AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-01-16, 12:56   Link #27061
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
I guess it's possible, but given the fact there is absolutely no hint of that nor a good reason as to how they instantly managed to spot Battler's attempt to eavesdrop them, that's still a pretty dirty trick.

If you consider this from the perspective of a sleuth that is trying to figure out the truth, there were pretty much no reasons to think Kanon and the others were playacting because they noticed Battler was listening. Given the information at disposal that was a very low probability.

I'll make again a comparison with the riddle of the three boxes. It is a given that you cannot deny the possibility that the prize is inside the box that has the lowest chance of having it. But seeing as how we can only think in terms of logic and probabilities, punishing or not rewarding those who made the most logical choice (albeit not 100% sure) doesn't really fares well in the contest of a "game". What else would you reward then? Instinct?
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 13:04   Link #27062
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
I think her observations can be accessed, just not accessed with perfect accuracy. This does, of course, undermine the usefulness of Erika's reliable perspective, leaving the "player" with no 100% certain information. But, goddammit, isn't that just like Umineko? We're never 100% certain of anything.
Yes well, we were kinda told that Detective Authority could reach 100% certainty, to the point that a piece's observations could rise to the level of red truth. More to the point, Erika was told that. It doesn't even matter if it's true; what matters is we and Erika were both told that's how it worked.

If it doesn't actually work that way, both the reader and Erika were lied to, for no apparent reason.

And if Erika lacks perfect access to her piece, the very notion that her observations are accurate is laughable, as someone regulates when she has access and when she does not. That someone - be it Lambda, Bern, or Battler or whoever - essentially controls all information that Erika has. She literally cannot make independent observations at all. She's just misled into thinking she can when, in fact, she can make only those observations she's permitted to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer
I would also like to point out that we readers never had access to Piece-Erika's observations, as we never see anything from her viewpoint.
Irrelevant. We know what Piece-Erika should have observed, and we know that Meta-Erika does not act like she observed the same thing. So we know there's either a discrepancy or an error. We simply don't know which. Basically we end up looking at the situation like this:
  • Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share no information. What Meta-Erika sees is filtered and unreliable and she has no way to actually access her piece's observations. Detective Authority is a flagrant sham, as there exists no Meta-Character who can actually use it (and the whole point, making observations red truth, applies solely to the Meta-World).
  • Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share all information in some form of direct connection. Kanon either should not have been seen in the parlor, or Erika should have commented about his presence, or Kanon has to have had a separate body, or Erika has to have conveniently not seen him and then never noticed this fact, or etc. etc. etc. insert your favorite vague and unsatisfying explanation here.
  • Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share some information, but not all. If so, there must be a regulating force in between the two of them that controls what information is passed between them. As long as that force exists, nothing Erika sees or does is actually reliable because the force can choose to "turn off" her accessibility at any time, apparently without either Erika even being aware of it. Detective Authority exists only at the sufferance of the regulating force, and is useless to the reader as the reader is not told when it's been shut off either.
  • It was an error. Kanon should never have been shown in the room, but Ryukishi was desperate to string along the Shkanon debate and for whatever reason felt compelled to use that "everyone is present" red when it wasn't even necessary or useful to the narrative.
None of these are particularly appealing.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 14:09   Link #27063
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Another thing that I didn't stomach was the fact that in EP3 the hypothesis that the servants faked their death was raised and then dismissed by the adults. That's really a bad trick. To make the usual comparison with Philo Vance claiming that "there are no secret passage", it's as if the writer after making him say that he'd "surprise" the readers by making the same character admit "whops... I was wrong! There was indeed a secret passage, and that was how you could explain this case from the beginning!".
Frankly, "someone proposed it so it can't be remotely true" is reasoning by tropes, and you deserve to get tricked if you rely on it. By that logic you could never have a story where the real culprit was considered as a suspect and dismissed because of a false alibi.

