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 2013-07-25, 10:47   Link #32541
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 29
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
I'm not sure I'd be fond of that portrayal regardless (even though I would find it better) because it implies that you have to abandon decorum and compassion to seek Truth. If Battler's counterpoint to that had been "No, you can seek Truth without going that far," then fine, that's a pretty good conflict to set up for the end. But it... wasn't that.
I agree with you partially on that one. EP8 Battler was not developed enough to actually solidify the stance I see him personifying there, which is "If only one would be hurt by truth it is to be hidden." Thus I see him and Bernkastel as the two sides of "If there is love things become visible, but there are also things that become incomprehensible if there is love", him being the former, her being the latter.

In a way, for 'Absolute Truth' you have to abandon decorum and compassion. As a prosecutor, don't you sometimes have to push emotion aside? Sure, Bernkastel is taking it to the other extreme of the Beato/Battler party, who are like "why take a painful truth if you can party with your murdered relatives in a dream world," but in a way she represents a notion that is not completely wrong.

I could also make an argument that, due to the representation of a moral discourse on truth in Japan being slightly different from the Euro-centric/American one that most of us follow, some part of the Japanese audience might be more inclined to follow the idea that hiding the truth to protect some is morally more positive than revealing it to appease some. Going by what Ryukishi has put out so far it's hard to say if he belongs to that portion or if he simply portrays Japan as existing within that paradigm.

In that sense I would have much preferred a third ending to EP8, making the one we got as the "magic ending" to be the "acceptance ending" and a true "magic ending" where Ange succumbs to the positive fantasy and goes equally (though less dangerously) insane as in the "trick ending".

One of the problems is that Umineko makes a clear distinction between "not telling the truth" and "lying", which is a concept that I found people who have been brought up in the West to have a larger problem with grasping.
Being part of a not fully accepted minority in Japan, I have to make that distinction on a daily basis and I am not rarely confronted by friends from Europe or America who have trouble understanding that.
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-25, 11:18   Link #32542
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by haguruma View Post
In a way, for 'Absolute Truth' you have to abandon decorum and compassion. As a prosecutor, don't you sometimes have to push emotion aside? Sure, Bernkastel is taking it to the other extreme of the Beato/Battler party, who are like "why take a painful truth if you can party with your murdered relatives in a dream world," but in a way she represents a notion that is not completely wrong.
Putting emotion aside temporarily to look at an issue clearly is different from believing that you essentially have to destroy your compassion and become a Witch of Truth. Compassion and emotion are important in dealing with (and accentuating) doubt, which is an important thing to address while seeking Truth. For example, Erika and Trick Ending Ange can't handle doubt, so they react definitively and self-destructively. There's a middle ground between "I will seek Truth at all costs" and "I'll just accept never knowing and move on," and arguably only in that middle ground do you even have a chance of reaching Truth anyway (as rationality is not a wholly logical endeavor).

I should also point out that putting aside my emotions to do my duty is literally what the system expects of me. The entire reason we have prosecutors who follow the law regardless of compassion for the defendant and attorneys who zealously fight for the freedom of clients they know to be guilty is precisely because we hope as a society that those conflicting aspects will work together to point toward what truly happened, by essentially balancing everything out. Emotion is still very important in a trial, but you're more likely to see the defense attorney wearing it on her sleeve than the prosecutor simply because it's more beneficial that way. The idea is more that none of these approaches are likely to work when undertaken by a single person, hence an adversarial system. The conflict, essentially, seeks Truth in a manner that would be far more difficult for an individual.
Quote:
I could also make an argument that, due to the representation of a moral discourse on truth in Japan being slightly different from the Euro-centric/American one that most of us follow, some part of the Japanese audience might be more inclined to follow the idea that hiding the truth to protect some is morally more positive than revealing it to appease some. Going by what Ryukishi has put out so far it's hard to say if he belongs to that portion or if he simply portrays Japan as existing within that paradigm.
If the latter, he doesn't do anything to suggest he particularly disagrees with it. On the other hand, he is socially subversive in a few other points in the story... but also socially conservative at times. It's hard to get a read on whether he's commenting on the society of modern Japan through the lens of 1980s Japan or not. I'd suspect if he is, it's mostly accidental.

Whether hiding the truth would be seen as a moral outcome is another point entirely, but Japan seems to me to have been having a slow crisis of ethics in that respect. Which isn't to say the west isn't having its own ethical crisis... I think pretty much every first world society has entered a period of philosophical decline that each is trying to feel its way through and reconcile with social mores they've created for themselves without adequately questioning their reasons for existing. Umineko is in that sense a philosophical artifact of its time, a somewhat morally-confused work that is trying to emphasize a positive outlook it can't entirely define. I don't doubt Ryukishi has only the best of intentions, but I don't know if he knows quite where he was going with them.
Quote:
In that sense I would have much preferred a third ending to EP8, making the one we got as the "magic ending" to be the "acceptance ending" and a true "magic ending" where Ange succumbs to the positive fantasy and goes equally (though less dangerously) insane as in the "trick ending".
You mean the Magic Ending?
Quote:
One of the problems is that Umineko makes a clear distinction between "not telling the truth" and "lying", which is a concept that I found people who have been brought up in the West to have a larger problem with grasping.
Being part of a not fully accepted minority in Japan, I have to make that distinction on a daily basis and I am not rarely confronted by friends from Europe or America who have trouble understanding that.
It's not a problem if you have even the slightest degree of background in logic and philosophy. You're obviously correct that there is a difference. The problem is that not telling the truth can be as morally injurious as lying, so the distinction has to be made on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, I believe it's found wanting, but there are times where it probably is morally neutral. Choosing not to provide unnecessary but technically relevant information might be one example, provided the relevant information would not have any effect on the outcome of decisions made by the person they weren't told to. "You shouldn't investigate all means available to you to get information and impressions on events that happened" w/r/t Eva's diary is just stupid though, even if it's not motivated by a desire to present a believable lie for any sort of manipulative end.
__________________
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 2013-07-25, 12:45   Link #32543
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 29
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
There's a middle ground between "I will seek Truth at all costs" and "I'll just accept never knowing and move on," and arguably only in that middle ground do you even have a chance of reaching Truth anyway (as rationality is not a wholly logical endeavor).
I more or less agree with you on that, though I have this urge to challenge the choice of words. Technically we could make a distinction here between Truth and truth, just as for example Jaques Lacan made a disctinction between Real and Reality; Truth being the constructed combination of actual events and emotions/motives, while truth is simply just the matter of fact events.
If you say that the Truth is that murder is more than just one person harming another with no regard of their survival, while truth is just that, then I agree with you.
Though this can be seen in Erika's approach during EP5. As everything she revealed about Natsuhi was factual truth, yet she wasn't able to reach the Truth because she lacked an understanding of some emotional aspects. For example "Natsuhi would not kill Krauss" (like manga EP3's "Eva would not kill Hideyoshi") can not be logically proven, yet it seems obvious from the emotional information we can gather by observing her during the series.

Quote:
The entire reason we have prosecutors who follow the law regardless of compassion for the defendant and attorneys who zealously fight for the freedom of clients they know to be guilty is precisely because we hope as a society that those conflicting aspects will work together to point toward what truly happened, by essentially balancing everything out.
While the system is generally comparable in most parts of the Western world, I still want to point out that the system I was raised in (Germany) is slightly different from for example the American system. I always have the feeling that talking about truth and moral right and wrong in the context of "law" is very heavily displaced for each participant depending on their background.

