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 2010-08-11, 04:52   Link #15781
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pika_power View Post
All people can only use their own names!!
all people can only use their own names

This was repeated twice over the course of EP6. To suddenly discount these on the premise of wordplay leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I think people try to get around that by saying that the people using multiple names actually fully own all their alternate names. So in LaPlace's case, Kanon actually owns Kinzo or etc, etc.

It might raise the question of transferrable names, like if Kanon is Kinzo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pika_power View Post
On a separate topic, for the final line There are 17 people, does it mean "There are ONLY 17 people?
I think you should take the red in it's full context. We've shown and been shown from Ryukishi that without the context, whether its white or red, it can be useless. (i.e. red text in EP6 simply being 'Acknowledged.')

So in this case it means even if you 'welcome' Erika there are 17 people.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 05:06   Link #15782
LaplaceNoMa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Or we should even call it the same way Battler did in ep4: 'titles'.
LaplaceNoMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 05:13   Link #15783
Pika_power
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
I think you should take the red in it's full context. We've shown and been shown from Ryukishi that without the context, whether its white or red, it can be useless. (i.e. red text in EP6 simply being 'Acknowledged.')

So in this case it means even if you 'welcome' Erika there are 17 people.
Yeah, but viewing it in a literal sense:

I have a bowl of five oranges. I can state There are five oranges in this bowl. I add in another orange. Now there are six oranges in this bowl, but I can also truthfully state that there are five oranges in this bowl. Therefore I can say Whether or not I add the sixth orange, there are five oranges in this bowl.

However I cannot state Whether or not I add the sixth orange, there are only five oranges in this bowl.

It's the same concept for Erika. If it translates to "There are only 17 people", it denies Erika thoroughly, but if it's just "there are 17 people", it's truthful.
Pika_power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 05:21   Link #15784
LaplaceNoMa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Some people argue that this 'coins' puzzle in the beginning of ep6 was a hint towards either logic error escape OR the final reds. In other words, you can claim that there's one cup with Erika in it, and then there's another cup placed inside this first one, which contains the other 17 people. So Erika sees herself as 18th person in this first glass, while Battler states that even if they wave hello to her from their own second glass, there are 17 people in it.

This is just speculation, I don't have any concrete idea about what could we reason out from this.
LaplaceNoMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 09:23   Link #15785
k//eternal
do you know ベアトリーチェ様?
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pika_power View Post
I have a bowl of five oranges. I can state There are five oranges in this bowl. I add in another orange. Now there are six oranges in this bowl, but I can also truthfully state that there are five oranges in this bowl. Therefore I can say Whether or not I add the sixth orange, there are five oranges in this bowl.
Regardless of the validity of that logic, do you really think the final puzzle of EP6 will turn out to have been that kind of word trick?
k//eternal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 10:07   Link #15786
LaplaceNoMa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by k//eternal View Post
Regardless of the validity of that logic, do you really think the final puzzle of EP6 will turn out to have been that kind of word trick?
True. The vast majority of readers seem to forget the fact that eps 5-6 are ANSWER arcs. All the questions being asked in these episodes are not supposed to be a riddle for us, they are supposed to make us find an answer for previous arcs.

In other words, the two final reds, as well as Erika's existence, are not things connected only to episodes 5-6. They are obviousely pointing on something way more important.
LaplaceNoMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 11:03   Link #15787
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaplaceNoMa View Post
True. The vast majority of readers seem to forget the fact that eps 5-6 are ANSWER arcs. All the questions being asked in these episodes are not supposed to be a riddle for us, they are supposed to make us find an answer for previous arcs.

In other words, the two final reds, as well as Erika's existence, are not things connected only to episodes 5-6. They are obviousely pointing on something way more important.
Well, to be fair, Ryuukishi called them core arcs, but it comes to the same thing. They're supposed to refer to the core of the Umineko mystery, but according to Ryuukishi, he doesn't plan to add the very last step to the answers that the games hint at.
He has also said that the core arcs would introduce new mysteries, unlike Higurashi, but why would he write them unless they hinted at deep secrets from EP1-4?