I'd agree that your example would be unfair, but that's not remotely what happened here, is it? The servants were actually killed after they faked their deaths, so the proposed theory was founded on a bad assumption and was only a small piece of the answer anyway. And, the adults then discarded the theory because they mistakenly connected two unrelated crimes. Preying on bad assumptions to make you discard possibilities is one of the foundations of the mystery genre, so I don't see any problem here.

Our Confession has a bit where Beatrice explains that she likes to attack that trope by having her accomplices deliberately accuse each other. Would you consider that to be cheating too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
I guess it's possible, but given the fact there is absolutely no hint of that nor a good reason as to how they instantly managed to spot Battler's attempt to eavesdrop them, that's still a pretty dirty trick.
Here's a question. Where was Maria during that conversation before she surprised Battler? Since she came by herself, it seems like no one was closely supervising her.
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 19:39   Link #27064
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Another thing that I didn't stomach was the fact that in EP3 the hypothesis that the servants faked their death was raised and then dismissed by the adults. That's really a bad trick.
If you're fooled by Watson then it's your fault, not the author's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Except, if that was even remotely true how the hell Dlanor could make a red truth out of what Erika supposedly experienced behind the GM's back without detective authority?
The explanation for that in the story was that this was possible because that situation didn't allow the smallest doubt. Your thesis is in direct contrast with that.
Well, for one, Erika didn't actually have Detective Authority at that time.

Secondly, an exception or two to my "thesis" (which I intended as more of a general emotional assertion than a precise and literal one) doesn't really change much because I just meant to say that being 100% certain about things is the exception for us readers, not the rule... so then what's the big deal if players like Meta-Erika face the same difficulties?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
  • Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share no information. What Meta-Erika sees is filtered and unreliable and she has no way to actually access her piece's observations. Detective Authority is a flagrant sham, as there exists no Meta-Character who can actually use it (and the whole point, making observations red truth, applies solely to the Meta-World).
  • Piece-Erika and Meta-Erika share some information, but not all. If so, there must be a regulating force in between the two of them that controls what information is passed between them. As long as that force exists, nothing Erika sees or does is actually reliable because the force can choose to "turn off" her accessibility at any time, apparently without either Erika even being aware of it. Detective Authority exists only at the sufferance of the regulating force, and is useless to the reader as the reader is not told when it's been shut off either.
I mostly think something like these two assessments (they are really similar, are they not?) but I'm going to nitpick.

I can't agree with your assertion that either Detective Authority is a "flagrant sham" or that there is some force that can "turn it on and off at will". I see Erika's viewpoint as reliable in the sense that it's exactly as reliable as the player's interpretation of her reported observations is accurate. I think that what we see on the game board are the conclusions that a player comes to based off of the information they get through their piece's observations. However, this is still useful information for us because it can only diverge from "the gamemaster's truth" within the realm of possible interpretation. If the gamemaster says "Kyrie's head has been cut off" then there's pretty much no player who wouldn't interpret that to mean Kyrie was dead. Thus, assuming if the piece reporting the observation is trustworthy, the player can reliably say she's dead, and then we can reliably do so. Unless...

It's actually a lot like Red Truth. Whatever observations the gamemaster feeds the player's piece can mean one thing to the gamemaster and another to the player. You know, like Kanon is dead.? That statement was supposed to be 100% reliable, right? Well, it was wrong (at least based off of our original standards of viable interpretation). However, did that lead to us completely rejecting all Red as useless? No. It's similar for a detective's observations: Sometimes they are misinterpreted, but usually they are interpreted accurately. Thus information from a piece with a "reliable viewpoint" is still usually reliable.

Like it or not, I think this "Interpretation Theory" is the answer. I can understand why you wouldn't be satisfied with it; after all, it reeks of all the bullshit that comes with "Kanon is dead.". But on the other hand, the fact that it parallels 'bullshit Red' is highly suggestive that it's exactly what RK07 had in mind... Either that or Kealym has been right all along.

And one more thing (because I see people get this wrong so, so often): Erika's observational powers, such as her perfect photographic memory, are innate abilities of hers which have nothing to do with Detective Authority. There is no rule that detectives can't misidentify things (with the exception of corpses), even if they have a "reliable viewpoint". In other words, it is not Detective Authority that dictates Erika would make correct observations, but her own innate qualities.