Quote:
It's hard to get a read on whether he's commenting on the society of modern Japan through the lens of 1980s Japan or not. I'd suspect if he is, it's mostly accidental.
Though even an "accidental" comment is important. In writing and thinking, something like an "accident" is a concept that I shy away from. Sub- or unconscious placement is something I would prefer to call it. He lives in the society he is writing in his work, so everything he portrays is painted by his very own perception.
But I fully agree with you that he didn't reach a complete decision on what he thinks of the dilemma himself, his stance seems equally unstable as some of his characters, which is not unimportant in it's own right.

Quote:
You mean the Magic Ending?
In a way that is how you could paint it actually, yes. Though I would say that she was moving on enough to see a development for her. She knows the Truth, yet she was able to build a life of her own that does not only rely on her connection to the past (I see her passing on Maria's morals as something that is at least painted positive in the text and I can agree with). She would have probably just continued her life without searching for her brother any further...though yes, her emotional reaction reveals, that giving it up broke her to a certain degree, if not just as much as continuing her search.

In that sense you could even say that, at least from our perspective, none of the two endings is entirely positive.

Quote:
"You shouldn't investigate all means available to you to get information and impressions on events that happened" w/r/t Eva's diary is just stupid though, even if it's not motivated by a desire to present a believable lie for any sort of manipulative end.
That line of thought is though exactly part of the different outlook on the distinction that I was talking about. I see where you are coming from and I think I would be inclined to follow that line of thought in several situations myself, but I can't help to see the destructive side of this as well.
If society was reasonable enough to comprehend any information for what it is and bot biased by their personal perception and mindset then this would work perfectly. Yet the approach of "using every means necessary as long as they provide otherwise unattainable information with connection to an event" leads to an outcome of "sacrificing some for the sake of a greater goal" just as much as hiding certain aspects. Isn't the question just as much if the positive effect outweighs the negative impact?

For example, I think it is important to challenge the half-truths spread about Japan's war history and create an idea of Truth, because some people keep getting hurt while others unjustly praise themselves.
Yet in a case like Umineko's murder case it becomes much more muddled. Yes, the surviving relatives - Ange, Nanjo's son...well Kuamasawa's son seems fairly unconcerned, but possible relatives of Gohda if there are any - feel confused and hurt about not knowing the truth, yet having the truth revealed might give them emotional piece, yet create problems for them on other levels, possibly even incriminating them. Ange could be the daughter of murderers, the Nanjo name would loose all credibility in the field of medicine, all relatives received at least access to large amounts of money, which incriminates them. Yes, revealing the truth is the lawful thing to do, but is it the moral thing to do?
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-25, 13:41   Link #32544
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by haguruma View Post
I more or less agree with you on that, though I have this urge to challenge the choice of words. Technically we could make a distinction here between Truth and truth, just as for example Jaques Lacan made a disctinction between Real and Reality; Truth being the constructed combination of actual events and emotions/motives, while truth is simply just the matter of fact events.
I'm not sure I'd quite use those definitions (I'd argue capital-T Truth is more the ideal of understanding striven for in any process of thought, essentially the informational component of wisdom), but at that point it'd just be quibbling over semantic underpinnings, as the notions are similar. The point is indeed to distinguish Truth-as-moral-good and truth-as-factual-recollection.

Although in the case of Erika in ep5, she was merely advancing a collection of truths in an attempt to prove "a truth" in aggregate. This was not "the truth" as it wasn't even true and she has to have known it (although this is a side debate I'd love to have; did Erika genuinely believe in Natsuhi's guilt due to misdirection from Bern, or was she intentionally framing her with full knowledge of her innocence?). The reason it wasn't "the truth" is that she wasn't seeking Truth, which has attached to it a moral component that by necessity asks that we direct our analysis of truths as responsibly as we can.
Quote:
While the system is generally comparable in most parts of the Western world, I still want to point out that the system I was raised in (Germany) is slightly different from for example the American system. I always have the feeling that talking about truth and moral right and wrong in the context of "law" is very heavily displaced for each participant depending on their background.
I don't deny that law is a game, in a certain sense, and its construction is not perfect. However, the intent behind the design of an adversarial system is essentially to harness our natural tendency to want to "win" and mitigate the damage this may cause by pitting potential biases against one another so that they can be exposed in the eyes of a (presumably) neutral finder of fact, who will then use that information wisely to obtain a verdict. Overzealous prosecution remains a serious issue, but I'd argue this arises from a morally flawed approach to prosecution generally; in other words, the aforementioned desire to "win" rather than seek Truth, essentially Erika's attitude.

What I believe is important about the law is that it provides a good example of a theoretical ideal for Truth-seeking, which is a collaborative effort of contrasting viewpoints and desires. Again, doubt is important, as is empathy; having a voice of dissent, even acting as devil's advocate, is extremely helpful. Conscience can be that for an individual, but there's no real substitute for someone else's input. Another reason it's morally harmful to shut people out of your Truth-seeking just because you don't have faith in what they will do. Yeah, they might hurt you, but that adversity could prove necessary.

In that sense, I can see the appeal of viewing Bern as a literal Satanic figure (in the Book of Job sense). If her actions are to play the part of the heartless anti-fantasy advocate because she knows everyone else is too invested in the outcome to turn against it, then certainly she does fill that role and turn the system into a sort of adversarial one. But once again, I don't believe that's how she was actually written. A shame, really, because it makes a degree of sense for her, but her textual actions seem to stand against it.
Quote:
Though even an "accidental" comment is important. In writing and thinking, something like an "accident" is a concept that I shy away from. Sub- or unconscious placement is something I would prefer to call it. He lives in the society he is writing in his work, so everything he portrays is painted by his very own perception.
But I fully agree with you that he didn't reach a complete decision on what he thinks of the dilemma himself, his stance seems equally unstable as some of his characters, which is not unimportant in it's own right.
True, but unconscious criticism becomes less interesting the more inconsistent it becomes. And Ryukishi is not entirely consistent in his attitudes toward certain things like gender roles and the public's desire to understand events.
Quote:
In that sense you could even say that, at least from our perspective, none of the two endings is entirely positive.
I again chalk this up to the incompleteness of Twilight. I have an inkling that he didn't quite intend to portray the endings as he did, but perhaps he was in a hurry. There's a lot more that could have been done there, and I think that certain necessary ep4 parallels were cut out or just not implemented in order to set up just what Ange intended to do with and in her own life. There is something more to be said about the portrayal of Maria's worldview than Alliance said (although it said plenty, I think), but it didn't get the rehabilitation it needed after the first three-quarters of Twilight did its level best to run it through the mud (possibly unintentionally).
Quote:
If society was reasonable enough to comprehend any information for what it is and bot biased by their personal perception and mindset then this would work perfectly. Yet the approach of "using every means necessary as long as they provide otherwise unattainable information with connection to an event" leads to an outcome of "sacrificing some for the sake of a greater goal" just as much as hiding certain aspects. Isn't the question just as much if the positive effect outweighs the negative impact?
...
Yet in a case like Umineko's murder case it becomes much more muddled. Yes, the surviving relatives - Ange, Nanjo's son...well Kuamasawa's son seems fairly unconcerned, but possible relatives of Gohda if there are any - feel confused and hurt about not knowing the truth, yet having the truth revealed might give them emotional piece, yet create problems for them on other levels, possibly even incriminating them. Ange could be the daughter of murderers, the Nanjo name would loose all credibility in the field of medicine, all relatives received at least access to large amounts of money, which incriminates them. Yes, revealing the truth is the lawful thing to do, but is it the moral thing to do?
Maybe? It's certainly ethical to lie to Nazis about whether you're harboring Jews or resistance members. But that's not because lying is moral sometimes; it's because lying is sometimes not as bad as the alternative.

Where I take issue with things is this speculation on possible future harm as outweighing definite future benefit, and suggesting that there is nothing that could be done by these people in light of the truth to counteract the (almost wholly theoretical) malicious actions of others. It's a fundamentally cynical calculus; "I believe that more harm than good will result, so I'd prefer not to take the chance."

