[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Renall]

Sure it can. Again, we just have to handwave everything as referring to the mystery. Yes, it's more of a stretch, but "death != death" opens the door.

Natsuhi didn't have a bullet in her forehead, her character did. Nanjo "diagnoses" according to the script (and anyone who would say Nanjo wouldn't or couldn't do this... well... yeah). I'd note in both of those cases (ep1/ep3) the "killer" was very physically close to Battler's location. Close enough that it might be necessary to actually stage the scene rather than just have Natsuhi put on makeup and flop over "dead" (in case Battler gets there too soon). Plus, remember, Natsuhi's gun had blanks in it. Maybe they're all literal prop guns? And yes the condition of the bodies is highly questionable, but maybe it was just super good makeup. Or Battler is bad at telling the difference. His conclusions in ep4 are mostly suppositions anyway.

If we assume "death" does not take on the standard accepted meaning of biological death, we can question the entire purpose of the red truth. Is it there to ascertain what "really happened," or is it there to solidify and guide the solving of the mystery, which is in every respect a work of fiction? Is that not the "game" itself, that back-and-forth between the witch and her opponent, not the board itself? Piece-Battler can't "win," he can't even really control the outcome. It's Meta-Battler that the red exists for, and it's Meta-Battler who can even see and use it. We know red truth can't exist in reality, what if that's not merely referring to Prime but to the "real events" of each board, which are reinterpreted by red to create the "script" for the game? Red has never been anything more than a meta-fictional construct, after all.

Is it so implausible? The story moves in cycles. Beatrice has the power to "kill" and "revive" at whim, but can't be seen by those who don't "accept" her. Ep5 and ep6 are portrayed as deliberate games (and Erika "breaks" the script in one of them by committing real murder). Our Confession quite literally has a multi-layered story as part of Beatrice's own design (granted, with real murder, but if you remove the real murders it still basically functions). Plus the whole "you never killed anybody" thing from ep8.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by jTiKey

So, I own an apology to all who was offended by my posts.

From what I learnt, not many here actually know what Rosatrice actually represents. So here is the basis:

.....

I cut your post due to its lenght but I wanted to thank you for explaining the Rosatrice theory as I was rather curious about it.

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

Well, first I have to clarify that by "no murders" I mean "all or at least most were fake deaths". With that being the case, her going to Kuwadorian was more than likely an act of whim or leisure that saved her from the explosion. It's possible that she didn't know of the bombs being activated and so went to Kuwadorian by herself, probably to relax or explore, and didn't bring her family.

This is what I theorized as well when I considered the possibility so many post ago... however even to me it had always seemed a little weak. It's a long walk from the main house to Kuwadorian and she goes there alone and, at best, in the middle of the night. It felt weird. Possible but weird.

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

As for her silence, that's been bugging since it was brought up and I never understood why she would remain silent if not that the story was too horrific to be remembered or she didn't know what happened herself. The latter makes sense for my theory if she didn't know the explosion happened and so can't really tell the press anything since all her side of the story would amount to "We were playing a halloween mystery game for the kids... then I left... and an explosion occured."

The fact that she didn't know was also something I theorized but the problem is it crashes with the book of one single truth in which apparently some unpleasant truths are contained. I would have liked to believe they were 'and I've no idea what had happened' but it seems in the original plans for it we should have seen more screenshots than the ones showed and that implied Eva saw something.

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

As for Battler, wasn't it Yasu herself who brought him over to the submarine in the first place?

It's popular belief and my belief as well but we've no proofs about it and there's also the theory he was going through it with Eva then for unknown reasons they parted ways. While this would make a little more believable Eva walking through the tunnel as she wouldn't be alone anymore, it because again very weird they parted ways like that so we're back on square 1.

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

Yeah, but I consider it a great revelation though. It forces us to rethink the value of their motives.

It's undoubtely a good plot point and work even better in the manga where it's explained and not tossed there randomly.

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

True, true. Battler forgetting his promise was seemingly the trigger, so I would assume her mental state pretty much plummeted after that point and she turned on the switch. Battler did imply that he was the cause of why Beatrice "sinned" in R- Prime. Maybe she temporarily lost herself in emotion and activated the switch? I mean, if EP 7 and EP 8 are anything to go by, she didn't really have her wits about her.

