans make mistakes.

[AuraTwilight]

7. There simply must be a corpse in a detective novel, and the deader the corpse the better. No lesser crime than murder will suffice. Three hundred pages is far too much pother for a crime other than murder. After all, the reader's trouble and expenditure of energy must be rewarded.

...Wait, no. Will used that, and Bern used a Devil's Proof to reject it. Is there actually a corpse?? Bernkastel never confirmed that there was one. Lion was described as "the dead cat" but... He/she was apparently alive until Kyrie came along... Someone who's alive cannot be a corpse.

You're kidding... Clair is the corpse? But doesn't that violate... Knox's 7th. It is forbidden for the detective to be the CULPRIT!!

So if you choose that option, you'll be taking away Will's status as the Detective.

Everything is here.

The Corpse is a metaphor, since Beatrice doesn't exist in this place. You can see either Clair as the Dead Cat, but she was dead before Will and Clair had their argument.

Anyway, 'killing' the opponent is not the same as a murder, in Umineko's Meta-Logic. See: The Battler/Beatrice fights.

No, that's not what I mean. He did explain the truth of Yasuda, and all of the mysteries of EP1-4. However, he didn't explain how Lion died, and instead, rejected Lion's murder, sealing it in the cat box.

He was never obligated to. Infact, his position was that Lion DIDN'T die. And, apparently, he's RIGHT, since Lion managed to survive.

You were the same person who argued that, if an author leaves a plot hole in the story, it's alright because all humans make mistakes.

Where?

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The Truth of the Future overwrites the Truth of the Past. Red Truths do not predict the future, therefore future gameboards can be constructed that contradict declarative statements. The Red Truth you reference only talks about the four Gameboards that existed at the time, it was not a prohibition against future Gameboards.

Actually, Battler says "There's the red truth which Beato showed during the 4th game!! No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight! " and applies that Red spoken in the 4th game to the 5th game like it's a Law. It's the cornerstone of his argument, in fact.

Originally Posted by Toku

While it is not possible for a Detective to be deceived, it is possible for a Detective to lie about what they've seen.

It's the opposite.

Battler was proving he wasn't the detective with the following logic: Battler says he saw Kinzo + Kinzo could not be mistaken by sight = Battler must be lying = Battler can't be the detective.

Some people think Erika can't be deceived due to Detective Authority, which is wrong. Erika does have exceptional sensory and concentration abilities, which can be effectively used to argue that it's impossible for her senses to be deceived, but those abilities are intrinsic to her and don't come from Detective Authority.

--------

About Van Dine. I don't think his rules apply to Umineko. One, one, rule was spoken in Red, and it was spoken in a context that had nothing to do with Rokkenjima. Dlanor only existed on Beato's board because Beato allowed her to be there (discussed in EP5's "????"). Will, on the other hand, didn't bring any Red with him.

[Kylon99]

Hey, I was going over that older Ryukishi interview with KEIYA at the end of EP8. Regarding the Van Dine rules, he said this:

Spoiler for VanDine not applicable in Umineko:

K When I saw „Quit the SSVD“ written in the character bio, I was like „What?!“. If it’s like that, then the plot is actually satisfactory. I really grew to like Will.

R If everything happens in complete accordance to Van Dine’s 20 Rules of Detective Fiction, then the motive becomes basically obsolete and is removed from the cornerstones of the story. So that’s how it became my goal to eliminate the 20 rules and how they vanished from Umineko.

K Most of Will’s 20 Van Dine Rules were never claimed to have effect during the story. Many of them were also interrupted. And many of those claimed to have effect were written in plain white letters.

R Yes. I thought about using them a lot actually, but in the end I didn’t. Even if you count in the war against the goats, there are just about 3 or 4. If you express it in the sense of an Anti-Mystery, who brought up Knox and Van Dine within the story were the players themselves. Since they were always pulled out even at the time of Higurashi.

Which fits with what you guys were talking about, I think.

The interview is a pretty good read in case anyone still hasn't read it.
http://seizonsha.wordpress.com/2011/...al-discussion/

[AuraTwilight]

Actually, Battler says "There's the red truth which Beato showed during the 4th game!! No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight! " and applies that Red spoken in the 4th game to the 5th game like it's a Law. It's the cornerstone of his argument, in fact.