Last edited by Wanderer; 2012-01-16 at 19:50.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 20:10   Link #27065
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
I can't agree with your assertion that either Detective Authority is a "flagrant sham" or that there is some force that can "turn it on and off at will". I see Erika's viewpoint as reliable in the sense that it's exactly as reliable as the player's interpretation of her reported observations is accurate. I think that what we see on the game board are the conclusions that a player comes to based off of the information they get through their piece's observations. However, this is still useful information for us because it can only diverge from "the gamemaster's truth" within the realm of possible interpretation. If the gamemaster says "Kyrie's head has been cut off" then there's pretty much no player who wouldn't interpret that to mean Kyrie was dead. Thus, assuming if the piece reporting the observation is trustworthy, the player can reliably say she's dead, and then we can reliably do so. Unless...
That makes no sense whatsoever. What you're describing is exactly the problem I already outlined. You're inventing a "player" who does not exist and whose thought processes and observations no one can actually see. You're then claiming that the reader is supposed to just go along with this misinterpretation (for which they have no evidence of any such misinterpretation and in fact have been told that there is now something in play which would seem to prevent such tricks) and somehow be able to recognize it. Basically, you're justifying the author lying to you as somehow something desirable. It isn't, and I'm entirely baffled as to why you appear to think so.

The entire crux of the ep5 parlor scene - the part you seem to be intentionally avoiding - is that there is an apparent discrepancy between what Erika should have observed and what information Erika actually makes use of. You cannot wish this away in the fashion you have attempted to advance. You're basically trying to ignore that this is a contradiction by simply stating it isn't. What exactly is your basis for believing this?

Incidentally, you also have advanced no basis for why Erika's interpretation isn't being moderated if she and her piece don't share all information. If some information is not shared, then either it's a coincidence (which is ridiculous) or there is some rule or regulating force that governs when she does or doesn't get access to her piece's observations. You've stated you think there is some degree of information sharing, so it can only be one or the other. There either is some reason she doesn't always have information or there isn't. You can't disagree with all possibilities forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer
You know, like Kanon is dead.? That statement was supposed to be 100% reliable, right? Well, it was wrong (at least based off of our original standards of viable interpretation). However, did that lead to us completely rejecting all Red as useless? No.
Well actually, yes. Red is basically useless. The statements would be just as useful if they weren't red. Red adds nothing more than a dimension of intentional misdirection, the way it eventually panned out. Basically all red tells you is "this statement is probably sort of true, and probably also sort of bullshit." That was actually true even in ep1-4. So short of being a giant color-coded trope marker, it doesn't actually serve the purpose it's stated to in ep2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer
Like it or not, I think this "Interpretation Theory" is the answer. I can understand why you wouldn't be satisfied with it; after all, it reeks of all the bullshit that comes with "Kanon is dead.". But on the other hand, the fact that it parallels 'bullshit Red' is highly suggestive that it's exactly what RK07 had in mind... Either that or Kealym has been right all along.
I'm not clear what your theory is because you have no evidence for it. Since you can't actually support your points with actual observations or clear facts, it seems to just be what you'd like to be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer
And one more thing (because I see people get this wrong so, so often): Erika's observational powers, such as her perfect photographic memory, are innate abilities of hers which have nothing to do with Detective Authority. There is no rule that detectives can't misidentify things (with the exception of corpses), even if they have a "reliable viewpoint". In other words, it is not Detective Authority that dictates Erika would make correct observations, but her own innate qualities.
Seeing a person who does not exist is not a misidentification or incorrect conclusion. It's an outright delusion. Either she didn't see a person who doesn't exist and for whatever reason thinks she did, or she did see a person who doesn't exist and she has some 'splainin' to do, or she saw a person who did exist and Lambdadelta has some 'splainin' to do.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 20:33   Link #27066
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Seeing a person who does not exist is not a misidentification or incorrect conclusion. It's an outright delusion. Either she didn't see a person who doesn't exist and for whatever reason thinks she did, or she did see a person who doesn't exist and she has some 'splainin' to do, or she saw a person who did exist and Lambdadelta has some 'splainin' to do.
Well, just to bump my idea a bit, because noone's rebutted it, Aura's response was that my theory creates the problem of why Imaginary-Kinzo or Beatrice don't count as people.

