[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 6 Dawn of the golden witch

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

If his checking of a pulse is all we have, then maybe he took it wrong?

I think it's unlikely, but go about it however you want.

I think the whole corpse can be called something other than a corpse thing only works with corpses the detective doesn't see or checks himself. Like in the FT's of EP's 3, 5, and 6. Otherwise the hypothetical act of "intentionally lying about a bag of fertilizer being the corpse of Shannon" would make no sense.

[Laserworm]

Originally Posted by Judoh

I think it's unlikely, but go about it however you want.

I think the whole corpse can be called something other corpse thing only works with corpses the detective doesn't see. Like in EP 3, 5, and 6

I agree with you Judoh. I think Beatrice was just given Battler a hint on thinking/Ryu was giving us a hint on how not to get caught later on.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Sentou

Hm? A belief is not inherently uneducated, and everyone acts upon their beliefs. That's what they think of something, after all. After researching Obama, you'd have formed a new opinion of him, and that would become your new belief. The issue here is that you have two beliefs which contradict each other, one being that Jessica is too stupid to realize that her boyfriend and best friend are one and the same, and the other being that Jessica somehow faked her death to pull off a complicated murder.

Your two theories can't co-exist with each other.

I never said that they can? I am just saying what I believe does not change the truth. Your idea that facts becoming a belief is entirely an assumption. I could do research and still believe what I initially did.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Judoh

I think it's unlikely, but go about it however you want.

I think the whole corpse can be called something other than a corpse thing only works with corpses the detective doesn't see or checks himself. Like in the FT's of EP's 3, 5, and 6. Otherwise the hypothetical act of "intentionally lying about a bag of fertilizer being the corpse of Shannon" would make no sense.

Well, in episode 5 when that blue truth Ronove gave us was declared, I take that as the hint to go back and check all of the other murders that were only declared with 'corpse' in red. However, just because someone wasn't declared dead in red does not mean they are alive. That is why I am not sure that Jessica faked her death in episode 2.

[Sentou]

Yes, but once again, your two beliefs contradict each other. Unless you are saying what you don't believe, in which case this whole thing is a bit pointless. People won't be able to tell if you are being earnest or not, and some good point you may have really meant to make will get disregarded simply because people assume you don't believe in what you are saying.

It's akin to the reaction of a Catholic congregation were they to find out that their priest was an atheist, what's the point of listening to him if he doesn't personally believe in what he is saying?

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Sentou

Yes, but once again, your two beliefs contradict each other. Unless you are saying what you don't believe, in which case this whole thing is a bit pointless. People won't be able to tell if you are being earnest or not, and some good point you may have really meant to make will get disregarded simply because people assume you don't believe in what you are saying.

It's akin to the reaction of a Catholic congregation were they to find out that their priest was an atheist, what's the point of listening to him if he doesn't personally believe in what he is saying?

I am not contradicting myself in the least. This contradiction is a fabrication of yours. I am saying that what I believe does not matter. Don't think about it. Look at what I present, I have no agenda. I just present what I find, none of my emotions or what I believe phases that at all.

[Sentou]

Find? So far you've presented theories, not facts. If you copied and pasted the red text, I could understand what you seem to be saying. But thus far you've made the assertion that Jessica probably faked her death despite that not being a clear thing in the slightest, and you've also made the assertion that Jessica is not too bright(when you were claiming that she wouldn't notice Shannon is Kanon).

In other words, you aren't presenting us with any facts, you are presenting us with theories. In other words, beliefs. Beliefs that by no means are objective in the slightest, and beliefs that work against each other. Jessica is dumb and yet she faked her death? How does that work out?

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Sentou

Find? So far you've presented theories, not facts. If you copied and pasted the red text, I could understand what you seem to be saying. But thus far you've made the assertion that Jessica probably faked her death despite that not being a clear thing in the slightest, and you've also made the assertion that Jessica is not too bright(when you were claiming that she wouldn't notice Shannon is Kanon).

In other words, you aren't presenting us with any facts, you are presenting us with theories. In other words, beliefs. Beliefs that by no means are objective in the slightest, and beliefs that work against each other. Jessica is dumb and yet she faked her death? How does that work out?

Despite my several attempts to explain what I meant to you, you fail to understand. Everything I say is backed with evidence, that is all previously posted here, in other game threads or in the spoiler section. Maybe by me or maybe not. Jessica was never declared dead in episode 2, she was only declared as a corpse in red. If you read episode 5 then you can guess what that could mean. I posted my reasons why Jessica isn't the brightest of the grandchildren.
I obviously can't make you understand, so I will stop trying.

