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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-06-30, 17:04   Link #12281
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Jan-Poo's point, I think, is that missing evidence is only a clue if that evidence ought to exist but is clearly being avoided.

The parentage of the siblings is not being "avoided." It's just assumed. The default assumption in a familial relationship is that everyone is related by blood. That's why finding out someone is adopted is so surprising; it's not what the unstated evidence would have us think.

Meanwhile, what really happened in 1986, specifically the endgame event, is being very suspiciously avoided, particularly by characters in 1998. What happened ought to not just be common knowledge, but trivial knowledge; anyone would have at least known the suspected causes. Yet that information is clearly being kept from us. Therefore, speculation on what that information must mean and why it's being hidden is warranted.

So no, the absence of evidence isn't necessarily proof nothing is going on in a mystery story, but at the same time, it's only if that absence is supposed to be the thing we notice.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:06   Link #12282
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Oliver, maybe I'm missing something, but was it ever stated when Eva and Hideyoshi married?

Otherwise the time gap could be explained simply by the fact Eva didn't know Hideyoshi yet or they had yet to marry and Hideyoshi didn't want to impregnate her before that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Jan-Poo's point, I think, is that missing evidence is only a clue if that evidence ought to exist but is clearly being avoided.
yes exactly

the amount of "missing evidence" would be enormous if you expect the obvious to be confirmed. For example, was it ever confirmed which is Gohda's sexual orientation? But that's a hardly a "clue" of his omosexuality.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:08   Link #12283
delita-umw-
Wild Speculator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 13th Hierarchical City Kagutsuchi
Maybe the first couple of years Krauss and Natsuhi weren't trying to have a kid and Kinzo didn't really press the point. Say, give them 3 years. Then Kinzo gets a little nervous, and starts trying to get them to have kids. Give them 2 years of trying and failing and then another 2 years of Eva convincing Kinzo to agree?
delita-umw- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:09   Link #12284
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
There is something weird going on in the episode 3 scene about this. After the flashback when there is that conversation between Eva and EVA. Eva says that 'Krauss is not engaged yet and that she could steal Krauss's place by getting married before him and having a son'. In the same scene though EVA mentions how she's pushing it all on George, and says it as if he already exists at the time. So there are some inconsistencies in the statements of this scene.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:10   Link #12285
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
This is why I'm against requiring 'evidence' and 'proof.' No such thing exists in a detective novel. We can't ever get that level of certainty even if the author comes right out and tells us, 'It was an explosion.' We can always argue that he's trying to misdirect us, etc, etc.

We can only get clues. We should be showing or asking for clues to back up our theories. (And indeed we are to a degree, of course... just wanted to clarify it.)

And definitely if the story is clearly avoiding telling us something that too is a clue.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:14   Link #12286
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Oliver, maybe I'm missing something, but was it ever stated when Eva and Hideyoshi married?

Otherwise the time gap could be explained simply by the fact Eva didn't know Hideyoshi yet or they had yet to marry and Hideyoshi didn't want to impregnate her before that.
It was never stated, as I just said. However, this does not explain the time gap, because the gap is stretching Kinzo's desire to have a grandchild.

If he doesn't care about one, Eva's plan makes no sense. If he cares about one, I'm not sure if it's in Kinzo's character not to get something that he wants just because nature's getting in the way. That is, I don't believe in Kinzo's patience in this particular situation, I expect he would consider letting an outsider in within at most three to four years -- what does he lose, really? Not much.

That does sound like a reasonably long time for it, doesn't it?

Which means that if Eva's plan to hijack heirship exists, she would need to find herself a suitor, which Hideyoshi turns out to be, and marry him within those three-four years, entering him into the family register as part of it. There is obviously no big problem with that.

But then, what would Kinzo's reaction be? "Deliver on your promise as I delivered on mine." There can not possibly be a problem getting pregnant immediately and giving birth to a child within the expected nine months, right?

