[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 6 Dawn of the golden witch

[Megaolix]

Originally Posted by Renall

Before ep6, the person count has not referred to the number of people who actually exist, but to the maximum number of people who may exist. If someone died, there would be no particular reason to adjust the claim down except to defeat a Person X theory, which Beatrice basically did when it became clear that Kinzo was indeed dead before the game started. However, there was no particular reason she had to do this.

ep6's final red refers to the total number of people. One assumes this number would be adjusted as people die, or that Battler and Beatrice are speaking of the general maximum number of human pieces on the island.

The language is ambiguous; Erika shows up saying she is the 18th person and Battler and Beatrice say that even including her, there are 17. I don't see a contradiction here as such. Erika is saying that she is the 18th human character in the story, which is true insofar as we understand the storyline at that point in ep6 (there are 19 characters, but Kinzo is dead already). Battler and Beatrice's red means one of two things:

1) "If we welcome you, there are 17 people," meaning the number of actual human beings on the island is lower than the number of characters Erika has been led to believe are present. She expected 17+1 and it was 16+1. Shkanon, Nanjo-doesn't-exist, someone-was-already-dead, some theory like that would exist to explain why there are fewer people than characters. Under this interpretation the clauses are taken together and it is assumed Erika has personhood but someone else doesn't.

IF Erika is welcomed
THEN There are 17 people
People + Erika = 17
THEREFORE People = 16

2) "If we welcome you" is a hint to Erika's status as a non-person. Under this interpretation, you separate the clauses. This would mean the number of people is static at 17 regardless of Erika's status. Logically, if Erika's presence or absence doesn't affect the number of real physical human beings, there is no such person. Erika = 0.

WHETHER Erika is welcomed
THEN People = 17
People + Erika = 17
People + 0 = 17
THEREFORE Erika = 0

Also, I always stress this: There is no evidence that Maria is the last person to die in ep4 just because you saw everyone else but her and Battler die in magic scenes. After all, Goldsmith dies last (well, not counting "Beatrice") and we know Kinzo's dead, right?

(Granted, Maria is on the short list of people who could have been the last alive)

This. Renall, you're awesome for explaining it like this.

For people saying Erika is the 17th person, I have a question.

Considering, with all the pictures I've seen of it, that it is a duel and it is said with meta-gun pointed on her, why would it hurt her so bad if it wasn't about denying her existence?

By the theory that she is the 17th, that red shouldn't have hurt her at all if she was part of the 17.

And with that, I most definitely believes that Shkannon DOES NOT EXIST.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Renall

*snip*

True.

Battler and Beato's final red would have to be referring to the total number, not the adjusted one, since people have already died on the gameboard at that point in time.

What I found interesting was that if you combine Beato's original "no more than 17" red with this new one giving a specific number, you basically have complete confirmation of only 17 people being allowed to exist, assuming both apply to all games... there are no more and no less than 17.

Erika isn't real.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Renall

Also, I always stress this: There is no evidence that Maria is the last person to die in ep4 just because you saw everyone else but her and Battler die in magic scenes. After all, Goldsmith dies last (well, not counting "Beatrice") and we know Kinzo's dead, right?

(Granted, Maria is on the short list of people who could have been the last alive)

Everyone else on the island had obviously fatal head wounds. The only way Maria didn't die last is if someone rigged Suicide Mechanism X to kill themselves and hide the weapon. Knox 8, et cetera.

The well could be a place to set up such a mechanism, like tcaz said, but I have trouble believing that given the iron grill over the opening. Wouldn't you have to worry about the gun getting caught?

[Renall]

Well, I'm not willing to go that far yet. Remember this exchange:

Spoiler for Bodies:

Erika: Definition check. That “three people” refers to the number of bodies, correct? That means three bodies went in and out, right?
Beato: Of course. Three people, that is, three bodies, went in and out of the room. Only you and Kanon entered, and only Battler left. I already stated with red truth that all names refer only to the actual people. Therefore, the names “Erika”, “Battler”, and “Kanon” refer only to the actual people.

Denying Erika's existence requires that we understand how this is possible.

It's easy to say "well, three bodies went in and those three bodies were Battler, Kanon, and the killer." However, we're told "Erika" can refer only to the "actual people."

That means that to deny Erika, someone else must be "Erika." Erika existing conceptually seems very difficult in this case. Erika existing as a title is slightly more reasonable, but why would that be?