At any rate, I don't believe there is a moral duty impressed upon individuals to prevent all potential harm, and that people and societies bear the burden of their behavior, even if they are operating on the basis of established factual truths. What I mean by this is that if it were true that Ange's parents were murderers, it wouldn't make her classmates' taunts any more justified (only factually true instead of speculative). The Truth (with a capital-T) is that you don't impart upon the son the sins of the father, and Ange is as much a victim of her parents' actions in a scenario where they were guilty as anybody else is, because she was betrayed by the people closest to her and abandoned for something like greed or wrath. She deserves compassion as well. It is both morally right to incriminate those who have done wrong and to provide support and compassion to those who will be victimized by the revelation of that fact. Hiding the truth ultimately does neither.

And if society is going to negatively affect Dr. Masayuki Nanjo for the fact that his father was a corrupt and incompetent physician when he himself is not, then perhaps it's society that's wrong and not the dissemination of the truth of Rokkenjima? We shouldn't reward an ethically delinquent society for its lapse of morality by allowing it to conform to its own expectations. Turning away from Truth because a broken society would act unethically toward people who have done nothing wrong is not right. There is no moral necessity inherent in hiding this particular set of truths, as there might be in doing so while acting in opposition to such a society.
Quote:
For example, I think it is important to challenge the half-truths spread about Japan's war history and create an idea of Truth, because some people keep getting hurt while others unjustly praise themselves.
I would argue that most of those are not "half-truths" but outright malicious denial. I think that Japan's ethical crisis could be summarized as a refusal to confront things that are problematic under the notion that they aren't problematic as long as they don't cause social turmoil (and thus, by this same faulty logic, anyone who is causing social turmoil is the actual problem rather than the thing they are taking issue with). It's a pernicious, dangerous lapse of judgment that affects issues of social and criminal justice, health and public safety, education, minority rights, and historical revisionism.

By contrast, the west loves to raise issues to the forefront but lacks the compassion to view them as serious enough to condemn as morally harmful and the conviction to accept that a moral harm cannot be permitted to continue and that something probably needs to be done about it. We love to complain about inequality or injustice, yet we do nothing to prevent it from happening again and again while telling ourselves that if it were really such a big deal, someone would fix it (but of course, it's never us who has to fix it). In either case it leads to inaction, but that inaction is harmful for different reasons.

The way I see it, the attitude toward the truth in Umineko sort of has both problems at its core. It's hypocritical with respect to that Japanese attitude because other people refuse to let the truth lie or continue to engage in mean-spirited speculation (Ange would probably have been bullied over it regardless), yet we're supposed to believe that this is morally equivalent to more responsible and ethical methods that are never shown to even be an option. It's ignorant with respect to the western problem because Battler's kindness is not actually directed toward a specific moral goal other than alleviating suffering in general ignorance of root causes (relieving suffering without addressing the causes of suffering is an empty platitude).

The forces at work in Twilight are essentially trying to shape Ange's ethical development, but they don't make very good arguments as to how she ought to structure her life. One can argue too that they carry an unrealistically cynical view of the public's attitude and an unrealistically rosy view of the appeal of Beatrice's catbox. I'd argue both are harmful, but the public's attitude can be corrected (and is, albeit in a stupid way); Beatrice's actions cannot. If we had more information to call Bern a sort of "dark conscience" and Battler's argument were more coherent and less patronizing, I do think we could say that this scenario would play out in Ange's mind. But that didn't really happen. Ultimately, Ange is just left to cobble together a moral framework without the reader getting a terribly good and full sense of what she's decided to do. We know she's chosen to live quietly and to be charitable to others, but it's not clear if she came to this decision merely because it "feels right" or if her experience reliving and considering the tragedies of her childhood convinced her that she's acting in a way that is the most rational. We probably could have come to know more about her (and about Tohya) and how they have both been shaped and shaped themselves by this tragedy and subsequent searching for information on it, but we don't.
__________________
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 2013-07-25, 15:48   Link #32545
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 29
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Woopidoo, my browser crashed and deleted my post, so short version this time and no Erika-comment for now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
then perhaps it's society that's wrong and not the dissemination of the truth of Rokkenjima?

I think that Japan's ethical crisis could be summarized as a refusal to confront things that are problematic under the notion that they aren't problematic as long as they don't cause social turmoil

By contrast, the west loves to raise issues to the forefront but lacks the compassion to view them as serious enough to condemn as morally harmful and the conviction to accept that a moral harm cannot be permitted to continue and that something probably needs to be done about it.
I admire your outlook on truth-seeking and society and I hope this is not a too personal question, but am I completely off in assuming that you are a straight, white male?
I agree completely that these are the paradigms in which the two systems operate and that they are problematic, but truth doesn't exist in a vacuum and my doubt is simply, if it is right to endanger the well-being of a few without their consent to change society into something that seems better to us.
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-25, 15:58   Link #32546
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by haguruma View Post
I agree completely that these are the paradigms in which the two systems operate and that they are problematic, but truth doesn't exist in a vacuum and my doubt is simply, if it is right to endanger the well-being of a few without their consent to change society into something that seems better to us.
Is it right to make patronizing decisions to "protect" the well-being of a few without any actual proof that what you're doing will preserve or improve their well-being or that not acting in such a manner will definitely lead to trouble for them? And even if I were to accept the argument, is it right to refuse to change a broken society because a few people - or even a great many people, honestly, if you're changing society to the detriment of the majority due to an injustice - might be negatively impacted by it? I don't see doing something that somebody might not like as ethically detrimental as long as the action being undertaken is morally right. As for making sure it is... that's why it helps to have consultation and dissent, something you're not going to have if you insist on resolving the entire problem yourself.

If your argument is we shouldn't take an action that may potentially have negative consequences, then your system of ethics is assuredly going to be paralyzed by indecision at one point or another. My point is merely that if one must make a choice between uncertain outcomes, it is probably better to behave on a level that is personally ethical than to assume that your unethical actions will lead to a better overall outcome. This is especially true if you are trying to come to a decision entirely on your own (as one presumably would do when one is the sole trustee of information and the one who must choose whether to disseminate it).

But seriously, let's talk more about Erika.
__________________
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 2013-07-26, 06:58   Link #32547
ALPHA-Beatrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Indeed, let us do so . I am ALPHA-Beatrice. A Witch created by the Great Lady Lambadelta in the 21st century to reveal the truth of the games. In discussing Lady Erika, we must reference to the 5th game and the accusation that Natushi and Krauss hid Kinzo's death.(Actually, Battler also made this claim at the start of the 4th game).

However, neither Natsuhi nor Krauss lied about Kinzo's death

Think about it, we know from Natsuhi's perspective That she believes Kinzo's still alive. So why would she lie about something she believed? It might not be factual, but not intentionally so.

So, all I the Great Alpha Witch has to do is prove that Krauss didn't lie, right? Well, let's first look at the reason why Krauss would lie about Kinzo's death.

It's said that Krauss would lie about Kinzo's death if Kinzo in fact didn't choose him as the successor, but rather Rosa(in the case of Rosatrice) or one of the other siblings. However, I have to state this in red.

Kinzo would most certainly never hand the position over to Rosa.

We know this because from Eva's perspective, she had always seen herself as superior to Krauss. And even Kinzo admitted as such. But Kinzo rejected Eva on the grounds that a woman is to bear a man's child and that the Ushiromiya successor is to be a male.

We also know Kinzo to look unfavorably towards the other siblings. In fact, if we're to believe any of 'Kinzo's' testimony he most favorably looked at Natsuhi, rather than any of the other siblings

We can then simplify it like this(Eva Voice): Ushiromiya Kinzo would have never chosen any of the adult siblings as successors.