This doesn't mean Battler was correct. After all, if it was that easy, why bother with the whole "Kinzo MAY be alive" tease?

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Banquet Of The Golden Witch

`"......Checking the brand.`@` The brand is different from the cigarette butt.`@` ...The cigarette butt Kyrie is holding is not of the same brand of the cigarettes that Rudolf smokes."`\

[...]

`"......Beato, sorry, but one more time please.`@` ...Hideyoshi oji-san's pockets.`@` .........In this family, only Dad and Hideyoshi smoke cigarettes."`\

`Beato found a cigarette box in Hideyoshi's pocket, took a single one out, and held it out.`\

`"......Checking the brand.`@` We acknowledge that the cigarette butt is of the same brand that Hideyoshi smokes."`\

[...]

`From that cigarette butt, Kyrie realized that Hideyoshi was creating an alibi for Eva's sake.`@

`Hideyoshi had been tasked with watching over the room to create an alibi,`@` ...and during that time, he had been unable to withstand the tension and had smoked.`\

`Then Kyrie had confessed that to Rudolf.`@
`She had confessed that there was a good chance that Eva was the culprit, and Hideyoshi was an accomplice.`\

`And then she asked Hideyoshi oji-san to lend a hand!!`@` This could only mean one thing.`\

`Kyrie-san planned to isolate Hideyoshi oji-san and question him about the truth!!"`\

Originally Posted by Van Dine's 20 Rules

[...]
20. And (to give my Credo an even score of items) I herewith list a few of the devices which no self-respecting detective story writer will now avail himself of. They have been employed too often, and are familiar to all true lovers of literary crime. To use them is a confession of the author's ineptitude and lack of originality. (a) Determining the identity of the culprit by comparing the butt of a cigarette left at the scene of the crime with the brand smoked by a suspect.[...]

Hmm Ryukishi really had fun going against William Huntington Wright here.

Therefore Van Dine's 20 rules don't apply to the first four games!

CHECK MATE!

[Toku]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Everything is here.

The Corpse is a metaphor, since Beatrice doesn't exist in this place. You can see either Clair as the Dead Cat, but she was dead before Will and Clair had their argument.

That Red only applies to clues. That's because it's a response to a completely different Van Dine rule (the 1st). The only thing Bern has against the 7th rule is her Devil's Proof.

And according to you, a corpse does not actually exist. Therefore, it's violating the 7th rule.

Unless, of course, you decide to just leave Van Dine out of the argument. I don't really mind either way.

Now let's see... What were we arguing about again? Hm... I was trying to say that Red Truths aren't useless. Right. And EP7 is my only big obstacle left at the moment. And, specifically, I mainly just need to prove that Will is not the Detective in EP7 alone.

...Unfortunately, Clair's death scene, which is clearly Fantasy side, was told from Lion's perspective, not Will's.

And, Will actually did see Kinzo in EP7. I can't say that Will's perspective was never seen, or that he didn't see Kinzo. That's a pain, but it just means I can't throw everything into darkness.

Even so, I can explain EP7 by saying that it follows different rules. Don't worry, I have evidence of this. It was said by Will himself:

"Lion is a piece placed by Bernkastel. She also said that she'd moved into a larger cat box to place that piece.
......On top of that, it seems this world isn't a proper world, but one made out of several different Fragments sewn together."

In short, Beatrice's Red Truth regarding Kinzo only applies to her smaller cat box, in which it was spoken. In this larger cat box, there is room for Kinzo to exist.

I have more evidence of this conclusion, of course.

"After all, right when I entered the chapel, I spotted Kinzo.
Since Shannon has worked for 10 years, this is the stage of Beato's game, 1986.
In that case, Kinzo shouldn't exist.
However, he definitely was here a few minutes ago."

Will acknowledges that, ordinarily, Beatrice's Red Truth would destroy Kinzo. This implies that, if Bern hadn't moved to a bigger cat box, there would be no room for Kinzo to exist.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

It's the opposite.