This however would mean she would have been completely different from the Shannon/Kanon presented in the episodes... which is possible mind you but becomes something over which we've no proof. Basically she should have been totally upside down by Battler not coming to retrieve her even this time, which means this would have overcomed... let's say George proposing to her.

I had a nice theory about how George actually never planned to propose and she exhaggerated his feelings as well as misinterpreted Jessica's interest for Kanon which could have justified how having in that same day Battler admitting he forgot about her, George making clear he never planned to propose and maybe Jessica saying she cares for her but only as a friend, might have triggered her. However, again, that's speculation I can't prove.

On a sidenote, as I can see there's people interested in the Rosatrice theory and that it has spawned some new interesting discussions but that, at the same time, discussing it is hard as it clashes with various problems why don't we make it a 'game' like the one in Ep 4 Teaparty?

For each puzzle the Rosatrice theory must give an answer that's at least humanly possible and red, Knox and Dine compliant (since they're requisites of the Rosatrice theory). [And if I've forgotten something that's equally mandatory to teh Rosatrice theory please tell me]

Members can either try to improve the theory or point out at the weak points or find why it's impossible for it to work.

We face one puzzle at time, meaning we start from Ep 1 first twilight and progressing bit by bit.

To keep the discussion from becoming endless after a theory is done each member is allowed just 1 counter shot at it. If the shot is fatal (EX: the solution doesn't comply with red/involves something a human can't do), the solution has to be fixed before we can continue, either the witch side win. If the shot is not fatal (Ex: okay, so the solution is possible but extremely improbable or requires accepting things for which we'll have no proof) we'll accept to move further (sort of like Beato accepted small bombs or Erika's second theory on Ep 5 was accepted) although the solution will be acknowledged as weak. If no successful shoot is made we'll continue acknowledging that solution as valid.

Mind you, this is just an attempt to find a solution on how to discuss things in an ordered way and without people getting too heated up. If someone has better ideas I'm open to suggestions.

So, is there someone who's up to the game?

Ep 1 first twilight, how can we solve it with Rosatrice?
What is the Rosatrice supporters' blue truth?

[Leafsnail]

Originally Posted by Renall

Sure it can. Again, we just have to handwave everything as referring to the mystery. Yes, it's more of a stretch, but "death != death" opens the door.

Natsuhi didn't have a bullet in her forehead, her character did. Nanjo "diagnoses" according to the script (and anyone who would say Nanjo wouldn't or couldn't do this... well... yeah). I'd note in both of those cases (ep1/ep3) the "killer" was very physically close to Battler's location. Close enough that it might be necessary to actually stage the scene rather than just have Natsuhi put on makeup and flop over "dead" (in case Battler gets there too soon). Plus, remember, Natsuhi's gun had blanks in it. Maybe they're all literal prop guns? And yes the condition of the bodies is highly questionable, but maybe it was just super good makeup. Or Battler is bad at telling the difference. His conclusions in ep4 are mostly suppositions anyway.

If we assume "death" does not take on the standard accepted meaning of biological death, we can question the entire purpose of the red truth. Is it there to ascertain what "really happened," or is it there to solidify and guide the solving of the mystery, which is in every respect a work of fiction? Is that not the "game" itself, that back-and-forth between the witch and her opponent, not the board itself? Piece-Battler can't "win," he can't even really control the outcome. It's Meta-Battler that the red exists for, and it's Meta-Battler who can even see and use it. We know red truth can't exist in reality, what if that's not merely referring to Prime but to the "real events" of each board, which are reinterpreted by red to create the "script" for the game? Red has never been anything more than a meta-fictional construct, after all.

Is it so implausible? The story moves in cycles. Beatrice has the power to "kill" and "revive" at whim, but can't be seen by those who don't "accept" her. Ep5 and ep6 are portrayed as deliberate games (and Erika "breaks" the script in one of them by committing real murder). Our Confession quite literally has a multi-layered story as part of Beatrice's own design (granted, with real murder, but if you remove the real murders it still basically functions). Plus the whole "you never killed anybody" thing from ep8.