One thing that a lot of people seem to have forgotten is the huge setup just before EP6's final closed room is presented. Featherinne says that a deep secret about Beatrice's heart is about to be revealed, and tells Ange (aka the readers) to stop reading and try to work out a solution for the games by themselves before the reveal. Ryuukishi would not have wasted time being overdramatic on this unless this final closed room was not only a clue, but a very clear clue regarding some major secret of the game. So, even if the clue is Shkanon or something on that scale, and happens to point towards one of the culprits, this buildup is big enough that one could hardly accuse Ryuukishi of revealing answers too soon. That warning was certainly there for a reason.

However, he said in his latest diary post that EP7 will be the closest thing to an answer arc yet, with a completely different flavor than any other Umineko episode. Either way, we're likely to get many of our biggest questions answered for us in a couple days.
__________________
"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 2010-08-11, 11:35   Link #15788
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pika_power View Post
All people can only use their own names!!
all people can only use their own names

This was repeated twice over the course of EP6. To suddenly discount these on the premise of wordplay leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
It's not wordplay, is it? It even says "their own names," plural. Beatrice has left very much open the prospect that people have multiple names. Indeed, with Kanon/Yoshiya and Shannon/Sayo, even if those are their only names, she must do so, as in at least one case people have more than one.

Battler's claim in ep4 is that "Kinzo" is a title and can refer to another individual (whether this person is "Ushiromiya Kinzo" or merely "Kinzo" is unstated). If true, then whoever it was transferred to can claim to be "Kinzo." Kinzo becomes "one of their names." That's assuming Battler was correct, anyway. There's nothing to show he was... but it was never countered.
Quote:
On a separate topic, for the final line There are 17 people, does it mean "There are ONLY 17 people?
You tell me. Assuming WH's translation was as close to the line as humanly possible, it's merely a statement that "there are 17 people" no "only" or "at least" is implied, though it probably has to be one of those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pika_power View Post
Yeah, but viewing it in a literal sense:

I have a bowl of five oranges. I can state There are five oranges in this bowl. I add in another orange. Now there are six oranges in this bowl, but I can also truthfully state that there are five oranges in this bowl. Therefore I can say Whether or not I add the sixth orange, there are five oranges in this bowl.

However I cannot state Whether or not I add the sixth orange, there are only five oranges in this bowl.

It's the same concept for Erika. If it translates to "There are only 17 people", it denies Erika thoroughly, but if it's just "there are 17 people", it's truthful.
There are two ways to read it, as I see it:

"Even if we welcome you, there are 17 people." Literally, "if we welcome Erika, the count is 17." Erika = 1, 17 - 1 = 16, there are only 16 people of the other 17.

"Even if we welcome you, there are 17 people." Literally, "regardless of whether we welcome Erika, the count is 17." Erika = 0. Erika has no personhood, therefore her presence or absence is meaningless to a count of persons.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 12:17   Link #15789
LaplaceNoMa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
Quote:
we're likely to get many of our biggest questions answered for us in a couple days.
Spoiler for offtopic:
LaplaceNoMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 12:24   Link #15790
rogerpepitone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Send a message via Yahoo to rogerpepitone
Something I noticed ... in Episode 3, Kumasawa is found in the second floor guest bedroom (IIUC, Eva & Hideyoshi from Episode 1, Hideyoshi from Episode 5, Battler from Epsiode 6). But in this case, there's no mention of the chain being set. I suggest that whatever means was used to set the chain in the other Episodes wouldn't have worked here, or Beatrice would have used it here as well.
rogerpepitone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 12:47   Link #15791
LaplaceNoMa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 25
I'm re-reading Jessica & Kanon deaths scene of episode 2 right now.
You know what's strange? I didn't even notice that before. If we forget about our knowledge from eps 3+, it's strange that neither Rosa nor Battler nor anybody else thought of something like 'The culprit killed those 2, hid Kanon's corpse, and closed the door with Kanon's master key'. Yeah, they found this key in Jessica's pocket later, but before that, they actually were saying that 'it's impossible for the 19th person, the guest, Beatrice, to do that, because she doesn't have a master key, and it's possible for Kanon because he does have it'. What's with that reasoning? I don't even know what to think about that, is it Ryukishi's flaw?
LaplaceNoMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 12:53   Link #15792
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaplaceNoMa View Post
Yeah, they found this key in Jessica's pocket later, but before that, they actually were saying that 'it's impossible for the 19th person, the guest, Beatrice, to do that, because she doesn't have a master key, and it's possible for Kanon because he does have it'. What's with that reasoning? I don't even know what to think about that, is it Ryukishi's flaw?
Considering how adamant Rosa is about pinning the deed on Kanon, it's not that it doesn't occur to anyone, it's that Rosa has a special reason of one kind or another to promote this theory above all others. Everyone else just fends off Rosa's theory which looks more likely by the virtue of fitting the events and appearing first.

