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 2010-06-30, 14:10   Link #12261
ijriims
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: HK, China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marion View Post
Mind putting that under a spoiler tag, ijriims?
Sorry about that.
__________________
Kýrie, eléison

Battler, you have already known it, right?

Without Love, it cannot be seen.
ijriims is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:17   Link #12262
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Question, am I the only one who thinks that the epitaph and portrait were put up after Kinzo's death?

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
EDIT: Regarding Eva having a hand in it: Plausible - but how, considering that according to Natsuhi's narration, Natsuhi is perfectly healthy in this regard?
Doesn't that make it all the more likely? Healthy people usually don't have unexplainable health problems. Who said it was Natsuhi who was messed with and not Krauss? I simply said Eva had a hand in it.
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:23   Link #12263
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Question, am I the only one who thinks that the epitaph and portrait were put up after Kinzo's death?
Well, I have not seen anyone else say that, though I have only just started rereading the thread for lost ideas.

What are your reasons to think that and what are the interesting consequences?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Doesn't that make it all the more likely? Healthy people usually don't have unexplainable health problems.
What it makes the most likely is Krauss actually having problems in this area.
That would be quite tricky to consistently cause for Eva, though.
__________________
"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 2010-06-30, 14:25   Link #12264
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
The problem is that according to what was narrated this is impossible.

April 1984 is when the epitaph and the portrait were exposed. and Every adult remember to have seen the real flesh and bones Kinzo in October 1984.

Of course Battler can't be sure of either of these two statements, but that's what everyone says to him.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:26   Link #12265
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Well, I have not seen anyone else say that, though I have only just started rereading the thread for lost ideas.

What are your reasons to think that and what are the interesting consequences?
A dead ringer for the Beatrice in the portrait shows up. The rewards for the epitaph makes the most sense if Battler is the one who finds the gold, to me.

Consequences? I don't know. Since, almost everyone at the mansion barring Gohda and Jessica knows Kinzo is dead then any order to do something coming from him or the family head is coming from someone else. So... someone else is or is acting like he/she is the new family head. Considering the person pretending to be 'Beatrice' knows where the gold is and claims to be the new family head... yea.

Edit:
I don't remember seeing any adult saying they saw Kinzo in 1984. I remember quite the opposite being said, that Kinzo was not seen for the last few family conferences. But then again, I has Alzheimer's. So, remind me when this was said if you remember.
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:29   Link #12266
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Absence of evidence that Kinzo is the biological father of his children does not itself prove they aren't.
We might have gone on ahead on the topic but I just wanted to point this out here. (I'm not responding to you, Renall, exactly, just in general to everyone.)

In the real world, absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence, but I thought about this. In the detective novel world, absence of evidence, or rather, absence of clues is indeed a clue of absence.

Basically, if Knox rules hold and you can't solve the mystery with clues not presented then if you have a theory based on clues not presented then it won't work, right? Well further to that then is that if there aren't any or enough clues, or if you have to stretch clues too far then it kind of shows that the author did not intend for speculation to go in this direction.

There were arguments before, put forth that something *could* have happened in a certain way. For example, there were clues that there was an explosion/geological event at the end but people put forth the argument that hey, you can't disprove that maybe they were all poisoned. Or wolves ate them and scattered their bones. But then now we know there weren't enough clues for poison, nor wolves... but there were tons of clues for explosion/geological event. You can't 'disprove' any other wild random theory, but 'proof' is not how detective novels work... it's by clues...


And now, for example, if there aren't enough or any clues about Rudolf doing the horizontal shimmy with his sisters to begin with, it might be our cue that this line of reasoning takes us away from the mystery...

I'm not saying don't speculate though, cuz that is definitely useful... but the way of thinking saying that 'you can't prove X didn't happen' is dead end reasoning for a mystery that obeys Knox rules, in my opinion.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:34   Link #12267
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Consequences? I don't know. Since, almost everyone at the mansion barring Gohda and Jessica knows Kinzo is dead then any order to do something coming from him or the family head is coming from someone else. So... someone else is or is acting like he/she is the new family head. Considering the person pretending to be 'Beatrice' knows where the gold is and claims to be the new family head... yea.
Actually, Kinzo does not have to be dead to avoid being the epitaph's principal designer, initiator of the whole treasure hunt idea, or otherwise have nothing interesting to do with the portrait.