Battler was proving he wasn't the detective with the following logic: Battler says he saw Kinzo + Kinzo could not be mistaken by sight = Battler must be lying = Battler can't be the detective.

While it strikes me as being completely ridiculous that someone is forbidden to lie, I'll accept that this is no longer a viable argument.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Hmm Ryukishi really had fun going against William Huntington Wright here.

Therefore Van Dine's 20 rules don't apply to the first four games!

CHECK MATE!

The culprit wasn't pinpointed due to that cigarette butt.

However, it doesn't matter, because there was no corpse in EP7.

[Bluemail]

About Battler and Yasu both holding a mystery game, maybe EP8 having two Game Masters making things complicated is also a hint towards this?


I've also been thinking about the October 6 scene. What they're talking about is probably mostly metaphorical, and the reason for her drowning was at least that Beatrice's illusion was bound to Rokkenjima, and she couldn't live as a human. Battler being calm on a motorboat also seems like an implication that the scene is illusionary.

But, maybe Battler wasn't actually afraid of vehicles before October 6th? Something traumatic happened on the boat, which gave him post-traumatic reactions even after losing his memory. It might have been just him falling from the boat, or it might have involved Beatrice as well. This was then interpreted by Tohya as part of Battler's character. It doesn't explain why he's afraid of other vehicles as well... Just throwing a suggestion on how things might have worked.


EP7's crime is "Who killed Beatrice?", if that wasn't clear. The remains of the game or something like that could be called the corpse. And Will didn't even have Detective's authority there, I think. KEIYA's interview seems to suggest Ryukishi used Will to show that Van Dine rules don't apply. And you can't say the case wasn't solved with only clues that were presented even if the thought process wasn't shown to us.

Actually, in EP7 the solution to "Who killed Beatrice?" was that the actor playing her part did that. It shouldn't apply to Lion's world, which had another solution. After all, this actor doesn't act in Lion's world. It makes me think an instance of Yasuda killing Beatrice happened. Is suicide the solution? Perhaps it's about that she just killed the Beatrice persona when she left the island once and for all. One point to Ikuko=Yasuda. There is the EP5 death to consider as well. If it meant that she had submitted to Natsuhi culprit theory as a solution because she didn't think Battler could reach the truth as I suggested, it can also be seen as killing Beatrice. That is what happens when the truth is exposed, but Yasuda had to make the initiative as Natsuhi culprit theory wasn't actually the correct one.

We can doubt if Ikuko's a human being at all, because she doesn't seem to age. Ange does speak of it relatively, though, but the writing focuses on it just a bit too much to be dismissed with that. When thinking about the chance of Ikuko being Yasuda, I interpret the agelessness as another clue for the theory. After all, Yasuda was described as young for her age, and her lack of development might make Ikuko look incredibly youthful to Ange.


About Ikuko being evil for not telling the truth... Maybe she didn't know it either? She also had lost her memory at some point! Featherine's memory device got damaged, remember? It works with both interpreting Featherine as just Ikuko or her representing both Tohya and Ikuko. The memory device thing could be about just Tohya, though, in the Featherine is both interpretation. But what if...

Thoughts on the connection between Higurashi and Umineko:

Spoiler for Higurashi:

Ryuukishi also hinted that the damage on the memory device has something to do with Hanyuu's scar on her left horn. I thought it might be about Featherine losing her awareness as a player in Higurashi, and becomes just the time-resetting piece. Rika is left to solve the situation herself, which became like randomly typing on a typewriter. As a result she ascended as the witch Bernkastel.

Lambda is implied to be Miyo's guardian in Tsubasa, so could Higurashi be a game between Featherine and Lambdadelta? They don't seem to have an equal relationship in EP8 though. Being the culprit's guardian doesn't make her the Game Master. Let alone she didn't seem to know the culprit in EP2 Tea Party. Takano alone shouldn't be a witch either, but Battler wasn't a witch either. So, if Higurashi is a game, between who could it be? Maybe we'll see in When They Cry 5...

[Toku]

Originally Posted by Bluemail

About Ikuko being evil for not telling the truth... Maybe she didn't know it either? She also had lost her memory at some point! Featherine's memory device got damaged, remember? It works with both interpreting Featherine as just Ikuko or her representing both Tohya and Ikuko. The memory device thing could be about just Tohya, though, in the Featherine is both interpretation. But what if...

