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 2010-04-04, 18:30   Link #7621
Murderous Detective
Snarky Butler
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
I'm saying, not so much that the gold is a lie, but that it's different from the truth. It's kind of like what you said about agnosticism, but less a respect for the other side and more a marriage of both truths, the magical "lie" and the mundane, cruel "fact".

I can sum up my perspective with this metaphor:

Red = Creationism
Blue = Evolutionism
Gold = Intelligent Design

I suppose you could also say this reveals the trap we've all fallen into and the meaning of "Without love the truth cannot be seen." We've fallen into the trap of believing that we have to eliminate all traces of magic from the world, like some kind of logical genocide, when really, it's not about deconstructing locked rooms or carrying keys in your toes, it's about the characters themselves and what they see. We've been looking at the ocean and seeing black, when the ocean Ryukishi's trying so hard to show us is a vibrant blue.
__________________
"Thank you, Lord!" *Typhoon* "I take that back!"

Murderous Detective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-04, 18:48   Link #7622
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murderous Detective View Post
So does the board exist as is and the game master reviews it and describes it with red, or does he/she cause the board's events to take that form by stating them in red?
We don't know. However, based on events in the last few episodes it seems incredibly unlikely that the GM is merely being descriptive. If other entities exercise some control over pieces on the board, there's simply no way the GM can be doing anything but reacting as he or she goes.
Quote:
For example, do I see a blocked door that is the only way into a room and say, "This door is sealed off." or do I seal that door by saying "This door is sealed. off"?
One assumes, the latter. Or rather, it's a bit more complex than that. There are two ways the room could be sealed:

1) A piece on the board, whether under the GM's control or not, seals the door in a physical manner in a fashion objectively verifiable. That piece may say in red that the door is sealed, or the GM may acknowledge that the act is effective as a seal (this allows imperfect seals under #2 below).

OR

2) The GM declares that the room is sealed, making it so from the point of declaration on out. Essentially, before this point, either any number of scenarios could have been true, or the GM had a specific idea in mind that didn't require the door to be unsealed. In either case, he or she is willing to give up that possibility to the player(s), so the room is declared sealed.

Essentially, a red happens either because someone objectively did or didn't do the thing the red covered or because the GM's story doesn't require them to have done something OR the GM is agreeing that he or she will not resort to any solution denied by the red. Depends how much pre-planning you believe a GM uses. Beatrice clearly used quite a bit.
Quote:
The second would make more sense as it's the only way a logic error can occur without said error being a fundamental part of the game.
To elaborate on that, if I were to say "Person X entered the room and looked at the wallpaper." then later my opponent said "Person Y entered and killed Person X in the room." and I countered with "That's impossible because this door is sealed off!" I would create a logic error because Person X could not have entered through a door that's been sealed and thus I've used broken logic.
Not necessarily. Look at it this way:

1) We objectively know Person X entered the room. Okay, fine.
2) The player posits Person Y entered the room.
3) We say in red that Person Y cannot have entered the room because of the existence of a declared seal.

That is not, in itself, a Logic Error. Remember, red is temporal, so the conclusion we could draw from this is that the room was sealed after Person X entered and before Person Y entered. If the GM then subsequently declares the room was sealed even before Person X entered, now we have (or may have, barring some other way in or out of the room or a weakness in the seal) a Logic Error.

There are two ways I can see a Logic Error happening: A plot hole, or accidentally eliminating all options using red.

Plot Hole: Over the course of the GM's story, he or she states contradictory facts and enforces their validity, either with a detective's viewpoint (which is supposed to be objective) viewing a plot contradiction or red reinforcing two contradictory points. If the GM cannot demonstrate that there is a way to prove this is not a contradiction, then a Logic Error must result. As far as I know, this has never happened in Umineko. An example would be Battler finding a corpse and objectively verifying that it is dead, then later in the narrative having that person suddenly alive again, when fake bodies, body doubles, and twins had already been excluded in red.

A solution may exist if the GM can prove he or she has a way out of it. For instance, just because the detective sees a corpse he verifies and then later sees that person walking around doesn't necessarily mean he's witnessed a contradiction, as long as you can find some way to explain it. Again, since it's never happened, I couldn't explain to you how.

