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, 23:54   Link #27081
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Someone REALLY should write a fanfic that involves a super-trolling Kanon playing the most hardcore game of hide-go-seek ever.
I recall Kanon hiding in a bush to spy on Piece!Beato and Shannon in EP2, as well as him standing just outside the door to the kitchen listening in on a conversation within. Not to mention that he's explicitly stated to have significant skill in hiding the noise of his footsteps. I always found this aspect of Kanon to be hilarious, and I would seriously love to read a fic like this.

Not to mention that you can make a totally reasonable mystery story out of it. The idea of something like this: "by restricting the room for Kanon to exist as much as possible with red truths, and still presenting evidence that he does exist in red, you can present yet another mystery by finding clever ways for Kanon to actually exist, no matter how incredibly improbable it would be." And then you throw in the hilarious segments of him sneaking around, in white text.

^Which is just the kind of thing Umineko loves to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
... 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...
I'm pretty sure we never got anything conclusive on this. Erika came up with theories, but they were at least partially disproven. And then Lambdadelta wove some crazy web of Red. The only satisfying answer I could come up with in the end was "the knock on the door didn't actually exist."

[As far as the Erika debate goes: I think the question is really very simple. The only thing that needs to be asked here is "if Piece!Erika was supposed to see both of them at the same time in EP5, then did she?"

And certainly, I think that it would be completely OOC for her to fail to notice that someone is missing. Even if this person is hiding behind someone's back, in her eyes, it would be the same as that person being missing. She would need to notice this. Of course, you could doubt Erika's competence if you want; that would be perfectly valid.

Even so, Meta-Erika has to take into account that "the people in this room = everybody on the island" which means that if she noticed someone was missing, she would definitely want to have her Piece confirm that either 1. This person is gone and therefore doesn't physically exist, or 2. This person was just not in plain sight, but was in fact in the room. If it's #1 and she confirms that Kanon does not physically exist, then she would need to understand that Kanon is not a physical existence, which should have allowed her to find the answer to the Logic Error.

From what I'm reading here, it seems like Piece!Erika's perspective was never actually given to us in EP5 (I don't remember whether it was or not, but for the sake of this argument, I'll assume that you guys are correct). Thus, we never had the benefit of using her Detective's Authority to provide objective evidences for our interpretations. She does. But to us, the entirety of EP5 shouldn't be something we can take at face value. There is no Episode that contains a scene we should be able to take at face value. After all, Piece!Battler never had Detective's Authority either, and we can prove this by simply looking at the various fantasy scenes he saw, as well as the fact that Meta!Battler never went around getting Reds from his Piece's perspective. And after EP5, no one ever had Detective's Authority.

I do think it's reasonable to expect that "Erika was unable to solve the puzzle Beato created out of the Logic Error, and was therefore defeated" is the truth, or at least, truth of a sort. If I don't doubt that, and I don't doubt Erika's competency, then there is simply only one solution:

Kanon has a body in EP5.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the physical body in Kanon's place, that was using his name, was Kanon, or even looked like the art of Kanon that Ryukishi shows us.

If I said that "the person who was acting like Kanon is actually the Mysterious Man from the phone calls and is not a member of the family or a servant, but Yasu bribed everyone except Erika to say that he is and therefore Erika accepted it," could you refute this? Even though it's totally ridiculous.

But being able to make ridiculous theories is one of the fun things about Umineko, isn't it? I'm free to interpret it however I want, within reason.]
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 00:15   Link #27082
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
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.
I'm not sure what you mean by the first one. You mean when Battler 'saw' Kinzo in EP5?


You know, I was thinking about Erika. She seems to be described as the perfect detective, i.e. hard working, knowledgeable, photographic memory, etc, etc. But in the end she failed to solve EP5 correctly.

Remember when I was talking about detectives that fail to solve the mystery do not function as typical detectives; they are in my opinion, totally opposite. Because they come up with a false solution, they're actually serving to obfuscate the solution for the reader some more! Battler was like that, often coming up with misleading solutions. I think Erika falls into the same nice boat.

