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

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Judoh

The text would say that it's exactly because he doesn't remember that it effects the outcome of the murders. "Not remembering his sin is also his sin". Once Battler remembers his sin he's atoned for it and by then it's not a sin anymore.

This is where things get fuzzy.

We don't really know if Battler forgot or not. Everything about that situation is covered in red, except whether or not Battler actually forgot. Episode 4 and the others like it that explore the promise could simply be assumptions that Battler did indeed forget.

Piece and Meta-Battler (who would be characters within the fiction, Id think) are portrayed as not remembering the promise, but even so, we're not shown how exactly Battler forgetting amplified the murders, or why it even would. The only time's that the sin itself is brought up in relation to the murders, its shown that the twilight's occur in more or less the same fashion independently of Battler's actions.

In Episode 4, the murders occur before Beato gives him his test, in Episode 5, the Twilights occur the same as usual after Battler becomes the new Head/Heir, in Episode 6, despite Battler acting in the fake Twilights, everyone else is still killed. In episode 7, Battler isnt even there, and people still get killed.

"Because of Battler's Sin, people die" isn't a statement of culpability, its an assertion of causation. So regardless of whether or not Battler is forgiven for his "sin", regardless of whether or not he remembers it, people still die, the tragedies still occur.

So why does his presence matter? Why does it amplify it? Him remembering or forgetting it acts as some kind of trigger. If he doesn't remember, then that precludes him from having a motivation to act in any way specific to the situation. Ignorance promotes inaction, not the other way around. Its already indicated several times that if events proceed along as usual, then the murders still occur. Battler himself doesn't change that fact in any way, shape, or form.

But if Battler does remember, then that causes him to act in a way not according to the anticipated course of events, forcing the culprit's hand, making things more difficult, any number of possibilities, but there would be a game changer. Its stated that it's related to Battler's promise.

How is it a game changer if Battler does not act upon that promise? The tragedy occurs independently of Battler's very presence, so the murders are not set up because he is coming to the family conference. Battler arriving != Rokkenjimma Murders.

So, Ill say this again:

Because the murders occur independently of Battler's presence on the island, and even regardless of his actions while on the island, his "sin" which amplifies the tragedy requires some kind of action on his part. The idea that "Yasu decides to plant the bomb/aid in the murders in a fit of frustration and heartbreak because Battler forgot" is highly irrational.

If Battler remains unaware, then he wont have any incentive to act in a way which makes the tragedy worse. If we assume that the amplification of the tragedy is specific to Battler remembering or forgetting the promise, then that places the responsibility for the murders on Yasu's shoulders, and would require that she be capable of such a crime.

Thats simply not how Beato/Shannon/Yasu/Lion have been presented. They may be cruel and petty and such, but aside from fantasy scenes, we never really see Beato kill anyone, this fact becomes especially relevant now that we understand that she was trying to scapegoat herself all along, not that she was actually responsible.

If Battler forgot entirely, then he has no reason to act in a way to provoke the murders, and the amplification is entirely a result of Yasu's intervention. But we have no reason to see Yasu as being capable of that, hell, weve never even seen Beato go full psychotic in such a way. The idea that Yasu is independently responsible for making the tragedy worse requires her to act completely out of character.

Therefore, we can assume that conclusion is somewhat sketchy. On the other hand, if Battler remembers the promise, and acts on it, then it could throw any number of running plots X into disarray, forcing the true culprit's hand to act, and thereby making the tragedy worse.

Battler's presence alone isnt relevant to the murders. Thats been presented. But it's his actions that are. Battler not remembering anything is equivalent to inaction, so he wouldnt have an impact on the murders at all. The amplification would be entirely on Yasu. But if he does remember, and does act, then that would explain why the tragedy being worse truly is Battler's fault.


Regarding your quotation of Beato:

It's said that due to Battler's Sin, people die. But it's never said that people die because Battler didn't atone for said sin. It's not like atonement gives him a blank slate or anything. He still sinned. People still die because of that sin, whatever it is.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I didn't mean to use that affirmation as an argument. "I'm sure of x" is not an argument, it's a statement.

That isn't what you're saying, which is why argument is nearly impossible with you. You claim other people's opinions are "impossible" based upon a preconception of fact construction that comes from nowhere.

What really matters is what is a fiction inside the story itself in my opinion.

Which we don't know. No one, not you, not I, not anybody. Which is why our opinions are basically that. Don't tell people their arguments "don't follow" when you cannot back that rejection up with fact, theme, or logic.

You used that very same argument yourself in many occasions even a few minutes ago. Since when the "bad writing" argument is nonsense?

You're not making an argument on the basis that you believe something is or is not properly narratively constructed, as I have done. Even if you were, you're not using it appropriately, which is to explain your position appropriately on thematic grounds. Quite honestly, my experience with you has indicated that you do not actually have any such opinion and are pretty much exclusively focused on being factually correct. So I can't really debate what my perspective of your literary construction is because I don't think you've made that clear.