I, for the record am not denying Rosatrice. I'm denying that Kinzo chose any of the adult siblings as a successor, and especially above all Rosa.

There's one other point of contention, which arose in the 4th game. "Kinzo" proclaimed to the other siblings, that he would choose one of their grandchildren as the next heir, bypassing all of them. However, the two siblings left in this case were Maria and Battler which frankly doesn't make sense from Kinzo's perspective.

Ignoring how Ryukishi portrays Battler as the Endless Sorcerer for a minute and looking at the facts of the story, we know Battler to have effectively disowned the Ushiromiya name for at least 6 years. In that time span, Hideyoshi had a successful middle-class business and George was a fine young man.

If Kinzo were to choose a successor among the grandchildren, Ushiromiya George would be the most obvious choice. This is seen in the magical scene where George chooses to kill all of the other siblings and Gapp pronounces him the next Demon King

Yet George was chosen as one of the 13 sacrifices, why? Well, let's go back to I believe it was either the first or second game, Dr. Nanjo advises Kinzo on writing a will. Kinzo at first utterly denies the proposition, but after some convincing, he begins to write it.

But I present the theory that he never completed it.

The Seven Stakes of Purgatory pronounced in Red: That 'Ushiromiya Kinzo' died at the starting time of all games

In other words, Ushiromiya Kinzo died at the First Twilight. Ignore all magical interpretations, ignore all scenes. Kinzo died At the very first twilight

Now, Lady Beatrice was stopped from making a proclamation. She was about to say that 'no one died an accidental death.' Since there wasn't an accidental death, that means someone died a natural death.

That someone is Kinzo! **Lambda cackle**

If Kinzo died a natural death, let's say a heart attack No one would benefit more than Krauss. Krauss has absolutely no reason whatsoever to conceal Kinzo's death!

However, a natural cause of death isn't the same thing as not denying of homicide In other words, I can prompt a heart attack by agitating the heart in some way. The victim died of a heart attack, but it was still a homicide.

Here's where I'll use Blue for the majority of my thesis: It's known that the servants are incredibly obedient, it's also known that Shannon isn't well-versed in the ingredients of food.

Rosa manipulated Shannon into adding some kind of addictive(whether it be sweetner or something else.) That may have been fatal to Kinzo, causing him to die a 'Natural Death' but it was still a homicide.

Then afterwards, At some point, Kinzo's body was discovered by Genji(this occurs during the First Twilight). Rosa meets up with Genji and tells him that she'll personally take care of Kinzo's body. Since Nanjo is Rosa's accomplice, he gladly obliges. Genji is generally obedient to the siblings, but due to Rosa's killing the Kuwadorian Beatrice it's also possible that Genji feels responsible to Rosa, more than the others. Rosa steals the Head's Ring from Kinzo and disposes his body in the furnace, possibly to hide his being poisoned.

With this theory, I've firmly established Rosatrice, I've also utterly shattered Erika's theory that Krauss and Natsuhi were lying about Kinzo's death.

Krauss didn't know of Kinzo's death and Natsuhi earnestly believed in Kinzo's well-being, before and after death!

My Golden Truth is effective .

Last edited by ALPHA-Beatrice; 2013-07-26 at 07:13.
ALPHA-Beatrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 08:50   Link #32548
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
Now, Lady Beatrice was stopped from making a proclamation. She was about to say that 'no one died an accidental death.' Since there wasn't an accidental death, that means someone died a natural death.
This is no red truth. Even if you claim that that was about to be said, it wasn't.


Also...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
Krauss didn't know of Kinzo's death and Natsuhi earnestly believed in Kinzo's well-being, before and after death!
Knox's 8th. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented. Where was it ever indicated that Krauss is unaware of Kinzo's death?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
My Golden Truth is effective .
No, it is not, until Knox's 8th is satisfied. And as you are not the gamemaster, your golden truth holds no power on this board.
Instead: Kinzo died a natural death caused by alcohol poisoning, just as Nanjo predicted.

Sometimes the simplest answer is actually the right one...


Also about Kinzo choosing from the grandchildren: As you said he only accepts males, so with that you could already ignore Jessica and Maria. Then there are George and Battler. While what you said about George is true, you should realize how many parallels there are between Battler and Kinzo. It is indeed possible that Kinzo sees himself in Battler, which could potentially be a reason to make him the head. Also Battler was one of the people in the story, shown to have the potential to solve the epitaph. Additionally, the portrayal of Battler is questionable in the first four games and espacially in the first two games.

Last edited by GreyZone; 2013-07-26 at 09:15.
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 14:12   Link #32549
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
Man I always love when people pseudo-RP as witches and shit. *Popcorn*
__________________
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 2013-07-26, 14:52   Link #32550
Dormin
Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
I don't think red truth should be even used in discussion if it isn't a direct citation from the game. I like how many people have been using it previously for some things that are totally opinion based.
Dormin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 14:57   Link #32551
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormin View Post
I don't think red truth should be even used in discussion if it isn't a direct citation from the game. I like how many people have been using it previously for some things that are totally opinion based.
Well you can use red truth for things that are 100% sure deductable by logic, for example me saying "this is no red truth" is possible, because Beato never finished that sentence, so it cannot be considered a red truth. As long as I don't say anything like "she was not about to say that" in red, then I am fine.

But aside from that, I completely agree with you. Reds are thrown around too much. I wonder how many forum posters would be trapped in logic errors by now
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 15:08   Link #32552
fg204
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
The biggest flaw in Erika's initial theory in EP5 that I noticed was the timeline regarding Rosa's "murder". Upon further analysis, it seems pretty clear that nobody could have committed the crime according to Erika's specifications. Consider these red truths given in EP5:

1. From 1:00 AM until the discovery of the crime, it was impossible for the crime to occur in the cousins' room!!

2. Of all the people in the dining hall, not one of them left the dining hall until 1:00 AM...!

3. During the short break at 1:00 AM, the first two to leave the dining hall were Rosa and Eva. Until Eva returned, everyone in the dining hall remained there. After seeing Rosa off, Eva went to the waiting room and sealed it. Of course, she did not enter the room at all at this time.

4. After George's death, his corpse was never moved!
After Jessica's death, her corpse was never moved!
After Maria's death, her corpse was never moved!
After Rosa's death, her corpse was never moved!


#1 implies that if there was any "crime" at all that happened in the cousins' room, it must have been committed BEFORE 1:00AM. #2 and #3 imply that Rosa left the dining all at 1:00AM and, therefore, could only have arrived at the guesthouse AFTER 1:00AM. #4 precludes the hypothetical "crime" from being committed anywhere else other than in the cousins' room (where the "corpses" were "discovered"), since otherwise the "corpses" would have had to be moved back into the cousins' room after the culprit committed the crime.

Therefore, how is it possible that the culprit commit the crime BEFORE 1:00AM when Rosa was not even present in the guesthouse until AFTER 1:00AM?

Erika explicitly says that after playing cards with the cousins until midnight (confirming they're still alive at 12:00AM), she got the key to the guesthouse library from Gohda in the servant room, sealed the servant room (and also Kumasawa's room), and went with Nanjo to the guesthouse library and stayed there discussing mystery novels until 1:00AM. Afterward (i.e. AFTER 1:00AM), she then met Rosa (who had just returned from the mansion) on the way back to the servant room where she noticed the seal still intact (providing an alibi for Gohda) and spent the rest of night until 3:00AM with Nanjo and Gohda in the lounge (where she'd be able to notice anyone entering the second floor). Therefore, the time from midnight to 1:00AM is the only hour when Erika would not be able to notice someone from the mansion sneaking into the guesthouse. Here's a more succinct timeline:

12:00AM Erika confirms cousins are still alive, borrows guesthouse library key from Gohda, seals Kumasawa and Gohda's rooms, heads to library with Nanjo

1:00AM Erika heads back to Gohda's room (servant room), meets Rosa along the way, notices Gohda's room's seal still intact, heads to lounge with Gohda and Nanjo and stays there with Gohda and Nanjo until 3:00AM

3:00AM Erika seals both Gohda and Nanjo before heading to her room to listen to Battler sleep all night (alibi for Battler)

7:00AM All seals intact until they were broken in the morning, providing alibi for Kumasawa, Gohda, and Nanjo.