I really do view Erika as incompetent, maybe worse than Battler. For example, she failed to solve the Midnight Knock and Letter and she technically failed in EP5. Maybe not as bad as Battler, but definitely a detective that leads us astray.


Basically to answer your questions, I think a lot of her failures were due to her, Bern and LD scheming to frame Natsuhi in EP5. Bern and LD definitely knew by then, but I think they purposely didn't let Erika know about it for laughs. Bern liked to torture Erika as well. So basically, I think she had her 'solution' handed to her in that episode and nothing else was really important to her. That doesn't explain why she forgot it in EP6 though, unless she really isn't as 'good' as she thinks she is. In other words, she's not as photographic memory as we're led to believe.

In some way, this reminds me of Higashino Keigo's stories. In The Devotion of Suspect X,
Spoiler for Slight spoilers without spoiling too much...:
Of course Higashino writes 'motive' and 'heart' stories better than Ryukishi, but it feels along the same line.

Uh... anyways, I'll stop rambling here...
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 00:21   Link #27083
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
Remember when I was talking about detectives that fail to solve the mystery do not function as typical detectives; they are in my opinion, totally opposite. Because they come up with a false solution, they're actually serving to obfuscate the solution for the reader some more! Battler was like that, often coming up with misleading solutions. I think Erika falls into the same nice boat.
...Except that, in the end, Erika came up with a solution that was perfectly possible. And, we don't know what that theory is, nor what the real solution to EP5 is. Therefore, we have no idea whether the two match up.

And there are plenty of clues which could lead us to conclude that Bern and LD were just leading her to that interpretation intentionally in order to toy with her, so I think that's perfectly reasonable. After all, they definitely did toy with her a lot throughout EP5.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 00:42   Link #27084
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Small comments.

About Witch trolling in EP5 : Lambda was almost certainly trolling - she, by definition, knows Natsuhi was innocent, but never defended (or even really presented) the fantasy side. For her it was likely a combination of her seeking amusement, and possibly ... possibly hoping to stir Battler back into playing the game.

Bern, however, doesn't like losing. She enjoys mistreating Erika, but I'm pretty sure she would rather Erika were a winning piece than a failing one.

About Erika not solving the EP5 : I, and I think most people, arrived at "there was no knock, the letter was either an illusion, or it's method of revealing lied about". Personally, I found it odd Erika DIDN'T solve this one - it's the sort of "question the premise" problem that she demonstrably excels at. I read the scene as Ryukishi wanting to mess with her a bit.

About Readers : To be frank, I've always been confused about what Ryukishi seems to think Reader's do. I can't imagine they'd add anything to an already written tale besides tone of voice, and commentary on the story. EP8, however, gives the impression that a Reader can choose to just ... make stuff up instead of reading what's on the page before them.

It wouldn't bother me, really, if not for Bern's "a reader will just slip lies into the words I wrote", as it conflates external commentary with the narrative that's written.

To put it another way, many read Romeo and Juliet as a great romantic tragedy about fate and all, yes? But many also read that play and say "what a bunch of stupid rich kids." That's what a Reader sort of feels like, to me - they comment on what's written, and have a particular slant on the events ... but they can't just change what's there. If I say "Romeo slew Tybalt in the streets like the cur he is", that's my commentary, but that's not me "reading the tale as written". I'm probably just being more literal than Ryukishi intended, but that's my take on it.
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 00:58   Link #27085
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Bern, however, doesn't like losing. She enjoys mistreating Erika, but I'm pretty sure she would rather Erika were a winning piece than a failing one.
Erika is her double, and she would be quite interested in the possibility that Erika would win when the odds aren't on her side, using the arguments of the Fantasy side against them and trolling them mercilessly. In fact, I'm not sure she accepts anything as a "win" unless Erika solves absolutely everything in an entertaining way.

That said, I acknowledge that this looks a little OOC.

Quote:
About Readers : To be frank, I've always been confused about what Ryukishi seems to think Reader's do. I can't imagine they'd add anything to an already written tale besides tone of voice, and commentary on the story. EP8, however, gives the impression that a Reader can choose to just ... make stuff up instead of reading what's on the page before them.