But I can say that when I use the argument, it is to explain why I do not consider a line of thought productive. If you can argue why it ought to be thematically worth exploring, then I'm willing to entertain it. Or you could just not care and ignore me if you think my posting is nonsense. What you can't do is declare yourself arbiter of what is or is not "possible." It's rude.

So you do agree that it wouldn't make any sense if Meta-Battler wasn't substantially the same person as Battler, but for some (inexplicable reasons) you think there might be some differences. Why? Where did you get this idea?

It is literally in the text. Or rather, it is an inference which is the only possible explanation for differences in behavior between two (or more) existences implied to be "the same person."

You don't seem to actually understand what people are saying when they talk about the distinction, so you're reactionary about the results of believing or not believing it. Believe me, there really isn't much difference in the story itself either way, but the consequences could say a lot about the work thematically. Your factual understandings of the story, which seem to be your primary concern, are really not significantly challenged by it.

You wouldn't argue Meta-Beatrice and Piece-Beatrice are identical. The exact same logic applies, and applies twice over at additional layers of complexity (assuming any exist). If you do, well, I don't really know how to respond to that, because I would argue that at that point the entire point of the meta-world was missed.

I don't agree with this. The adults seems to be uninterested on this issue, but that's only because they don't believe the ten tons of gold actually exist.

There is evidence that once they understand that gold=true they automatically take the heir issue a lot more seriously. And I don't think it can be said it is a sudden switch of their thinking. They all must have thought that the epitaph was meant to decide the new heir long time before the actual events of 1986.

Evidences are the whole adults (except Krauss and Natsuhi but they are biased) in EP5 and Rosa and Eva in EP3 which think it's absolutely a given that Eva became the new family head. Hell they don't even think that Krauss can possibly make any serious opposition to that fact, and they take for granted that everyone else will acknowledge Eva as the new heir.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the point you initially claimed to be making, which is that Battler would somehow be aware of any of this. Do you even remember why you brought up this point?

If people's reactions only fix on this "epitaph = headship" argument at the 1986 family conference, this idea cannot have been a factor in Battler's decision to be present at the 1986 family conference. He can't be motivated to return for a chance at the headship through solving the epitaph if he doesn't know:

• That the epitaph exists.
• That the epitaph really does (or really may) lead to 10 tons of gold.
• That the person who solves the epitaph will be supported as family head.

He can't know this if none of the adults have even fully formulated this concept in their minds or vocalized the idea before the actual conference. So you can't even allow for the possibility of Kyrie scheming it. Setting that aside, why does Battler want a chance to become the family head? Everything we've seen about him suggests he doesn't think that strongly of it.

Isn't it a bit off to deny outright any possibility that Battler's reason could have been personal and unknown to external viewers, and tied directly to something alleged multiple times in the text, and is presented to us as a conditional consequence of the universe state change in ep7... and instead argue that "something" of no literary or factual consequence happened that made an otherwise identical situation change, entirely unrelated to the main and meaningful change presented?

I would argue it's possible, but I'd also argue it would be one of the stranger things he'd have written into the story.

[Jan-Poo]

Renall I don't get why you persist on saying that I claim the other people theories are impossible when I don't think I ever did that.

Is the fact that I disagree with you because I have a different opinion and vision of the story is by itself a denial of your own theories? This is kinda preposterous. Then what I'm supposed to do? Should I say that I'm not confident in my own theories (even if I am)?

Bear with it. I'm not saying that I am objectively right, but I do believe I'm right. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

You're not making an argument on the basis that you believe something is or is not properly narratively constructed, as I have done. Even if you were, you're not using it appropriately, which is to explain your position appropriately on thematic grounds. Quite honestly, my experience with you has indicated that you do not actually have any such opinion and are pretty much exclusively focused on being factually correct. So I can't really debate what my perspective of your literary construction is because I don't think you've made that clear.

No I often make inferences based on narrative logic. It's different from the kind of reasoning you do, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, it would be quite pretentious to claim that.

You wouldn't argue Meta-Beatrice and Piece-Beatrice are identical

I would, and actually I did, actually we did in the past, if I remember correctly. The fact that meta-Beatrice uses "I" without any distinction between herself and her piece (even in red sentences) is a major evidence here.

Let's put it this way, since you are roman catholic you should be familiar with the concept of "trinity". The father and the son are the same being, even if you can notice some differences even if they exist in different instances, it doesn't change the fact that they are the very same being.

The way I see it the only kind of difference that can exist between real Battler and meta-Battler are the memories related to the metaworld and the various games. But I see little if not no reason at all to think that real Battler possess some knowledge that Meta-Battler doesn't.

