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 2012-02-01, 19:26   Link #27541
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:
Really? Because I don't remember anyone making use of that metaphor other than a) Featherine and b) Bernkastel who picked it up from Featherine.

You should also address the other things I mentioned. Especially the parts about how she distrusted her readers and thought only 1 in a 1000 could enjoy her work properly, since that was never previously shown in Meta-Beatrice's depiction but was really strongly present in Featherine's.
To be honest, my eyesight is too poor to read that much Japanese. I was asking for a page so I had a source to confirm, but I'd like some English text. No need to exclude others from the discussion anyway.

Quote:
That's not it. A Red Truth is not merely a statement. It's a law that must be followed. Otherwise, BATTLER could have busted right on out of that Logic Error.
None of this is true. The Red Truth are declarations of fact, but they do not have any enforcing power. The crux of the Logic Error is that he created two facts that contradicted, and he can't take them back without acknowledging that he fucked up. It's not like he literally, magically warped reality.

Quote:
If you say I have one apple, then you're permitted to change the number of apples in the past or the future. But if you say I have one apple. This applies to all days. then you're not permitted to change it. If someone gives you an apple tomorrow, you're gonna have to give it right back. This is because "tomorrow" is included in "all days."
Yea, well, EP7 and EP8 disagree with you, your interpretation is flawed.

Tomorrow came after all days, and I cannot see the future. The Red Truth isn't magic, it's merely the dictations of the writer of a story.

Quote:
And that, my friends, is the story of how Yasuda became Ikuko. I'll leave everything else in the cat box. After all, the only thing I'm trying to explain with this is her motive for becoming Ikuko. I don't need to explain anything else. Even so, this might give you a new perspective on Yasuda. Or not, I dunno.
The thing is, Ikuko lives alone, and Yasuda wants to be loved more than she wants to live. Ryukishi said so, so not only do you have to struggle with the text of the novel, but you have to argue against the dictations of the Author.

Quote:
So if someone kidnaps a badly injured hobo and denies him proper medical care just because she wants him to stay there with her, it's just negligent?
That's not what I said. :3

Quote:
Because she totally made this culprit guy do it. Or, wait, no. Culprit guy has free will, he chose to commit the crime of his own free will, she didn't know he was gonna do it, therefore she's not his accomplice.

If you write up a play and people actually act it out on stage, and a crime occurs there because even though you didn't intend for it to, it provided an opportunity for the crime, does that make you, the writer, the one at fault? Obviously not. You just wrote a play. How is that a crime? It wouldn't even make sense if it was.
Yasu handed a bunch of people real guns and waved a bunch of gold in people's faces. Your analogy is invalid.
__________________
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 2012-02-01, 19:48   Link #27542
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
None of this is true. The Red Truth are declarations of fact, but they do not have any enforcing power. The crux of the Logic Error is that he created two facts that contradicted, and he can't take them back without acknowledging that he fucked up. It's not like he literally, magically warped reality.
That pretty much makes the entirety of the Logic Error completely anti-climactic.

Words are not just words in the realm of the Meta-World. After all, Meta-World is a place where thoughts and metaphors are real. In that realm, which is the realm where the Game Masters reside, a Red Truth should be binding.

Quote:
Yea, well, EP7 and EP8 disagree with you, your interpretation is flawed.

Tomorrow came after all days, and I cannot see the future. The Red Truth isn't magic, it's merely the dictations of the writer of a story.
I already came up with an explanation for EP8. I just haven't found one for EP7 yet. That's what I'm working on now. Since I only have one obstacle left to my theory, I don't really want to throw it away just yet. So if anyone has any ideas, please do share them.

Quote:
The thing is, Ikuko lives alone, and Yasuda wants to be loved more than she wants to live. Ryukishi said so, so not only do you have to struggle with the text of the novel, but you have to argue against the dictations of the Author.
Who says she's given up all hope of ever being loved in 1986? No one ever said that. A total of three relationships didn't work out. That doesn't mean that there will never be a relationship that does work out.

Or did all three of them really fail? Because, hey, Battler's still alive. And she is probably very aware of this. In fact, he probably only managed to escape because she helped him.

Quote:
That's not what I said. :3
I'm not sure what you were saying then. But that argument is kind of boring now, so.

Quote:
Yasu handed a bunch of people real guns and waved a bunch of gold in people's faces. Your analogy is invalid.
She handed this stuff to adults. She didn't go shove a gun in some brat's face, who doesn't properly understand the consequences that could come of using it. All of these adults were about twice her age, at the very least. They are not idiots. They should not be thinking that, if they end up being the only survivor, they won't be suspected. That just doesn't logically follow. Furthermore, the bomb will nuke the gold, so they all have all the incentive in the world to not actually start murdering other people. Because then they'll need to get rid of the evidence.