Elimination of Options: In response to the player's theories, the GM uses red to eliminate possible explanations until no explanations remain that the GM has to actually explain the situation. Since actual magic is a prohibited act on the GM's behalf (he or she can apparently only make things look magical; an inexplicable trick is not permitted), if it becomes clear that all non-supernatural options known to the GM are exhausted, a Logic Error occurs. This is the ep6 Logic Error. No error would have occurred had Battler not explicitly forced himself into a corner. If he had said "Battler is on the bed" then had Battler flee, or "the chain is not set," then there is no problem.

A solution may exist, but the GM has to be aware of it. A solution did exist to the ep6 Logic Error. Beatrice found it. But Battler didn't. This means either that Battler didn't know the solution himself OR made an assumption about the truth of the game that was wrong, or that Battler knew and deliberately chose not to propose that solution either because being trapped was more important than revealing it to him OR because he intended to be trapped all along.

Note that Battler appears quite flabbergasted. Unless you believe it's an act (and everyone shot me down over proposing he might have done it on purpose), he must not know some critical detail that Beatrice was later able to grasp.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 00:47   Link #7623
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
I'm just wondering do you guys even care if you write the gold right?

I mean the way I see it it's written like:[Subject] predicate [/subject]

Shouldn't this be frikkin obvious!?

I guarantee that this corpse is Ushiromiya Kinzo's corpse...!!

Using magic, you created a golden rose petal underneath the cup. It was a magnificent display of magic.

See the pattern?? I'm just wondering, because I keep saying that this is clearly important over and over and you guys just gloss it over like it's not. I'm not saying it's the only difference, but hey shouldn't we be able to get HOW it's written differently from the other colored texts without knowing what Battler knows?

Even made an example gold once

It's possible to fool some of the people some of the time, but it's impossible to fool all people all of the time

I mean shouldn't we at least try to imitate how the gold is written if we want to use it? How much do I have to spell it out for you guys to get it!?
Regarding the usage of the gold truth, based on the hints from episode 6, the rules of magic probably need to be understood first. Right after elder sister Beatrice said that line, Ange said, “Without love it cannot be seen”. She understood the form of magic that was shown between the two Beatos and the golden petal under the cup. However, I think it’s important to understand the rest of Ange and Featherine’s conversation regarding why the magic of the golden brooch was necessary for Kanon and Shannon.

That said, I think you're on the right track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
A solution may exist, but the GM has to be aware of it. A solution did exist to the ep6 Logic Error. Beatrice found it. But Battler didn't. This means either that Battler didn't know the solution himself OR made an assumption about the truth of the game that was wrong, or that Battler knew and deliberately chose not to propose that solution either because being trapped was more important than revealing it to him OR because he intended to be trapped all along.

Note that Battler appears quite flabbergasted. Unless you believe it's an act (and everyone shot me down over proposing he might have done it on purpose), he must not know some critical detail that Beatrice was later able to grasp.
Battler revised the story during the game to allow Erika to go back and seal the rooms. Do you remember this?

Well, I thought that Beato revised the story. (Made revisions to the story that did not contradict any previous red truth)

「ベアトリーチェより封書にて、物語の修正書を受け取ったわ。審査の結果、内容は有効。ロジックエラーの回 避を宣言するわッ!!“チェーンロックは掛かったまま!これまでの赤き真実に一切矛盾しない!”」
Lambdadelta: By means of a sealed letter from Beatrice, I received the revision document of the story. As a result of an examination, the content is valid. I proclaim the evasion of the logic error!! “As it is, the chain lock was hung! It does not contradict any of the red truth up until now!

「OK。それではベアト。あなたが修正した、新しい物語と謎を、ヱリカに提示して。」
Lambdadelta: Ok. Well then, Beato. Present the puzzle and new story that you revised to Erika.

Aside from any slight variation in the translation, Lambda said it was a new story and the logic error evasion was possible because there was no contradiction in red truth up until that point.
__________________
[...]
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 01:59   Link #7624
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
I don't think that point matters. Battler should have been able to revise the story as well. He was indeed given several opportunities to do so. If he knew a way he could change the story without contradicting the red up until that point, then all he had to do was do that. It's no different just because Beatrice is the one submitting the change. You can't possibly suggest that no solution existed, because the very point of the revision - that it doesn't contradict the red - is an avenue available to Battler as well.