Featherine is the witch who represents the two authors who comprise "Hachijo Tohya." Tohya is known to have memory problems, but Ikuko isn't, so the most logical conclusion to reach here is that it's a metaphor for Tohya's memory problems.

It's true that Beato had lost her memories in EP6. However, I don't think that this in any way implies that Yasuda has lost her memories.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Excuse me, Will explained everything. It's not his fault you're no good at riddles. :P

Well, almost everything. How 'bout that end of ep3 and all of ep4?

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Actually, Battler says "There's the red truth which Beato showed during the 4th game!! No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight! " and applies that Red spoken in the 4th game to the 5th game like it's a Law. It's the cornerstone of his argument, in fact.

Yes, because Kinzo was also dead in ep5. If the premise of ep5 were that Kinzo was, in fact, alive, that would no longer apply and Battler wouldn't be able to say it. But as it so happens, Kinzo is dead in End, because the fact that everyone's catching on to his death and Krauss and Natsuhi's coverup is a central theme of the entire episode.

People rarely attempt to declare Kinzo dead the few times he's actually totally alive (ep7-8 basically). Although Kinzo is both dead and alive whenever it suits him in ep7, so perhaps that's not the best example.

The point being, Kinzo's death is an assumed premise for people who caught on to it based on the earliest "canonical" stories. However, just as Erika can be introduced as a new character, Kinzo could be "revealed" to actually be entirely alive. After all, even in the stories that assume he's dead from the start, there isn't actually ever any proof of that. No one specifically admits to it, his body is never found in a state that suggests he's been dead for long, etc.

So "Kinzo is dead" is a safe premise for Battler to argue, but it might not be true. He just guessed correctly that, in ep5, it was true. And the themes of the narrative did support that. By contrast, was Kinzo dead or alive in ep6? There's basically one line about him in the entire board narrative. It wasn't a major theme of the game, so the best we can go with is "He was probably dead, but we don't have any way of knowing."

[Toku]

Originally Posted by Renall

Yes, because Kinzo was also dead in ep5. If the premise of ep5 were that Kinzo was, in fact, alive, that would no longer apply and Battler wouldn't be able to say it. But as it so happens, Kinzo is dead in End, because the fact that everyone's catching on to his death and Krauss and Natsuhi's coverup is a central theme of the entire episode.

People rarely attempt to declare Kinzo dead the few times he's actually totally alive (ep7-8 basically). Although Kinzo is both dead and alive whenever it suits him in ep7, so perhaps that's not the best example.

The point being, Kinzo's death is an assumed premise for people who caught on to it based on the earliest "canonical" stories. However, just as Erika can be introduced as a new character, Kinzo could be "revealed" to actually be entirely alive. After all, even in the stories that assume he's dead from the start, there isn't actually ever any proof of that. No one specifically admits to it, his body is never found in a state that suggests he's been dead for long, etc.

The red truth is simply truth, and there is no need to provide evidence, proof, or room for a counter-argument!!

A badly burnt corpse has always been a clue that someone needed to obscure the time of death. This should be obvious.

Kinzo is already dead at the starting time for all games!

As I've already shown, Will supports this because he naturally comes to the conclusion that "if this is Beatrice's game board of 1986, Kinzo must be dead." It should be safe to assume that he's right, and that the only reason Kinzo can exist in EP7 is because a bigger cat box was created.

So "Kinzo is dead" is a safe premise for Battler to argue, but it might not be true. He just guessed correctly that, in ep5, it was true. And the themes of the narrative did support that. By contrast, was Kinzo dead or alive in ep6? There's basically one line about him in the entire board narrative. It wasn't a major theme of the game, so the best we can go with is "He was probably dead, but we don't have any way of knowing."

The red truth is absolute!! A perfect truth, which no one can overturn no matter how hard they try!!

The only reason Ange was able to revive her family at the end of EP8 was because, in the real world, there is no Red Truth. In short, she was able to escape to a place that was outside of the range of Red Truth.

[Renall]

You are, quite simply, completely wrong.