At the very least, your analogy of someone who accidentally rear-ended another car, is false. This is because Yasuda wasn't the one who did the rear-ending, and was not in any way an accomplice to the rear-ending.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 20:05   Link #27543
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:
That pretty much makes the entirety of the Logic Error completely anti-climactic.

Words are not just words in the realm of the Meta-World. After all, Meta-World is a place where thoughts and metaphors are real. In that realm, which is the realm where the Game Masters reside, a Red Truth should be binding.
And it is, because BATTLER is trying to demonstrate he understands Beatrice's truth. Obeying his own Reds is kind of required for that.

Look, we're getting into a semantical side of things. The sheer fact of it is that you are trying to interpret the Red Truth as PREDICTIVE statements. They are NOT. They are Declarative. The Red Truth only confirms things, it does not make things to be so. If I try and say My hair is blonde when it is brown, I do not become blonde. I choke on my words. EP4 went out of it's way to point this out. What caused the Logic Error was that BATTLER made two things that contradicted each other factually true in his gameboard. The Red Truth doesn't do anything except force him to stay by his word, because not doing so is the same as going "No, wait, I fucked up, lemme redo that."

Which, by the way, isn't acceptable for a Gamemaster to do in stuff like Dungeons and Dragons.

Quote:
I already came up with an explanation for EP8. I just haven't found one for EP7 yet. That's what I'm working on now. Since I only have one obstacle left to my theory, I don't really want to throw it away just yet. So if anyone has any ideas, please do share them.
Your EP8 Explanation isn't satisfactory. What if Ange was a Detective Piece, and everything was the same?

After all, it was a 'game between me and Onii-chan', right? If you're going to use Ange's attitude to treat things as a traditional game and thus reduce everything to illusion, I can do the opposite and say it's all the Truth of that Gameboard.

Quote:
Who says she's given up all hope of ever being loved in 1986? No one ever said that. A total of three relationships didn't work out. That doesn't mean that there will never be a relationship that does work out.
She was betting ALL of her hopes on that Roulette, and Yasu-as-Clair admitted that Lion's world was the only one she could be happy in.

Quote:
Or did all three of them really fail? Because, hey, Battler's still alive. And she is probably very aware of this. In fact, he probably only managed to escape because she helped him.
Battler and Beatrice fell into the sea together.

Quote:
She handed this stuff to adults. She didn't go shove a gun in some brat's face, who doesn't properly understand the consequences that could come of using it. All of these adults were about twice her age, at the very least. They are not idiots. They should not be thinking that, if they end up being the only survivor, they won't be suspected. That just doesn't logically follow. Furthermore, the bomb will nuke the gold, so they all have all the incentive in the world to not actually start murdering other people. Because then they'll need to get rid of the evidence.
Look, in a court of law, something like 'fault' (however it's legally defined) is not indicated merely by intention, but by who allows something to happen. Yasu created the oppurtunity, so she bears some blame.

Regardless, this is all irrelevant. What I originally said is that Yasu personally holds herself to be at fault, which she does. Whether or not she is legitimately guilty for what she's accusing herself of is completely fucking irrelevant to everything.
__________________
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 2012-02-01, 20:12   Link #27544
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toku View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by Meta-detective but it's true that Chick!Beato seems to exist solely in the Meta-World and can interact freely with other people there... Except in EP8 where she has a Piece.
Well, I didn't know well how to call Beato's condition as previously the detective was always a piece who could interact with the other pieces while Beato can, at best, interact with Meta characters and with pieces that figure up in fantasy scenes (in the love trial she technically interacted with George, Jessica and Natsuhi but since it's all fantasy I doubt she really appeared in front of the respective pieces in the mystery side of the story).

Ence the name meta-detective... which funny enough makes her very similar to us as, to investigate, she read things in Ikuko's library and 'observes' what other pieces does but can't go and question them... though she's advantaged in the sense she can interact with the meta side of the cast... we can only read...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toku View Post
But more importantly, you brought up something interesting. On the game board of EP6, there is no Detective Piece, is there? So does that mean that there is no reliable perspective, and illusions can do whatever they want outside of Red Truth?
It might be possible. The only piece that was supposed to have a reliable narrative for sure was the detective. Everyone else might have it, but not necessarily.
Though the problem with Beato would be she can interact with the fantasy side and the detective shouldn't be able to do so...

unless the fantasy side is a 'realistic metaphor' of the feelings of the people involved.