I actually think that interpretation is thematically apt. On one level the first two stories describe a series of murders, but on another they are draft scripts for Yasu's mystery night on R-Prime. The story should work on either level, and the whole thing is confused only by the strange meta-level stuff.

Where do the red truths actually come from, anyway?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

I actually think that interpretation is thematically apt. On one level the first two stories describe a series of murders, but on another they are draft scripts for Yasu's mystery night on R-Prime. The story should work on either level, and the whole thing is confused only by the strange meta-level stuff.

Where do the red truths actually come from, anyway?

The Game Master, apparently. And the way the red is described and used in ep6 (and the part in ep3 where Beatrice almost says something and Ronove stops her) it's implied statements can be made up on the fly or possibly even retroactively (as when Battler lets Erika's duct tape work).

As Battler ruminates at some point in the Banquet/Alliance period, the red is ultimately restrictive of the witch's moves; it excludes things. Why does it do that? Because the goal is to focus the player of the game on the intended mystery, not have them go off half-cocked speculating about crazy things all day. To make up for the detective's lack of investigation, you throw out red to assure them that a particular line of reasoning is not what you wanted to happen.

Considering Battler often just finds crime scenes, that's pretty useful. A hundred things could've happened in some of those closed rooms. The point isn't to come up with any functional solution, it's to find the solution the Game Master wanted to be found. That's more or less exactly Beatrice's stated objective per ep5. So...

[Leafsnail]

I mean in terms of the real world. Is it stuff rising up from Tohya's memory, or Ikuko stating things about the mystery stories she'd constructed? That is assuming the meta-world is a metaphor rather than something the authors actually put into the stories.

[Renall]

Oh. Hell if I know. Maybe sometimes a meta-world is just a meta-world.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

This is what I theorized as well when I considered the possibility so many post ago... however even to me it had always seemed a little weak. It's a long walk from the main house to Kuwadorian and she goes there alone and, at best, in the middle of the night. It felt weird. Possible but weird.

About Eva, a thought just came to mind.

Isn't it possible that Eva wasn't alone in Kuwadorian, but then a discord happened and she threw Battler and Yasu out? Only difference with how it went like in the 1st EP is, this wasn't at all premeditated and was purely paranoia at work, but of course, nothing Yasu and Battler said could convince Eva otherwise.

After the incident, she felt guilty about it, but can't bring herself up to tell that to Ange, because Ange is right in a way, that it's her who killed Ange's brother.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

About Eva, a thought just came to mind.

Isn't it possible that Eva wasn't alone in Kuwadorian, but then a discord happened and she threw Battler and Yasu out? Only difference with how it went like in the 1st EP is, this wasn't at all premeditated and was purely paranoia at work, but of course, nothing Yasu and Battler said could convince Eva otherwise.

After the incident, she felt guilty about it, but can't bring herself up to tell that to Ange, because Ange is right in a way, that it's her who killed Ange's brother.

Well, from the way Tohya tells it, it seems like he never reached Kuwadorian but ended up taking another way...

"......Eva oba-san avoided the explosion accident by escaping to Kuwadorian. ......How did you escape the accident, onii-cha......nii-san?"
"On that day, ......I escaped through the underground passage."
"The one that goes to Kuwadorian?"
"I was told that an underground passage led to a hidden mansion on the opposite side of the island. ......However, the place we escaped to was a submarine base, not Kuwadorian."

... but of course as he doesn't remember things well, everything is possible.

[GoldenLand]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

On a sidenote, as I can see there's people interested in the Rosatrice theory and that it has spawned some new interesting discussions but that, at the same time, discussing it is hard as it clashes with various problems why don't we make it a 'game' like the one in Ep 4 Teaparty?

For each puzzle the Rosatrice theory must give an answer that's at least humanly possible and red, Knox and Dine compliant (since they're requisites of the Rosatrice theory). [And if I've forgotten something that's equally mandatory to teh Rosatrice theory please tell me]

Members can either try to improve the theory or point out at the weak points or find why it's impossible for it to work.