Even if the culprit entered the 2nd floor from 12:00AM to 1:00AM and hid there, the red statements I brought up make it impossible for the crime to be committed after 1:00AM (otherwise it would have said something like "From 1:00AM until the discovery of the crime, it was impossible for the culprit to enter the cousins' room" which leaves open the possibility of the "crime" being committed after 1:00AM). But Erika's initial theory against Natsuhi make it necessary for the culprit to wait until Rosa had returned and commit the crime after 1:00AM in order for Rosa to be dead the next morning. This contradiction can only be resolved if we consider some ridiculous definitions of "discovery", "crime", or "the cousins' room" that would make the red text all but meaningless.

I guess the one possible exception would be if we were to define "the cousins' room" as "the entire universe outside of where the crime was committed", similar to (but not quite the same as) Renall's epic solution to the EP6 logic error (ROFL at "The microbacteria of Tau Ceti VII were in the cousins' room"). But that idea here just doesn't quite workout very well considering how the "corpses" must NOT be "discovered" in "the cousins' room" that morning in order for them not to be moved after their deaths. The best logical explanation is that the crime that directly resulted in their deaths occurred after the "corpses" disappeared the following morning.
fg204 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 15:19   Link #32553
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
The red text isn't meaningless though, in the sense that it's true: There wasn't any crime. That's the point of it. There's no contradiction because nobody was murdered during the period Erika is constructing an argument around. She's just chosen to ignore (I guess) that conclusion and jump to a different one (i.e. "Natsuhi has no alibi during the only period where a crime could have been committed -> a crime appears to have been committed -> a crime was committed -> Natsuhi must have done it").

What's annoying is that nobody just explicitly points this out. Yet another reason the trial segment is one of the low points of the series even for a logic battle, as nobody makes the right arguments and bullshit is permitted or prohibited seemingly at random.
__________________
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 2013-07-26, 18:20   Link #32554
ALPHA-Beatrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone View Post
This is no red truth. Even if you claim that that was about to be said, it wasn't.
Then, can you present another theory as to what Lady Beatrice would've said? She damn near finished the sentence before Ronove covered her mouth. The only reason it never ended up being a Red Truth is because of Ronove's interference, I merely stated the facts.'

It also happens to be a fact that denies the Witches Side. Since a 'Natural Death' occurred, that means that it could've been done without a Magical method. That one crack would allow Battler to conclude that all murders were 'natural' and thereby done by Humans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone
Also...

Knox's 8th. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented. Where was it ever indicated that Krauss is unaware of Kinzo's death?
His very defiance itself, as I said earlier If Kinzo dies a Natural Death, the very last person that has to(or would want to hide it) is Krauss since he becomes the successor. A natural death even escapes Kyrie's persecution of him in the 3rd game.

Since Krauss has no logical reason to hide it, Knox's 8th has been satisfied. My logic is a reasonable deduction anyone could've reached. On the contrary, allow me to ask you a question: When was it ever shown that Krauss was purposefully being deceitful?

Definition of purposefully: Knowingly withholding information or clues with an intended goal in mind.

I'd argue it's Erika's theory that flies in the face of Knox's 8th! It's never shown, just speculated miserably by the family members and Erika.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyzone
No, it is not, until Knox's 8th is satisfied. And as you are not the gamemaster, your golden truth holds no power on this board.
Lady Beatrice used the Gold Truth to confirm to herself the validity of her own Magic. At that time, Lady Beatrice wasn't acting in the role of the Game Master. A Golden Truth is simply an "accepted truth" by Humans(or in Beatrice's case, an accepted truth among the participants)

I used the Gold Truth because My theory establishes without any reasonable doubt that Krauss had absolutely no reason to conceal Kinzo's death, nor was he truly aware of his death.

I'll elaborate more as it regards Krauss's actions on the game board.

We know that Kinzo's door has an automatic lock, we also know only Genji possesses the key to actually enter this door. In other words, it would have been impossible for Krauss to truly oversee Kinzo and especially during the heated Family Conference during the two days of Rokkenjima.

We also know for a fact that Krauss had tried on numerous occasions in the First Game to have Kinzo come down to the family conference. That very confrontation confirmed in Krauss's eyes that Kinzo was alive.(At least for the time he knew)

You could argue that Krauss faked his confrontation with Kinzo, but this is highly implausible. Krauss is shown to be a no-nonsense, serious type of guy. And as demonstrated before, Krauss has no real reason to fear or even suspect that Kinzo would supplant him with one of the siblings.

If Kinzo died a natural death, Krauss has the most to gain. Unless of course the will was completed, which I again heavily doubt it was.

But even if it was completed, allow me to address the issue of Kinzo's "decision" of Battler right here in this segment.

What connections did Ushiromiya Battler have to Kinzo?We know for a fact that Battler betrayed Shannon. If you believe in Shkanontrice or the Yasu theory, we know this to be the entire reason for the mass murders!

Kinzo, on the contrary was in love with Beatrice to the point of being obsessed. While we can obviously disregard the whole reincarnation via tubing. I believe the Kuwadorian Beatrice may very well have been a result of incest between Kinzo and some relative


Irregardless of whoever Kuwadorian Beatrice's mother might actually be, if not incest then Some kind of mental defect occurred.

I mean, the girl's barely responsive. And when she does answer to Battler(Kinzo) it's more akin to a child.(We also saw this in the third game).

Whereas Ushiromiya Kinzo is interested in the Occult, Battler's main objective is to deny everything.

Literally, the only connection between the two is Beatrice's bringing him along for the ride. Battler has neither the love-struck feelings, nor the desire to even truly acknowledge anything about Lady Beatrice.

Oh and on the 4th game in particular: By that point, the epitath no longer had any meaning. What Kinzo wanted to find out, was who among the grandchildren had the most resolve. Which, clearly was proven to be George.

Yet George was among the 13 candidates, and I doubt that it's due to some flimsy connection between Battler and Beatrice. Presuming that Kinzo's will wasn't followed, somebody sabotaged it.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyzone
Instead: Kinzo died a natural death caused by alcohol poisoning, just as Nanjo predicted.

Sometimes the simplest answer is actually the right one...
I had read that in Yasu's game, she proclaimed that Kinzo died in 1984. However, I'm not ready to accept it. While my Master Lambda-sama was in charge of the 5th game, it's heavily implied that Lady Bernkastel had plenty of input.

And we all know how much Bern loves to fictionalize things.(IE: The Kyrie Culprit "theory". Implausible, considering she died at the very first twilight in the first game.

However, that could be my theory as a reader, I merely wish I were a witch. So should I accept writer's authority as it regards the timing of Kinzo's death?

If I do, I still have a huge question: Why would Krauss want to hide his death? Why wait over 2 years to burn his corpse? Why would Krauss and Natsuhi care about 1986? Both Krauss and Natsuhi are about as anti-magical as you can get.(with the lone exception being her charm mirror in what, the 2nd game?)
ALPHA-Beatrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 18:30   Link #32555
Dormin
Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
Since Krauss has no logical reason to hide it, Knox's 8th has been satisfied. My logic is a reasonable deduction anyone could've reached. On the contrary, allow me to ask you a question: When was it ever shown that Krauss was purposefully being deceitful?

