AnimeSuki Forum - View Single Post - [Game] Umineko

Renall · 2010-05-04, 22:30

My alternate interpretation of the knock is we're being lied to about who is where. Ignoring "Erika" as an assignment for a moment (let's assume she's real), we're told some very curious reds:

Before the family conference, Erika, George, Jessica, Maria, Nanjo, Gohda, and Kumasawa left the mansion and moved to the guesthouse.

Of those who remain, only Krauss, Natsuhi, and Genji were in the second floor corridor, while all others were in the dining hall.

Not a single person in the dining hall...no, there's a simpler way to say it. Among all those inside the mansion at 24:00, not a single person placed that letter in the corridor.

Isn't it strange that we're told exactly who is where up until it starts actually mattering? We're told exactly who is in the guesthouse group, exactly where Krauss/Natsuhi/Genji are... and yet we're just told "all others" were in the dining hall. Then later we're told "all those inside the mansion at 24:00." Why change from a discrete accounting to a descriptive set? Because we are intentionally being asked to account for those people ourselves even though we do not know it is true that they are in the set of people we believe they are.

This happens again in ep6. Battler is asked specifically not to define all the people in one of the rooms, but to instead define the contents of that room as "all other persons" (exclusive Kinzo). Again, we ought already know who is in that room; why not say it outright? Is someone not in the room? If not, how aren't they included? Why aren't they included?

I find this highly suspicious. It happens twice, and it's subtle but noticeable. There is a distinct switch between discrete ("At 24:00, only Erika, George, Jessica, Maria, Nanjo, Gohda, and Kumasawa existed outside the mansion") and descriptive ("no one in the mansion placed the letter in the hallway"). An author would only do this if they are deliberately hoping the reader will misinterpret this.

Granted, "there was no letter and no knock" is equally valid, even probable. But I can't help but think there's some "key" in this semantic tapdance, and it's telling that it's enacted twice not by Battler or Beatrice, but by the witch side (once by Lambdadelta, once at Erika's suggestion). I would conclude that the semantic ambiguity benefits Bern/Lambda somehow. The trick here is that it's used by opposite sides in ep5 and ep6, though in ep6 Battler does ratify it. What's the angle?

2010-05-04, 22:30	Link #9760
Renall BUY MY BOOK!!! Join Date: May 2009	My alternate interpretation of the knock is we're being lied to about who is where. Ignoring "Erika" as an assignment for a moment (let's assume she's real), we're told some very curious reds: Before the family conference, Erika, George, Jessica, Maria, Nanjo, Gohda, and Kumasawa left the mansion and moved to the guesthouse. Of those who remain, only Krauss, Natsuhi, and Genji were in the second floor corridor, while all others were in the dining hall. Not a single person in the dining hall...no, there's a simpler way to say it. Among all those inside the mansion at 24:00, not a single person placed that letter in the corridor. Isn't it strange that we're told exactly who is where up until it starts actually mattering? We're told exactly who is in the guesthouse group, exactly where Krauss/Natsuhi/Genji are... and yet we're just told "all others" were in the dining hall. Then later we're told "all those inside the mansion at 24:00." Why change from a discrete accounting to a descriptive set? Because we are intentionally being asked to account for those people ourselves even though we do not know it is true that they are in the set of people we believe they are. This happens again in ep6. Battler is asked specifically not to define all the people in one of the rooms, but to instead define the contents of that room as "all other persons" (exclusive Kinzo). Again, we ought already know who is in that room; why not say it outright? Is someone not in the room? If not, how aren't they included? Why aren't they included? I find this highly suspicious. It happens twice, and it's subtle but noticeable. There is a distinct switch between discrete ("At 24:00, only Erika, George, Jessica, Maria, Nanjo, Gohda, and Kumasawa existed outside the mansion") and descriptive ("no one in the mansion placed the letter in the hallway"). An author would only do this if they are deliberately hoping the reader will misinterpret this. Granted, "there was no letter and no knock" is equally valid, even probable. But I can't help but think there's some "key" in this semantic tapdance, and it's telling that it's enacted twice not by Battler or Beatrice, but by the witch side (once by Lambdadelta, once at Erika's suggestion). I would conclude that the semantic ambiguity benefits Bern/Lambda somehow. The trick here is that it's used by opposite sides in ep5 and ep6, though in ep6 Battler does ratify it. What's the angle?