I wouldn't mind making a game of it, but I think that having to follow the Rosatrice theory as stated by jTiKey or KnM is too restrictive to be properly fun making up theories for (ie: with George and Nanjo as mandatory accomplices and nobody else, and Rosa's motive being insanity and a resurrection ceremony, and so on). If Rosatrice were defined as just any Rosa-culprit gameboard then that would be a bit easier. But I suppose that's not the point, you're wanting an orderly discussion of the particular Rosatrice theory which has been put forward. That might not be so bad. I could stick to arguing against the theories by checking them against Knox, Dine, and what's humanly possible.

Originally Posted by Renall

Yes, it's more of a stretch, but "death != death" opens the door.

Speaking of games, it might be fun to look through the twilights of the games under the assumption that identity/role death might apply to anyone and everyone and see if it makes any difference.

[Leafsnail]

As I said, I think the game should work. Actually, that would be a kindof interesting way of looking at it - the scenes with furniture everywhere could be representative of the machinations behind the scene of the fake mystery - the "fantasy", if you will, while the world as seen by Battler is indistinguishable from the real thing.

[GreyZone]

This would certainly explain the whole thing that Beato said about the chess board being dyied in her color and the "gate to the demon/magic world being opened". It is actually nothing more than a shift of the viewpoint. Every EP, more and more "demons" etc. appear, because the perspective changes from Battler to Beatrice over time. Ironically that also means that the more it shifts to Beatrice's vision, the more truth is shown (ableit metaphoriacally). In EP1 "realistic" scenes (where Battler is not present) are telling more lies, than the "magical" scenes in later episodes.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

If we assume "death" does not take on the standard accepted meaning of biological death, we can question the entire purpose of the red truth.

Well, it is secured by one aspect, the detective's gaze.
It is true that death even in Red does not have to mean a physical death of a particular body, yet as soon as the detective observes the body close enough for a mortal wound to be verified (at least in the framework that Umineko is giving us) the death is verified as well.
Examples for this are the corpses of the 1st twilight, Eva and Hideyoshi, Nanjo, Kumasawa, Genji, and finally Natsuhi in EP1, while Shannon or Kanon were never actually seen dead by Battler and Kinzo...well we have ample reason to believe it is his corpse, but beside the toes there's no proof. Same goes for EP2, where Battler is close enough to most corpses to see whether their wounds are lethal or not, it even seals the deal on Shannon, making her definitely dead.
EP3 plays this differently, because he never get's a close look at the victims of the 1st twilight and even Shannon's body is described to be more or less cast aside as uninteresting during the final portion of the game. And EP4...well, we all know about that.

When it comes to overarching truth though, yes...

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

Where do the red truths actually come from, anyway?

I have a slightly different view from Renal (though not by much), Red Truth, in the context of Umineko, is truth but it is defined by the way that the EP8 manga finally shed light on. I would say that it could actually be separated into these two neat categories:
1. Narrative Truth of the Gameboard
2. Factual Truth of the Basis

Starting with the second, it is shared by all gameboards because it is truth that can or could be proven. The personality of an individual of Rokkenjima is fixed, no matter how much a narrative might interpret it. Beatrice existing in 1967 is fixed. There being a set number of people on the island is fixed.

Yet everything that is missing evidence is left to the devices of the first truth, which is a truth that is made up for the individual gameboard narrative. A gameboard needs to have this in order to be actually playable, it's part of the rule portion that was talked about in Chiru so often. It builds the framework of the game and gives cornerstones in where we could go. We need certain Reds for individual games because certain things are left uncertain. We do not know at what point any of them died, so the Gamemaster, the author, needs to decide it beforehand.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

So, is there someone who's up to the game?

Ep 1 first twilight, how can we solve it with Rosatrice?
What is the Rosatrice supporters' blue truth?

I wouldn't mind, but I suppose we should either move this to a seperate position or play it in spoilers, just to not take up to much space for people who do not want to play along.

[GoldenLand]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

I mean in terms of the real world. Is it stuff rising up from Tohya's memory, or Ikuko stating things about the mystery stories she'd constructed? That is assuming the meta-world is a metaphor rather than something the authors actually put into the stories.

There's something I just ran into about a con that Ryukishi went to in 2012 that might be relevant.

http://nekketsunikki.wordpress.com/2...e-27th-of-may/

6/ There’s some instances where a certain character seems to be criticizing not only the characters, but the readers themselves.