To go in even further details, I can't see how Meta-Battler could have developed a firm belief on what made him come back to Rokkenjima that is different from real Battler's reason. And actually it was piece-Battler the one who explained it all, and the fact that Meta-Battler doesn't have anything to say about that clearly shows that the two share the very same memories on the subject.

If people's reactions only fix on this "epitaph = headship" argument at the 1986 family conference, this idea cannot have been a factor in Battler's decision to be present at the 1986 family conference. He can't be motivated to return for a chance at the headship through solving the epitaph if he doesn't know:
That the epitaph exists.
That the epitaph really does (or really may) lead to 10 tons of gold.
That the person who solves the epitaph will be supported as family head.
He can't know this if none of the adults have even fully formulated this concept in their minds or vocalized the idea before the actual conference. So you can't even allow for the possibility of Kyrie scheming it. Setting that aside, why does Battler want a chance to become the family head? Everything we've seen about him suggests he doesn't think that strongly of it.

Why are you asking me this? All of this time I've been telling you that it is possible that the changes between the two worlds didn't affect Battler's decision directly.

I'm not saying that Battler is interested in the inheritance at all. What I'm suggesting is that Rudolf or Kyrie (or both) are. And because of that they made Battler return to the family register.

[TehChron]

I'm not saying that Battler is interested in the inheritance at all. What I'm suggesting is that Rudolf or Kyrie (or both) are. And because of that they made Battler return to the family register.

Thats quite the leap there.

If Battler didnt want to return for 6 years despite Rudolph's begging, why would he willingly choose to go with them just because they decided they were going to use him to solve the epitaph? This is Battler we're talking about here. He's ridiculously stubborn to the point of idiocy at times, there's no way he'd go along with them threatening him, as it would justify his reasons for leaving in the first place.

Knowing Battler, he'd strike out on his own or move in with a friend or something just to spite Rudolph for having the audacity to try and use him in one of his schemes.

I mean, we don't know if Asumu's parents still died or not in Lion's Rokkenjimma, there's no reason to assume they didn't (as that would be a major change of events). And yet Battler still hasn't moved back in with Rudolph/Kyrie/Ange. It pretty strongly indicates that he would be willing to go so far as to live entirely on his own, given the circumstances.

Given that kind of stubbornness, assuming that Kyrie and/or Rudolph could "make" Battler do anything is somewhat ridiculous, and is a large misunderstanding of the character.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Thats quite the leap there.

If Battler didnt want to return for 6 years despite Rudolph's begging, why would he willingly choose to go with them just because they decided they were going to use him to solve the epitaph? This is Battler we're talking about here. He's ridiculously stubborn to the point of idiocy at times, there's no way he'd go along with them threatening him, as it would justify his reasons for leaving in the first place.

Knowing Battler, he'd strike out on his own or move in with a friend or something just to spite Rudolph for having the audacity to try and use him in one of his schemes.

I mean, we don't know if Asumu's parents still died or not in Lion's Rokkenjimma, there's no reason to assume they didn't (as that would be a major change of events). And yet Battler still hasn't moved back in with Rudolph/Kyrie/Ange. It pretty strongly indicates that he would be willing to go so far as to live entirely on his own, given the circumstances.

Given that kind of stubbornness, assuming that Kyrie and/or Rudolph could "make" Battler do anything is somewhat ridiculous, and is a large misunderstanding of the character.

I think I suggested something along those lines before, that Battler's sin caused deaths because of Kyrie/Rudolf.

In my opinion, it's very easy for them to force him to return.

"Hey Battler, come back or we kill Ange."

He was shown to care about Ange, so that isn't a stretch. That said, I have yet to read the whole argument, so don't mind me too much. Still trying to catch up.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

I think I suggested something along those lines before, that Battler's sin caused deaths because of Kyrie/Rudolf.

In my opinion, it's very easy for them to force him to return.

"Hey Battler, come back or we kill Ange."

He was shown to care about Ange, so that isn't a stretch. That said, I have yet to read the whole argument, so don't mind me too much. Still trying to catch up.

Rudolf is a lot of things, but Im pretty sure there's no way he'd even consider killing Ange, let alone being such a coward as to use that to threaten Battler. Doing so would be completely out of character for him. Maybe Kyrie is capable of it, but definitely not Rudolf. He's the one that thinks he should go to hell for cheating on Asumu, after all. If that were the reason for Battler returning, it still doesn't explain why the tragedy occurred even without Battler being there, or why he didn't return at all in Lion's world.

And if they did do so, then Battler would go out of his way to ensure that things would backfire for them. Thats the kind of personality Battler has been shown to have this entire series, he simply doesn't tolerate what he considers to be injustice.

The point is we're looking for causation, not correlation, by discussing this.