Definition of purposefully: Knowingly withholding information or clues with an intended goal in mind.
I still don't think this should be in red, is it just me or does anyone else find it annoying as hell? Maybe I take the truth values too seriously, even though umineko itself uses red "truths" sometimes in totally different context than "truth".

Also Krauss was deceiving all the time. His probably most important function in the story was hiding records of him stealing money. I think this kind of action is totally in line with your definition of being deceitful.

Quote:
We also know for a fact that Krauss had tried on numerous occasions in the First Game to have Kinzo come down to the family conference. That very confrontation confirmed in Krauss's eyes that Kinzo was alive.(At least for the time he knew)
Wasn't it like, stated clearly in chiru that the death of kinzo was a huge ruse because krauss had been embezzling the money? Wasn't he waiting for money from the investments to kick in before announcing the death? Why isn't this a valid motive for hiding the death of kinzo? I don't see how krauss could have believed him to be alive and why kinzo should be alive in the game boards as it was heavily implied otherwise.

Quote:
And we all know how much Bern loves to fictionalize things.(IE: The Kyrie Culprit "theory". Implausible, considering she died at the very first twilight in the first game.
And why is this relevant? Are you implying that dying on boards is somehow relevant? I think pretty much everyone died on the boards but depending on interpretation the boards can be seen as total fiction.

To be honest kinzo being alive could work as interesting theory, but I think it would pretty much mess up the game and collide with the reds.

Last edited by Dormin; 2013-07-26 at 18:42.
Dormin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 21:01   Link #32556
fg204
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Leaving aside all this complete and utter nonsense regarding Rosatrice as well as Natsuhi/Krauss's ignorance of Kinzo's death (based on a foundation of "reasoning" that's shakier than a bobblehead in the middle of an earthquake), the discussion over Erika's true motivations throughout EP5-6 is quite interesting.

The point I had been making was that upon thorough analysis, significant flaws can be found in Erika's initial theory regarding the first twilight of EP5. Furthermore, these possibly fatal flaws in Erika's argument do not even require the level of understanding that Battler achieves (presumably regarding Beatrice's true identity) in the Tea Parties and can largely be traced back to the inconsistencies in Erika's proposed timeline regarding Rosa's "murder". Though, it probably wouldn't have made for a very satisfying "End of the Golden Witch" if Battler had also noticed these flaws during the trial and hadn't pursued any further in the level of understanding that he achieved. Still, it would be interesting to consider how Erika/Bern/Lambda would have responded to these objections: would they continue the game in hopes of further conspiring to frame Natsuhi or would they just start over in the next game to keep conspiring to frame the innocent until Battler finally reached the truth?

As for Erika, I was initially under the impression that her main motivation throughout EP5-6 was pride, that as long as her theory is proven correct in the court of public opinion, the truth couldn't matter less. But after considering the glaring flaws in some of her theories as well as the obvious conspiracy between Erika/Bern/Lambda throughout these two episodes, serving to solidify Battler's understanding of the truth of the series, I'm left wondering if Erika was ever truly capable of independent action or thought/reasoning without the approval of Bern? It's not until the very end of the EP6 Tea Parties when Bern had already left the cathedral that the narration states (regarding Erika), "I'm not anyone's piece anymore. ... I can finally... control my own role...!!" (and then she proceeds to act like the same trollish villain that she had been since EP5, lol). Either way, we're left to speculate regarding exactly what Erika's true nature is outside of Bern's influence and whether it would be any different from how she's initially portrayed.
fg204 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 21:02   Link #32557
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
Then, can you present another theory as to what Lady Beatrice would've said? She damn near finished the sentence before Ronove covered her mouth. The only reason it never ended up being a Red Truth is because of Ronove's interference, I merely stated the facts.'
He may have protected her from commiting a logic error. This makes the actual content, of what she was about to say, redundant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
It also happens to be a fact that denies the Witches Side. Since a 'Natural Death' occurred, that means that it could've been done without a Magical method. That one crack would allow Battler to conclude that all murders were 'natural' and thereby done by Humans.
As long as Battler didn't directly refer to the body, Beatrice could have used the "sucession of titles" to dodge that attack and could even claim that "Kinzo didn't die by a natural death" in red.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
His very defiance itself, as I said earlier If Kinzo dies a Natural Death, the very last person that has to(or would want to hide it) is Krauss since he becomes the successor. A natural death even escapes Kyrie's persecution of him in the 3rd game.
The story showed clearly that even becoming the new head would still not release him from paying his siblings their part of the inheritance. Following that, his embezzelment of money could also be easily exposed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
Since Krauss has no logical reason to hide it, Knox's 8th has been satisfied. My logic is a reasonable deduction anyone could've reached.
The "logical reason to hide it" was just given in the previous paragraph



Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
On the contrary, allow me to ask you a question: When was it ever shown that Krauss was purposefully being deceitful?
Irrelevant! Natsuhi was the one who wanted to protect the honor of the family. The story showed multiple times that Krauss was a loving and caring family father. With that in mind it is only natural that Krauss would help his wife to protect the family's honor. And his embezzelment of money behind everyone's back is "deceitful" as well

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
Definition of purposefully: Knowingly withholding information or clues with an intended goal in mind.
OK, I agree with that. Krauss doing it to help Natsuhi, satisfies this definition, as well as Krauss doing it to hide the fact that there is no money for his siblings to squeeze out of him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
I'd argue it's Erika's theory that flies in the face of Knox's 8th! It's never shown, just speculated miserably by the family members and Erika.
It was shown by the narration itself. Even if it "could" be a lie, a more blatant exposition (or "clue") than directly by the narrative, aside from red truth, doesn't exist.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
Lady Beatrice used the Gold Truth to confirm to herself the validity of her own Magic. At that time, Lady Beatrice wasn't acting in the role of the Game Master. A Golden Truth is simply an "accepted truth" by Humans(or in Beatrice's case, an accepted truth among the participants)
"It takes at least 2 people to create a universe" this could be seen as a metaphor for "it takes at least 2 people to create a gameboard". If we assume that they created their own little gameboard outside of the running "big" gameboard, then the older Beatrice could indeed fill in the role of the "game master". That scene did happen in an unknown place in the meta-world, so it is possible. And even if not: It did not influence the logic battle at all. Yours doesn't as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
I used the Gold Truth because My theory establishes without any reasonable doubt that Krauss had absolutely no reason to conceal Kinzo's death, nor was he truly aware of his death.
It was indeed established! At least before I posted this *ahaha.wav*

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
I'll elaborate more as it regards Krauss's actions on the game board.

We know that Kinzo's door has an automatic lock, we also know only Genji possesses the key to actually enter this door. In other words, it would have been impossible for Krauss to truly oversee Kinzo and especially during the heated Family Conference during the two days of Rokkenjima.
Why did he have to oversee a corpse? Also as I said, the one who did that was actually Natsuhi. Of course Genji was part of the "scam-group".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
We also know for a fact that Krauss had tried on numerous occasions in the First Game to have Kinzo come down to the family conference. That very confrontation confirmed in Krauss's eyes that Kinzo was alive.(At least for the time he knew)
That scene was very likely an illusion and didn't happen at all, just like "Beato's and Virgillia's fight in the garden" from EP3 and "Natsuhi drinking tea with the family's alchemist Beatrice" from EP5. Bringing Kinzo to the conference was a lie to help Natsuhi protect the honor of the family and to appease the heated emotions of his siblings. (and to make sure no one find out about his embezzelment of money)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
You could argue that Krauss faked his confrontation with Kinzo, but this is highly implausible. Krauss is shown to be a no-nonsense, serious type of guy. And as demonstrated before, Krauss has no real reason to fear or even suspect that Kinzo would supplant him with one of the siblings.
As said above, it simply didn't happen. He was scared of the vegenance of his siblings, should they find out that all the money from Kinzo is gone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
If Kinzo died a natural death, Krauss has the most to gain. Unless of course the will was completed, which I again heavily doubt it was.
Having the siblings expose all of his money embezzlements, is certainly not equal to "most to gain"


Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
But even if it was completed, allow me to address the issue of Kinzo's "decision" of Battler right here in this segment.