He answered that in the world of Umineko, there’s the Chessboard, then the Meta Room, then the Witches World and it goes up like that. Different worlds are hierarchically piled up. Sometime the critic may be aimed at the characters in the world below, sometimes at the readers, but he’ll leave it at our imagination to guess when.

So for the purposes of Umineko, it looks as if the meta layer may well be "real' and intricately layered. Maybe the red truth could even come from multiple layers at once. The meta game master, the person who wrote the story in the "real" world...

But when it comes to the "real world" in Umineko I don't think we have enough info to know whether the source of the red is Battler's memory or just a forgery author's word of god.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

Well, it is secured by one aspect, the detective's gaze.
It is true that death even in Red does not have to mean a physical death of a particular body, yet as soon as the detective observes the body close enough for a mortal wound to be verified (at least in the framework that Umineko is giving us) the death is verified as well.

"The detective" is a meta-fictional construct. No such thing "actually" exists. Besides, we know Battler is overly emotional, not a medical expert, and being confronted with often overly-grotesque murder scenes. As I said, it's a stretch to think he can't tell, but I'd argue it's impossible to say that he can. How many mangled dead bodies has Battler ever been around?

One could just as easily argue that Battler "confirming" a death is just a meta-fictional confirmation that this person is definitely "out" of the game and not merely faking within the context of the script. Remember, I'm arguing that to the pieces on the board, the notion of actual mystery rules do not exist in any sense. Piece-Battler has no special investigative or deductive powers; Meta-Battler does, but only when he's told what he's "observed" by the Game Master Beatrice. In other words, Battler can see someone he thinks is dead and Beatrice can say "Anyone examining them would conclude they're surely dead!" This means that, for the purposes of the game they are playing in the meta-world, the person is dead.

What I'm saying is, what if they aren't as a matter of fact? It's a bunch of actors putting on a play. A bunch of puppets putting on a show. Isn't that, ultimately, the only way Beatrice's magic can work? Isn't it the only way she can keep her promises? She did promise she'd return even the lives she took if she were to be defeated. Plus it adds a certain element of anti-mystery to things, wouldn't you say? Battler is basically goading Beatrice into making the thing a true murder story because that's what he believes she wants. It could all be a harmless game if he could just catch one of the actors slipping up, but his thoughts are always turning to the notion of ritual murder instead, so he gets what he's been expecting.

EDIT: Note Ange in the ep8 manga "proves" Shannon and Kanon are alive despite their horrific wounds by tickling them. She refuses to believe the fantasy of a mystery. Hint?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

Remember, I'm arguing that to the pieces on the board, the notion of actual mystery rules do not exist in any sense. Piece-Battler has no special investigative or deductive powers;

Well, that is my understanding now, I would say, Yes and No to that.
The notion of mystery rules applying to their situation does not necessarily exist to them (at least the clearly human pieces), but I'd still say it is Piece-Battler to whom the detective-clause is tied. If it wasn't then there shouldn't be any problem in Meta-Battler observing scenes that Piece-Battler is not a part of and still see only the truth. I'd rather argue that PB's perspective serves as a filter on a scene that makes it less likely to use obvious deceptions in that scene, since if he were to observe something crucial, he'd be likely to report it to us, the reader.

I'm not saying that this rules out the possibility of some of them being alive, but at least some are clearly corpses in the context of said game.

What I'm saying is, what if they aren't as a matter of fact? It's a bunch of actors putting on a play. A bunch of puppets putting on a show. Isn't that, ultimately, the only way Beatrice's magic can work? Isn't it the only way she can keep her promises? She did promise she'd return even the lives she took if she were to be defeated. Plus it adds a certain element of anti-mystery to things, wouldn't you say?

Definitely, but this now extends into the discussion how we regard the different layers of the game. I completely agree with you that the overarching pieces put on a show depending on the role they are assigned to, BUT the promise of Beatrice is also something that exists in the context of her narrative.
What it definitely is is a strong hint that Beatrice's game was supposed to be a "staged murder series" that was to be uncovered as soon as Battler solved her riddle. Also the EP8 manga clearly hints that this was Beato's intent from the very beginning and the interpretation of the message bottles being a murder plot was only stuck to it later.