... hum... I'm not to sure how to explain it well... what I mean is that there's no falsehood in the intention of the characters though they're portrayed with metaphors instead than with real actions (ES: George was willing to break ties with his mother which can be viewed as 'getting rid of her')

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toku View Post
...Interesting. This is definitely an interesting theory. But what might Battler's plans have been? Do you have any ideas?
It'll be 'fun' if he also planned a mystery game so, while Yasuda got as allies the adults he got as allies his cousins.

After all he was definitely in the mystery game of EP 5 & 6 and we see that in EP 5 Battler phoned to Jessica for unknown reasons. The cousins always met Shannon/Kanon afterward when she could have been the one going to get them with Jessica in Kumasawa's place. It might give them the time to plot a game.
EP 5 also complained about how poorly made was the magic circle while I can't remember such complain in the previous episodes. I'll say the cousins made it copying one of Maria's draws and this would mean they prepared the paint in advance.

It also would explain how this can cause anxiousness. If I'm taking part to a fake mystery game but then I believe someone is killing my kids for real I might overreact.

If I get in between of two fake mystery games people are 'dying' all around me and things will be even more scary.

However this is mostly speculation as there's not a real 'Battler's side of how things went on Rokkenjima' as all the games are centred around Beato. For example we're never given hints about how he might have or might not have written to Shannon and the letter went lost somehow.
So, although it's implied Battler didn't forget about her, he might not have been thinking at her that much... although he's still single.


It can also be that Battler's game was merely playing dumb with all his 'I don't remember about the past' because he wanted to see if she remembered (in EP 6 he plays cold and complain Chick Beato isn't like Beato... which might reflect the fact that Shannon wasn't anymore like child Shannon... never mention she was dating George) and pretending he couldn't solve the epitaph... because honestly maybe he couldn't solve it as fast as he did in EP 5 but in the other episodes he seems to find it of no or little interest. Considering he's competitive and love mysteries it's a little odd the epitaph gets so little interest out of him.

Though he might have been trying to 'test' Shannon to see if the other mystery lover would rise to challenge or drop it. As she doesn't seem to, he drops the thing as well.

But again, that's speculation.

We know Battler loved Shannon 6 years before and that once back in Rokkenjima he's jealous of the relation between her and George but we've no idea of what happened to him in those 6 years.
He had to face his mother's death, his gradmother's death and his gradfather's death and maybe they even got sick before dying. It's possible his personal problems didn't really gave him much time to think about her.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 20:22   Link #27545
ndqanh_vn
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
I can never see any romantic feeling in Battler-Shanon/Yasu relationship. It is more or less a childhood crush, and in the text AT LEAST, Battler did not seem to be very jealous or upset about she going out with Geogre. Curious and interested is more like it.

Anyways, who COULD be so serious at that early age?

I think with all the thing going on in his life during this six year, he's actually forgot everything until he saw Shanon on the island.

Quote:
She handed this stuff to adults. She didn't go shove a gun in some brat's face, who doesn't properly understand the consequences that could come of using it. All of these adults were about twice her age, at the very least. They are not idiots. They should not be thinking that, if they end up being the only survivor, they won't be suspected. That just doesn't logically follow. Furthermore, the bomb will nuke the gold, so they all have all the incentive in the world to not actually start murdering other people. Because then they'll need to get rid of the evidence.
I hate this argument, sorry. At least, Yasu should have known herself the chaos that would surely comes up when money and REAL GUN are involved, after reading so many murder mystery and knowing the Ushiromiya family is a bunch of seriously messed up and paranoid people. She might not think that somebody would kill everyone, but honestly, some small incident might occured. How could they call for medical help then? What if somebody got some accident with the gun? Even when holding game for adult, you should be responsible. There were just so many thing that could go wrong.

And did she know for sure that that family is not all of idiots? Or at least, some of them is known for being bipolar and dillusional.
ndqanh_vn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 20:44   Link #27546
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
And it is, because BATTLER is trying to demonstrate he understands Beatrice's truth. Obeying his own Reds is kind of required for that.

Look, we're getting into a semantical side of things. The sheer fact of it is that you are trying to interpret the Red Truth as PREDICTIVE statements. They are NOT. They are Declarative. The Red Truth only confirms things, it does not make things to be so. If I try and say My hair is blonde when it is brown, I do not become blonde. I choke on my words. EP4 went out of it's way to point this out. What caused the Logic Error was that BATTLER made two things that contradicted each other factually true in his gameboard. The Red Truth doesn't do anything except force him to stay by his word, because not doing so is the same as going "No, wait, I fucked up, lemme redo that."
Not Predictive. I'm just thinking of them as Laws which are absolute in the realms where they apply, and cannot be broken.

It's kind of like how Dlanor uses the Knox's Decalogue. If something shows up which goes against a Red Truth, you can quote that particular Red, and it will destroy anything that goes against the rules... In the realms where these rules apply, of course. Just like how Kinzo was allowed to be used in theories in EP5 until the Red that he was already dead was repeated.

