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 2010-05-21, 19:26   Link #10441
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Separating the two threads just briefly, it is worth noting that it's entirely supportable that Umineko is in fact not a mystery, but a romance. The best evidence I have of this, aside from the obvious "without love..." stuff and romance elements in the story, is the Kyrie/Battler conversation in ep1 where Kyrie suggests a romance is harder to solve than a mystery.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 19:37   Link #10442
KnightOfTwo
Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Separating the two threads just briefly, it is worth noting that it's entirely supportable that Umineko is in fact not a mystery, but a romance. The best evidence I have of this, aside from the obvious "without love..." stuff and romance elements in the story, is the Kyrie/Battler conversation in ep1 where Kyrie suggests a romance is harder to solve than a mystery.
I think you might have something here, though I can see it as a problem because if it is not mystery, Knox's rules don't and never have applied. Other than that I think you are onto something here...hmm...
KnightOfTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 19:39   Link #10443
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Battler asks if Knox's rules apply to Beato's game. The answer is evasive. Obviously, if Beatrice's game wasn't a mystery, dodging the question begins to make sense.

This isn't to say Lambda and Battler's games aren't mysteries, however. That could be the difference between WTC3 and Chiru.

EDIT: It also doesn't mean Knox's rules can't apply. Though, Van Dine's sort of can't, what with the "no romance" rule.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 19:40   Link #10444
SeagullCrazy
Endless Witch-Doctor
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightOfTwo View Post
I think you might have something here, though I can see it as a problem because if it is not mystery, Knox's rules don't and never have applied. Other than that I think you are onto something here...hmm...
Well, I did suggest at one point that red text only applies to mystery novels, blue text only applies to fantasy novels and gold text only applies to romance novels.

But I don't know how that's going to help us find the truth....
SeagullCrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 19:45   Link #10445
KnightOfTwo
Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Battler asks if Knox's rules apply to Beato's game. The answer is evasive. Obviously, if Beatrice's game wasn't a mystery, dodging the question begins to make sense.

This isn't to say Lambda and Battler's games aren't mysteries, however. That could be the difference between WTC3 and Chiru.

EDIT: It also doesn't mean Knox's rules can't apply. Though, Van Dine's sort of can't, what with the "no romance" rule.
What I meant was it's more of a matter that Knox's rules are for mysteries not romance, but yeah you are right since they aren't applied until Lambda and Battler's games. You are quite right about Van Dine though, that would be trouble.
KnightOfTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 19:50   Link #10446
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Inasmuch as Umineko would be a "romance with mystery elements," it would be free to employ rules of thumb that apply to mysteries. It would, however, also be free to subvert them in favor of genre conventions more specific to romances.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 20:07   Link #10447
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linkin Battler View Post
<snip>
However, Lyrical, would you mind reading my whole theory and allow me to know what do I think about it?
Well, I don't feel like getting dragged into another pointless Shkannon quagmire, so I'll just say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and set it aside. I also think your reinterpretations of the red text are unsupportable given what we know of Beato's character. I suppose I'll attack a few things though.

Spoiler for Rebuttals, long:
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."

Last edited by LyricalAura; 2010-05-21 at 20:23.
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 20:08   Link #10448
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
I think we have to define what kind of romance it could be though. There are loads of different kinds. There are the "fantasy kinds" with magic and unicorns, and there are the "tragic ones" like in shakespeare, and then there are the ones that say that "love can beat anything even fate"! George and Shannon seem to be a reverse Romeo and Juliet or maybe "Titanic". But we might also get something like Macbeth where both of the protagonists that love each other are murderers.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 20:14   Link #10449
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
If Umineko is styled after a particular genre of romance, it's going to be Gothic Romance, since that genre incorporates a lot of the things Umineko already has in it, such as mystery, strange settings, and the supernatural. Of course, older "romances" weren't exactly "romantic" at all, and to the extent that Umineko draws on the more obvious (and later) relationship-focused romances, I couldn't say. I don't even consider myself particularly good with mystery conventions, do you expect me - or anyone really - to know how a "good" romance is supposed to be written?
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 21:22   Link #10450
Realus
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Meta-TSAB
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linkin Battler View Post
No, the motivation is that in the other EP she planned to kill everyone after the night and after George gave Shannon the ring and I personally don't see Kanon getting red because of the ring... however she in this arc planned to kill everyone befode midnight, thus deciding to save Kanon once

...