In that sense, if Beato's game was ever put into motion on the island without any tragedy happening, and was then observed by the witches while using Red Truth, then
the Red Truth about them being dead would be figurative for all of the real people, since it is applied to their fictive persona.

BUT, as Beato said about EP8, "This story is a farce. If everything up till now had been the truth, then no tragedy would have ever occurred..."

[Leafsnail]

I think it's possible that at least some of the murders are real in episode 3 due to the latter half of the game being messier (the first twilight is fake though,which is why the servant vessels still get to wander around). Then in episode 4 everything goes completely off the rails. So episodes three and four represent attempts to divine what went so wrong.

Actually, maybe Beatrice's reds only apply to her own part im the mystery. In other words, we have it backwards - Beatrice confirming a death proves it was part of the mystery night rather than real. That's why she couldn't really say much about Alliance at all.

[Renall]

At the very least I think you can make the case for zero deaths in Legend and Turn regardless of your opinion on anything else. Legend obviously has no red whatsoever and Turn never once says anyone other than Kanon was "killed" or is "dead." There is a mention of Jessica's "corpse," but we already know from later that word is subject to wordplay. Granted, Lambda brings up some more information about ep1/ep2 in ep4 and those do reference killing and murder, but again, you can make the dual arguments that (1) Lambda isn't Beato, and (2) Lambda is referring to the intended script and not necessarily to "real" murders.

Looking strictly at Legend and Turn, however, the only person Beatrice really says outright was killed is Kanon... and Kanon is just a character even within the context of the board, and that's what she wanted Battler to notice, apparently. Battler is the one who basically insinuates all of those murders are real.

I think it'd also make a certain degree of sense of the process of game creation itself. You have a "Fragment" which is a sequence of events, and you then dress it up to create a full Forgery. The Fragment might be a tragedy, it might be a harmless game, but in either case you create a witch's fantasy from it that makes it seem more sinister than it may actually be. The red is part of that creation, and the only thing that matters is that it not contradict either itself or the reality of the board. The Logic Error was essentially Erika's attempt to make the "script" of ep6 not match up with the physical reality by creating a scenario in which Battler physically couldn't exit his room despite the "script" saying he had done so.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by GoldenLand

I wouldn't mind making a game of it, but I think that having to follow the Rosatrice theory as stated by jTiKey or KnM is too restrictive to be properly fun making up theories for (ie: with George and Nanjo as mandatory accomplices and nobody else, and Rosa's motive being insanity and a resurrection ceremony, and so on). If Rosatrice were defined as just any Rosa-culprit gameboard then that would be a bit easier. But I suppose that's not the point, you're wanting an orderly discussion of the particular Rosatrice theory which has been put forward. That might not be so bad. I could stick to arguing against the theories by checking them against Knox, Dine, and what's humanly possible.

Yes, we'll go nowhere if we keep on arguing over red, Knox and Dine and instead I think it could be interesting to discuss over the thing and try it from another perspective.

Originally Posted by GoldenLand

Speaking of games, it might be fun to look through the twilights of the games under the assumption that identity/role death might apply to anyone and everyone and see if it makes any difference.

I agree! This also could be fun!
Although I think we've to work the rules for this game well or we'll end up going into chaos as there's a lot to discuss.

[jTiKey]

Question.

why "name" = "pesonality"?
If name is changed, personality won't.

[AuraTwilight]

That question is hard to answer, can you clarify on what you mean?

I'll attempt to answer based on what you think you're saying. Basically, Umineko has a running theme on how people are defined by behaviors, where people can essentially be actors who adopt a new 'personality' purely by behavior. Yasu doesn't actually have multiple personality syndrome, she's just a dedicated actress. Yasu-acting-as-cute-maid is "Shannon", Yasu-acting-as-solemn-gardener is "Kanon", and so forth. Maria-pretending-to-be-toy-lion is "Sakutarou", even.

Therefore, Yasu has multiple names available to her, and can define one of her characters as 'dead' simply by never adopting that persona ever again.

You might think it's stupid. Most people here wouldn't disagree with you on that. But it seems to be the author's intent beyond any reasonable doubt.