Quote:
Your EP8 Explanation isn't satisfactory. What if Ange was a Detective Piece, and everything was the same?

After all, it was a 'game between me and Onii-chan', right? If you're going to use Ange's attitude to treat things as a traditional game and thus reduce everything to illusion, I can do the opposite and say it's all the Truth of that Gameboard.
Stalemate. Neither of us can disprove the other's theory (with regard to EP8).

Also, I now have an explanation for EP7.
The Red Truth which prevented Kinzo from being alive at the start of the game, was never quoted in EP7. In essence, he is allowed to exist as an illusion simply because he has not been denied. The Detective himself, refused to deny that illusion, because he always respects the "heart" of a story. This is supported by the fact that the story in question violated a whole bunch of Van Dine's rules, and said rules can be enforced in Red if he so pleases (this has been shown), but even so, he never did this.

Furthermore, it's already apparent that at least some of the things Will "saw" with Theatregoing Authority were not entirely true. Kinzo's story was at least partially fabricated. This is supported by one of the red scenes when Bern cut Clair open in the Tea Party. Actually, from what I understand, "Kinzo's story was at least partially fabricated" is generally accepted by most people. I could be wrong on that though.

At any rate, this implies that what we're being shown is not necessarily reliable in the first place.

While it is not possible for a Detective to be deceived, it is possible for a Detective to lie about what they've seen.

Alternatively, since there were no crimes, there is no Detective in EP7 either. Since the Detective was not present for any of the crimes in EP7, it amounts to the same thing.


Quote:
She was betting ALL of her hopes on that Roulette, and Yasu-as-Clair admitted that Lion's world was the only one she could be happy in.
The primary source of her hope survived. She knew this.

Yes, the bet was incredibly important to her. However, let's say for example, that Battler did manage to remember in the end, but it was only after everyone had already died. (this is supported by the fact that Battler understood the Truth in EP5, but it was already too late. "October 6, 1986" also seems to imply this) In that situation, if Yasuda is still alive and sees that he's remembered, will she give up hope?

Quote:
Battler and Beatrice fell into the sea together.
Battler and Beatrice revived at the end of the EP8 ??? scene.

Quote:
Look, in a court of law, something like 'fault' (however it's legally defined) is not indicated merely by intention, but by who allows something to happen. Yasu created the oppurtunity, so she bears some blame.

Regardless, this is all irrelevant. What I originally said is that Yasu personally holds herself to be at fault, which she does. Whether or not she is legitimately guilty for what she's accusing herself of is completely fucking irrelevant to everything.
I was only arguing this point because I assumed you were rejecting this interpretation of Yasuda on the grounds that it conflicts with your morals.

What does the fact that she's accusing herself of this have to do with my theories? Guilt does not imply suicidal tendencies. And I've already explained exactly what I believe Beatrice is in that little story of gold text that I typed up. According to that definition, "Beatrice's death/rest/suicide" does not imply the same for Yasuda. Additionally, that definition does not really stretch the truth at all. It logically follows from many of the things we've already been told in the stories.

Last edited by Toku; 2012-02-01 at 21:03.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 21:27   Link #27547
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:
Not Predictive. I'm just thinking of them as Laws which are absolute in the realms where they apply, and cannot be broken.
This is never how they're stated to behave, however. They are True, but that doesn't mean they can prevent other things from being True.

Quote:
It's kind of like how Dlanor uses the Knox's Decalogue. If something shows up which goes against a Red Truth, you can quote that particular Red, and it will destroy anything that goes against the rules... In the realms where these rules apply, of course. Just like how Kinzo was allowed to be used in theories in EP5 until the Red that he was already dead was repeated.
Those aren't really laws so much as saying "This Gameboard is Knox-compliant."

Or would you like to explain how Beatrice's laughter is a law, or how "You are incompetent" is a law, or how "Die the death" is a law?

Quote:
The Red Truth which prevented Kinzo from being alive at the start of the game, was never quoted in EP7. In essence, he is allowed to exist as an illusion simply because he has not been denied. The Detective himself, refused to deny that illusion, because he always respects the "heart" of a story. This is supported by the fact that the story in question violated a whole bunch of Van Dine's rules, and said rules can be enforced in Red if he so pleases (this has been shown), but even so, he never did this.
That's now how Detective's Authority works. Let's not have that argument again.

Quote:
Furthermore, it's already apparent that at least some of the things Will "saw" with Theatregoing Authority were not entirely true. Kinzo's story was at least partially fabricated. This is supported by one of the red scenes when Bern cut Clair open in the Tea Party. Actually, from what I understand, "Kinzo's story was at least partially fabricated" is generally accepted by most people. I could be wrong on that though.
The Theatregoing Authority is essentially the equivalent of letting any Piece show a personal flashback, even if it's a Fantasy Scene. Erika was shown Fantasy Scenes as well, just not through her Piece. Notice how the backround turns Meta before anyone narrates?