Unfortunately once we drop Kinzo as the source of all that we're very low on leads.
__________________
"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 2010-06-30, 14:38   Link #12268
Leafsnail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
"So, my mother isn't my mother. My father probably is my father, but he may have impregnated both his sisters, making my cousins also my half-sisters. My opponent in the game is my "mother" and she is apparently my grandfather's daughter. Or maybe the person I had a crush on is secretly me.

Y'know what? Screw this. A witch did it."
Leafsnail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:41   Link #12269
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Actually, Kinzo does not have to be dead to avoid being the epitaph's principal designer, initiator of the whole treasure hunt idea, or otherwise have nothing interesting to do with the portrait.

Unfortunately once we drop Kinzo as the source of all that we're very low on leads.
Well, it maybe be easier to paint if you had a model to start with. So, Kinzo ordered a painting of Beatrice to be erected and had someone he knew dress up and wear make up to model for the picture as a look a like. However, if Kinzo is alive I doubt the epitaph was not his idea. I would think someone 'defrauding' his Beatrice would enrage him, etc. Unless he literally believed the model to be Beatrice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsnail View Post
"So, my mother isn't my mother. My father probably is my father, but he may have impregnated both his sisters, making my cousins also my half-sisters. My opponent in the game is my "mother" and she is apparently my grandfather's daughter. Or maybe the person I had a crush on is secretly me.

Y'know what? Screw this. A witch did it."
With what the predominant theories seem to be, that is almost a more plausible theory.
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:41   Link #12270
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
The absence of "Informations" where you'd expect them to exist is certainly something that should make you suspicious, for example the total lack of informations on the Rokkenjima incident from the 1998 perspective.

However lack of informations where you wouldn't normally expect them doesn't amount to anything. Of course the possibility exists, but I claim there's an nearly infinite amount of possible speculations that can be done on that ground and the chance of getting one right is almost zero.

The story always said that Rudolf, Eva, Krauss, and Rosa are Kinzo's son. What exactly are you expecting? DNA tests?

There are no more reasons to think they aren't Kinzo's biological sons than there are for George and his parents, Jessica and her parents, Battler and his parents, Ange and her parents, Shibakichi and Chiyo Kumasawa, Masayuki and Terumasu Nanjo and so on.

Of course one of these cases might be actually true, but how high are the chances that all of them are? Almost none. Selecting one of them randomly is a shot in the dark. That's not a bet I'd make.

Conversely in Battler's case we have strong hints (or should I say facts?) that he's not Asumu's biological son. That's a whole different matter when you reason on evidence rather than on lack of evidences.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:46   Link #12271
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
I agree with Jan-Poo. The only reason people suspect Battler all the time is because we have very big hints saying he isn't Asumu's son. A theory should always be backed with evidence and not just a lack there of.
You won't win a court case saying, "This man has to be the criminal because there is no evidence that the other ~7 billion people on this planet did it."
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:46   Link #12272
ijriims
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: HK, China
Since there were two paintings, one big one on the ground floor and one inside his study. It could be that the big one was just the replica of the study room's one. Consider that his goal was to resurrect Beatrice, it was most likely the one inside the study was the initial one.

We had a narration from Battler in EP1 that the woman in the portraint was about 20 in age. Also with Battler's comment that she looked just like a Westerner. I think it was safe to say the one in portraint was Kwadorian Beatrice, before she fell off the cliff.
__________________
Kýrie, eléison

Battler, you have already known it, right?

Without Love, it cannot be seen.
ijriims is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:53   Link #12273
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ijriims View Post
We had a narration from Battler in EP1 that the woman in the portraint was about 20 in age. Also with Battler's comment that she looked just like a Westerner. I think it was safe to say the one in portraint was Kwadorian Beatrice, before she fell off the cliff.
Especially since we have at least some evidence that Beatrice-1 strongly resembled Virgilia.
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 14:54   Link #12274
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ijriims View Post
Since there were two paintings, one big one on the ground floor and one inside his study. It could be that the big one was just the replica of the study room's one. Consider that his goal was to resurrect Beatrice, it was most likely the one inside the study was the initial one.
Actually...

Quote:
Just now, we had torn several pages of Maria's notes out, and there was a mess where everyone had been drawing together.

Jessica began cleaning that up quickly.
......Still, everyone here sure can draw. Really shocking.
I wonder if that might be a hint.
__________________
"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 2010-06-30, 15:11   Link #12275
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ijriims View Post
Since there were two paintings, one big one on the ground floor and one inside his study. It could be that the big one was just the replica of the study room's one. Consider that his goal was to resurrect Beatrice, it was most likely the one inside the study was the initial one.