However as it regards Kanon I disagree: that red referred to precise moment of the story, i.e. when one person has been killed in the boiler room. And in that moment no one could have killed Kanon, since he is already dead, you cannot kill people twice! I don't find anything weird at all. And remember there was also the door of the boiler room leading to the garden open and the culprit could have passed with that, so if someone was faking his death on the first twilight he could have killed or else also Beatrice could. But it does not matter, no one could have killed Kanon.
And I cannot understand why Kanon has to have been dead by accident °°
I didn't say it has to be an accident. In fact, I stated that it couldn't be, and it is also outright denied by Lambda.
"Kanon did not die in an accident!"

But anyway, it seems I'm actually giving you the argument of the Kanon in the Boiler room. I'm not saying yours is right, in fact I believe it's wrong.
But I first argued my point only looking at the list of red text, but I checked back in game and saw the white that accompanied this red.
""Very well, next! Kanon was killed in the boiler room, correct? I shall add to the red truth.
All of the survivors have alibis! Let us include the dead as well!!
In short, no kind of human or dead person on the island could have killed Kanon!
"

Alone, that red does not in anyway look to support your specific Ep1 Twilight5 Theory. But with the white text, I can see some merit in there.
Although again, I still don't agree. But I guess it's a little valid now? (Unless someone can correct me, that red statement still doesn't allow Linkin's Twilight5 Theory.)

---

Okay, now to retort to your counter argument on the other point.

So your belief of the reason for Shannon needing to die pre-Fourth Game is:
"Since Beatrice was going to kill everyone before the first day was over = George wasn't going to get the chance to propose to Shannon, She allowed Kanon to live instead."
Correct?

Now, your counter argument just opened more questions.
1) How did Beatrice know George was going to propose on that day? (This one may have been plausible, I forgot who knew of his plans.)
2) Why does she not let Kanon live instead on the first 3 games? He could spend quality time with Jessica. (If we trust fantasy scenes, in EP 2 + 6, he was going to/had told Jessica his real name.)
3) What's the point of saving Kanon this time? She let him die apparently in the first 3 games. Wouldn't it have been easier to just keep Shannon alive again?
4) Why did Beatrice end the game before the first day was over this game? (What changed to make her decide this?)
5) What's the point of waiting the extra day on the first three chapters to allow George to propose? Since she kills everyone eventually, what does it matter?

Yes, Questions 3+5 are really just turning the chessboard over on 2+4.

In actually though, the only thing I got out of your answer was:
"During the games which lasted 2 days, She wanted Shannon alive so she'd have the chance to meet George."

Which practically answers nothing. It doesn't address my basic question of
"For what reason does Beatrice choose to kill Shannon?"

The rest of what you put:
"She wanted to kill everyone before midnight, so she spared Kanon"
It's only you changing the situation, there's no reasoning involved in this.

I asked for the reason Beatrice changed the situation, not how can you change the situation to make it fit into your theory.
Realus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 22:37   Link #10451
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
...Ah. I think I just understood something. "The detective's POV isn't allowed to show false scenes"... When did we decide this was true?

Dlanor said, regarding the first twilight: Be that as it may, you were in the cousins' room and confirmed the presence of the bodies, which could not be misidentified…! Do you claim that that was a lie? …Knox's 7th Commandment, it is forbidden for the detective to be the culprit!! Knox's 8th Commandment, solutions using clues that have not been presented are forbidden! You were the detective in all of the previous games! Was it ever shown that you were no longer the detective, but an observer able to mix in personal opinion?! So long as that is not the case, you do not have the right to falsify your point of view!

The basis of Dlanor's objection was that "the detective isn't allowed to be the culprit". If Battler were the detective, he wouldn't be allowed to falsify that particular scene because that would be helping to construct the mystery of the first twilight, which would make him one of the "culprits" of that mystery. In other words, we could restate Knox 7 as "the detective is not allowed to construct mysteries." Constructing mysteries is the witch's job, after all.

But wait a minute, isn't that different from what we started out with? Because we can restate it this way: The detective is allowed to falsify scenes so long as it doesn't construct a mystery. Which is sort of reminiscent of something Ryuukishi said about EP5:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryuukishi
It's true that the most vital part of "Land of the golden witch" is in there, but it's such a terrifying bit. Furthermore, it's something that neither Battler nor Erika nor Bernkastel has ever brought up in discussion. Maybe they didn't even realize that it was a riddle.
So here's a question. Is something a mystery if the detective already knows about it? For instance, if Erika is really dead at the start of the game, but Bern and Lambda agree to let her pretend that she isn't, then her "existence" isnt really a mystery to her or Bern. So based on our restated Knox 7, shouldn't she be allowed to falsify scenes as long as it doesn't infringe on any of the actual mysteries?
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-21, 23:10   Link #10452
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Well, if you're referring to the infamous ep5 parlor scene, you wind up with a problem logically.