My response to that, in layman's terms, is that Kanon's distinct personhood over other beings of questionable existence™ has always been an arbitrary decision by Beato / author-on-however-high-a-Meta-level-you-choose-to-venture, because it was important to her/them, as an author. In other words, it's a dissonance that existed in the story already, whether my theory about Kanon's body is true or not.

Is there a further / alternate rebuttal?
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 21:15   Link #27067
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
That makes no sense whatsoever. What you're describing is exactly the problem I already outlined. You're inventing a "player" who does not exist and whose thought processes and observations no one can actually see. You're then claiming that the reader is supposed to just go along with this misinterpretation (for which they have no evidence of any such misinterpretation and in fact have been told that there is now something in play which would seem to prevent such tricks) and somehow be able to recognize it. Basically, you're justifying the author lying to you as somehow something desirable. It isn't, and I'm entirely baffled as to why you appear to think so.
When I say "player", I mean that pretty much synonymously with "reader". I don't mean to be adding anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
The entire crux of the ep5 parlor scene - the part you seem to be intentionally avoiding - is that there is an apparent discrepancy between what Erika should have observed and what information Erika actually makes use of. You cannot wish this away in the fashion you have attempted to advance. You're basically trying to ignore that this is a contradiction by simply stating it isn't. What exactly is your basis for believing this?
I don't think Meta-Erika and Piece-Erika have the same information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Incidentally, you also have advanced no basis for why Erika's interpretation isn't being moderated if she and her piece don't share all information. If some information is not shared, then either it's a coincidence (which is ridiculous) or there is some rule or regulating force that governs when she does or doesn't get access to her piece's observations. You've stated you think there is some degree of information sharing, so it can only be one or the other. There either is some reason she doesn't always have information or there isn't. You can't disagree with all possibilities forever.
Ah, this. I'm proposing that what we see on the gameboard is generated as follows:
  • Player has a "piece" with a "reliable viewpoint".
  • Gamemaster envisions a scene.
  • Gamemaster conveys the "piece's" observation of that scene to the player in words.
  • Conveying a scene in words involves information loss.
  • Player "reads" the gamemaster's words.
  • Player uses those words to reconstruct the scene.
  • Player must make assumptions to fill in the information lost through word-scene conversion.
  • Sometimes said assumptions are wrong, and thus the resulting scene we see is also wrong.
This is what I mean by "interpretation of reported observations", because the observations made by Piece-Erika aren't really reported by Piece-Erika to Bernkastel/Battler/Meta-Erika, but by Lambdadelta to Bernkastel/Battler/Meta-Erika.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Seeing a person who does not exist is not a misidentification or incorrect conclusion. It's an outright delusion.
Yes. I was just saying that Detective Authority's role in this is constantly misidentified.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 21:19   Link #27068
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
I don't think Meta-Erika and Piece-Erika have the same information.
And what do you base this on? You seem to continuously avoid answering this.

Quote:
Ah, this. I'm proposing that what we see on the gameboard is generated as follows:

Player has a "piece" with a "reliable viewpoint".
Gamemaster envisions a scene.
Gamemaster conveys the "piece's" observation of that scene to the player in words.
Conveying a scene in words involves information loss.
Player "reads" the gamemaster's words.
Player uses those words to reconstruct the scene.
Player must make assumptions to fill in the information lost through word-scene conversion.
Sometimes said assumptions are wrong, and thus the resulting scene we see is also wrong.