Also note that Battler's revision to the story permitting sealings has no substantively different effect to him simply agreeing that those rooms were indeed sealed. It is not necessary to assume a retcon which makes it so Piece-Erika really did place physical seals, though it is perhaps within the GM's discretion to do so. The effect would have been the same even if he had just agreed to the sealings by fiat.

The logic is really not difficult to follow:
  • PREMISE #1: Some logic errors are solvable. Some may not be. [Stated by Bern and Lambda]
  • PREMISE #2: If a logic error has a possible solution, anyone who knows how can revise the story to resolve it as long as it does not contradict previous red. A neutral authority may be necessary to confirm its validity. [Stated In-Game]
  • PREMISE #3: Until established by red, the Game Master is permitted flexibility in telling the story (Battler could have declared the chain either was or was not set when Erika left the bathroom and observed it, but once he did so in red he couldn't change it). [Implied by Actions In-Game]
From this we reach the immediate conclusions:
  • SUB-CONCLUSION #1: The logic error in this case has at least one solution. Ergo, it is a solvable logic error. [Premises #1-2 - Proved by Beatrice, Accepted by Lambda]
  • SUB-CONCLUSION #2: Both Battler and Beatrice had the flexibility necessary to resolve the logic error through its solution (or solutions). [Premises #2-3 - Proved by Beatrice]
We also have two facts:
  • FACT #1: Battler did not resolve the logic error.
  • FACT #2: Beatrice did resolve the logic error.
Now I will make some assumptions:
  • ASSUMPTION #1: If an individual faced with a solvable logic error is capable of doing so but does not, either the solution was not known to that individual or the individual refused to disclose the solution.
  • ASSUMPTION #2: An individual would not refuse to disclose a solution to a logic error known, unless he or she had a valid reason to believe disclosure was not preferable to becoming entrapped.
From this:
  • CONCLUSION #1: If Battler did not disclose a solution to the logic error when it was possible for him to do so, he either did not know what the solution was or purposely refused to divulge the solution. [Premises #1-3, Sub-Conclusion #1-2, Fact #1, Assumption #1]
  • CONCLUSION #2: If Battler knew a solution and did not disclose it, he believed it was preferable to become entrapped in the logic error rather than disclose [Premises #1-3, Sub-Conclusion #1-2, Fact #1, Assumption #2]
  • CONCLUSION #3: Beatrice's disclosure of a working solution indicates that she did have a solution, and that she did not refuse to disclose it. [Premises #1-3, Sub-Conclusion #1-2, Fact #2, Assumptions #1-2]
The conclusions follow. You can disagree with the premises or assumptions, but the rest is a straight-out consequence of the events presented. I think it's clear that Beatrice either knew something Battler didn't, or Battler intentionally permitted himself to be trapped.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 02:19   Link #7625
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
There's another option, actually. The prison Battler was trapped in was supposedly modeled after the guest room puzzle so that he could continue trying to come up with a solution while inside, but it was actually an imperfect representation created by Erika and Bernkastel. They built it under the assumption that Battler would have to break it open himself (which would naturally be impossible), so even if he came up with the solution, he couldn't use it because he didn't have access to any external pieces.

Battler's competence isn't all or nothing. He can know the truth and still not instantly come up with the perfect move for every occasion. As long as he didn't come up with the solution fast enough, Bern and Erika could get him into the prison, and after that he was screwed.
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 02:21   Link #7626
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
If Kanon - or any external piece - were a valid solution, it should have been possible for Battler to suggest it. He even did this in suggesting Kyrie, before he was informed that she was incapable of rescuing him. Therefore external pieces should be a valid solution. Whether the representation of the guest room is a proper reconstruction or not is irrelevant; if a solution was possible from the start, Battler should have proposed it unless he didn't know it, or knew it and had a reason not to propose it.
Quote:
Battler's competence isn't all or nothing. He can know the truth and still not instantly come up with the perfect move for every occasion. As long as he didn't come up with the solution fast enough, Bern and Erika could get him into the prison, and after that he was screwed.
I fail to see how we can know that. If Battler found a solution, he must have had some way to communicate to external entities that he had solved it, else solving it automatically should have freed him.

What you're essentially proposing, and what I think Ssol is implying, is that the logic error was unsolvable until Beatrice did something to make it solvable. I don't believe that's possible to conclude. Battler had the same opportunity Beatrice did. Her solution worked, his didn't.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 02:25   Link #7627
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Battler should have proposed it unless he didn't know it, or knew it and had a reason not to propose it.
I thought Battler didn't suggest the Kanon solution because he wanted to protect Beatrice's game. There was a lot more to protect than just the Kanon hint but I thought he didn't even want to give up even this.