It wouldn't bother me, really, if not for Bern's "a reader will just slip lies into the words I wrote", as it conflates external commentary with the narrative that's written.

To put it another way, many read Romeo and Juliet as a great romantic tragedy about fate and all, yes? But many also read that play and say "what a bunch of stupid rich kids." That's what a Reader sort of feels like, to me - they comment on what's written, and have a particular slant on the events ... but they can't just change what's there. If I say "Romeo slew Tybalt in the streets like the cur he is", that's my commentary, but that's not me "reading the tale as written". I'm probably just being more literal than Ryukishi intended, but that's my take on it.
It's the definition of "magic." You take the same result, and you fabricate a different process, which leads to the same result. While most people who read books probably don't do this, you could if you want. And it is a very effective weapon on the witch side of the battle. In fact, without it, you're way more likely to lose against anyone who knows how to play.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 01:01   Link #27086
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Even a simple interpretation can distort a story severely. For instance, take this sentence: "The culprit stood over Natsuhi's body and giggled." If I don't write a single other thing about the culprit, what is your first impression of their gender?
__________________
"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 2012-01-17, 03:21   Link #27087
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
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.
"RMP"="Relevant Meta-Perceiver(s)"; it refers to whoever is responsible (Battler/Meta-Erika/Bernkastel/whoever) for the Meta-World's perception that there were 18 people in the parlor.

But we would never be shown only 2 people. If we were shown only 2 people, that would be because the RMP for some reason assumed that "everyone on the island" consisted of only 2 people (which is nonsense by any stretch). We were shown 18 people in the room because the RMP assumed that "everyone on the island" meant 18 people. The only reasonable possibilities that the RMP might assume are 17 or 18 (I would even argue that 18 is the more reasonable option with the RMP's knowledge up to that point, since ShKanon is pretty dumb).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
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."
This is a mechanically accurate description to of my theory, but I just don't see it as RK07 projecting a certain interpretation on all of us readers and implying we are all idiots. It's more like if your idiot friend reads a story and tells you what happened in it... poorly (which may give you the wrong impression of the story, but doesn't make you an idiot). Or it's like if the only witness you have of a crime is an idiot and you have to glean the truth as best you can from his crappy testimony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
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.
Then demonstrate...? Because I haven't seen it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
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
I'm not sure how so. I'm basically saying that Lambda is the "narrator" in EP5 and that what we see on the Game Board is the RMP's mind's eye.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
, 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.
Right. Because there's no Reader.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
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.
Yes, yes. Criticism is good, I just feel like you are framing it as a competitive debate and don't like it. It gets me to focus on "proving" (proof? In Umineko? Ha!) every last little detail so that I don't "lose", when what I really would rather focus on at this point is the viability of the general idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
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.
Isn't it Bernkastel who is the Reader in EP7?

Anyway, it's a valid point that may warrant some reassessment of my theory. But regardless of whether "Player"="Reader" or not, it's plainly shown that the Meta-Character with the role of "Reader" influences what we see on the Game Board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
Even a simple interpretation can distort a story severely. For instance, take this sentence: "The culprit stood over Natsuhi's body and giggled." If I don't write a single other thing about the culprit, what is your first impression of their gender?
Honestly, I have no particular impression of the culprit's gender, but I do wonder whether Natsuhi is about to be killed or is already dead.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 03:50   Link #27088
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'm not sure how so. I'm basically saying that Lambda is the "narrator" in EP5 and that what we see on the Game Board is the RMP's mind's eye.
And I'm saying I'm not seeing anything that suggests why we should think this. Lambdadelta is a Gamemaster more than she is a 'narrator', because in-universe characters do the narrating. She is presenting the story and the information but the structure of the game implies and infact necessitates that other players can influence the actions of their characters.