This is what I mean by "interpretation of reported observations", because the observations made by Piece-Erika aren't really reported by Piece-Erika to Bernkastel/Battler/Meta-Erika, but by Lambdadelta to Bernkastel/Battler/Meta-Erika.
What do you base this on? What supports this? What makes it more viable than the alternatives?
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 21:33   Link #27069
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Well, just to bump my idea a bit, because noone's rebutted it, Aura's response was that my theory creates the problem of why Imaginary-Kinzo or Beatrice don't count as people.

My response to that, in layman's terms, is that Kanon's distinct personhood over other beings of questionable existence™ has always been an arbitrary decision by Beato / author-on-however-high-a-Meta-level-you-choose-to-venture, because it was important to her/them, as an author. In other words, it's a dissonance that existed in the story already, whether my theory about Kanon's body is true or not.

Is there a further / alternate rebuttal?
Saying the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island and then showing us 18 people is just odd; it feels like there is some wiggle room being left intentionally. Why not just say with Erika, there are 18 people on the island? It's like that particular form of the statement was intentionally avoided just so that Erika would fall for the trap later.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 21:41   Link #27070
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
And what do you base this on? You seem to continuously avoid answering this.
Ep 4 Teaparty has Beato say to Piece Battler that Kanon isn't the culprit. However Piece Battler can't hear her but Meta Battler can.

Ergo PieceErika didn't know that everyone was supposed to be in the room.
As she couldn't know it Lambda, if pressed, could have used as excuse that she never said PieceErika was in a position from where she could see everyone at the same time and MetaErika never asked for her piece to move in such a position so this translated in... Kanon (or Shannon) could have been everywhere, actually the both of them could have been missing but since MetaErika trusted Battler's perspective that everyone was in the room and never had her piece check this info or doubt it, her piece didn't bother to observe the room she was in and take notes of who was in and who was not... basically creating a situation similar to the one in which Battler sees Kinzo while Erika is giving his back to him...

... which logically can work...

however seems pretty out of character for piece Erika never notice Shannon and Kanon are never together as she's supposed to be the detective and we would expect the detective to check things.

Maybe Ryukishi thought it could say he warned us that Erika didn't check things and swallow Battler's narration as it is because Erika refused checking the bodies.

It still feels like a dirty trick so you're welcome to come up with a better explanation.

... and now that I think at it, did Erika came up with mystery explanation for how the letter was placed in front of the door? I can't remember it but, if I'm not wrong, to destroy Beato's illusion she was supposed to solve all the riddles...
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 21:42   Link #27071
Jaden
Witch of Betrayal
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 27
With that kind of set up Wanderer proposes, the paradox of Erika seeing Kanon and Shannon at the same time would make sense. Because what Meta-Erika would probably do is ignore all the fantasy BS that the gamemaster feeds her, just skim through the crime scenes and alibis, then makes her theory.

But if there were such a complex mechanic in play and we're supposed to realize this, the rules of the game should have been stated explicitly. I don't like the idea of having to guess all this arbitrary stuff...that would be like a mystery novel that you have to use a spy cipher to read.

A much easier explanation is that Erika is just like that, whether it's in the meta-world, the gameboard, whatever. She collects everyone in the parlor just because that's what a detective does when about to reveal the solution. She doesn't check whether everyone is in the parlor because the detective authority forces them to be there. And from there she's too busy mentally raping Natsuhi to care about anyone else.

Yeah, I call that the Jaden's Razor: When something doesn't make sense, add more insanity to the characters.
__________________
Jaden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 22:07   Link #27072
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
Saying the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island and then showing us 18 people is just odd; it feels like there is some wiggle room being left intentionally. Why not just say with Erika, there are 18 people on the island? It's like that particular form of the statement was intentionally avoided just so that Erika would fall for the trap later.
Of course it's odd, End is supposed to be a loveless game, and the first circumstance of Shannon and Kanon both surviving the first Twilight, AND being visible to someone with a reliable perspective. As for the particular language used in the red, I can't account for it eloquently. All I can say is that it's not uncomon for red statements to sort of ... flutz around, and Erika and Beato's final reds in their duel in Dawn throw everything about numbers of people into disarray.

Also, I'm not suggesting my theory is the only one that works (that was disproved a long time ago), it's just the logic I can swallow the easiest.