In Lion's world:

Ange Exists/Asumu's Parents probably still die/Lion exists/Massacre occurs = Battler not present

In Real Rokkenjimma:

Ange Exists/Asumu's Parents *did* die/Yasu Exists/Massacre occurs = Battler present

The only real difference with regards to the murders is supposedly the scope, in between those two worlds. So you see why Im skeptical about the idea that Yasu's presence is irrelevant to Battler's return. It's simply too big a factor to ignore.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Rudolf is a lot of things, but Im pretty sure there's no way he'd even consider killing Ange, let alone being such a coward as to use that to threaten Battler. Doing so would be completely out of character for him. Maybe Kyrie is capable of it, but definitely not Rudolf. He's the one that thinks he should go to hell for cheating on Asumu, after all. If that were the reason for Battler returning, it still doesn't explain why the tragedy occurred even without Battler being there, or why he didn't return at all in Lion's world.

And if they did do so, then Battler would go out of his way to ensure that things would backfire for them. Thats the kind of personality Battler has been shown to have this entire series, he simply doesn't tolerate what he considers to be injustice.

The point is we're looking for causation, not correlation, by discussing this.

In Lion's world:

Ange Exists/Asumu's Parents probably still die/Lion exists/Massacre occurs = Battler not present

In Real Rokkenjimma:

Ange Exists/Asumu's Parents *did* die/Yasu Exists/Massacre occurs = Battler present

The only real difference with regards to the murders is supposedly the scope, in between those two worlds. So you see why Im skeptical about the idea that Yasu's presence is irrelevant to Battler's return. It's simply too big a factor to ignore.

How about this then? Battler and Rudolf are being threatened by Kyrie. If they don't help her, Ange dies. Battler is not that headstrong. He would think about it logically.

As for the cause of Battler's return...How about "if Lion exists, there is no hope to gain the inheritance so no reason to bother Battler"?

Not that it would be impossible for them to gain the inheritance with Lion existing, but it would involve a lot more killing.

[Renall]

Ascribing a motive to Kyrie's plan actually makes a degree more sense in Lion's world. Heck, the plan could even be suicidal in nature and still work. Of course, it would require her motive not be "lol money," because in the presentation we're given she couldn't give a damn about her kids being there or not.

But actually when you think about it, Battler wouldn't be there for the Lion world massacre at all. They'd lure out and shoot Lion, Jessica, George, and Maria (or just kill them wherever they are), gun down everybody else as usual, and either die to Eva or not (depending on whether she'd survive in Lion's world). He'd basically wind up like Ange...

...come to think of it...

...Lion's world is a world where Battler comes home to Ange. After all, he's going to have to take care of her with their parents gone.

[Rattan]

Maybe Rudolf's flashback scene is related to the reason Battler returned? I mean, of all the scenes in EP 2 that scene was the most out of place in my opinion.
With that as a basis what if Rudolf begged Battler to return since he thinks that this is his last time to see his family if the plan to get money from Krauss fails. If I could remember Rudolf considered to go in hiding if their plan fails right?

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

How about this then? Battler and Rudolf are being threatened by Kyrie. If they don't help her, Ange dies. Battler is not that headstrong. He would think about it logically.

As for the cause of Battler's return...How about "if Lion exists, there is no hope to gain the inheritance so no reason to bother Battler"?

Not that it would be impossible for them to gain the inheritance with Lion existing, but it would involve a lot more killing.

Sure Battler is that headstrong, he's also incredibly emotional. He'd say something like "Screw that Kyrie Oba-san, threatening Ange-Chan like that, I'll kick her ass!". You're working far too hard to force Battler into a position where he's an accomplice in order to justify that line of reasoning, Occlam's Razor.

It is not reasonable to assume that Battler is an accomplice in the murders given all the information. It requires relying almost entirely upon inferences and second guessing to come to such a conclusion. Therefore, since it is not reasonable to conclude that he returned to the family register for the sole sake of assisting in the massacre, it is probably some other motivation X that caused him to return.

Be it Rudolph begging (why didnt it work in Lion's World?) or something like his promise to Yasu. The latter option works because it is supported by the text, is within character, and opens up several lines of reasoning leading to other parts of the situation, rather than acting as a singular answer to one problem that would require any uncharacteristic actions or suspensions of logic to even implement.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I'm not saying that Battler is interested in the inheritance at all. What I'm suggesting is that Rudolf or Kyrie (or both) are. And because of that they made Battler return to the family register.

Originally Posted by TehChron

Thats quite the leap there.

It's really not. Why would Rudolph care if Battler came to the family conference at all otherwise? Rudolph wants Battler in the registry. Rudolph has some sort of plan involving Battler and that is directly tied to the mystery surrounding Battler's birth.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Thats quite the leap there.

If Battler didnt want to return for 6 years despite Rudolph's begging, why would he willingly choose to go with them just because they decided they were going to use him to solve the epitaph? This is Battler we're talking about here. He's ridiculously stubborn to the point of idiocy at times, there's no way he'd go along with them threatening him, as it would justify his reasons for leaving in the first place.

