[witchfan]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I like the idea of a character becoming real and rebelling against it's author, I will admit that on the basis of my sense of romanticism. However this view is wholly compatible with regular Shkanon for the most part, anyway. Moreover...well...

It seems to make the Love Duel seem kind of petty,and not really demonstrative of a major truth like it's supposed to. I'm pretty sure Shannon didn't kill Kanon IRL; both because there's nothing implying any such thing, and the both of them keep lamenting, "We should've done this much sooner" and blah blah blah. It just seems like an obtuse explanation.

Putting aside the silliness or believability of Shkanon for a moment, it seems more reasonable to me that the Love Duel represents someone who is love-torn as we're apparently supposed to think; if it was done sooner, the conflict wouldn't have happened to this extent; Jessica's love wouldn't be ripe and Battler wouldn't be there. Moreover, if it's just a "fictional character rebelling" thing, well...Why are they fighting? If it's a fiction where both characters are treated as real people instead of Kanon being dead, why can only one of them be alive? Why can't they both have a happy ending in this fictional narrative? Why is it only one or the other? And moreover, why even bother trying? The story, and thus the romance, will be ended and/or rebooted back to where you started when the book ends.

I think I can explain the love part, tell me what you think: Shannon is in grief for Kanon's death. She wants him to "come back to life" (Kinzo parallel here, by the way), and has a difficult time accepting he is dead. She grows too attached to his fictional version, however, and finds she is consumed by her writing of him. The character's own likes and desires begins to overcome hers. Shannon sees his love for Jessica as a defining quality of him, and feels guilt that "Kanon" could not realize his love for her while Shannon, who lives on, is free to love as she will (by the way, you could very well mix her own love conflicts to this. No problem with Shannon being bisexual). She is starting to realize fictional Kanon inside herself. The "we should have done it sooner" refers to how she should not have stood "in between" her character and her herself. That way she hurts herself and her memory of Kanon. She should've torn herself away from him, or given herself completely to the character, much sooner.

What of the in-story Shannon, by the way? Her significance is becoming an avatar for author-ShannonYasu. Shannon wants to speak with Kanon on an equal level, but as an author - as an omnipotent witch - she cannot. Her avatar is a device to allow this.

(This could very well be what Battler realized, and the explanation of the "error" in later message bottles. In his games, Battler turns away from the mystery, and makes them more and more of an introspection of Shannon into herself. Once Battler is the gamemaster, Shannon is no longer restricted to the role of "Author", and can exist on an equal level with Kanon without qualms. Battler allows the contradiction of "Kanon being alive" in the games since his realization, to allow the two to confront each other on an equal level.

This can be used to understand some scenes. For example, remember the Will-Shannon chessmaster scene in EP7? Here's one explanation. Kanon being an actual person, able to be confirmed alive in red, is a complete contradiction to the mystery. Revealing this to Will would cause a logic error, as Will, having solved the mystery from the perspective of the first four gameboards, understands Kanon's limitations as a fictional character, in part that he is not allowed to live or die.

What we must keep in mind is that this was, originally, a very subtle process. Before Battler comes into the scene, this part of Beatrice's games is very well hidden, unexposed. Their function as an introspection is overshadowed by their function as a mystery. She does not expect anyone to understand her inner conflict, no matter how much she wants them to.)

How's this? If we're going for this explanation, it's actually very in-line with Shkannon. Actually, it is Shkannon, except the distinction is drawn between author and character (I am not saying real-world Shannon has a different personality, or that she is literally acting like Kanon. The Love Duel is intended as a metaphor for a very secretive, inner conflict she has, as well as a ritual for overcoming her grief). I simply think this is a more human explanation than Shannon literally acting out an imaginary servant's role.

What do you mean by "motive" in this context, by the way? Motive for the murders? Motive for Kanon to rebel against his author and try and become real and stuff? Motive for Shannon to write a living Kanon into the story? What?

I was under the impression you were asking me to also explain the motive, but I probably misread! You can replace motive here with "character study of Shannon and Kanon". I mean there doesn't have to be one explanation for the Love Duel or anything, and I'm just offering one possible theory.