From which it appears that George was born three to four years later than he should have.
__________________
"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, 17:20   Link #12287
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
In the same scene though EVA mentions how she's pushing it all on George, and says it as if he already exists at the time. So there are some inconsistencies in the statements of this scene.
Which actually supports the variant where the heirship hijack plan is an artefact and does not actually exist. Which sounds the most plausible to me from that list -- there's other problems with what EVA is saying, like her statements to Rosa that they were 'small together' when there's a minimum of 12 years worth age gap.

But there has to be something underneath that whole mess that is true, for reasonably small values of 'true'. Can we recover that?
__________________
"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, 17:24   Link #12288
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
It was never stated, as I just said. However, this does not explain the time gap, because the gap is stretching Kinzo's desire to have a grandchild.

If he doesn't care about one, Eva's plan makes no sense. If he cares about one, I'm not sure if it's in Kinzo's character not to get something that he wants just because nature's getting in the way. That is, I don't believe in Kinzo's patience in this particular situation, I expect he would consider letting an outsider in within at most three to four years -- what does he lose, really? Not much.

That does sound like a reasonably long time for it, doesn't it?

Which means that if Eva's plan to hijack heirship exists, she would need to find herself a suitor, which Hideyoshi turns out to be, and marry him within those three-four years, entering him into the family register as part of it. There is obviously no big problem with that.

But then, what would Kinzo's reaction be? "Deliver on your promise as I delivered on mine." There can not possibly be a problem getting pregnant immediately and giving birth to a child within the expected nine months, right?

From which it appears that George was born three to four years later than he should have.
Well I think it's more problematic than you make it sound. Eva couldn't just bring to Kinzo a "child of a nobody" like Rosa. She needed to find a man that would be liked both by her and Kinzo.

That's not something you can find easily. People have problem just finding the right person for themselves think about finding one that must also be a successful businessman that made his fortune from nothing or an equally impressive person in the eye of Kinzo. And in addition to that, that husband needed to be willing to renounce to his family register and join the wife's

Before bringing to Kinzo a heir Eva wanted to remain an Ushiromiya after marriage and that could only happen if her husband became an Ushiromiya himself. And to that end the man needed to be accepted by THAT Kinzo who despises everyone.

Easy? I don't think so...
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:27   Link #12289
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
This is why I'm against requiring 'evidence' and 'proof.' No such thing exists in a detective novel. We can't ever get that level of certainty even if the author comes right out and tells us, 'It was an explosion.' We can always argue that he's trying to misdirect us, etc, etc.

We can only get clues. We should be showing or asking for clues to back up our theories. (And indeed we are to a degree, of course... just wanted to clarify it.)

And definitely if the story is clearly avoiding telling us something that too is a clue.
Evidence and proof does exist? The author does give it to us. Hints can be used as proof. But you can't just say something is TRUE because nothing counters it. A theory should have some sort of reasoning behind it, so there should be some sort of evidence or proof. I mean if we had no evidence or proof, then what is with the list of tips that rivals the size of the Bible?
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:31   Link #12290
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Before bringing to Kinzo a heir Eva wanted to remain an Ushiromiya after marriage and that could only happen if her husband became an Ushiromiya himself. And to that end the man needed to be accepted by THAT Kinzo who despises everyone.

Easy? I don't think so...
That would imply that George was born as soon as possible, i.e. nine months after the wedding bells, and it took Eva seven years to find a suitable man.

I just say it sounds like an unusually long time, even to please Kinzo, who has other pressing factors on his tail -- like Krauss+Natsuhi who seem to be completely unable to produce a grandchild for seven years by then.

I'd rather ditch the idea of the heirship hijack plan and say it is a lie.
__________________
"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, 17:36   Link #12291
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Which actually supports the variant where the heirship hijack plan is an artefact and does not actually exist. Which sounds the most plausible to me from that list -- there's other problems with what EVA is saying, like her statements to Rosa that they were 'small together' when there's a minimum of 12 years worth age gap.