Side note, a bit of issue I have with your "interpretation of reported observations" solution is that you can take it to a sort of ... riduculous place, and say Nobody was in the parlor besides Erika and Natsuhi. The same logic that allows Kanon to not be in the room could potentially allow any other person, and any number of people, to not be in the room as well. Or at least, that's how it sounds off the top of my head.
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 22:17   Link #27073
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
What do you base this on? What supports this? What makes it more viable than the alternatives?
I wrote about this a while ago:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
I think the whole point is that the "player" is actually a reader, but is called a "player" to indicate that they have some control in shaping the game board. Actually, there are numerous hints that what we see on the game board is a reader's interpretation of the story rather than the story itself.

For example:
  • RK07 likens thought/detective novels to a two-way challenge between reader and writer in Umineko, in interviews, and even in Higurashi
  • What is a series of stories in Umineko-Prime is called a game board in the Meta-World between a "player" and a "game-master"
  • Featherine has Ange read Dawn because she wants to see how Ange reads it
  • Umineko's most central theme is based on how perspective changes truth
  • "It takes two people to create a world"
Also,

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
Bernkastel promising not to use any "reader techniques" to distort the stage directions on her game board in EP8.
Lyrical's observation is a homerun if you ask me. I'll quote the expanded conversation to make it more apparent:

Quote:
Lambda: Will you be the Reader, Bern? Or shall I do that...?
Bern: ......I don't need a Reader.
Lambda: Huh?
Bern: ......A Reader miko can use her own voice to embellish or distort the tale. ......Even if there was no cheap trickery in my game, by having a Reader, any amount of trickery could be added.
Beatrice: Yes, that is true. ......That's another of the Game Master's privileges.
Bern: I want to have a straightforward duel with you. ......So, I don't need a Reader. You can read this tale with your own eyes and ears.
Lambda: Are you sure...?! That means you've lost almost all of your advantages...!
Battler: ......Got it. You don't need a Reader. We'll read the tale ourselves.
Beatrice: If there is no Reader, ......doesn't that mean there will be absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text?
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 22:23   Link #27074
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue
Ep 4 Teaparty has Beato say to Piece Battler that Kanon isn't the culprit. However Piece Battler can't hear her but Meta Battler can.
Irrelevant. There is absolutely no comparison between that and Wanderer's other scenario. Meta-information being added with otherwise accurate information is in no way equivalent to adding false information that perverts how someone observes a Gameboard.

Quote:
Ergo PieceErika didn't know that everyone was supposed to be in the room.
Piece!Erika seems to know everything Meta!Erika does because she's a meta-gaming little bitch, so I doubt this very highly unless you can cite me an instance where Piece!Erika does not know something that Meta!Erika knows.

Good luck.

Quote:
however seems pretty out of character for piece Erika never notice Shannon and Kanon are never together as she's supposed to be the detective and we would expect the detective to check things.

Maybe Ryukishi thought it could say he warned us that Erika didn't check things and swallow Battler's narration as it is because Erika refused checking the bodies.

It still feels like a dirty trick so you're welcome to come up with a better explanation.
Erika never considered Shannon and Kanon being the same person because she didn't expect the truth to be something that jaw-droppingly stupid.

Quote:
... and now that I think at it, did Erika came up with mystery explanation for how the letter was placed in front of the door? I can't remember it but, if I'm not wrong, to destroy Beato's illusion she was supposed to solve all the riddles...
She did.

Quote:
Lambda: Will you be the Reader, Bern? Or shall I do that...?
Bern: ......I don't need a Reader.
Lambda: Huh?
Bern: ......A Reader miko can use her own voice to embellish or distort the tale. ......Even if there was no cheap trickery in my game, by having a Reader, any amount of trickery could be added.
Beatrice: Yes, that is true. ......That's another of the Game Master's privileges.
Bern: I want to have a straightforward duel with you. ......So, I don't need a Reader. You can read this tale with your own eyes and ears.
Lambda: Are you sure...?! That means you've lost almost all of your advantages...!
Battler: ......Got it. You don't need a Reader. We'll read the tale ourselves.
Beatrice: If there is no Reader, ......doesn't that mean there will be absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text?
That could literally mean ANYTHING. All this solidly indicates is the existence of a Fantasy layer, which is a far cry from violating Erika's gathering of information or telling her she learned something when she didn't.