But I'm not implying that at all. I start from the assumption that Battler returned to Rokkenjima for the very reasons that he himself explained. So by no means I'm imagining that he was threatened or Rudolf even mentioned to him that he wanted him back because of the inheritance.

I don't need to provide a proof to claim that Battler would go back simply because Rudolf begged him to do so and because he had not other family to return to, because that's the exactly what was shown to us. You can certainly say that there must be more but I don't think there is a need to prove that things are exactly as they seem, since that's a basic assumption.

Rather than changing stuff known, I try to fill the gaps. We know Battler's perspective, what we do not know is Rudolf's perspective on the matter.

Why he went that far to make Battler go back? Sure he loves Battler, but Rudolf isn't exactly the kind of man that would humiliate himself. He's more the kind of guy that would deceive people.

Rudolf knows Battler very well, he knows that he can't "reason" with him. So while we are not sure that Rudolf had an ulterior motive to get Battler back, it's practically certain that, if he had one, he wouldn't tell his son because that would be a sure way to anger him.


Now let's say for moment that Real Battler decided to go back to Rokkenjima because he remembered his promise, and in Lion's world that didn't happen because he had not promise to fulfill. But what about Rudolf?

If in the normal world he prostrated himself in front of Battler and if that didn't have anything to do with an ulterior motive then that should have happened even in Lion's world. So what are you suggesting? That in Lion's world Rudolf prostrate himself in front of Battler, but Battler still refused?

Meta-Battler was quite clear in his explanation of what made him change his mind. After seeing Rudolf acting like that he really couldn't say no anymore. Are Meta-Battler and Real Battler really that different even in their core personality? I honestly can't believe that.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

It's really not. Why would Rudolph care if Battler came to the family conference at all otherwise? Rudolph wants Battler in the registry. Rudolph has some sort of plan involving Battler and that is directly tied to the mystery surrounding Battler's birth.

Parents tend to love their children, actually. So why wouldn't Rudolf want his precious son with him by his side? Why wouldn't Rudolf want Battler back in his family, his only memento of Asumu after all of her pictures and such were removed after he remarried with Kyrie?

Assuming an ulterior motive when parental affection is both logical and applicable is absurd. Once again, Occlam's razor.

But I'm not implying that at all. I start from the assumption that Battler returned to Rokkenjima for the very reasons that he himself explained. So by no means I'm imagining that he was threatened or Rudolf even mentioned to him that he wanted him back because of the inheritance.

No, that is literally what you were implying:

I'm not saying that Battler is interested in the inheritance at all. What I'm suggesting is that Rudolf or Kyrie (or both) are. And because of that they made Battler return to the family register.

My objections to the different conditions for achieving that were fleshed out by Will's explanations of those possible scenarios, and my responses to them.

They ultimately could not have "made" Battler do anything without raising his ire, and causing him to dig his heels in.

I don't need to provide a proof to claim that Battler would go back simply because Rudolf begged him to do so and because he had not other family to return to, because that's the exactly what was shown to us. You can certainly say that there must be more but I don't think there is a need to prove that things are exactly as they seem, since that's a basic assumption.

An assumption that is turned on it's head by Battler's non-presence in Lion's world, when all other conditions are the same aside from Yasu's existence.

Rather than changing stuff known, I try to fill the gaps. We know Battler's perspective, what we do not know is Rudolf's perspective on the matter.

Why he went that far to make Battler go back? Sure he loves Battler, but Rudolf isn't exactly the kind of man that would humiliate himself. He's more the kind of guy that would deceive people.

He got on his knees and begged Battler to come back at the funeral of Asumu's parents. Thats prostration/humiliation/whatever you want to call it. He also had resolved to go to such lengths to secure the funding to save his company if it came to that, when we see his thought process in Episode 2(?), while he's dreaming during the plane ride.

He has shown himself to be willing to go that far. It's a fact. It's not contradicted in Lion's world, so for some reason it worked in one scenario, but not the other. There's obviously something missing to motivate Battler to return in Lion's world because Battler has not been presented as a fickle person, and that is the only explanation for Battler not returning under your claim.

Rudolf knows Battler very well, he knows that he can't "reason" with him. So while we are not sure that Rudolf had an ulterior motive to get Battler back, it's practically certain that, if he had one, he wouldn't tell his son because that would be a sure way to anger him.

Thats irrelevant. What's important is what motivation Battler has to return. Simple begging wasnt enough, as shown in Episode 7 when Battler outright wasn't there, despite there being nothing to indicate that the methodology employed by Rudolf to try and get Battler back was changed.

Now let's say for moment that Real Battler decided to go back to Rokkenjima because he remembered his promise, and in Lion's world that didn't happen because he had not promise to fulfill. But what about Rudolf?