There are multiple possible reasons, the most interesting I can remember being "Kanon was meant to be the fake first twilight 'culprit' and Rosa, being aware that the first twilight was supposed to be fake, believes Kanon flipped out and actually murdered everyone for real."
__________________
"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 2010-08-11, 12:56   Link #15793
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaplaceNoMa View Post
Spoiler for offtopic:
Well, it's true that most of the people on this board will spoil themselves before reading the game, but I would recommend against that. I can't say for certain, but I hope that the EP7 translation will be completed much more quickly than our other recent ones.
__________________
"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 2010-08-11, 13:16   Link #15794
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
For that matter, why assume Kanon has any idea what's going on? For all anybody knows he went to go get Jessica a glass of water, and someone came in and killed her and he'll show up in two seconds with the water he was fetching. Rosa's flipping out can only either be rampant paranoia or scripted. Problem is, it's Rosa, so who can say which...
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 13:17   Link #15795
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
Well I really don't think there's another Kinzo, or a Kinzo title being transfered. All of those who met at the family conference recognized the existence of Kinzo! I always saw that red as closer to aknowledge. If they all know Kinzo is dead but allows him to continue to "exist" for Krauss and cie in return for money I think it can break that red.

However there's a much much simpler way to deny that red meaning anything. No one met at the family conference or There was no family conference

In any case I think cheap name tricks... are that, and probably shouldn't be relied on. That one person has two names or more that's fine but one name being used by multiple people is just, IMO, basically cheating. I might be wrong but I think the logics about names and concepts having uncertain/unclear meaning was never Beatrice's intentions, and that the lines Battler said about that were mostly born out of our own theories that constantly turned around the meaning of things.

Also sometimes if there's wordplay it's just being unfair. Battler for instance in arc 3 wants to be certain no one faked their death and so he asks if they're all really dead, Beato says it in red, and Battler trust her and he moves to other theories. If Beatrice tricked him then, she broke herself the trust that is meant to be established by both side.

And what should Battler have done to figure out the truth then?
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 13:28   Link #15796
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Well, thus far there is only one piece of evidence of two people possibly being able to use the same name: Battler. Although Battler does theorize on the "Kinzo title," even if true there should probably only be a single "Kinzo." Since the other Kinzo is dead, as long as you're focusing on the affirmative actions of a single person, no problem.

The issue of course is the following:
  • "Acknowledged the existence of Kinzo."
  • "A living Kinzo."
  • "Since [Kinzo] is confirmed not to exist, please exclude him."
If there were a passed-on Kinzo title, how many of these would refer to that person, and how many would refer to the dead one? "A living Kinzo" is especially bad for ep5, as if you believe that there is a Kinzo-title floating around, you either have to believe in switching off personalities or that whoever became "Kinzo" was in Natsuhi's bed all night.