Given that the information base between player and character should be as close to 1:1 as possible (which should be perfectly achievable in the Meta-World), or else it's like the following D&D scenario:

"My character looks around."
"You see a Gazebo."
"Okay. I interact with it."
"You can't. It's not actually there."
"So, was it an illusion spell?"
"No, you just saw wrong."

Quote:
Right. Because there's no Reader.
Well, no, Bern just didn't write anything there. The lack of a Reader doesn't change that there is literally no characterization or prose in the entire Gameboard.

Ange is the Reader of EP6. She is not the Reader of EP5. Both Episodes are, in a semantic, literary sense, the same. Ergo, there is no causal relationship between a Reader's vocal embellishments and the actual text contained in the tale.

Quote:
Yes, yes. Criticism is good, I just feel like you are framing it as a competitive debate and don't like it. It gets me to focus on "proving" (proof? In Umineko? Ha!) every last little detail so that I don't "lose", when what I really would rather focus on at this point is the viability of the general idea.
My apologies. I just try and argue in an "Umineko-style", minus some of the aggressive/competitiveness. Though regardless, your idea just doesn't make any coherent sense to me. I'm both criticizing the idea and trying to understand it further because it's very close to meaning nothing understandable with what I've gathered.

Quote:
Isn't it Bernkastel who is the Reader in EP7?
No, she isn't. Lemme quote the TIPS

Quote:
Clair Vauxof Bernard

Created by Bernkastel to be a Reader, or else, a substitute actor.

Technically, she is a vessel used to personify Beato and her game.

Therefore, she has no personality of her own. In that sense, perhaps one could say she is not a person, but a tool.

Her name signals her position as the final guide in Beato's game.
I find it interesting that the only clear-cut Reader aside from Ange is compared to an actor, a prop, and a tool that is a necessary part of the narrative.

Quote:
Anyway, it's a valid point that may warrant some reassessment of my theory. But regardless of whether "Player"="Reader" or not, it's plainly shown that the Meta-Character with the role of "Reader" influences what we see on the Game Board.
No, it really, honestly isn't. You have one solid quote that even suggests such a connection and it can be taken multiple ways.

For instance, Clair doesn't seem to HAVE a subjective perspective, since she isn't actually a person, so why the hell isn't she prattling off proseless facts like in Bern's EP8 Gameboard?

Because, imo, the Reader isn't about subjective embellishments or interpretations. They just READ what's there. They're Readers, not Interpreters or Analyzers. Without one all you have is a Wikipedia summary article, not a narrative story.

Ditto for Ange. She's not really changing anything, she's reading the words written on a piece of paper. Otherwise why isn't Featherine commenting about Ange adding shit she didn't write, or somesuch?

You know how Ange DOES embellish, though? She stops and asks questions. She gives her personal interpretations of the story without actually changing the text, like YOU AND I DO.

Quote:
Honestly, I have no particular impression of the culprit's gender, but I do wonder whether Natsuhi is about to be killed or is already dead.
I think what Lyrica's going for here is that the word 'giggled' can lead people to conclude that the culprit is a female, even though that's not necessarily the case. You can create the mental image of a female even though there is no inaccuracies, false data, or misleadings in the text.

This contrasts your idea because your model insists SOMEONE ELSE'S misconceptions and misinterpretations onto OTHER READERS (us), defeating much of the purpose of the exercise.
__________________
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 2012-01-17, 05:00   Link #27089
Swigun
Ars Magica Translator
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
Erika never considered Shannon and Kanon being the same person because she didn't expect the truth to be something that jaw-droppingly stupid.
That's strange.
She claims to read Agatha Christie (in the Battler-owned-Erika scene) but it seems she didn't read all of her novels, since there's one that use pretty much the same trick.

Well it's the same "detective" that trust the family doctor in a mystery novel, maybe I'm not so surprised...
__________________
Swigun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 07:20   Link #27090
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
For instance, Clair doesn't seem to HAVE a subjective perspective, since she isn't actually a person, so why the hell isn't she prattling off proseless facts like in Bern's EP8 Gameboard?
False. Clair is a person. She's a personification of Beato and her game board, but she has a clear personality and she displays it when discussing the story she's reading with other characters on stage. She behaved like a doll in the EP7 Tea Party merely because Will had already killed her. That was a corpse on stage.