So technically the Kanon part is a big, big clue for all of us. 8)
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 02:27   Link #7628
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
I thought Battler didn't suggest the Kanon solution because he wanted to protect Beatrice's game. There was a lot more to protect than just the Kanon hint but I thought he didn't even want to give up even this.

So technically the Kanon part is a big, big clue for all of us. 8)
Why would he force himself into a logic error he had every opportunity to escape to protect Beatrice? He could have simply accepted a temporary setback, said the chain was unset, and gotten his piece out of the guest room. Erika could claim things later, but he would have the opportunity to regroup.

If he put himself in the logic error on purpose, I think that he intended to be trapped. If he didn't put himself there on purpose, I think he was mistaken about something.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 02:40   Link #7629
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
I fail to see how we can know that. If Battler found a solution, he must have had some way to communicate to external entities that he had solved it, else solving it automatically should have freed him.
Had there somehow been a way for him to solve it from the inside, he could have simply used that and waltzed out. The problem is that a) the only way to solve it was from the outside and b) it was constructed under the (possibly deliberate) false assumption that no such external solution existed. So no, it wasn't fair to Battler, but were you expecting fair play from Erika and Bern at this point? Given the whole eternal mindrape thing they were setting up and all.

You're acting like Battler should have accepted Erika's surprise horrific murders without batting an eye and immediately responded with "oh, well, I'll just use THIS brilliant and non-intuitive move that doesn't remotely resemble what I was planning before." He got hit with a nasty shock and dragged off to the prison with barely a minute to think. Give the poor guy a break, huh?
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 03:50   Link #7630
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
What you're essentially proposing, and what I think Ssol is implying, is that the logic error was unsolvable until Beatrice did something to make it solvable. I don't believe that's possible to conclude. Battler had the same opportunity Beatrice did. Her solution worked, his didn't.
Ok, here’s a random story to illustrate what I mean by revision:

Mary had a little lamb its fleece was white as snow;
And everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go.

It followed her to school one day, which was against the rule;
It made the children laugh and play, to see a lamb at school.
And so the teacher turned it out, but still it lingered near,
And waited patiently about till Mary did appear.
"Why does the lamb love Mary so?" the eager children cry;
"Why, Mary loves the lamb, you know" the teacher did reply.

Now, after telling this story I reveal the solution that this is the story of the death of Mary’s lamb. If I wrote the story and I don’t know how to explain the solution then this is a logic error. However, if someone later interprets the details of the story differently then the solution might be reachable from their view.

Mary had a little lamb its fleece was white as snow; (Mary ate the lamb at school)
And everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go. (The lamb was inside her stomach)
It followed her to school one day, which was against the rule; (Before Mary ate the lamb, it followed her to school)
It made the children laugh and play, to see a lamb at school. (The children killed the lamb at school)
And so the teacher turned it out, but still it lingered near, (The teacher prepared the lamb by ‘turning it out’)
And waited patiently about till Mary did appear. (The meal was prepared for Mary to eat)
"Why does the lamb love Mary so?" the eager children cry; (The children wanted to eat the lamb as well)
"Why, Mary loves the lamb, you know" the teacher did reply. (Mary loves eating lamb)

Without the solution given in red: "this is the story of the death of Mary’s lamb." it's easy to say that the story is simply being misinterpreted. Without that red truth there were no hints that the lamb died in the original story. Here is why the story needed to be rewritten:
Knox's 8th. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED...!!
The original story must contain some kind of clue that Mary’s lamb was killed in order for that solution to be presented. My messed up interpretation of the story does not qualify as a clue.

I think that the level of revision to the story was to add in clues to reach the solution where Kanon could save Battler.

It's not even a mystery but a nasty trick as Battler said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
Technically, it's all possible, but look at what Battler says right after Kanon disappears:
Quote:
Battler: That's a nasty trick. You sure something like this counts? With a trick like this one, those humans will start complaining again about how this isn't mystery.

Beato: No, it's a splendid trick! People without love cannot see that!
__________________
[...]