But there has to be something underneath that whole mess that is true, for reasonably small values of 'true'. Can we recover that?
By inconsistent I mean that the timing of the statements don't seem to connect logically. The first statement sounds like it's before Krauss and Natsuhi even met, and the statements afterward sound like they take place in the present day in 1986.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:43   Link #12292
delita-umw-
Wild Speculator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 13th Hierarchical City Kagutsuchi
Maybe it's a mix of both truth and lies. Truth: she plans on stealing the headship after the opportunity presents itself with Hideyoshi being favorable and Krauss/Natsuhi still without child at the time. Lie: she had this great plan before she even met Hideyoshi and immediately upon learning about Krauss/Natsuhi's infertility

edit: in other words, I don't see why either of your ideas have to be mutually exclusive.
delita-umw- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 17:47   Link #12293
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
By inconsistent I mean that the timing of the statements don't seem to connect logically. The first statement sounds like it's before Krauss and Natsuhi even met, and the statements afterward sound like they take place in the present day in 1986.
Ok, let's find the line clearly...

Quote:
???: "U, ...um, I was just thinking. ...Maybe I can't succeed the head, but, as a woman, I can have a child. And Nii-san still isn't engaged. ...If Nii-san wasn't able to have children, and I could, ...then wouldn't the next head after Nii-san be my child? In other words, ...wouldn't that mean the same thing as stealing the headship from Nii-san...?"
???: "...Are you serious?"
???: "Y, ...yes. I'm serious. ...It will indeed be quite sad to throw away the determination from my years as a young girl. ...It will pain my heart to betray you, my younger self. ...But this way is the most realistic...!"
???: "Are you throwing away your dreams? ...And are you even throwing me away?"
<background change>
???: "I'm not throwing anything away. ...It's just that I've become an adult, and I'm different from you now."
EVA: "That's right. Eva's already become an adult. She's even forgotten how to use magic. ...She is now the mother of a single child. She's forgotten the magic that can grant her own dreams, and is now pushing those dreams onto her son. ...Even though Father and Krauss made your own life so chaotic, you're trying to push your dreams onto your son, and make his life chaotic too. ...Is that what you call being an adult?"
???: "G, George is a confident son who won't embarrass himself no matter where he goes...! The dream that wasn't granted me might be granted to George...! Jessica's grades and behavior aren't good at all. And she's a woman! If only Jessica would step down, George would become the heir...!"
That sounds like a flashback of a memory turning into a daydream, which is probably what happens. And is extremely dubious for that reason.

Notice, also, that it was Evatrice who brought the idea of a "motive in red" into the formal context (Kyrie and the cigarette butt) and here we seem to be dealing with a white text version of same -- something which could not possibly have witnesses and was not discussed with anyone, but is still a major factor in understanding what's going on.
__________________
"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, 18:03   Link #12294
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delita-umw- View Post
Maybe it's a mix of both truth and lies. Truth: she plans on stealing the headship after the opportunity presents itself with Hideyoshi being favorable and Krauss/Natsuhi still without child at the time. Lie: she had this great plan before she even met Hideyoshi and immediately upon learning about Krauss/Natsuhi's infertility

edit: in other words, I don't see why either of your ideas have to be mutually exclusive.
Well, you're probably right, but the proportion of truth and lies is probably a bit different. Here's my current opinion... which may change again in a few more posts, sorry about that, but hey, we're looking for truth here.

Eva had the idea to hijack the headship when she is said to have had it, and that much is the truth. Eva abandoned it immediately or very soon, together with Little Eva. It remained an idea, but in no circumstances was a plan. The desire to remain in the family was still there, and it was Eva's luck that Hideyoshi did not mind and Kinzo had his own reasons to permit it - more and earlier grandchildren. (Notice that Hideyoshi has no surviving relatives and regularly states a desire to have a large family, so there's little reason for him to care.)