We had a narration from Battler in EP1 that the woman in the portraint was about 20 in age. Also with Battler's comment that she looked just like a Westerner. I think it was safe to say the one in portraint was Kwadorian Beatrice, before she fell off the cliff.
We don't know when the one in the study was put up either, so for all we know they were both put up at the same time. Furthermore, why would this appear so long after her death? About 18 years? It is clearly not safe to say as you say it is. Your evidence is not even circumstantial. I'm sorry if I come off a little aggressive but you are missing a little thing called 'proof' or 'evidence' to support your claim. I'm sure you have taken a writing class and have been taught argumentative writing, don't skimp out on your lessons in such a case.
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 16:27   Link #12276
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
It may have taken a year or two to convince Kinzo, granted. However, he would not be receptive to the idea at all if he did not want a grandchild, and Eva would not think of the plan if she didn't think Krauss and Natsuhi are trying to have one or should be. Therefore, Kinzo expected the child of his eldest son as soon as possible. Which means that Kinzo's resolve not to let an outsider into the family should have weakened relatively fast.

I find it very unlikely for Kinzo to be waiting for seven years, which is why I find the gap so problematic.
That doesn't mean we have to resort to them being adopted, impotent, or incestuous, to fill in the time gap. There has to be a better explanation for it. The former seems less likely as a narrative to me than the latter.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 16:40   Link #12277
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
That doesn't mean we have to resort to them being adopted, impotent, or incestuous, to fill in the time gap. There has to be a better explanation for it. The former seems less likely as a narrative to me than the latter.
That's no fun, come up with something more wacky.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 16:53   Link #12278
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
That doesn't mean we have to resort to them being adopted, impotent, or incestuous, to fill in the time gap. There has to be a better explanation for it. The former seems less likely as a narrative to me than the latter.
It does not. I never said this was the only way.

So, any better explanation? Let me rattle off some obvious ones and what I think about them. Notice that what really is the problem is not why Natsuhi's not getting pregnant, which can happen for numerous reasons, but why Eva isn't for three-four years out of seven.
  • Eva is doing something to prevent Natsuhi's pregnancy and takes things slowly. -- While this certainly has literary precedent, no contraceptive can be 100% effective unless the subject wants to take it or you control the environment completely. Eva does not have that in her power, and Natsuhi and Krauss spent quite some time travelling anyway. I'm not aware of any contraceptives for males that you can administer without the subject's knowledge at all.
  • One of the input statements is incorrect. -- Either Eva's idea came to her much later or George is a few years older than we think he is. I don't see any hints to suggest the first since it would invalidate the scene I don't see any fault with otherwise, but the second is a possibility, albeit slim.
  • Eva actually got married early in the 7-year gap, but had problems getting pregnant herself, eventually succeeding and cutting it very close with Kinzo. -- That would suggest there really is something about the environment that causes it.
  • Eva's characterisation as being bent on hijacking heirship through George is incorrect, an artefact inserted by Featherinne. Eva actually had the idea, but eventually abandoned it, holding out for the right man, and got him into the family just because she still could and liked it that way. -- Possible, and would be required to paint her the faux culprit in Ep3. The very basis of it, in fact. So what's hiding beneath that?
  • There actually existed a child prior to George who died or otherwise vanished, and Eva had to try again. George is the only child for this very reason. -- No hints in Ep1-4 seem to suggest that, even though it seems plausible.

I think I don't have any more ideas. Anyone else?
__________________
"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 2010-06-30, 16:57   Link #12279
Leafsnail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Eva assumes that, since they are already struggling to have a child, there's probably something fundamentally wrong with one of them in terms of reproduction. She therefore knows she can take it slowly.
Leafsnail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:03   Link #12280
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsnail View Post
Eva assumes that, since they are already struggling to have a child, there's probably something fundamentally wrong with one of them in terms of reproduction. She therefore knows she can take it slowly.
Doesn't quite work. If Eva knew that there is something fundamentally wrong with Krauss or Natsuhi in reproductive terms, she would also have to conclude that they may eventually resort to adoption or actually go for a divorce and find Krauss someone more compatible -- and probably, at the most inopportune moment for Eva.

Which means that Eva might not have to hurry, but she certainly would have to know she doesn't have a guaranteed seven years.

EDIT: P.S. Remember that Kinzo treats Natsuhi almost as property in Eva's memories, at least initially. If property is faulty, there is always a chance it would get replaced.
__________________
"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 17:25.


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