Last edited by Ssol; 2010-04-05 at 04:32.
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 08:44   Link #7631
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Why would he force himself into a logic error he had every opportunity to escape to protect Beatrice? He could have simply accepted a temporary setback, said the chain was unset, and gotten his piece out of the guest room. Erika could claim things later, but he would have the opportunity to regroup.

If he put himself in the logic error on purpose, I think that he intended to be trapped. If he didn't put himself there on purpose, I think he was mistaken about something.
I remember something about him being willing to suffer the consequences of his logic error than reveal Beatrice's secret or secrets. So yes, it seemed after Erika cornered him he intended to go through with the trap instead...
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 09:09   Link #7632
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
I think that the level of revision to the story was to add in clues to reach the solution where Kanon could save Battler.
And the evidence for this is...? What were the clues? Do we see them in our version of events, or did only Lambda?

Your example doesn't create a logic error. The mere fact that something's declared dead but not shown such is not an obstacle. And the "messed-up interpretation" is necessary to reconcile the storyline with the red. That's basically what's been happening all along. It's certainly no more a dirty trick than the magic scenes have been.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 09:47   Link #7633
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
And the evidence for this is...? What were the clues? Do we see them in our version of events, or did only Lambda?
That is a ridiculous request after I posted those two quotes directly from the game. Of course only Lambda saw it.

Let me follow your logic. Oh hey, I'm Beato and I found a solution to the logic error. I'm going to reveal the clues that lead to figuring out the trick I came up with.

Get real. It doesn't friggin' matter what the specific clues were. The game was suspended and Erika had no ability to go back and investigate since Battler was in some sort of coma caused by the logic error. Erika could not go back and find those clues, therefore, it was her fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Your example doesn't create a logic error. The mere fact that something's declared dead but not shown such is not an obstacle. And the "messed-up interpretation" is necessary to reconcile the storyline with the red. That's basically what's been happening all along. It's certainly no more a dirty trick than the magic scenes have been.
Sure it does. There were no clues that anything was killed in that example I posted. The solution was not possible with the information I presented. The story needed to be revised and clues needed to be added.

...

Anyway, continuing from my previous posts I'll get to the point I'm trying to make.

It's possible that Shkanon was the solution that Beato came up with to solve the logic error. However, this was only a solution due a revision in the story. The original story that Battler tried to present to prove that he understood the truth did not involve Shannon being the same person as Kanon.

With this theory, Shkanon is important because you have to understand it to know why Beato would come up with that answer.

However, Shkanon is only a misinterpretation of the true answer, as I posted in the Mary had a Little Lamb example, and was a revision in episode 6 to solve the logic error.
__________________
[...]

Last edited by Ssol; 2010-04-05 at 12:27.
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 13:14   Link #7634
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
@Ssol: I think it'd be a good idea to go back and read EP6 as a whole (that's what I've been doing as I translate). The entire story points almost directly to Shkanon from the beginning, including the Featherinne sections.

In that quote you posted, Battler is talking about "the mystery genre", and Beato says that it isn't a cheap trick, in fact, as long as you understand the rules of the game. The first section of EP6 spends a lot of time describing how "furniture" is treated like pieces on a person's game board, another hint that "Shannon" and "Kanon" are furniture, not people.

Also, your argument that Kanon managed to slip out just before Erika placed the seals is dubious at best. First off, it should have been obvious to everyone at the time is such a gap existed. It's true that Erika's words can be interpreted in another way, but the most likely interpretation is that the seals were "activated" as soon as Erika finished checking the red text with Battler (in fact, it would have been stupid of her not to do this). It is possible for players to ret-con the story in Umineko, so it's possible that this was instantaneous as far as the game players were concerned. All in all, it's a pretty trivial thing to base the solution of the entire game on.


A more general point. Remember that Battler couldn't make use of either Shannon or Kanon himself before he went all catatonic. At that point in time, the state of Erika's seals hadn't been mentioned yet, and if Battler had chosen to take a person from one of those rooms, it would be obvious to Erika how he had managed to escape (Erika figures out the puzzle and wins, game over). In a way, when Dlanor declared that the seals around the cousins' room were still active, she gave Battler and Beatrice a way out. This made it possible for Beato to eventually use "Kanon", a person who was supposed to be in the sealed room, without Erika knowing how Kanon had escaped. Unfortunately, Battler was already at the point of giving up when Dlanor used that red, and it doesn't really sound like a good thing unless you really think about it.