Also People are allowed to give their own viewpoints.

Quote:
While it is not possible for a Detective to be deceived, it is possible for a Detective to lie about what they've seen.
No it is not.

Quote:
Alternatively, since there were no crimes, there is no Detective in EP7 either. Since the Detective was not present for any of the crimes in EP7, it amounts to the same thing.
Who killed Beatrice?

Quote:
Battler and Beatrice revived at the end of the EP8 ??? scene.
But apparently not together, or else why would they have re-met the way they did? They got separate somehow.

Quote:
Guilt does not imply suicidal tendencies.
Er...yes, it does. Did you read Episode Seven? Like, to the end?

Quote:
According to that definition, "Beatrice's death/rest/suicide" does not imply the same for Yasuda. Additionally, that definition does not really stretch the truth at all. It logically follows from many of the things we've already been told in the stories.
Beatrice attempts to drown herself in EP8's ????. You can't exactly drown a personality.
__________________
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 2012-02-01, 21:48   Link #27548
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
It'll be 'fun' if he also planned a mystery game so, while Yasuda got as allies the adults he got as allies his cousins.

After all he was definitely in the mystery game of EP 5 & 6 and we see that in EP 5 Battler phoned to Jessica for unknown reasons. The cousins always met Shannon/Kanon afterward when she could have been the one going to get them with Jessica in Kumasawa's place. It might give them the time to plot a game.
EP 5 also complained about how poorly made was the magic circle while I can't remember such complain in the previous episodes. I'll say the cousins made it copying one of Maria's draws and this would mean they prepared the paint in advance.

It also would explain how this can cause anxiousness. If I'm taking part to a fake mystery game but then I believe someone is killing my kids for real I might overreact.

If I get in between of two fake mystery games people are 'dying' all around me and things will be even more scary.

However this is mostly speculation as there's not a real 'Battler's side of how things went on Rokkenjima' as all the games are centred around Beato. For example we're never given hints about how he might have or might not have written to Shannon and the letter went lost somehow.
So, although it's implied Battler didn't forget about her, he might not have been thinking at her that much... although he's still single.
...Wow. At first, I was thinking that this was a baseless theory, but you provided a bit of convincing evidence. I'm not sure I agree with this, but I find it all the more interesting now.

After all, if Battler was the chessmaster behind the faked First Twilight of EP5, possibly among other things, this could play a big part in explaining how EP5 was supposed to be a hint to Meta!Battler.

I kind of like the idea of Chessmaster!Battler anyway. It's like the original Meta!Battler, except without the incompetence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ndqanh_vn View Post
stuff
Bottom line is, we just don't agree about a whole lot of things. I don't really have any response to most of this. But if you want to read my explanation for why Yasuda was so serious about the relationship at such an early age, feel free to read my little story of gold text that I typed up in one of my most recent posts today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
This is never how they're stated to behave, however. They are True, but that doesn't mean they can prevent other things from being True.
Then why is it impossible to overturn the this story will not have a happy ending in EP8? The only way they were able to refute this particular Red was "it's up to me whether I interpret the ending as happy or not" which seems to mean that while Bernkastel's idea of a happy ending is still impossible, their idea of a happy ending might be possible.

Quote:
Those aren't really laws so much as saying "This Gameboard is Knox-compliant."

Or would you like to explain how Beatrice's laughter is a law, or how "You are incompetent" is a law, or how "Die the death" is a law?
Would you like to explain how the game board is Van Dine-compliant? Because I'll tell you, it's not. And yet, these rules can be used.

Beatrice's laughter may be the Truth, but it has no actual effect as a law. It's the same with "Die the death."

"You are incompetent" is a law, and it does have an actual effect, but it only affects the present. In the past and in the future, Battler is allowed to be competent.

Quote:
That's now how Detective's Authority works. Let's not have that argument again.
Bernkastel opted not to give Will Detective's Authority. He does not possess that particular Authority.

Quote:
The Theatregoing Authority is essentially the equivalent of letting any Piece show a personal flashback, even if it's a Fantasy Scene. Erika was shown Fantasy Scenes as well, just not through her Piece. Notice how the backround turns Meta before anyone narrates?
True, I guess. But my point that EP7 contains falsehoods still stands.

Quote:
Also People are allowed to give their own viewpoints.
A tale with falsehoods is, by definition, Fantasy side. That doesn't take away anyone's right to tell such a tale. They most certainly can, if they want.