Parents love their children. Parents that view their child as a memento, or at least a reminder of their loved one (Asumu) tend to feel a strong need to have said children by their side. It's simple love that is Rudolf's motivation, there doesn't need to be an ulterior motive.

If in the normal world he prostrated himself in front of Battler and if that didn't have anything to do with an ulterior motive then that should have happened even in Lion's world. So what are you suggesting? That in Lion's world Rudolf prostrate himself in front of Battler, but Battler still refused?

Yeah.

And Im not suggesting it. I'm outright stating thats what happened. Let's look at things from Rudolf/Kyrie's point of view. The murders still happen, so what reason does Rudolf have to be less motivated to bring Battler back? He still goes through with their "plan" with Lion present, after all. So it's not like Lion's presence is ultimately a deterrent from his point of view.

Meta-Battler was quite clear in his explanation of what made him change his mind. After seeing Rudolf acting like that he really couldn't say no anymore. Are Meta-Battler and Real Battler really that different even in their core personality? I honestly can't believe that.

Author theory, with Meta-Battler as first-level fiction explains that discrepancy.

[Jan-Poo]

Now you can argue what is not clear but you cannot argue that red is blue and that 2+2=5

I never said that Rudolf told Battler that he wanted him back because of the inheritance. This is a fact.

And because of that they made Battler return to the family register.

Means exactly what it means. Rudolf made Battler come back, but he didn't have to tell Battler why he wanted him back.

They ultimately could not have "made" Battler do anything without raising his ire, and causing him to dig his heels in.

That's definitely not what Meta Battler said. Meta Battler definitely said without any doubt that it was Rudolf's prostration that made him change his mind. You cannot deny this fact.

Simple begging wasnt enough, as shown in Episode 7 when Battler outright wasn't there, despite there being nothing to indicate that the methodology employed by Rudolf to try and get Battler back was changed.

That's not a fact. You don't know if Rudolf begged Battler in Lion's world.
There's nothing that indicate that Rudolf didn't? Well then where is indicated that Battler returned for any reason beside Rudolf begging him to?

Parents love their children

Tell that to Kyrie.

Author theory, with Meta-Battler as first-level fiction explains that discrepancy.

You and Renall have completely twisted the original meaning of the author theory. I was among the first persons to theorize the author theory and I can tell you that the author theory by no means state that the Meta world is fiction. The author theory claims that the games are fictions not the Meta world.

Give your theory another name please.

[Marion]

Tell that to Kyrie.

It's possible that Kyrie told all of that to Eva so that the latter wouldn't hate her daughter for what happened. At the end it was remarked that Kyrie died with a slight smile.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Now you can argue what is not clear but you cannot argue that red is blue and that 2+2=5

I never said that Rudolf told Battler that he wanted him back because of the inheritance. This is a fact.

Means exactly what it means. Rudolf made Battler come back, but he didn't have to tell Battler why he wanted him back.

No, it means someone believes that. You're confusing, as always, presentation with fact. We don't know who Meta-Battler is. We don't know what the meta-world is. It doesn't matter if it's Piece-Battler, Meta-Battler, a third-person narrator. The entire point of the discrepancy being presented in that manner in ep7 is to cast doubt on Battler's previously-established rationale for returning. You're going through mental gymnastics so you don't have to think about that. For someone so confident in 2+2, you're remarkably unwilling to consider the simplest conclusion from a very curious fact.

Maybe it is nothing. Maybe your explanation is correct, and the more complex answer. Can you prove it any more than I could prove the opposite? No. We can point it out in the text. You're pointing at things not in the text to draw inferences as to why something in the text can't be read a particular way.

You and Renall have completely twisted the original meaning of the author theory. I was among the first persons to theorize the author theory and I can tell you that the author theory by no means state that the Meta world is fiction. The author theory claims that the games are fictions not the Meta world.

Give your theory another name please.

No, it is Author Theory. My apologies if you don't understand all the potential consequences of what you claim is your own theory, even though I've never seen you strongly pulling for it in ages and that you've begun explicitly trying to deny. You also have no idea what anyone is claiming right now. Author Theory claims that games are fictions, yes. It does not claim, and has never claimed, that they are exclusively written within or exist solely within the meta-world, because we don't know what the meta-world is, and there are curious authorship claims. Any investigation into the nature of the meta-world and speculation on authorship is Author Theory. Just different possibilities.

By the way, you're doing that thing again, telling people you own theories and claiming things you don't know are facts and can't prove are facts and whatnot. Your arguments, such as they are, would be more persuasive if you were more open-minded. You have a tendency to act as a gatekeeper and arbiter of fact, despite being entirely unqualified to do so on this forum. Are you the author? Have you already read ep8? Do you IM Ryukishi a lot to discuss the story? If so, please let me know so I can defer to you on what he intended to say. Otherwise, you have no right to do that. You are no more equipped than anyone else to know what is "fact" in works of literature.