As has been stated, red is completely worthless for predictive statements. The statement "Kinzo is dead in all games" does not apply to any game created later unless the author chooses to use that premise. Red can only fix a truth value at the time it is stated. Since you appear to be not quite catching on to this, consider the following reds in temporal order:

"When Jessica's corpse was discovered..." (Turn)
"Jessica is alive." (Banquet)
"[A]nyone looking at George, Jessica, Maria, Rosa, or Genji's corpses could confirm at a glance that they are dead." (End)

"Battler is alive." (Banquet)
"Battler is dead." (Twilight)

"No more than 17 humans exist on this island!! ... That excludes any 18th person... In short, this 18th person X does not exist!! ... This applies to all games!!!" (Alliance)
"Furudo Erika only increases it by one person." (End)
"I am the visitor, the 18th human on Rokkenjima!!" (Dawn)

So basically your red's writing checks your blue can't cash. If red isn't contextual and subject to change, then Jessica died, became alive again, and then died again; Battler is both dead and alive; and Erika both is and is not an 18th person that does and does not exist.

[Toku]

Originally Posted by Renall

You are, quite simply, completely wrong.

As has been stated, red is completely worthless for predictive statements. The statement "Kinzo is dead in all games" does not apply to any game created later unless the author chooses to use that premise. Red can only fix a truth value at the time it is stated. Since you appear to be not quite catching on to this, consider the following reds in temporal order:

"When Jessica's corpse was discovered..." (Turn)
"Jessica is alive." (Banquet)
"[A]nyone looking at George, Jessica, Maria, Rosa, or Genji's corpses could confirm at a glance that they are dead." (End)
"Battler is alive." (Banquet)
"Battler is dead." (Twilight)

It appears that you've completely misunderstood me.

Let me explain. In Turn, Jessica might have been killed and her corpse discovered. At that time, you're free to confirm that Jessica is dead. However, anyone who has any understanding of the English language will be able to see that the statement Jessica is dead only applies to the present moment in the present game. For example, in the past, she is allowed to have been alive. And in a future game, she will be reset so that she can be alive again.

There's nothing stupid here like Jessica is dead at the start of all games! because, that just wouldn't work.

However, there are certain Red Truths that apply to "all games." This means that any and all games which take place on the game board in question, must abide by these particular Reds. It is a rule to be followed. There is no need to predict anything. If you see a violation of this rule, you can destroy it simply by quoting the rule, spoken in Red.

Of course, you can put an illusion of Kinzo on the game board if you want, even after his death is confirmed in Red. But it would only be an illusion. The Detective won't be allowed to see it, or at least, not until they stop being the Detective and therefore gain the right to lie about what they see.

"No more than 17 humans exist on this island!! ... That excludes any 18th person... In short, this 18th person X does not exist!! ... This applies to all games!!!" (Alliance)
"Furudo Erika only increases it by one person." (End)
"I am the visitor, the 18th human on Rokkenjima!!" (Dawn)

We've already dealt with this. If we think of this "18th person X" as an unknown individual hiding somewhere on the island, we can reason that Erika does not fit this description. Furthermore, as said at the end of EP6, there are only 17 total humans even with Erika. Therefore, EP5 does not violate either of these Red Truths.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Toku

It appears that you've completely misunderstood me.

Let me explain. In Turn, Jessica might have been killed and her corpse discovered. At that time, you're free to confirm that Jessica is dead. However, anyone who has any understanding of the English language will be able to see that the statement Jessica is dead only applies to the present moment in the present game. For example, in the past, she is allowed to have been alive. And in a future game, she will be reset so that she can be alive again.

Except this is no different in any way from Kinzo. Let me show you by showing how you showed yourself and didn't even know it:

There's nothing stupid here like Jessica is dead at the start of all games! because, that just wouldn't work.

Actually it would, provided that "the present moment in the present game" (your own words, mind), Jessica has been dead at the start of all games. Transfer this to Kinzo and you can see that this was true; Kinzo was indeed dead in all games, and there is no contradictory evidence to say otherwise even though there is a lack of definitive affirmative evidence to say he was.