People almost always refer to Beato as a person, even though she's actually a personification of the rules. It's the same thing.

Therefore, as you can see in Clair's story in EP7, she can and certainly does add her own embellishments. Otherwise what on earth is Gaap doing there? And that's just the start of it.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 09:24   Link #27091
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
Then demonstrate...? Because I haven't seen it.
I have never interacted with Ryukishi and he has never seen my comments. I'm fairly confident in that. I'm also fairly confident that he never did anything to Umineko in response to anything that I said or did; a likely fact even if he would have read anything I wrote, as I was at least a year to six months behind the Japanese releases until ep8 making it physically impossible for anything I said to alter the next episode.

Thus, I can demonstrably prove that the author-reader dynamic between Ryukishi and myself was non-interactive. He wrote things, I read them, and by the time I'd said anything about it he'd written something else. He had no way to know or anticipate my reaction to what he was writing and could not therefore have changed anything based on that. There was no "game" because there was neither interactivity in the creative process or any answer (which the genre he apes provide in finished works). Thus, I couldn't really engage him and it was non-interactive as concerns my own personal impressions of the work.

Argument by counterexample: The process was non-interactive for at least one reader, ergo for at least one person ep5 could not possibly be justified in anticipating a responsive interpretation and presenting it to that person according to your theory. Which means that, if you are right, Ryukishi guessed wrong for some undefined number of slower or foreign readers who had no interactive access to him.

The same could be said of somebody who picks the story up now that it's already finished. Is this person's response to ep5 also anticipated to be predetermined? They have no way of interacting with a completely finished work, other than to read it and think about it. If their interpretation wasn't correctly anticipated, are they just out of luck in going two ways with the author?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
Even a simple interpretation can distort a story severely.
That's not really the issue. We've always had to deal with narrative interpretation in Umineko, as much of it has been first-person or third-person-speculative. The issue is that we have no way of knowing the difference between "the original text" and "a given reader's interpretation, if there is one for any given text." But none of this matters for the ep5 sequence, because even if it is an interpretive issue, it should have been noticed, or else we should have been told how that interpretation is permitted to change what we see, without actually telling us.
__________________
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 2012-01-17, 10:15   Link #27092
Bluemail
Zero of the roulette
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Finland
Age: 20
Send a message via MSN to Bluemail
I thought of some kind of solution to the Kanon issue, though I don't remember if it's clearly contradicted somewhere.

Maybe in EP5 there was only Kanon or Shannon in play. They never switched places or anything. Piece-Erika always supposed there was only one young servant, and didn't suspect an extra servant appearing. Everyone was in the parlor, Erika saw everyone she ever met on Rokkenjima there.

I checked the red truths of EP5. Kanon and Shannon were both mentioned in them exactly once. Kanon was confirmed to break the seal of the servants' room with Kumasawa when the First twilight victims were discovered. And Shannon was only mentioned by Natsuhi, as the only one who she told she liked fall. So it seems Kanon is more relevant to have existed on the EP5 gameboard, though these two create some kind of disrepancy of Shannon being told about Natsuhi's favourite season while she doesn't exist there.

The thing I don't remember is if the part Piece-Erika narrated (I think there was at least one occasion) mentioned either of them. Or if Meta-Erika spoke of them in EP5. If they didn't mention both of them it might mean that neither Piece- or Meta-Erika knew about an extra servant, which would make their sharing of information much simpler.

This might be an example of a loveless game, as Shannon and Kanon are reduced to the single servant she is. But it doesn't solve the issue of Meta-Erika's knowledge of the extra servant in EP6 at least.