Of course... there is a Beatrice on the island. Beatrice is not a character, but she kills people in magic scenes. Just because Erika happens to be a detective doesn't mean she can't be the equivalent of piece-Beatrice, a magic scene only piece. Making Battler's perspective unreliable would permit this charade, but doing that would make it appear that nothing can be trusted.

If Erika = 0, the red detailing her actions has to be explained. And if Erika isn't real, why doesn't she know this?

EDIT for LyricalAura: Battler explicitly describes the slats on the grate as 20cm in spacing. 20cm is more than half a foot wide, too narrow for a human being to pass through but entirely possible to pass an object through.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Renall

Making Battler's perspective unreliable would permit this charade, but doing that would make it appear that nothing can be trusted.

Battler's perspective has been unreliable since Ep5. I don't think we're supposed to trust a single thing in the Core Arcs, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Renall

If Erika = 0, the red detailing her actions has to be explained. And if Erika isn't real, why doesn't she know this?

I'm not sure... perhaps because she might autodestruct or something?

The real Erika fell off a boat and drowned... it's entirely possible that Bern convinced Erika she had 'rescued' her when in fact she just elevated her to the level of a magic piece.

The moment when Erika finally realizes this would probably be of great amusement for Schadenfreudestel.

[Renall]

Yeah but if Battler's perspective is unreliable, the Core Arcs are just one big magic scene. That gives ryukishi too much wiggle room for my liking.

Technically, Bern just described Erika as a new piece. She didn't, I believe, say which side she was on. Still, believing in no Erika means believing there is no one even remotely trustworthy on the island.

Think about it this way: If Erika's existence is a magic scene, why would anyone behave the way they do in ep6? Why would anything Battler does be even remotely worth noticing or caring about anymore? If there's a detective, but she never does anything with her perspective and in fact is an active participant (or unwilling dupe) in a grand character deception, how are we supposed to figure anything out? It could all be a big lie. Every word of it.

Basically, we'd get character development and that alone out of Chiru. And only if we trust the character development we're getting.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Renall

Yeah but if Battler's perspective is unreliable, the Core Arcs are just one big magic scene. That gives ryukishi too much wiggle room for my liking.

You keep saying "if", but it's confirmed at this point.

Dlanor and Battler even went through this in Ep5:

Battler saw Kinzo.
Kinzo is dead.
No one would mistake Kinzo by sight.

Therefore Battler's perspective, since he is no longer the detective, is unreliable.

Originally Posted by Renall

Technically, Bern just described Erika as a new piece. She didn't, I believe, say which side she was on. Still, believing in no Erika means believing there is no one even remotely trustworthy on the island.

Think about it this way: If Erika's existence is a magic scene, why would anyone behave the way they do in ep6? Why would anything Battler does be even remotely worth noticing or caring about anymore? If there's a detective, but she never does anything with her perspective and in fact is an active participant (or unwilling dupe) in a grand character deception, how are we supposed to figure anything out? It could all be a big lie. Every word of it.

Basically, we'd get character development and that alone out of Chiru. And only if we trust the character development we're getting.

Well, technically, this makes sense, in a way. Ep5 was Bern and Lambda trying to kill everyone, and Ep6 was Battler intentionally trying to hide the real truth in order to protect Beatrice's existence and the family honor. Of course it's all lies.

...Regardless, the fact that we're getting answers only to things the core arcs introduced and NOT THINGS FROM THE FIRST FOUR GAMES does not bode well for Ryukishi's writing ability at all.

Add this to Ep7 most likely being the last game, and Umineko might well go down as one of the great jokes of mystery fiction.

Edit: This, unless the only purpose of the Core Arcs is indeed to confirm things that those who know The Truth are already aware of, like Ryukishi keeps babbling about. ...This would mean that none of us here have even come close to The Truth. Which probably means it's nonsensical drivel like airborne brain parasites that drive people nuts if they ever leave the island.

[Renall]

A character's perspective could be reliable even though they're not a detective-tier observer. Battler is free to imagine Kinzo or lie about "seeing" him. Natsuhi is free to have her delusions. In ep5 I would still consider what they see and do "reliable" inasmuch as I think they are generally being truthful about what they see and think.