Assume it's true that Erika is the detective and, existing or not, she is permitted to falsify scenes not relevant to the mystery.

If Shkanon is false, then portraying Shannon and Kanon as separate isn't a falsification; she's just showing everyone who is on the island in the same room. If it's true, her falsification would bear on the mystery. Somehow.

Unless you refer strictly to Erika altering scenes in such a way that she is speaking with people, which is supportable enough I suppose. Nothing she suggests is really something somebody else in the scene wasn't already saying (Battler) or doing (Eva with the seals).

EDIT: Poirot and Columbo are detectives famous for using lies, manipulation, and falsified expectations to investigate crimes. They just (generally) didn't involve themselves in the crime itself that way.

Last edited by Renall; 2010-05-21 at 23:27.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-22, 02:48   Link #10453
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
...Ah. I think I just understood something. "The detective's POV isn't allowed to show false scenes"... When did we decide this was true?
Well, Battler's narration in Ep5 says so almost point blank: "In this case, unintentional 'misrecognition' is not permitted by the rules of this game. However, it is possible to intentionally 'lie about seeing' something you never saw...!! And that is an action not permitted to a 'detective' burdened with the responsibility of an impartial perspective..."

However, if Erika does not actually exist on layer 1 and has no eyes of her own on the board, she can be presented to her meta-self by the gamemaster with any amount of falsification the gamemaster wishes to show.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-22, 11:47   Link #10454
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Battler says the detective has to have an impartial perspective, but I'm wondering if that's actually true. Impartial to what, exactly? People lie all the time. Heck, Battler lies all the time in ep1-4. He just generally doesn't lie substantially or within his personal narration. But is that because he can't, or merely because Beatrice wouldn't let him and it's generally within his personality not to bar extraordinary circumstances (such as ep6)?

As I was discussing with LyricalAura elsewhere, why are we shifting the goodwill of the detective to Erika when Battler had to earn it by actually being trustworthy in his investigation and narration? If they moved the detective perspective tomorrow to a random character (Eva, Gohda, whoever), would we suddenly be exactly as trusting? Why? Because Battler says a detective has to be objective? That's his opinion, isn't it? What if he's wrong? It's not like there's never been a lying detective. Dlanor's just saying he can't be the culprit.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-22, 11:52   Link #10455
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Actually if you reread the tea party he was pondering whether he could solve a mystery written by an impartial observer. He was wondering whether he could solve the mystery when it breaks the basic rule of a mystery novel that it should be written from the eyes of god. He was referring to the person who wrote the story as an impartial perspective not the detective's perspective.

EDIT: Oh wait maybe I have it mixed up. I think maybe he was wondering whether he could solve it because the observer wasn't impartial sorry about that.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-22, 12:02   Link #10456
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Well, yes, and we know Beatrice's game was created to be solved. However, we don't know it was solveable because it has an impartial observer. Maybe Battler isn't impartial in ep1-4? That doesn't necessarily mean the mystery can't be solved.

Perhaps it's time to reexamine some of Battler's thoughts.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-22, 12:58   Link #10457
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Battler says the detective has to have an impartial perspective, but I'm wondering if that's actually true. Impartial to what, exactly? People lie all the time. Heck, Battler lies all the time in ep1-4. He just generally doesn't lie substantially or within his personal narration. But is that because he can't, or merely because Beatrice wouldn't let him and it's generally within his personality not to bar extraordinary circumstances (such as ep6)?
I would say it means "impartial to the reader", i.e. us. He can lie to other characters all he wants, but what he sees (what we see him see) should be as he saw it, and what he hears in particular should be as he heard it, limited only by failures of his perception. His memory may still be incorrect and his assessment of the situation may be wrong.

Giving that principle up leaves us with nothing to step on to proceed, but mind you, that does not mean that Battler's own words to other characters should be trusted implicitly. Neither it means that what he thinks is not a mistake. But if beside the red text there's nothing, the mystery cannot be solvable.