Quote:
No it is not.
Prove it. Keep in mind that while Battler could not possibly mistake anything that is not Kinzo for Kinzo, he was capable of lying about it. He may not have been the Detective, but when it comes to Kinzo, all Pieces must have an objective viewpoint. This applies to all games.

Quote:
Who killed Beatrice?
The fact that the golden rose petals and Clair herself "vanished as though no one had been there in the first place" heavily implies that this was all a Fantasy scene. It would be very difficult to justify that it was not Fantasy.

Quote:
But apparently not together, or else why would they have re-met the way they did? They got separate somehow.
I don't really understand what you're saying here. But I do know that it was because of Battler's revival that it was possible for the Golden Land to revive. Furthermore, the fact that Beatrice was there when he revived, and ran up and hugged him, implies that she was with him the whole time. Whether you believe she was with him in death, or in life, or simply as a metaphor, is up to you.

Quote:
Er...yes, it does. Did you read Episode Seven? Like, to the end?
Did you read my post? Like, to the end? :P I explained why Beatrice's death is not equivalent to Yasuda's death, in my opinion.

Quote:
Beatrice attempts to drown herself in EP8's ????. You can't exactly drown a personality.
That scene was a metaphor.

I thought it was already generally accepted that "October 6, 1986" can't be considered Truth anyway? Though I could be wrong on that.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 21:52   Link #27549
cronnoponno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
I don't understand, why would a detective be allowed to lie about what they see? Even Dlanor said that Battler is NOT allowed to falsify his view(in red) to which Battler had to prove he WASN'T the detective.


But....why would ANY story allow a detective to lie to their reader?
cronnoponno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 22:05   Link #27550
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by cronnoponno View Post
I don't understand, why would a detective be allowed to lie about what they see? Even Dlanor said that Battler is NOT allowed to falsify his view(in red) to which Battler had to prove he WASN'T the detective.


But....why would ANY story allow a detective to lie to their reader?
Where is it said that the Detective cannot lie to us? There was never any such rule. The Detective must have an objective viewpoint, but what he tells people that he sees is not necessarily the Truth.

In the story of EP2, Battler saw Kinzo before the clock hit 24:00 on October 5th. Therefore, the bomb had not gone off yet, and Battler was not dead. And yet, even if he is drunk, he is not allowed to mistake something that is not Kinzo for Kinzo. This applies to all games!
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 22:10   Link #27551
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:

In the story of EP2, Battler saw Kinzo before the clock hit 24:00 on October 5th. Therefore, the bomb had not gone off yet, and Battler was not dead. And yet, even if he is drunk, he is not allowed to mistake something that is not Kinzo for Kinzo. This applies to all games!
That scene concluded after 1) The Witch Revives, and 2) Battler had completely surrendered. Battler was not serving as a detective in that scene.

Quote:
Where is it said that the Detective cannot lie to us? There was never any such rule. The Detective must have an objective viewpoint, but what he tells people that he sees is not necessarily the Truth.
Knox's 8. The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader.

Moreover, "people in the story" and the audience are two entirely different things. The Detective can never lie to us. It's against both Knox and Dine.
__________________
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 2012-02-01, 22:24   Link #27552
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
That scene concluded after 1) The Witch Revives, and 2) Battler had completely surrendered. Battler was not serving as a detective in that scene.
Interesting way of looking at it. But what does 1) have to do with it? He wasn't dead even after the Ninth Twilight. However... Hmm. It's true that 2) should logically make him lose his status as Detective, at least until he decides to fight again.

Quote:
Knox's 8. The detective must not light on any clues which are not instantly produced for the inspection of the reader.

Moreover, "people in the story" and the audience are two entirely different things. The Detective can never lie to us. It's against both Knox and Dine.
That rule only applies to the clues that the Detective finds.

Also, it's not against Knox because it is permitted for observers to let their own conclusions and interpretations be heard.

I don't know about Van Dine. However, the fact remains that this game board does not follow Van Dine's rules, and that if these rules were enforced, Yasuda and all of the other servants will no longer be permitted to be culprits, among other things.

Therefore, unless it's possible to explain everything in all games using the Van Dine rules, that particular argument might as well be dropped.

Aah, no good. Another stalemate. Neither of us can disprove the other's theory here. Hmm...
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 22:39   Link #27553
Used Can
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toku View Post
I don't know about Van Dine. However, the fact remains that this game board does not follow Van Dine's rules, and that if these rules were enforced, Yasuda and all of the other servants will no longer be permitted to be culprits, among other things.
They do apply, that's why Will could use them in Red.