That goes out the window if Erika doesn't exist, because it means Natsuhi and Battler are having arguments with a nonexistent person, which is like Kanon fighting the Stakes. It merely looks more plausible because Erika isn't a witch. But it makes the scenes about as incomprehensible, and worse, it makes any scene where someone is otherwise observing rationally (like Natsuhi in her room) suspect, because if they can be reasonable in a completely BS scene, why can't every scene be BS?

EDIT: The "dirty trick" of ep5 could well be that he bothered to make the scenes ambiguous in an ep1 fashion, even though there is no objective observer and therefore he has no particular reason to not just have space aliens teleport into Hideyoshi's room and shoot him with a stake-materializing laser gun.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Renall

*snip*

Well, if you can't accept that perspectives cannot be objective in any way, then you'd have to accept Shkannon. And no, there really isn't any other way for the final red in Ep6 to work... either Erika isn't real and the Core Arcs are all lies, or Shannon and Kanon are the same person in some way, since they were the only characters to not appear together back when Battler's perspective was reliable.

I see the dichotomy here.

Originally Posted by Renall

EDIT: The "dirty trick" of ep5 could well be that he bothered to make the scenes ambiguous in an ep1 fashion, even though there is no objective observer and therefore he has no particular reason to not just have space aliens teleport into Hideyoshi's room and shoot him with a stake-materializing laser gun.

So the trick is that completely fake scenes are presented without magic? I like this.

[tcaz2]

Personally, I take the 'there are no more trusted view points' thing to simply mean we don't NEED trusted viewpoints to figure out anything and you SHOULDN'T just dismiss scenes because they're not guaranteed to be trusted.

Kind of like the whole love metaphor in Episode 5.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by tcaz2

Personally, I take the 'there are no more trusted view points' thing to simply mean we don't NEED trusted viewpoints to figure out anything and you SHOULDN'T just dismiss scenes because they're not guaranteed to be trusted.

Kind of like the whole love metaphor in Episode 5.

I don't want to dismiss them, but I kinda don't trust the author anymore, and this would allow him to essentially retcon anything in Chiru he wants.

Like, I want to trust Natsuhi that someone is calling her and harassing her. There's no reason I shouldn't at least accept that possibility. But if Chiru is all a "magic scene" no matter what's going on, ryukishi can change that on me any time he wants.

Come ep7 or ep8, he can be like "oh by the way there wasn't anyone calling Natsuhi at all," or he can say "yeah there really was." It gives him as the author too much power to change the answer at his discretion, which more or less makes me think he's going to end the series with a giant asspull. I don't like that prospect very much. Having a watchdog character, like the red text, at least grounds the mystery a little bit and restricts what the author can do to resolve it.

I want to believe that every puzzle was designed from the ground-up with a single particular solution in mind. Right now, I don't trust that ryukishi has set up his work to actually restrict himself to that. And if he has multiple possible answers, there's not really a "Truth" to grasp until he says there is.

Basically it's a lame writer trick to always make yourself smarter than your audience.

[tcaz2]

I'm sorry, that's your problem then.

From Episode THREE, we've been constantly beaten over the head with "the magic scenes aren't lies, they're enhancements of the truth". Virgilia even outright SAYS THIS in Episode 5. If Natsuhi is shown to have gotten a phone call- she got a phone call.

Or rather than the love metaphor, it's more akin to the 'test taking' or 'boxer' metaphor from the Anti-Fantasy vs Anti-Mystery letter. Are you that scared to reason that you can't reason unless you're guaranteed "you can ace it"?

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by tcaz2

Personally, I take the 'there are no more trusted view points' thing to simply mean we don't NEED trusted viewpoints to figure out anything and you SHOULDN'T just dismiss scenes because they're not guaranteed to be trusted.

Kind of like the whole love metaphor in Episode 5.

Yes! Thank you! That's exactly what I think too. The biggest lesson I got out of this episode is that you can't just write off scenes as "BS" and totally ignore the content, because that assumes that the author didn't have a good reason for showing them to you. So there's a fantasy element present. Why is it there? Does it really necessarily invalidate the whole scene?

To the extent that Erika influences other characters' actions, it's generally something that one of the others immediately echoes, or that they agree with. So really, writing Erika out of the interaction scenes doesn't change the overall game flow that much. Actually it makes the game flow more sensible because we don't have a bizarre Mary Sue character running around acting on meta-world motivations.