Even with all this, your hypothesis is extremely wobbly and unsupported. Most of your arguments seem to be built on semantics and sophistry instead of providing any actual reasoning for why we're supposed to conclude that this is the nature of the game, especially when it contradicts how we're told things operate by (comparatively) reliable sources.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 22:39   Link #27075
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Also, I'm not suggesting my theory is the only one that works (that was disproved a long time ago), it's just the logic I can swallow the easiest.
Yeah I understand. Your interpretation works, logically. I just don't see it as the way RK07 would write.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Side note, a bit of issue I have with your "interpretation of reported observations" solution is that you can take it to a sort of ... riduculous place, and say Nobody was in the parlor besides Erika and Natsuhi. The same logic that allows Kanon to not be in the room could potentially allow any other person, and any number of people, to not be in the room as well. Or at least, that's how it sounds off the top of my head.
Only if the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island meant that there were only 2 people there, and that the reader for some reason thought that there were 18 people there. I don't think anyone would argue that Lambda only meant 2 people, though.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 23:16   Link #27076
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
That could literally mean ANYTHING. All this solidly indicates is the existence of a Fantasy layer, which is a far cry from violating Erika's gathering of information or telling her she learned something when she didn't.
The fact that Bern's game was going to be a pure mystery with no fantasy elements was well established before the above quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
Even with all this, your hypothesis is extremely wobbly and unsupported. Most of your arguments seem to be built on semantics and sophistry instead of providing any actual reasoning for why we're supposed to conclude that this is the nature of the game, especially when it contradicts how we're told things operate by (comparatively) reliable sources.
It's a very abstract idea. If you come at it wanting to deny it, you will succeed.

I don't really mind if you disagree with me, but I feel like you're trying to be competitive rather than constructive, which is not a track that I want to follow.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 23:20   Link #27077
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
Only if the number of people in this parlor now is equal to the total number of people on this island meant that there were only 2 people there, and that the reader for some reason thought that there were 18 people there. I don't think anyone would argue that Lambda only meant 2 people, though.
What you continue to attempt to dodge is the point that, if we were shown a scene that showed only two people present, and got a red that said everyone on the island is in the parlor, the fact that Piece-Erika would in fact have perceived more people than that yet Meta-Erika does not question the fact that only Natsuhi and Erika are shown as being there is a serious issue that you are unable to address.

Your theory is seemingly "the reader is stupid and made a mistake of perception, it's not an error, the characters aren't mistaken." Except some readers are not stupid, some wouldn't make that mistake, the characters appear to be making mistakes, and all readers are being apparently misled. Your entire notion of the structure of the game being a two-way street falls apart miserably when you then turn around and say that Ryukishi basically assumed the reader would make an idiotic decision about who he or she believed would be in the parlor and then wrote ep5 such that all readers will see the result of that idiotic decision. If you stand by this argument, you also stand by Ryukishi patronizing his entire audience with assumptions about what they would believe, or you're filtering the audience's perception through the mistaken assumptions of a higher-order character with absolutely nothing to distinguish what we're supposed to believe and what is higher-order "reader tricks."

Nothing you say is doing anything to dispel these issues, which suggests to me that you should revisit your theories and ask why you came to believe them. I'd start with actual facts and evidence contained in the text, and not vague assumptions about Umineko being a two-way process when it demonstrably isn't.