What connections did Ushiromiya Battler have to Kinzo?We know for a fact that Battler betrayed Shannon. If you believe in Shkanontrice or the Yasu theory, we know this to be the entire reason for the mass murders!

Kinzo, on the contrary was in love with Beatrice to the point of being obsessed. While we can obviously disregard the whole reincarnation via tubing. I believe the Kuwadorian Beatrice may very well have been a result of incest between Kinzo and some relative


Irregardless of whoever Kuwadorian Beatrice's mother might actually be, if not incest then Some kind of mental defect occurred.

I mean, the girl's barely responsive. And when she does answer to Battler(Kinzo) it's more akin to a child.(We also saw this in the third game).

Whereas Ushiromiya Kinzo is interested in the Occult, Battler's main objective is to deny everything.

Literally, the only connection between the two is Beatrice's bringing him along for the ride. Battler has neither the love-struck feelings, nor the desire to even truly acknowledge anything about Lady Beatrice.

Oh and on the 4th game in particular: By that point, the epitath no longer had any meaning. What Kinzo wanted to find out, was who among the grandchildren had the most resolve. Which, clearly was proven to be George.

Yet George was among the 13 candidates, and I doubt that it's due to some flimsy connection between Battler and Beatrice. Presuming that Kinzo's will wasn't followed, somebody sabotaged it.
Oh I just realized that this is completely irrelevant to both the "rosatrice vs shkanontrice" discussion and the "is Kinzo alive or dead?" discussion, so I will simply skip it as it would be waste of time to argue about that!






Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
I had read that in Yasu's game, she proclaimed that Kinzo died in 1984. However, I'm not ready to accept it. While my Master Lambda-sama was in charge of the 5th game, it's heavily implied that Lady Bernkastel had plenty of input.
Before I answer that I must correct you first: You said "Kinzo died at the starting time of all games", and interpreted the "starting time" as the first twilight. The mistake you made was that it wasn't "died", but "is dead" instead. It was actually "Kinzo is dead at the starting time of all games". Sure you can argue that "he died one second before the starting time of the game", but then we are back to Knox's 8th, as you have not given any clues yet, that show a certain time of death for Kinzo. I can still base everything on both the scene you just quoted and the very first scene in EP1 where Nanjo tells his prediction about Kinzo's estimated point of time of death. Also the "starting point" of the game was hinted to be the start of the first day, so 4th of October at 0:00, long before Battler reached Rokkenjima.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
And we all know how much Bern loves to fictionalize things.(IE: The Kyrie Culprit "theory". Implausible, considering she died at the very first twilight in the first game.
Can you proof that Bernkastel was the game master of the main game of EP7 (aside from tea party)? It is more likely (or at least just as likely) that Aurora was the game master.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
However, that could be my theory as a reader, I merely wish I were a witch. So should I accept writer's authority as it regards the timing of Kinzo's death?
Sometimes the most simple answer is the right one: Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
If I do, I still have a huge question: Why would Krauss want to hide his death?
To win enough time to get back his money that he lost, to pay his siblings' share of the inheritance and by that also abiding Natsuhi's wish to "protect the honor of the family".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
Why wait over 2 years to burn his corpse?
Natsuhi probably said something along the lines of "we cannot simply burn the head's corpse or bury it somewhere in the wilderness! that would be too disgraceful! We have to preserve it for now!" or something along these lines. Of course during the conference in 1986 they had no other choice, or it was simply Yasu doing it out of her own convenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPHA-Beatrice View Post
Why would Krauss and Natsuhi care about 1986? Both Krauss and Natsuhi are about as anti-magical as you can get.(with the lone exception being her charm mirror in what, the 2nd game?)
For the endless ninth time! Because of "family honor" and "money embezzlement"


I guess that should do it for the "kinzo is alive" part for now. If you think you can argue back, I still have a hidden ace in my sleeve and also A LOT of "Knox's 2nd" for every single invalid red truth that you wrote.

But I, the Chaos Sorcerer will for now leave you alone with all these counter arguments (don't forget the ones from Dormin as well!)

So I guess... good luck! *ahaha.wav*


Oh, I almost forgot:

I hereby announce that this is the longest post on this forum, that I made until now.
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 22:12   Link #32558
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by fg204 View Post
Leaving aside all this complete and utter nonsense regarding Rosatrice as well as Natsuhi/Krauss's ignorance of Kinzo's death (based on a foundation of "reasoning" that's shakier than a bobblehead in the middle of an earthquake), the discussion over Erika's true motivations throughout EP5-6 is quite interesting.

The point I had been making was that upon thorough analysis, significant flaws can be found in Erika's initial theory regarding the first twilight of EP5. Furthermore, these possibly fatal flaws in Erika's argument do not even require the level of understanding that Battler achieves (presumably regarding Beatrice's true identity) in the Tea Parties and can largely be traced back to the inconsistencies in Erika's proposed timeline regarding Rosa's "murder". Though, it probably wouldn't have made for a very satisfying "End of the Golden Witch" if Battler had also noticed these flaws during the trial and hadn't pursued any further in the level of understanding that he achieved. Still, it would be interesting to consider how Erika/Bern/Lambda would have responded to these objections: would they continue the game in hopes of further conspiring to frame Natsuhi or would they just start over in the next game to keep conspiring to frame the innocent until Battler finally reached the truth?

As for Erika, I was initially under the impression that her main motivation throughout EP5-6 was pride, that as long as her theory is proven correct in the court of public opinion, the truth couldn't matter less. But after considering the glaring flaws in some of her theories as well as the obvious conspiracy between Erika/Bern/Lambda throughout these two episodes, serving to solidify Battler's understanding of the truth of the series, I'm left wondering if Erika was ever truly capable of independent action or thought/reasoning without the approval of Bern? It's not until the very end of the EP6 Tea Parties when Bern had already left the cathedral that the narration states (regarding Erika), "I'm not anyone's piece anymore. ... I can finally... control my own role...!!" (and then she proceeds to act like the same trollish villain that she had been since EP5, lol). Either way, we're left to speculate regarding exactly what Erika's true nature is outside of Bern's influence and whether it would be any different from how she's initially portrayed.
Essentially let's take your question (does Erika have free will independent of the role Bern gave to her?) and add it to mine (did Erika believe her Natsuhi culprit theory to be correct, or did she knowingly advance a falsehood?). Let's consider the following possibilities, just while we're on this subject:
  • Erika didn't know her theory was wrong.
  • Erika did know her theory was wrong, but had no problem advancing it anyway.
  • Erika did know her theory was wrong, but had no choice in whether to advance it or not.
#1 and #2 require Erika have free will, obviously. #3 does not. #3 is easiest because she's just a pawn of Bern's and her behavior is dictated by Bern's whims. She need not be consistent because she's just there to do as Bern demands. I don't think this is likely, and I'll explain why in a bit.

#1 requires she be gullible, imperceptive, and incapable of considering flaws in her own evidence. It also requires that she have somehow failed to establish Natsuhi's alibi purely by accident or oversight despite going to extraordinary lengths to ensure everyone else was monitored in some fashion, and to have not noticed that she did this (assuming perhaps that Bern prevented her from doing so, she still ought to realize it).