About Reader techniques, maybe it means how Tohya might have read the message bottles and added his own interpretations and speculations into the mix. At least after being baffled by Legend and then trying to deny the image of a witch. While reading EP5 Battler added Shannon or Kanon where they weren't before, perhaps a sign of seeing things with love. Maybe after Ange read Dawn, her speculations were added to the story as a talk between ANGE and Featherine. A rewrite to the stories might have happened after Ikuko heard Tohya's interpretations of the raw version, or it's all happening in Tohya's head, without getting to a concrete form.
__________________

Umineko no Naku Koro ni ~Rondo of the Witch and Reasoning~ for PS3/PSP
NISA publisher support thread - AKSYS publisher support thread - Facebook group - deviantArt group - Petition
Bluemail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 13:51   Link #27093
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
"My character looks around."
"You see a Gazebo."
"Okay. I interact with it."
"You can't. It's not actually there."
"So, was it an illusion spell?"
"No, you just saw wrong."
But that's not at all what I am saying. The Character sees just fine; the problem lies between communication and assumption on the part of the GM and the Player. The example would go like this:

"My character looks around."
"You see a Gazebo in the front yard of the house next door."
"Okay. I interact with it."
"You can't. It's behind a fence."

The GM assumed that the Player would know that there was a fence surrounding the yard. However the Player didn't think there was until he tried to interact with the Gazebo. If, for some reason, the Player never decided to try to interact with the Gazebo then the Player would never have learned that the front yard of the house next door was surrounded by a fence, even though his Character observed that the house next door did, in fact, have one.

By the way, I've played plenty of table-top RPGs, and I've experienced this kind of thing countless times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
No, it really, honestly isn't. You have one solid quote that even suggests such a connection and it can be taken multiple ways.
You're saying that the Reader doesn't influence what we see on the Game Board when there are lines, such as:

"......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."
"If there is no Reader, ......doesn't that mean there will be absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text?"

What else could all this mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
I have never interacted with Ryukishi and he has never seen my comments. I'm fairly confident in that. I'm also fairly confident that he never did anything to Umineko in response to anything that I said or did; a likely fact even if he would have read anything I wrote, as I was at least a year to six months behind the Japanese releases until ep8 making it physically impossible for anything I said to alter the next episode.
Whenever in the past I have referred to a "reader" affecting the Game Board I have always meant a fictional character within the Umineko universe, never a person in real life. I apologize if that hasn't been clear.

I'm saying that what we see on the Game Board is the result of a two-way process between two fictional characters. Of course this result is reported to real life readers in a one-way process.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 14:59   Link #27094
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
Whenever in the past I have referred to a "reader" affecting the Game Board I have always meant a fictional character within the Umineko universe, never a person in real life. I apologize if that hasn't been clear.

I'm saying that what we see on the Game Board is the result of a two-way process between two fictional characters. Of course this result is reported to real life readers in a one-way process.
Except what you're saying is that, for just this one scene, for absolutely no reason, when we've always previously seen the interplay between the creative forces, we are suddenly treated to the aftereffects of such an interaction which we did not see, which has produced a result which is both intentionally misleading to the reader and seemingly contradictory to the individual advanced as a player, and are given neither indication of how this came about, what rules were obeyed to reach that point, and no explanation as to how the player (who has various special properties previously or subsequently addressed in the text) came to accept it.

Forgive me if I find that completely unbelievable.
__________________
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 2012-01-17, 15:51   Link #27095
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
for just this one scene, for absolutely no reason, when we've always previously seen the interplay between the creative forces
Assumptions. You can't make assumptions with Umineko.

I don't recall a time where we were shown the exact process leading up to the scenes that we, the ones reading the sound novels, are shown.

There have, of course, been many interactions between the GM and the Player, but these were usually just fights between the people trying to solve the mysteries already posed by the GM, and the GM who wants to make those people surrender.

Even so, it could have always been going on, behind the scenes, and we just weren't shown it.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 16:08   Link #27096
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toku View Post
Assumptions. You can't make assumptions with Umineko.

I don't recall a time where we were shown the exact process leading up to the scenes that we, the ones reading the sound novels, are shown.

There have, of course, been many interactions between the GM and the Player, but these were usually just fights between the people trying to solve the mysteries already posed by the GM, and the GM who wants to make those people surrender.