However, there are certain Red Truths that apply to "all games." This means that any and all games which take place on the game board in question, must abide by these particular Reds. It is a rule to be followed. There is no need to predict anything. If you see a violation of this rule, you can destroy it simply by quoting the rule, spoken in Red.

No you can't. First, you have absolutely no basis to say that (because you're wrong). Second, we already know that non-declarative red statements lack any truth value, yet can still be spoken:

"I'll love you so much, and make you my toy until you turn to ashes " (Turn)

This never happens, at least not literally. She does do some of it later, but Battler is consumed by goats, not burned to ashes, as far as the narrative suggests. And unless you believe this actually happened to Piece-Battler, it never presumably happened at all.

"[T]hat Beatrice will never revive again." (Dawn)

Disputably true predictive statement.

"This is my Golden Land... A world where magic that isn't mine certainly cannot exist... [my] magic was not able to revive Sakutarou." (Alliance)

Yet it happened.

"(various forms of cackling in red)" (Turn)
"<Die the death>! <Sentence to death>!!<Great equalizer is the death>!!" (End)
"Acknowledged." (Dawn)
"Everything is gathered here." (Requiem)

These statements are either meaningless nonsense or meaningless without context not defined in red. The context is always temporally fixed and subject to change. See... well, everything ever, but especially the Logic Error.

Of course, you can put an illusion of Kinzo on the game board if you want, even after his death is confirmed in Red. But it would only be an illusion. The Detective won't be allowed to see it, or at least, not until they stop being the Detective and therefore gain the right to lie about what they see.

You have absolutely no basis to claim this and anything (including Twilight) could contradict you merely by demonstrating otherwise. In fact, I'm going to write a forgery right now.

Spoiler for Here We Go!:

Battler and Beatrice play a game with the following plot: Battler went to the family conference in 1986. When he got off the boat, Kinzo was there and hugged him and said "Cool to see you back, bro!" Then some stuff happened and a bunch of people died and it's now 11:49 PM on October 5th and Battler and Kinzo are holed up together in his study.

Beatrice states the following:

Battler is the detective.
Kinzo is alive. He was dead in all games prior to this, but in this game he is definitely a living human!

Oh shit, looks like I just did what you told me I can't possibly do!

We've already dealt with this. If we think of this "18th person X" as an unknown individual hiding somewhere on the island, we can reason that Erika does not fit this description. Furthermore, as said at the end of EP6, there are only 17 total humans even with Erika. Therefore, EP5 does not violate either of these Red Truths.

Except that's entirely your interpretation, which is not something that can be textually confirmed. This contradicts your own statement referencing the "red truth is simply true" lines, because apparently the red text does require interpretation. That means it has a context, which means that you're incorrect.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Toku

While it strikes me as being completely ridiculous that someone is forbidden to lie, I'll accept that this is no longer a viable argument.

The detective can lie, just not in his narration.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

This doesn't mean Battler was correct. After all, if it was that easy, why bother with the whole "Kinzo MAY be alive" tease?

Originally Posted by Renall

Yes, because Kinzo was also dead in ep5. If the premise of ep5 were that Kinzo was, in fact, alive, that would no longer apply and Battler wouldn't be able to say it. But as it so happens, Kinzo is dead in End, because the fact that everyone's catching on to his death and Krauss and Natsuhi's coverup is a central theme of the entire episode.

~~~~~~~~~

Kinzo's death was confirmed in Red at the beginning of EP5.

Although just the fact that it had to be confirmed itself questions the predictive nature of Reds.

But even so, Battler applied a Red from EP4 (No one would mistake Kinzo by sight) to the world of EP5. Even if it were wrong to do so, Dlanor, Erika, Bern and Lambda all let it pass.

There is the possible argument that since Battler only needed clues at the time, not proof, he could get away with applying Red predictively. Although Battler spoke a further Red that would not be logically certain unless the above mentioned Red was intrinsically predictive when he said "In other words, on this island, all illusions which might lead someone to mistake something for Grandfather, including someone else pretending to be Grandfather, 'most certainly cannot work'."

It's all quite fuzzy, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Renall

"I'll love you so much, and make you my toy until you turn to ashes"

Ikuko=Yasu