...Unless, by solving the epitaph and becoming family head Battler eradicated the need for the second "Kinzo." If "Kinzo" is meant as a fallback position in case the epitaph goes unsolved, Battler solving it means no "Kinzo" exists well before midnight, as Battler solves it on the 4th.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 13:39   Link #15797
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
That's basically my problem, if there is two Kinzo then red can arbitrarily mean either as it wishes. Also simply said there is no trick that can't be solved without relying on semantic tricks. So why should we?

Also about the second Battler, I might be wrong but I thought in arc 4 Beato told Batter that "Asumu's son Ushiromiya Battler" was already dead 6 years ago. If that's wrong tho yeah I can accept there's likely a second Battler. There isn't much choice at that point tho.
Kanon and Shannon doesn't need to be Battler to escape things with semantic nonsense. They're already full of names, I think Shkanon has become a name dump. Anyway it would sorta make sense for Jessica maybe.

Edit : Going to make a theory about semantic nonsense that could explain everything heh. Everyone is Shkanon, everyone's death is futniture death, even Battler is a Shkanon furniture, since everything is seen from the perspective of the one imagining the rest of the family, then they can also imagine them visually dead. This is the sad truth of Umineko, Shkanon is lonely on Rokkenjima.

I mean at this point, why not?
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 14:19   Link #15798
Pika_power
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
EP5 and EP6 have to make sense on the gameboard, as pieces can only do what they are capable of.

The evidence is the fight over Kyrie's actions in EP3. The witch's side is allowed to pose a question such as "Why did she go to the mansion when she didn't want to?" Therefore the witch's side also has to make that sort of question solvable. Meaning EP5 and EP6 should be solvable, and there is a reason for everyone to go along with Erika, play dead etc. (Although Kinzo is an exception, as "I wouldn't put it past him")
Pika_power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 14:22   Link #15799
winter 923
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
This is something i don't like. There are small hints or only tricks to want us believe in X. Maybe even we are just seeing things that are not there and then people go "Kinzo changes his name to Kinzo's bed" or "Shkannon is everyone"
I can understand that after years and 1.000 pages+ people have a strong bound to their theories and believes but i do think there is a reason to believe in some of these 'weaker' theories.

From 24:00 until morning, a living Kinzo could only have existed inside Natsuhi's bed. And last night, Natsuhi also slept in that same bed.
This for example, If we believe Erika's story she came to the believe that Kinzo can't exist anywhere besides in Natsuhi's room because she checked any other room. So why is there a need for a living Kinzo and Natsuhi to be in the same bed? because it is the truth? or was it just to mock Natsuhi? a living Kinzo can't exist sitting on a chair and reading a book if he is in fact in the same bed as Natsuhi.

chronotrig said something nice. In EP 5 someone said (i think it was Battler) a detective in a novel always announces that he knows who the culprit. This is so that the readers can look for all the clues and find him themself. I thought Battler announcing that he knows the truth was it, but Featherine just told us to stop reading and to look back. Combined with 'EP7 will be the nearest thing to an answer' tells me that the detective is going to lay open all clues in EP7.
__________________
I do not use english in my everyday life. If i sound arrogant, offensive or inappropriate please point it out. I can asure you it was not intended and apologize in advance.
winter 923 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-11, 14:52   Link #15800
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
It was just to mock Natsuhi. It's equivalent to using the following red to embarass you:

A magic invisible pink gorilla can't be found outside your home.
A magic invisible pink gorilla can't be found outside your bedroom.
A magic invisible pink gorilla can't be found anywhere outside your bed!


The inference drawn from this is that you sleep with a magic pink gorilla. But actually, obviously, we're just stopping short of the final red:

A magic invisible pink gorilla can't be found anywhere!

Nothing more than manipulation of the red to state true, but irrelevant facts. A "living Kinzo" can't be found anywhere, so you can say it can't be found anywhere except a particular place, but that doesn't mean it can be found there. Exact same principle.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
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 03:30.


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