Or rather, the only mystery that can be solved only with red text and nothing else is 'did anyone survive?' and the answer is usually 'no', that's not very interesting.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-22, 13:21   Link #10458
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
I'm not sure if that's actually true, but I do agree that Battler's narrative perceptions should not be lies if only because that would make no sense (when I think to myself, I usually don't attempt to deceive people who happen to be randomly listening to my thoughts, as those people don't exist).

However, the idea that Battler can be mistaken or wrong is clearly important. There are plenty of examples of this:
  • He forgets his sin. That's sort of important. In ep4 he seems almost indignantly resolute in not having the slightest idea what Beatrice is talking about, but in ep5 it's clear that he realizes he was wrong.
  • His statements about his family's personality are often wildly off. The most famous example being "Rosa keeps her promises," but his other assessments are also perhaps suspect. He thinks George is trustworthy, thinks Kyrie is really smart, finds Genji a bit stodgy, doesn't really know Gohda is sort of a grandstander, and is keenly unaware of Krauss and Natsuhi's various personal issues. So we should perhaps be careful of basing our opinions of people's personality on what Battler thinks of them, since he hasn't seen any of them for six years and could be a bad judge of character in the first place.
  • His guesses as to who is dead and how they are dead are somewhat questionable. We can't be absolutely sure people he sees as corpses are dead at any time without red. I realize that opens doors I personally would like to keep closed, but fake deaths are clearly part of Umineko and it becomes valid to question who is and isn't dead, even when right in front of Battler. Also, Battler's assumptions in ep4 as to how the heads were smashed is clearly to be taken as mere speculation; there's no way he can know how that was done, and I am suspicious that it would be a gun of some sort (I think it's probably not, that is).
  • Battler is quick to assume the existence of puzzles, closed rooms, and so forth, then attempt to resolve them. He is immediately trusting of the concept of a closed room mystery, without stopping to consider whether the rooms are actually closed in the first place. It's also very difficult for him to assume a scenario constructed by a lie.
  • Taking from that, as we all know, Battler is far too trusting and compassionate. While this makes him an admirable person, it makes him a terrible detective. It requires immense legwork for him to suggest a theory involving someone utilizing deception to mislead other people or Battler himself. But we know this has to be happening at some point, and is probably happening a lot.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-22, 13:59   Link #10459
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Well rereading the tea party I noticed that Lambda and Beato make a lot of references to stories I've never heard of.
  • Galaxy express 999 ( they say this story describes their cruelty and immortality)
  • The one that is not "Night on the-"
  • The third man
  • Children of paradise

two of these are western films not mystery novels and one of them is a manga.

I'm not aware of Battler saying the detective is impartial anywhere though. I mean he lies himself in the first episode to Maria. So he can falsify his point of view in the game if he wants to apparently. So I'm not sure what your talking about when you say "Battler said the detective's perspective is impartial". Or in other words that that the detective is unbiased and has no personal opinions. I don't see him saying that anywhere.

Is this what you mean by the impartial thing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ???
At the end of the first game it was revealed that this tale was passed on to people in the future in that message bottle.

....Someone had written about this crime... this tale.

In other words... this tale is all part of a world that includes the personal opinions of an observer namely the person who wrote that message in a bottle.

In other words the observer isn't god. It's a human. Therefore there is no guarantee that this description is truly impartial.

By the end of the first game it had already been made clear that we've broken the constant premise of the mystery genre: that the story itself must be seen through the eyes of god.

For that reason it's possible to doubt even the observer as well as the witnesses.

If I could've doubted this much than no matter how many unsolvable displays of magic appeared, I wouldn't have had to blindly accept them and give up.

However that begs the question:..... is it even possible to solve a tale written by an observer who isn't impartial?


.............If I get obsessed with this all my reasoning will end here.
Then he continues on about how he thinks he can trust Beatrice and all that. And aknowledges that "they love each other" so he can go further.

Last edited by Judoh; 2010-05-22 at 14:18.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-05-22, 14:20   Link #10460
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
two of these are western films not mystery novels and one of them is a manga.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they're referring to the "Galaxy Express 999" movie. In it, the theme of cruelty resulting from eternal life is expressed throughout, while the manga has more time for other topics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
So I'm not sure what your talking about when you say "Battler said the detective's perspective is impartial". Or in other words that that the detective is unbiased and has no personal opinions. I don't see him saying that anywhere.
Me, I'm not saying anything beyond a direct quote from the text.
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver 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 03:11.


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