As for the Yasuda deal, that's a loophole. Technically, she was no longer a servant by the time Umineko took place, but the head of the family.
__________________
"The name is Tin; Used is just an alias. I'm everything Shoe Box would like to be." - Used Can of the Aluminium Kingdom
Used Can is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 22:40   Link #27554
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:
Interesting way of looking at it. But what does 1) have to do with it? He wasn't dead even after the Ninth Twilight. However... Hmm. It's true that 2) should logically make him lose his status as Detective, at least until he decides to fight again.
Usually when the Witch Revives, her Darkness and Illusions wash over the Gameboard. Episode 1 had Battler shooting at Golden Butterflies before midnight struck, too.

Generally when there's no more murders, it seems, the curtains start to fall.

Quote:
That rule only applies to the clues that the Detective finds.

Also, it's not against Knox because it is permitted for observers to let their own conclusions and interpretations be heard.
That is not how those rules are used. The point of Knox's 8th is that the Detective must be honest to the reader, and the second one you cited doesn't include the Detective, strictly speaking, as an 'observer', since they're defined by Knox as the other players in the story giving their own amateur speculations about what's happening.

Quote:
I don't know about Van Dine. However, the fact remains that this game board does not follow Van Dine's rules, and that if these rules were enforced, Yasuda and all of the other servants will no longer be permitted to be culprits, among other things.
False Red, Will was invited to the Board, and his Dine's Rules were invoked. Yasuda is not a servant, she's the Head of the family.

Moreover, this isn't what that rule actually means anyway. It's like Knox's Chinaman rule. It wasn't a 'no chinese people' rule. Both rules are prohibitions against scapegoating two-dimensional characters no one else in the story really cares about, like a mysterious foreign person or a personality-less butler. Hell, Shannon and Kanon would be exempt anyway because they're the lovers of noble blood, and aside from that are significant aspects of the plot instead of being props and plot devices such as the Butler or Chinaman.
__________________
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 2012-02-01, 22:41   Link #27555
cronnoponno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
So, are you saying that Erika can see a red carpet, then lie to us in her testimony of it without us being in on it, and it is okay by Knox because her interpretations and theory can be heard?

Erika can, be colorblind, and assume it would be a blue carpet, therefore as long as she didn't know she can say her interpretation which could not be true, but to deliberately tell us that she saw a blue carpet when she fully knows it is red would be outright lying to us, and I don't know where you saw that was allowed.(Then again, I don't know where it says it's NOT allowed, I just think it'd be kinda lame).
cronnoponno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 22:57   Link #27556
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Used Can View Post
They do apply, that's why Will could use them in Red.

As for the Yasuda deal, that's a loophole. Technically, she was no longer a servant by the time Umineko took place, but the head of the family.
Impossible.
2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.
3. There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.
6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. His function is to gather clues that will eventually lead to the person who did the dirty work in the first chapter; and if the detective does not reach his conclusions through an analysis of those clues, he has no more solved his problem than the schoolboy who gets his answer out of the back of the arithmetic.
EP8 in particular goes against this one.
12. There must be but one culprit, no matter how many murders are committed. The culprit may, of course, have a minor helper or co-plotter; but the entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature.
16. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations. such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude.
20. And (to give my Credo an even score of items) I herewith list a few of the devices which no self-respecting detective story writer will now avail himself of. They have been employed too often, and are familiar to all true lovers of literary crime. To use them is a confession of the author's ineptitude and lack of originality. (a) Determining the identity of the culprit by comparing the butt of a cigarette left at the scene of the crime with the brand smoked by a suspect. (h) The commission of the murder in a locked room after the police have actually broken in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
That is not how those rules are used. The point of Knox's 8th is that the Detective must be honest to the reader, and the second one you cited doesn't include the Detective, strictly speaking, as an 'observer', since they're defined by Knox as the other players in the story giving their own amateur speculations about what's happening.
That's also not how those rules are used. Umineko follows its own interpretation of the Knox decalogue. It can be viewed here at any time:
http://umineko.wikia.com/wiki/Knox%2...neko_Decalogue

You'll note that Umineko's 8th actually says It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 23:04   Link #27557
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
Note that just because EP7 uses Van Dine doesn't mean the others have to, and just because the others don't doesn't mean EP7 can't.

Quote:
That's also not how those rules are used. Umineko follows its own interpretation of the Knox decalogue. It can be viewed here at any time:
http://umineko.wikia.com/wiki/Knox%2...neko_Decalogue
I don't give a shit. You can't just change someone else's rules. Either use them or don't. Luckily, Ryukishi doesn't use them in any way that contradicts the 'canonical' Decalogue, and he stated that his game follows it, so I think he's just paraphrasing, rather than legitimately altering. Bear in mind the version you linked to is an English-to-Japanese-Back-To-English version of the rules, so there's going to be corruption of the text even if Ryukishi didn't deliberately change anything.
__________________
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 2012-02-01, 23:11   Link #27558
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
Note that just because EP7 uses Van Dine doesn't mean the others have to, and just because the others don't doesn't mean EP7 can't.
It doesn't matter. This rule cannot fit with Umineko:
16. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations. such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude.