Even so, it could have always been going on, behind the scenes, and we just weren't shown it.
Meaningless semantics. We've always been given examples of this supposed two-way process, and it's very clear what this process actually is, even when the story itself appears to be "fixed" in some fashion. Unless you intend to argue that all such authorial processes are the result of invisible two-way communications, which you cannot support.
__________________
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 2012-01-17, 16:14   Link #27097
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Meaningless semantics. We've always been given examples of this supposed two-way process, and it's very clear what this process actually is, even when the story itself appears to be "fixed" in some fashion. Unless you intend to argue that all such authorial processes are the result of invisible two-way communications, which you cannot support.
Examples? I'm not quite sure what scenes you're talking about here.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-01-17, 16:24   Link #27098
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toku View Post
Examples? I'm not quite sure what scenes you're talking about here.
We have seen Battler interact with Beatrice, Bern interact with Lambda, Ange interact with Maria, Erika interact with Lambda/Bern, Battler interact with Erika, Beatrice interact with Erika, Ange interact with Featherine, Will interact with Bern, Will interact with Clair, Ange interact with Bern, etc. etc. etc.

We have seen these interactions and how they shape the narrative, even if the actual "story" is not actively shaped by people's collaborative actions (there are in fact more cases of the narrative not visibly changing than the opposite). The commentary, however, always is, and in almost every circumstance I can think of, we see that commentary.

But that isn't even the point, which several people here keep intentionally evading. The point is that even if we accept as true that the ep5 parlor scene is some kind of byproduct of an unseen interaction which is not in any way described or outlined or explained, the actual byproduct remains inherently contradictory and saying that it is what has been described here does not fix the contradictions. The inherent discrepancy between what the narrative says, what we know as readers is true, what Erika should have seen, and what Erika believes to be true are things which cannot be wished away by a vague and poorly thought-out notion that we're just looking at the aftermath of a process which smoothed out all those contradictions, except without actually doing any work intellectually to determine what that process was or how it came about. It's laziness to the extreme, and attempts to dismiss rightful criticism of it are downright insidious.
__________________
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 2012-01-17, 16:55   Link #27099
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:
False. Clair is a person. She's a personification of Beato and her game board, but she has a clear personality and she displays it when discussing the story she's reading with other characters on stage. She behaved like a doll in the EP7 Tea Party merely because Will had already killed her. That was a corpse on stage.
The TIPS disagree with you. She's a doll that recites and channels Beato's personality and memory, but she is not herself Beato, or anyone else.

She is not a person, but a tool. Disagreeing with that is disagreeing with Ryukishi.

Quote:
Therefore, as you can see in Clair's story in EP7, she can and certainly does add her own embellishments. Otherwise what on earth is Gaap doing there? And that's just the start of it.
Gaap is part of the story as Yasu wrote it. Clair is just reciting it.

Quote:
"......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."
"If there is no Reader, ......doesn't that mean there will be absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text?"
I've already explained this.
__________________
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 2012-01-17, 17:42   Link #27100
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
@Renall: My point was merely that we never see what it's like when the GM is reading the stories to the Player. The debates afterward, yes, but not the reading.

But I guess it's true that, even so, this doesn't seem to clear up the fact that Detective's Authority apparently didn't help Erika as it should have here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
The TIPS disagree with you. She's a doll that recites and channels Beato's personality and memory, but she is not herself Beato, or anyone else.

She is not a person, but a tool. Disagreeing with that is disagreeing with Ryukishi.

Gaap is part of the story as Yasu wrote it. Clair is just reciting it.
It's strange how everything else about EP7 seems to go contrary to this TIP. It is literally the only thing I can think of that even implies that I'm wrong about this.

Maybe it's better to say that the doll, Clair, is merely the form Bernkastel gave to Yasu for the sake of the funeral. But when that doll is acting as a vessel, it takes on the personality of the one it's channeling. So Yasu is there in EP7, but speaking to her through Clair is like speaking to her via phone.

I guess that's the same as both admitting that I'm wrong and stating the obvious, though.
Toku 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 04:58.


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