Also, remember the other rule of Umineko's game. Each individual player has control over their own pieces. Battler might have been able to guide "Beatrice's" actions by manipulating piece-Battler's actions, but only Beatrice could, for example, make her piece get very worried about Erika's long absence and rush to check on Battler. So even after Dlanor's help, it's possible that Battler still couldn't escape without meta-Beatrice's help.
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 15:22   Link #7635
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
That is a ridiculous request after I posted those two quotes directly from the game. Of course only Lambda saw it.

Let me follow your logic. Oh hey, I'm Beato and I found a solution to the logic error. I'm going to reveal the clues that lead to figuring out the trick I came up with.

Get real. It doesn't friggin' matter what the specific clues were. The game was suspended and Erika had no ability to go back and investigate since Battler was in some sort of coma caused by the logic error. Erika could not go back and find those clues, therefore, it was her fault.
So why couldn't Battler revise the story too, if he knew the answer? And if he didn't, why can't people just say "he didn't know?" Am I missing something here? Is Battler both simultaneously so incompetent as to not be able to find a solution, and so deeply aware of the central truth of the game that he shouldn't have been tripped up by anything? Either he doesn't know the solution, or he doesn't say what it is. This is inescapable. The error is provably solvable.

So which is it? Are people just afraid that the possibility Battler might have made a mistake means they might also be mistaken? Why is that a problem to people when the solution they seem to want appears to be the one Beatrice used?
Quote:
Sure it does. There were no clues that anything was killed in that example I posted. The solution was not possible with the information I presented. The story needed to be revised and clues needed to be added.
We are told plenty of times that someone is dead - in red - whose death we cannot possibly confirm. Does the story show them dying? Sometimes, in a magic scene. But it also shows us things in reverse; that is, things that could not have been seen (per red) which we're told were.

And again: Why can't Battler do exactly the same thing? His story wasn't even finished being "written" at the time. He was still making calls up to that point. He even sussed to the close approximation of the solution (someone else freeing him), without correctly identifying the person who could free him. All anyone has to say is "he didn't know Kanon was available to free him." And there are several possible reasons why. One I just thought of is Shkanon-related, but not in the way you might think.

You really shouldn't ignore something like this.
Quote:
It's possible that Shkanon was the solution that Beato came up with to solve the logic error. However, this was only a solution due a revision in the story. The original story that Battler tried to present to prove that he understood the truth did not involve Shannon being the same person as Kanon.
This is a rare case for me, so enjoy it while it lasts, but I'm going to agree with chronotrig on this one and note that ep6 has flags pointing to Shkanon all over the place (I disagree with him on WHY, but he isn't wrong about that fact). If it wasn't part of Battler's story, then we must be reading the version Beatrice came up with, because there's no way Knox would stop Shkanon being advanced as a possibility if the ep6 we have available to us is Battler's story. It's entirely valid.

So why didn't Battler think Kanon was available? Assume for now he didn't really know the answer. Two possibilities I can think of, though there are tons more:

1) He didn't believe in Shkanon when it was true, and therefore thought Kanon was trapped in the other room.

2) He did believe in Shkanon, and knew he couldn't get Shannon out of her room, when in fact Kanon was free even without worrying about the seal on the window of the room Shannon is in.

You can actually look at Beatrice's solution being Shkanon (if it was) two ways: Battler and Erika assumed Shkanon wasn't true, and Beatrice knew it was, or Battler and Erika both suspected Shkanon, and Beatrice realized it wasn't true.
Quote:
With this theory, Shkanon is important because you have to understand it to know why Beato would come up with that answer.
And just why would she come up with that answer?

Quote:
However, Shkanon is only a misinterpretation of the true answer, as I posted in the Mary had a Little Lamb example, and was a revision in episode 6 to solve the logic error.
What does it misinterpret? How does it get around Erika's expectations sufficient to make her lose out to it? What is Erika's standpoint on Shkanon, anyway? She should already have known whether it was true or false, honestly, but some people still seem to think she can be kept in the dark about it.