I'm about 99% sure that's checkmate.

Quote:
I don't give a shit. You can't just change someone else's rules. Either use them or don't. Luckily, Ryukishi doesn't use them in any way that contradicts the 'canonical' Decalogue, and he stated that his game follows it, so I think he's just paraphrasing, rather than legitimately altering. Bear in mind the version you linked to is an English-to-Japanese-Back-To-English version of the rules, so there's going to be corruption of the text even if Ryukishi didn't deliberately change anything.
Well... Unless you want to discredit WH's translation... Which clearly has things like this in EP5:
Knox's 8th. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED...!!
Knox's 8th. If the crime actually was carried out in the cousins' room, clues must have been SHOWN. Because clues were not given to the detective, Lady Erika, who was on the watch for any abnormalities inside that room until morning, such a crime is IMPOSSIBLE...!!
Knox's 8th, it is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED! Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE! Was it ever shown that you were not the detective this time, and that you were an observer with a subjective VIEWPOINT?!! Unless it was, you do not have the right to falsify your point of VIEW!!

...It's obvious that in Umineko, this rule only applies to the presentation of clues.

Arguing that Ryukishi can't do something simply because you don't like it, doesn't work.
Toku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-01, 23:30   Link #27559
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:
It doesn't matter. This rule cannot fit with Umineko:
16. A detective novel should contain no long descriptive passages, no literary dallying with side-issues, no subtly worked-out character analyses, no "atmospheric" preoccupations. such matters have no vital place in a record of crime and deduction. They hold up the action and introduce issues irrelevant to the main purpose, which is to state a problem, analyze it, and bring it to a successful conclusion. To be sure, there must be a sufficient descriptiveness and character delineation to give the novel verisimilitude.

I'm about 99% sure that's checkmate.
Van Dine was pretty tsundere about the genre and disobeyed this rule himself. Regardless, if things are relevant to understanding the story, such as for example Shannon's and Kanon's character development, it's relevant and thus not violating this rule by Dine's own rulings.

Quote:
Well... Unless you want to discredit WH's translation...
In fairness, it does have SOME errors.

Quote:
Knox's 8th. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED...!!
Knox's 8th. If the crime actually was carried out in the cousins' room, clues must have been SHOWN. Because clues were not given to the detective, Lady Erika, who was on the watch for any abnormalities inside that room until morning, such a crime is IMPOSSIBLE...!!
Knox's 8th, it is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED! Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE! Was it ever shown that you were not the detective this time, and that you were an observer with a subjective VIEWPOINT?!! Unless it was, you do not have the right to falsify your point of VIEW!!

...It's obvious that in Umineko, this rule only applies to the presentation of clues.
Yea, no, that's not how that works. Just because something is inclusive doesn't mean it's exclusive. Ryukishi focused on finding and demonstrating clues; that doesn't mean he's permitting the Detective to lie to the Reader.

Quote:

Arguing that Ryukishi can't do something simply because you don't like it, doesn't work.
You're right. I'm arguing that he's factually wrong, though, which is different. If he's going to change the rules, he shouldn't say his work is Knox-compliant. He should've just made his own damn rules and called them something else.
__________________
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 2012-02-01, 23:36   Link #27560
Toku
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
Van Dine was pretty tsundere about the genre and disobeyed this rule himself. Regardless, if things are relevant to understanding the story, such as for example Shannon's and Kanon's character development, it's relevant and thus not violating this rule by Dine's own rulings.
It still doesn't matter.
2. No willful tricks or deceptions may be placed on the reader other than those played legitimately by the criminal on the detective himself.

Can you find a way to completely destroy the concept of Unreliable Narrator in Umineko?

3. There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.

I can do this all day long.

Quote:
Yea, no, that's not how that works. Just because something is inclusive doesn't mean it's exclusive. Ryukishi focused on finding and demonstrating clues; that doesn't mean he's permitting the Detective to lie to the Reader.
But can you prove he's not allowing this?

Besides, even if the Detective can't lie, you haven't destroyed my theory that since there were no crimes, there is no Detective in EP7 either. Since the Detective was not present for any of the crimes in EP7, it amounts to the same thing.

Quote:
You're right. I'm arguing that he's factually wrong, though, which is different. If he's going to change the rules, he shouldn't say his work is Knox-compliant. He should've just made his own damn rules and called them something else.
I guess. Why can't we just say it's his interpretation of the rules, though, and call it a day?
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 11:15.


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