Speculation is exactly that, speculative. But most of it isn't made up out of thin air. This argument especially, your invective against it notwithstanding, is a valid interpretation of something implicitly suggested by the text of ep7. Yeah, it's not spelled out in black and white. Yeah, it requires thought and analysis to reach a conclusion. Yeah, it's apparently contradictory. It is new information that provides insight into prior information. That can happen. That requires us to question the new information in light of the old. You can, after analysis, conclude it isn't as it appears. If you're doing that, fine, it's your opinion. But you can only conclude. You can't know, and declare that no one should even consider it because you don't think anyone else could conclude differently.

It's very odd for me to be on the side of arguing that ep7 information is useful and trustworthy given that I'm one of the people not trusting it so much. I'd figure you'd be in favor of that sort of analysis.

[meh]

Just finished reading. Must say I enjoyed this episode much more than the previous two arcs. But the tea party left a nasty taste, given that it was kind of WTF and completely dismisses everything up to that point.

Although I must say I now want to watch the anime for the first time, just so I can see what new material I can gather with the newfound knowledge here.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Now you can argue what is not clear but you cannot argue that red is blue and that 2+2=5

I never said that Rudolf told Battler that he wanted him back because of the inheritance. This is a fact.

So? I never said that had anything to do with it.

I'm not saying that Battler is interested in the inheritance at all. What I'm suggesting is that Rudolf or Kyrie (or both) are. And because of that they made Battler return to the family register.

That is what you said. That is what I responded to.

Means exactly what it means. Rudolf made Battler come back, but he didn't have to tell Battler why he wanted him back.

And I was disputing your assertion.

That's definitely not what Meta Battler said. Meta Battler definitely said without any doubt that it was Rudolf's prostration that made him change his mind. You cannot deny this fact.

Did he say it in red?

Come now, don't throw around inferences unsupported by the text unless you're willing to handle the same being dealt in kind. Under the interpretation of the Meta-world as first layer fiction, than Meta-Battler could exist as the author's understanding of Battler, thus leading to such a mistaken conclusion.

Moreover, Battler did not come "because" of Rudolf prostrating, he decided to come when he did so. Correlation, not causation.

That's not a fact. You don't know if Rudolf begged Battler in Lion's world.
There's nothing that indicate that Rudolf didn't? Well then where is indicated that Battler returned for any reason beside Rudolf begging him to?

Prove that Rudolf's actions had any divergence in between the worlds. Until then, that conclusion is completely logical and supported by the text. Surely if Ryukishi didn't mean for that discrepancy to stand out, he'd have inserted a quick reference to Rudolf's sense of Apathy in Lion's world. For someone so willing to look in between the lines, you sure are being willfully ignorant of the possibilities being presented here.

Tell that to Kyrie.

Hyperbole.

You and Renall have completely twisted the original meaning of the author theory. I was among the first persons to theorize the author theory and I can tell you that the author theory by no means state that the Meta world is fiction. The author theory claims that the games are fictions not the Meta world.

Theories can evolve over time into other variants, take Shkanon and Double Shkanon for example.

You can't claim ownership over a single concept and then define it when others have already come up with their own interpretations freely without your input.

The meaning may have been changed but that by no means invalidates the interpretation itself.

Give your theory another name please.

Author Theory Redux. Done.

[luckyssol]

Originally Posted by Used Can

Well, you didn't really need Japanese to solve it. In fact, the few hints that relied on some Japanese understanding were explained - like the difference between Golden Land and Capital of Gold. In fact, rather than Japanese, you needed English, to go through the whole QUADRILLION, and LORDU thing. In fact, if the last part of the Taiwan theory is correct, then you also needed some Western knowledge about 0 hours = Witching hour.

Alright, here’s the story:
Ijriims was the first person on this forum to mention the Taiwan theory. I searched for a translation of the theory but I found none so I translated it myself and posted it here. The source for that was this page. I don’t know the source of the original Taiwan theory but there is no mention of “0 hours = Witching hour” or anything like that on this page. The epitaph solution shown in Episode 7 does not mention that either.

By some strange coincidence, 2 days after I posted the translation, this theory appeared. That theory is the one the uses “0 hours = Witching hour” and other questionable deductions that were never shown in Episode 7. I cannot find any valid sources for this theory. The ones given in the post are a blank page and a video that doesn’t load (At least for me anyway).

I hope this won’t suffer the same fate as the author theory by Jan-Poo (which can still be read from the conversation he had with Chronotrig.)

I don’t call variations of the original Taiwan theory ‘the Taiwan theory’. Maybe something like “DeepWhite’s Taiwan theory” is better.