What you have right now is a vague idea of a theory, not an actual workable theory. You need to support it with evidence, evidence which clearly demonstrates that your assumed definition of what a "reader" is and what it does - a definition you have never adequately supported or defined. What are these rules, and how do they resolve the apparent differences between what Piece-Erika perceives and what Meta-Erika observes? You believe in this so strongly that it seems you don't actually know why you think it's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer
I don't really mind if you disagree with me, but I feel like you're trying to be competitive rather than constructive, which is not a track that I want to follow.
There's nothing constructive to say. You don't have any evidence and you're dodging any criticisms and assuring yourself that what you believe is accurate. What in the world am I supposed to add to that? Even if I assume your position to be true, I can't conclude that it actually tells me anything about the work. I can't take it anywhere. There's nothing useful about it.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 23:26   Link #27078
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
"Bern: ......A Reader miko can use her own voice to embellish or distort the tale."

It's very clear what is being said here, that a 'reader' can distort the tale. The only thing left is to figure out what the metaphor of 'the Reader' means.

But, I think that was a huge theme of Umineko with the Witch Hunters, wasn't it? People put their own spin on the truth, attaching what is essentially their opinions onto the actual truth, to make it seem like what they say is the truth too.

i.e. (I was reading Miracle on the Andes, about that plane crash where the survivors ate the dead to survive.) There were newspapers that accused the survivors of cannibalism, intimating that they were doing it because they loved eating human flesh. The truth was that there was cannibalism, but the newspapers opinions that the survivors were doing it because they loved it was an opinion spun so that it seemed like the truth.


With Erika, she definitely had an agenda to frame Natsuhi and she may have tunnel visioned on this one theory, discarding everything else. I don't know exactly what Bernkastel said is exactly what Erika was doing; distorting the tale, though. But it is an interesting idea.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 23:29   Link #27079
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
With Erika, she definitely had an agenda to frame Natsuhi and she may have tunnel visioned on this one theory, discarding everything else. I don't know exactly what Bernkastel said is exactly what Erika was doing; distorting the tale, though. But it is an interesting idea.
Except there are several questions we have to ask about this.
  • Why was Erika okay with something that was blatantly untrue being shown later to Battler when Battler wasn't even playing?
  • Why didn't she remember it in ep6?
  • If it just "escaped her notice," why did it? Why was someone allowed to show something that she never re-checked with her Piece?
  • What benefit does distinct Shannon and Kanon give Erika in her ploy to frame Natsuhi? Shannon and Kanon have an identical alibi, which helps them apparently not at all.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-16, 23:30   Link #27080
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
The fact that Bern's game was going to be a pure mystery with no fantasy elements was well established before the above quote.
Even Mystery stories have deceptions in the narration, brosef. Moreover, even without distorting facts, a tale can be distorted by having a narrator's personal thoughts about their observations cloud their narration. For instance, even if Erika doesn't perceive any INCORRECT INFORMATION, she can be misleading by narrating things with inordinate amounts of purple prose, or using unflattering and concise language to direct the reader's attentions to different points of data.

This is all significantly different from anything you're suggesting, and it's all stuff completely absent from Bern's game because there's no narrative framing device, just characters spouting off facts like puppets with no expository prose or descriptors.

Quote:
It's a very abstract idea. If you come at it wanting to deny it, you will succeed.
So the idea only has merit if I come to it already convinced it's a solid idea?

You know, Battler had something to say about that way of thinking as early as EP1...

Quote:
I don't really mind if you disagree with me, but I feel like you're trying to be competitive rather than constructive, which is not a track that I want to follow.
I'm merely exposing holes I see in your ideas as I see them. If you can repair them and fill them, your idea is all the stronger for it, and if your idea can't stand up to it, it's an idea you should move on from. For that purpose, I'll attack as strongly as I'm able, and we'll both be the better for it. If you're going to shy away from my criticisms, it indicates that you don't have a very strong faith in your theory's ability to stand on it's own ground.

By the way, Readers and Players are not the same thing in Umineko. The only time that any characters were described as Readers (ANGE and Clair), they were not serving as Players in any capacity. Any supposition that a person can be both a Reader and a Player is 100% fanfiction. To say nothing of the Readers not being involved in a Game. Nothing Clair does is a Game, and Ange isn't involved in a Game. She is reading a story ABOUT a game.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.