And your example still doesn't work; the statement of the lamb's death or its appearance as a corpse is sufficient to justify searching for an explanation which explains how it was killed. If a body simply turns up in a mystery, it's not against Knox just because there were no clues this person was going to die. That isn't what Knox's rule means, in his formulation or in Umineko. Heck, a body turning up in a mystery is practically the point of the genre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig
A more general point. Remember that Battler couldn't make use of either Shannon or Kanon himself before he went all catatonic. At that point in time, the state of Erika's seals hadn't been mentioned yet, and if Battler had chosen to take a person from one of those rooms, it would be obvious to Erika how he had managed to escape (Erika figures out the puzzle and wins, game over). In a way, when Dlanor declared that the seals around the cousins' room were still active, she gave Battler and Beatrice a way out. This made it possible for Beato to eventually use "Kanon", a person who was supposed to be in the sealed room, without Erika knowing how Kanon had escaped. Unfortunately, Battler was already at the point of giving up when Dlanor used that red, and it doesn't really sound like a good thing unless you really think about it.
So you posit the logic error was unsolvable for Battler? Because that seems to be what you're saying. What makes you so sure?
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 16:11   Link #7636
SeagullCrazy
Endless Witch-Doctor
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
In EP1, we never have a guarantee that the room was ever "a closed room", unless I missed it. No one had a chance to check the chain from the inside except Kanon and possibly Kumasawa (though Kumasawa was apparently freaked out by Eva's corpse too much to care).
I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier. Finally found it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatrice, EP4 Tea Party
It is not the case that, after the construction of the closed room, one of them committed suicide after committing murder!
Yes, you could try and argue with the "it is not the case" part, but the sentence could be rewritten in English as:

After the construction of the closed room, it is not the case that one of them committed suicide after committing murder!

So, just to be certain, I'd like to see the original Japanese line and the best translation for it.
SeagullCrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 16:33   Link #7637
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
So why couldn't Battler revise the story too, if he knew the answer?
You question makes no sense at all.

Battler could have revised the story.
He revised it earlier to allow Erika to seal the rooms.


So this implies that he choose not to revise the story. Then the question becomes, why did he make that choice?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
I'm going to agree with chronotrig on this one and note that ep6 has flags pointing to Shkanon all over the place (I disagree with him on WHY, but he isn't wrong about that fact).
I agree that ep6 has flags pointing to Shkanon all over the place. I think Shkanon is a very possible solution to this game but I’m looking for other possibilities. I never needed episode 6 to post a Shkanon theory. Well, at least on this forum

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
And just why would she come up with that answer?
Well, in case you forgot to read your own post: “ep6 has flags pointing to Shkanon all over the place”. That’s why she would come up with that answer. The question becomes whether or not it was the right answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
And your example still doesn't work; the statement of the lamb's death or its appearance as a corpse is sufficient to justify searching for an explanation which explains how it was killed. If a body simply turns up in a mystery, it's not against Knox just because there were no clues this person was going to die. That isn't what Knox's rule means, in his formulation or in Umineko. Heck, a body turning up in a mystery is practically the point of the genre.
That’s your opinion but I think many people would agree that the original Mary had a little lamb story had no clues that would lead to a solution: ” this is the story of the death of Mary’s lamb.”
Remember, I never said that a body turned up in my example. I only said that someone interpreted the story a certain way after the author came up with a random wacky solution that wasn’t supported by anything he wrote in the story.
__________________
[...]
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 16:56   Link #7638
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Wasn't the original cause of the logic error that Piece Battler died in the first twilight and Battler cheated and said his piece didn't die? How does you Mary had a little lamb example compare to that?

I liked the example I just using a different example of the logic error. I had a completely different understanding of how it worked.

There were a lot of cases in Umineko where we know people die just not how. That doesn't really create a logic error because it says: "a person died now explain how without magic". A logic error is basically cheating not saying "this person died now explain how he died without hints"...
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 17:09   Link #7639
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Wasn't the original cause of the logic error that Piece Battler died in the first twilight and Battler cheated and said his piece didn't die? How does you Mary had a little lamb example compare to that?
No, the original cause of the logic error was that Erika cheated by killing all the first twilight victims except Battler off-screen without telling him. Battler's planned story didn't actually have any murders to begin with, and he always intended for his own "corpse" to vanish from the guestroom.
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-05, 17:10   Link #7640
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Wasn't the original cause of the logic error that Piece Battler died in the first twilight and Battler cheated and said his piece didn't die? How does you Mary had a little lamb example compare to that?
By this point in the story it was clear to everyone that the First Twilight was faked. Erika's goal was to... un-fake it. Battler was trying to preserve his piece.
Renall 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 14:40.


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