The Taiwan theory is properly explained by LyricalAura in this post.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Marion

It's possible that Kyrie told all of that to Eva so that the latter wouldn't hate her daughter for what happened. At the end it was remarked that Kyrie died with a slight smile.

Yeah I know, I also thought that, but it doesn't change the fact that according to Kyrie it is quite possible for a parent to not love his children at all (even if she herself does).

Originally Posted by TehChron

So? I never said that had anything to do with it.
That is what you said. That is what I responded to.
And I was disputing your assertion.

Actually you countered my claims by telling that Battler wouldn't accept a threat and wouldn't accept to go back because of the inheritance. Those counterarguments are moot, because I never implied that.

Originally Posted by TehChron

Did he say it in red?

No but I could say in red that he did say all that stuff. Which means there is at least someone inside the story that believe that Battler would definitely change his mind if Rudolf prostrated in front of him.

Originally Posted by TehChron

Come now, don't throw around inferences unsupported by the text unless you're willing to handle the same being dealt in kind. Under the interpretation of the Meta-world as first layer fiction, than Meta-Battler could exist as the author's understanding of Battler, thus leading to such a mistaken conclusion.

Are you aware of the fact that according to this perspective the only Battler you'd know would be the Battler the "author" showed to you, and that you couldn't tell at all what kind of person is the real Battler?

You basically claim that you know what real Battler would do better than the author does, even so you know nothing about real Battler that the author himself didn't show to you.

You can go that way, if you want, but to claim that the idea that "the real Battler wouldn't change his mind because of Rudolf" and "Battler would" have the same probability of being true is a mere delusion. Your position is a lot more far fetched.

Basically it goes like this:

either we know what kind of person is real Battler (because he's the same as Meta Battler) or we don't. Even supposing there are no elements to bend toward one or the other this would be 50% to 50%

If we know what kind of person is Battler then we know he would change his mind simply because Rudolf begged him to do so.

However if we do not know what kind of person is Battler, then how can we know how he would react? Since we do not know then the probabilities split into two:

either he would change his mind simply because Rudolf begged him to do so or he wouldn't. again this is 50% to 50%, but it's the 50% of a 50%.

So to conclude:

Battler would change his mind simply because Rudolf begged him to do so: 75%
Battler wouldn't change his mind simply because Rudolf begged him to do so: 25%

Originally Posted by TehChron

Moreover, Battler did not come "because" of Rudolf prostrating, he decided to come when he did so. Correlation, not causation.

Wrong. Read again what Meta Battler said. He definitely talked about causation.

Originally Posted by TehChron

Prove that Rudolf's actions had any divergence in between the worlds. Until then, that conclusion is completely logical and supported by the text. Surely if Ryukishi didn't mean for that discrepancy to stand out, he'd have inserted a quick reference to Rudolf's sense of Apathy in Lion's world. For someone so willing to look in between the lines, you sure are being willfully ignorant of the possibilities being presented here.

You don't seem to get the problem here. If the issue was just about a lack of evidence, your theory and my theory would be exactly on the same level of probability.

But the point is that your theories requires to rewrite an information already known, my theory does not. And this is what makes your theory bend on a losing position here.

Originally Posted by TehChron

Theories can evolve over time into other variants, take Shkanon and Double Shkanon for example.

And Will made a good thing calling it "double shkanon" to avoid confusions.

Originally Posted by TehChron

You can't claim ownership over a single concept and then define it when others have already come up with their own interpretations freely without your input.

The meaning may have been changed but that by no means invalidates the interpretation itself.

No I cannot claim ownership, but I can claim that it is a necessity to make proper distinctions to avoid confusion. Because it's not like the old theory died.

Originally Posted by TehChron

Author Theory Redux. Done.

Better, but you might want to find a better name, actually I think Renall should.

No, it is Author Theory. My apologies if you don't understand all the potential consequences of what you claim is your own theory, even though I've never seen you strongly pulling for it in ages and that you've begun explicitly trying to deny. You also have no idea what anyone is claiming right now. Author Theory claims that games are fictions, yes. It does not claim, and has never claimed, that they are exclusively written within or exist solely within the meta-world, because we don't know what the meta-world is, and there are curious authorship claims. Any investigation into the nature of the meta-world and speculation on authorship is Author Theory.

This is simply not true Renall. In the very beginning the author theorists had to fight a lot against those who simply dismissed it as "bad writing" a similar idea because then the whole story would be pointless.
So to make it sound acceptable it has always been a point of the author theorists the claim that despite the games being fictions they still are grounded on reality, the characters are exactly the same as the real characters, the situations are exactly the same and the only things that differ from reality are minor details.
Ask Kylon if you can't accept my opinion alone.

You are telling me something completely different Renall. You are using the author theory "fiction" assumption to justify your complete disregard of something that was shown to us, and that has never been the intended purpose of the author theory.