Yes, that means we have to figure out why "Erika" stuck duct tape on some of the rooms. Yes, we have to figure out why the characters "Erika" is covering for moved around the way they did, and what they were up to. But that's the whole point. If it looks like the Core Arcs have nothing to do with the Question Arcs, that's precisely because you're refusing to look through the facade and figure out why the pieces are moving the way they are. Aren't we basically being given a close-up look at how the first twilight is executed on the night of October 4th, the biggest blank period in the whole story?

[tcaz2]

And that's YET ANOTHER reason I don't like the Shkanontrice theory.

Aside from the absurdity of them being able to seemingly switch personalities at will, and Shannon and Kanon not knowing about it (yet they seem to cooperate willing in creating these closed rooms etc via the theory), they've always been shown to be fighting against Beatrice in the magic scenes.

Now, that doesn't remove the relative 'fact' that Kanon is the killer for most of Episode 1, but it makes you re-examine the whole thing.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Yes! Thank you! That's exactly what I think too. The biggest lesson I got out of this episode is that you can't just write off scenes as "BS" and totally ignore the content, because that assumes that the author didn't have a good reason for showing them to you. So there's a fantasy element present. Why is it there? Does it really necessarily invalidate the whole scene?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it invalidates it, and I'm not saying it means the scenes aren't true in some sense. However, it does mean the author can change his mind and claim that the hints he was hoping you'd get out of magic scenes weren't the ones he "really" intended you to find. And you don't have any way to call him on it.

That's kind of why he introduced red text in the first place. He can't be all "Jessica killed everyone in ep3!" out of the blue; he's painted himself in a corner with that, because the reader can say "But you said in red..." I worry he's trying to weasel out of that a little bit.

Of course ep6 still has plenty of red. So it's not like we can't call him on some things.

[tcaz2]

Originally Posted by Renall

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it invalidates it, and I'm not saying it means the scenes aren't true in some sense. However, it does mean the author can change his mind and claim that the hints he was hoping you'd get out of magic scenes weren't the ones he "really" intended you to find. And you don't have any way to call him on it.

That's kind of why he introduced red text in the first place. He can't be all "Jessica killed everyone in ep3!" out of the blue; he's painted himself in a corner with that, because the reader can say "But you said in red..." I worry he's trying to weasel out of that a little bit.

Of course ep6 still has plenty of red. So it's not like we can't call him on some things.

So if you understand that, I don't get what you think the problem is...?

There's ALWAYS going to be multiple interpretations of a scene- fantasy scene or no, Umineko or regular novel. There's never a guarantee that 'your interpretation is the correct one'.

An author of a long running series always has that power. Simply adding a narrative gimmick cannot and does not change that power.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

If it looks like the Core Arcs have nothing to do with the Question Arcs, that's precisely because you're refusing to look through the facade and figure out why the pieces are moving the way they are.

All the noise in Ep5 and 6 has really been reducing my faith in Ryukishi to actually produce a proper story. To be very frank, I liked it a lot better when Beatrice was unsympathetic, the gameboard got most of the focus, and there was an actual, overall feeling of terror and suspense. In other words, Ep1-3 was the high point of the series, and everything else has been a slow ooze downhill into the depths of mediocrity.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Aren't we basically being given a close-up look at how the first twilight is executed on the night of October 4th, the biggest blank period in the whole story?

How the first twilight is executed doesn't really matter... the fact is that it's nearly always people who are away from a central group and thus vulnerable. It does not matter if they were tricked into pretending to be dead or just poisoned... it doesn't do a thing to resolve the mystery itself, only a minor detail. What really matters is who did it and why.

Originally Posted by Renall

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it invalidates it, and I'm not saying it means the scenes aren't true in some sense. However, it does mean the author can change his mind and claim that the hints he was hoping you'd get out of magic scenes weren't the ones he "really" intended you to find. And you don't have any way to call him on it.

I actually came up with a horrifying theory a little while ago:

There is no preconceived solution to Umineko.

Rather, Ryukishi decided to have the fans think up solutions for him based on the crap he pulled straight out of his ass. This theory would explain several vast inconsistencies in red text and how character personality and backstory are presented, as well as the badly-written-fanfic nature of the Ep6 relationships and the nearly-impossible locked room mysteries.

The scary part is that this could very well be true.