Well, that's a whole other problem. Shkanon's not THE ONLY TRUTH HERP A DERP DERP, and only an idiot would think so since it's so ridiculously clear that Yasu doesn't have it in her to be a murderer on this sort of scale, but I think we do have to accept that Shannon, Kanon, and Beatrice are fictional characters of Yasu's in their entirety, and that she is synonymous with them. Whether she acted as them in the real world or simply substituted them for herself is debatable, but the latter option sort of implies that George and Jessica are dating the same person, are aware of this, and just don't give a shit, unless we say the romances are also utterly fictional. I'm not even going to entertain that option because it renders most of the text meaningless, and was spoken against by Ryukishi at the least.

I completely agree that real-world Yasu doesn't have it in her to be a murderer. At the same time, I don't like saying Shannon and Kanon are entirely fictional characters. I can see how this works for Shannon (if we simply assume she is an idealized version of Yasu), but I don't like that there is a distinction between Shannon and Kanon at the gameboard level, if we assume them to be the same at the meta level. I don't like the "slipperiness" of using the red to proclaim Shannon and Kanon's death interchangeably, but separately. Most of all, that we allow discussion of the life and death of unrealized (in the real world) fictional characters and figments of imagination is, in my opinion, an enormous flaw in a mystery that is, in my opinion, intended to reveal the truth of R-Prime. I'm not saying Umineko as a whole is a mystery - but I want to believe the stories are, in part, intended to be one. But only in part - the assumption here is that they mean much more.

I like Fictional Shkanon as an idea, but honestly, I can't deny that the original Shkanon theory is the most consistent with the text, probably what was intended by Ryukishi, and honestly doesn't create as many problems as people think.

It may be stupid, but it's not plothole-inducing, and I maintain that people are overreacting to it a bit. I admit I was fucking pissed off at first too, but it was mostly an emotional reaction because Shkanon sort of makes an 100% happy ending impossible.

If we were discussing Shkanon here (and not the plausibility of my theory), at this point I would've asked for more detail on this. Like I said, I disagree that it is the one consistent theory, but I very much understand this is a matter of taste. Not to derail the subject, however, I would prefer if we keep "which is the better theory" contests to a minimum.

-I don't think the red is being liberally abused as much as people say. We were only told that it was always true, not that it was ever objective. We know it's contextual and used in fictional stories, and is essentially "Word of God". If we can apply it to fictional characters that don't exist in the real world, such as Erika, I don't see the problem with applying it to costume personas that are accepted as real as a premise of the setting.

-I wouldn't call it "Shannon being meta-aware or red-dodging" or "Shannon having a fluke" so much as "Beatrice being a dishonest bitch like always who's writing the story to her advantage."

At this point I would simply like to avoid this argument. Right now, I am more interested in discussing the value of the theory I proposed than having it compete with Shkanon, the reason being that (I mentioned this before) it's a gigantic line of argument, very much subject to personal taste.

But yea, I like the idea that Erika killed Kanon when she shot through the door EIGHT TIMES. This idea is satisfactory with every theory and it's also fucking hilarious. I win.

Heh!

-Also, what's the "Shkanon Whydunnit?" I honestly don't know. People have always used Shkanon as a "how was this done" as far as I've seen. What would it even be? "I dressed up as a meido, therefore murder"?

I have no idea myself, to be honest. I (mistakenly) assumed that you were asking me for a motive to the crime, so I figured you were able to offer one for Shkannon. By this line of reasoning, the only motive I've heard for the Shkannon Whydunnit is some polyamory thing, which I am not satisfied with.

In the heat of the argument, I might have misunderstood something, so let me make sure: What, EXACTLY, are your complaints about Shkanon, preferably in a concise, bullet-point list (it's easy for me to gather my thoughts this way and helps flow the convo).

I will if you insist, but is this relevant? I think it's best we keep this theory the subject here, rather than get into yet another argument about Shkannon. I don't want to get into an argument of whether my criticisms of Shkannon are justified, for example, since that's an entirely different matter.