#2 requires she be actively malevolent, as she has absolutely no investment in Natsuhi's guilt and no particular reason to think Natsuhi any more guilty than anyone else available to her. If she has free will, she may be doing it because Bern wants her to; we know that she sucks up to Bern unapologetically and is afraid of her wrath... which in and of itself seems to prove she has free will independent of Bernkastel, as a tool that Bern controls 100% would have no need to prove herself useful and worth keeping around.

However, is that really how Erika looks at truth? What does the text say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ep6, Erika
"...Without love, it cannot be seen? ...Hah. That's backwards. Because of love, you end up seeing things that don't even exist. ...It's nothing more than an illusion, one that no one except you can see, and one that even you can never touch. Without love, humans would never need to sift through truth and lies. Because we can see those, ...we doubt. We suffer. We cry out loud."

"...Right now, I am happy. ...Though it may be temporary, I have become the Witch of Truth. ...As I am now, ...I no longer need to worry about being tormented by non-red words."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ep6, Erika Compares Quantity of Evidence
"<Good>. Blue and blue cancel each other out, but the number of pieces used to construct each is overwhelmingly unbalanced." When both opponents meet with the blue truth, the decision is almost always based on which side has more pieces of evidence, regardless of the actual circumstances. ...This is especially true in the human world. So, by the standard rules, Erika would win...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ep6, Erika's Response To The Claim "I Still Love You"
"Not the red truth, so that's ineffective. Even if it was red, that'd be a stalemate. After all, I'd have no move to counter with."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ep6, Erika Thinks About Winning
Erika had succeeded in crushing her opponent with the truth she espoused... that her former boyfriend no longer loved her and was cheating on her. ...After all, humans are not allowed to use ――――.

A splendid game, a splendid finish from a superior position.

Regardless of the truth of her opponent, Erika could win.

A splendid... victory.
Okay, so according to Dawn, Erika has realized that she can win a fight just by assembling more apparent evidence, but it doesn't matter because it can't prove her right. So she's growing from ep5, where she was apparently okay with doing that... but now... she isn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ep6, End of Dlanor/Erika Conversation
"Even before you became Lady Bernkastel's piece, you truly were a splendid wielder of the blue TRUTH. ...However, Lady Erika. Humans are only allowed to use the blue TRUTH. And the only thing that can counter blue truth is red TRUTH. And humans are not allowed to use the red TRUTH. ...In that case, ...how should your opponent have shown his TRUTH?"

"...Who knows. ...Maybe he should have used that gold truth or whatever, which is supposed to be stronger than the red truth at times."

"...You certainly were the victor in that GAME. However, allow me to say this as a protector of the TRUTH."

"What? ...I imagine it's something unpleasant, so say it and go away."

"...YES. ...This game is your VICTORY. However, ...you still have not denied the six points of blue truth evidence that I showed to claim that I still loved YOU. ...Even you are HUMAN. You cannot use red truth to deny those POINTS."

"Later on, I used the detective's authority to have all 84 points transformed into red truth. By the power of my master...! I am human, yet superior to humans. A detective and a witch. I am the Witch of Truth, Furudo Erika. Any other questions? Parting remarks?"

"...I have NONE. ...In that case, please excuse ME."

Dlanor bowed and disappeared. ...After that, all that remained was a single Witch of Truth laughing off a bitter past with an equally bitter smile...
Right, so clearly Erika is definitely changing because she's understanding doubt. Why didn't she understand that before, anyway? Did she only just now connect her own past to her horrible miscarriage of justice the episode before? Where did this growth come from? Where were the hints of it in ep5? Why didn't it bother her before?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ep6, Post-Logic Error With Lambda & Bern
"From my point of view, ...both the hell my master fell into, which could only be escaped by a miracle, ...and the hell you fell into, which I don't know about but could be escaped from with certain willpower... were 'hells made to be escapable'."

"Aha... So you say."

"I am the Witch of Truth. ...My hell was nothing more or less than the truth. ...When faced with the harsh reality of truth, no sort of willpower or miracle matters. I reached this place by overcoming that truth. ...I don't believe my power of withstanding the truth is in any way inferior to yours or my master's."

"And what is this 'power to withstand the truth'?"

"...Those who don't know cannot understand. Perhaps you two couldn't become Witches of Truth because you couldn't bear to look at it directly..."

"...Heh...heheheheheheheheheh. ...I'll forgive you for those impudent words. Letting them pass with a slight nod is my present to you for your recent victory."

---

Then, she understood. ...Bernkastel was also a witch running from boredom. If it caught up with her, ...she would remember. ...Those never-ending days of hell...

This is proof... that even my master still hasn't gotten over the pain and fear of hell. It means...that she lacks the power to withstand the truth.

...For the first time, ...Erika felt just a little disdain for her master.
I'm not even sure what this means but it seems to suggest that Erika is definitely growing away from Bernkastel due to a difference of opinion, right? I mean that's her whole deal leading up to the part where she dies, yeah?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ep8, Erika & Ange
"I... like exposing the truth."

"I know that."

"I like exposing secrets, then watching those people turn pale as they wonder how I figured it out. ...That's when I know I've reached the truth, and it's a moment of ecstasy."

"There's something seriously wrong with you."
Oh nevermind it turns out Erika gets a sexual thrill out of exposing secrets and this is equivalent to truth for her now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ep8, Battler & Erika
"...Both Ange and I were Witches of Truth. ...So...just what was the difference between the two of us?"

"...Yes, what could it be?"

"I was...a witch who suffered through the truth. ...However, I turned my back from that truth. ...She, on the other hand, was a witch who continued to believe in her truth, even after learning the truth. ...If she was the real Witch of Truth, ...then what kind of witch was I?"

"That's right. ...You...aren't a witch."

"..."

"After all, you're the detective."

"...<Good>. ...I'd forgotten."

"We'll meet again, someday. ...Wherever there's a crime, the detective's sure to be there, right?"

"Yes. When another crime occurs in the Ushiromiya family, I promise to appear."
And also Erika was only ever a stock detective character, according to Battler, so none of that shit matters anyway.

...Seriously, what? Erika is a different character in her three appearances. She has absolutely no sense of remorse or repentance in ep5 and by all indications must have been pursuing Natsuhi just to accumulate the most evidence and prove her truth right because it's uncounterable (and Natsuhi's wriggling will be the most enjoyable). Except it was outright wrong and she seems to have enough free will to have known this and did it anyway. Then all of a sudden in ep6 she derives no enjoyment from that sort of victory. Then in ep8 she's suddenly an asshole again, and in the end she's sucking Bern's dick and hanging out with the Voyager witches like nothing ever happened.

The only conclusion I can reach is that #2 was true in ep5 and Erika was entirely fine with it... then suddenly she has an apparently-unmotivated attack of conscience in ep6 - none of which prevents her from arranging the Logic Error - then has another such attack at the end when Beatrice beats her, but in ep8 is basically right back to being the archetype she was before.

So, like Ange, this is another instance of a character in Twilight just outright being different from previously-established character growth (even if Erika's ep5 -> ep6 growth appears to make no sense and is basically betrayed immediately in ep6). Was this Erika 2.0, like neo-Beatrice? What was the point in musing over Erika's fate and whatnot at the party if this is a different Erika anyway? Was ep6-Erika's whole deal just an act with Dlanor? It sure doesn't read that way, and I'm pretty sure Dlanor meant what she said. Is it even a scene Battler could see? What about the part that says she felt contempt for Bern? That wasn't even on the board, so it must've been something Erika genuinely thought, and...

...argh, my head hurts.
__________________
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 2013-07-26, 22:58   Link #32559
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Maybe Dlanor was a positive influence. In EP8 that was gone, as they had become opponents.
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-07-26, 23:24   Link #32560
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
Maybe Battler was writing Erika nicer than she actually is? I mean, as the Territory Lord and being Genius Battler he's effectively on a higher meta-layer than she is so like.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:55.


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