Originally Posted by tcaz2

There's ALWAYS going to be multiple interpretations of a scene- fantasy scene or no, Umineko or regular novel. There's never a guarantee that 'your interpretation is the correct one'.

Umineko is ostensibly a mystery. For a mystery to be fair, there has to be a single all-inclusive, irrefutable answer.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by tcaz2

So if you understand that, I don't get what you think the problem is...?

There's ALWAYS going to be multiple interpretations of a scene- fantasy scene or no, Umineko or regular novel. There's never a guarantee that 'your interpretation is the correct one'.

An author of a long running series always has that power. Simply adding a narrative gimmick cannot and does not change that power.

The author has the power, but the quality of the author's writing depends somewhat on how much he needs to use it.

It's like a magic trick. A magician who uses lots of stage props, ropes, trapdoors, fake compartments and body doubles is a lot less impressive than one who can pull off a trick with sleight of hand and a good story. They're both a "trick," but one relies more heavily on the author's ability to set up a situation that isn't what the audience would expect it is, while the other relies on the author's skillful maneuvering and ability to distract.

Red text is like Houdini getting handcuffed before they put him in a box and throw him in the ocean. It's the author promising that even with a limitation on his power as the author, he can pull off the trick. But which of these is more impressive:

1) After getting handcuffed and tossed into the water, he picks the lock on the handcuffs and escapes from the box.

2) The box gets picked up by a submarine, and some guys open the box and use a key to get the handcuffs off.

In 1), it's artificially handicapping yourself to make the payoff more impressive. In 2), it's just using a second cheap trick after promising you won't use a cheap trick. I respect the first of these. I roll my eyes at the second. And right now I am concerned that the author is more of the second than the first.

It's a valid criticism. It isn't that I "don't get it." It's whether I trust that the author is being honest with me. A dishonest writer can say whatever he wants about how his writing works, but it doesn't necessarily mean he isn't exploiting his authority as author in a cheap way. Granted, it doesn't necessarily mean he is. I'm just worried, is all.

[tcaz2]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

All the noise in Ep5 and 6 has really been reducing my faith in Ryukishi to actually produce a proper story. To be very frank, I liked it a lot better when Beatrice was unsympathetic, the gameboard got most of the focus, and there was an actual, overall feeling of terror and suspense. In other words, Ep1-3 was the high point of the series, and everything else has been a slow ooze downhill into the depths of mediocrity.

How the first twilight is executed doesn't really matter... the fact is that it's nearly always people who are away from a central group and thus vulnerable. It does not matter if they were tricked into pretending to be dead or just poisoned... it doesn't do a thing to resolve the mystery itself, only a minor detail.



I actually came up with a horrifying theory a little while ago:

There is no preconceived solution to Umineko.

Rather, Ryukishi decided to have the fans think up solutions for him based on the crap he pulled straight out of his ass. This theory would explain several vast inconsistencies in red text and how character personality and backstory are presented, as well as the badly-written-fanfic nature of the Ep6 relationships and the nearly-impossible locked room mysteries.

The scary part is that this could very well be true.



Umineko is ostensibly a mystery. For a mystery to be fair, there has to be a single all-inclusive, irrefutable answer.

Without love...

EDIT: Renall, I still don't get where you're coming from. The average audience member will not ever find out about the submarine or the lockpick in your example. They'll just see Houdini escaping from the box. Just the same, we'll never get a look at Ryuukishi's writing process.

The end result 'we get an answer' does not change regardless of what that answer is. And it's exactly the same from any novels perspective- it's not a unique concern for this one alone.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by tcaz2

EDIT: Renall, I still don't get where you're coming from. The average audience member will not ever find out about the submarine or the lockpick in your example. They'll just see Houdini escaping from the box. Just the same, we'll never get a look at Ryuukishi's writing process.

If I suspect Houdini of using a submarine trick, I'm not as impressed with him.

A mystery is somewhat unique among fiction because the author has to reveal how his trick works, where other authors are not necessarily bound by that. So it's like watching a magic trick, then getting it explained to you. The more the trick is "I was skilled and clever," the more impressed you are with how well he pulled it off. The more the trick is "I had a bunch of things going on backstage to make it work," the less fun it is.

The best magic tricks are the ones that take seconds to do and learn. They're just more fun. The best mysteries are the ones where a single sentence makes you smirk and praise the author's cleverness.