At no point, however, desire for headship was an overriding concern for Eva - it was something to kick a few behinds for if the chance presents itself, but not something to kill anyone at all over.

The entire thing was written in to illustrate the concept of "Without love [for Eva] it [her true motivation and therefore, actions that follow from it] cannot be seen" which Okonogi describes in detail in Ep4 -- the overriding desire for headship is what those who have no love for Eva would ascribe to her, and it neatly paints Eva as the culprit for Ep3, when it's pretty certain she is not.

From that chain of thought it follows that Eva wanted something else entirely in Ep3, and if we try to see her in a positive light we'll be able to find it -- probably, not just conclude that Eva is innocent, but also, find something about who isn't. So what was it?
__________________
"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, 18:09   Link #12295
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
What I immediately think of as a motive for solving the epitaph is "to get back at Krauss", whom says himself in a later conversation that he left a lot of mental scars on her when she was young. That makes her decision to not tell everyone later seem weird though so maybe we shouldn't assume that either.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 18:15   Link #12296
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 makes her decision to not tell everyone later seem weird though so maybe we shouldn't assume that either.
...idea. Without love, he said... ehehe. Well, this is one motive which has about as much love for Eva as I can manage.

Eva's motive to solve the epitaph was to save everyone from the witch, that is, to stop the murderer. She actually decided not to tell anyone because she realised that this will not prevent further murders and will create more problems than it solves if done immediately.
__________________
"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, 18:19   Link #12297
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
???: "U, ...um, I was just thinking. ...Maybe I can't succeed the head, but, as a woman, I can have a child. And Nii-san still isn't engaged. ...If Nii-san wasn't able to have children, and I could, ...then wouldn't the next head after Nii-san be my child? In other words, ...wouldn't that mean the same thing as stealing the headship from Nii-san...?"
I'll just leave this here. Either that sounds like a plan or someone knows Krauss is impotent.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 18:21   Link #12298
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
I'll just leave this here. Either that sounds like a plan or someone knows Krauss is impotent.
That's also a possibility...
...but how could she know that? I'm pretty sure she cannot reliably cause it.
__________________
"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, 18:22   Link #12299
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Evidence and proof does exist? The author does give it to us. Hints can be used as proof. But you can't just say something is TRUE because nothing counters it. A theory should have some sort of reasoning behind it, so there should be some sort of evidence or proof. I mean if we had no evidence or proof, then what is with the list of tips that rivals the size of the Bible?
Not the traditional evidence and proof. It's a difference in terminology between us for sure and I don't disagree with you. What I'm disagreeing with are the arguments and counter-arguments about requiring real-world type proof and evidence.

Spoiler for Longish...:


Ryukishi can give us something that you may think is evidence or proof. In reality he gives us answers. Especially in the interviews. I guess I'm trying to define the terminology here too.

However, I'm assuming that we're all trying to solve the mystery before he gives us the answer. Because once he gives us the answer, what's the point?

In other words, solving Umineko is to hunt for clues, especially from EP1-4.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-30, 18:30   Link #12300
Sentou
Ace Detective
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MIA
Well, if Krauss IS impotent, that is quite troubling. Natsuhi wouldn't cheat on Krauss, and I doubt she'd receive a donation of someone's sperm.

But then again, Jessica does exist. Meaning that we still have a problem to work out with the bunch.

But I'd limit suspicion of parentage to Battler and Jessica. As for Kinzo and his family, it's possible that the mother could in reality be proto-Beato or whatever, but that's more or less a non-issue. If we have a child on the island who can take the name Battler that isn't Battler, heck, if Jessica is adopted or something to that effect, well, then we're in even more of a wreck than what Shkanon implies.

As for evidence and what not - We can't solve Umineko on the red text alone. Episode 6 makes it clear that we didn't suffer through episode one's slow paced introduction for nothing. There are clues in Umineko that, while not explicit facts, can be used to solve some mysteries.
Sentou 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 08:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.