Edit: So the person that does not have a solid opinion on a character is not objective? Really? Who is contradicting themselves now?

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Ah, but there is a huge difference. A constructed character communicated to others can live through them even when you no longer actually have any interest in it.

By basically becoming a meme.

There's that too, but it's not precisely what I was getting at.

The difference between a personality and a character is that a character doesn't necessarily belong to only one person, meaning that more than one person could have split their soul with it. It gives us another lens to examine the duel between Shannon and Kanon. You can imagine the sort of conflicts that might arise in cases of shared authorship -- differences of opinion over the use of the character, one author wanting to stop writing, and so on.

[Judoh]

Since we're still sorta on the topic of Shkanon. This was brought up in the EP5 thread.

There are five master keys, one for each servant.

If there are 5 master keys for each servant that means there is an extra servant running around if Kanon doesn't exist doesn't it? Nanjo is said not to be a servant so we're not including him.

[Kamar]

Do we really have any confirmation that Jessica has blond hair? Just curious because people bring it up constantly as evidence, but...my understanding was that it was just artistic license.

It's not uncommon at all for visual and light novels to have the characters with anime-hair in art but normal Japanese hair colors in the text. The fact that Battler thinks about how Beatrice looks absolutely nothing like the Japanese Ushiromiyas when he looks at her portrait the first time indicates this to be the case, in my opinion.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Kamar

Do we really have any confirmation that Jessica has blond hair? Just curious because people bring it up constantly as evidence, but...my understanding was that it was just artistic license.

It's not uncommon at all for visual and light novels to have the characters with anime-hair in art but normal Japanese hair colors in the text. The fact that Battler thinks about how Beatrice looks absolutely nothing like the Japanese Ushiromiyas when he looks at her portrait the first time indicates this to be the case, in my opinion.

I don't know about the hair point. But your point about Beatrice looking western does seem interesting. I would assume that would include the facial structure, so how would a Japanese person look so like her?

Originally Posted by Judoh

Since we're still sorta on the topic of Shkanon. This was brought up in the EP5 thread.

There are five master keys, one for each servant.

If there are 5 master keys for each servant that means there is an extra servant running around if Kanon doesn't exist doesn't it? Nanjo is said not to be a servant so we're not including him.

Or perhaps Shkanon has two keys, I can't think of a good reason off of the top of my head. That does make an interesting point. I doubt that would mean there is an extra servant there, though.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

Or perhaps Shkanon has two keys, I can't think of a good reason off of the top of my head. That does make an interesting point. I doubt that would mean there is an extra servant there, though.

I don't think they would say 'one for each servant' in that case though. Which is the point of using that red.

[Jan-Poo]

Renall are those the kind of answers you can give? I'd say I'm quite disappointed. For one who says I'm dodging questions you gave me some very elusive answers.

Originally Posted by Renall

"Ghost" Erika

The thematic purpose of the first arc of Umineko was to introduce the mystery-lover to fantasy and deconstruct the supposed incompatibility of both genres. The reader is presented with "Beatrice," a witch with fantastic powers who is engaging in a magic ritual. Alongside Battler, we are led to reject the fantasy, believing that it is covering up a truth that lies behind it. We come to believe alongside Battler that if we can just find an explanation, any explanation, we can disengage mystery from fantasy and find truth within.

Chiru challenges our expectations of this by appearing to do exactly that, providing us with an "answer" and reducing Beatrice-the-witch to the role of a delusional woman's boogeyman. Instead, the reader is presented with "Erika," a detective with fantastic powers who is engaging in a criminal investigation. Alongside Battler, we are led to reject our previous understanding, realizing first that the fantasy does contain some hint of the truth, and second that a truth which "works" is not a truth which is necessarily right. Battler can only fight a false "truth" with one of his own, as he is unprepared.

As Beatrice fades away when we reject and "kill" her with our theories, Erika fades away when we reject that a simple truth that happens not to contradict our bare observations is completely insufficient for our purposes. Just as embracing the witch and giving in to happy lies (your family was slaughtered by a witch, not murdered by one or more of their own) is wrong, so is going to any length to blame someone.

It's better that we not know and admit to our ignorance than declare ourselves Witches of Truth. Making ourselves vulnerable to mistakes (Battler's Logic Error) allows us the miracle of understanding what it all means (Beatrice's Resurrection). But that won't satisfy everyone; some people demand a truth be settled (Bernkastel).

This whole wall of text can be said to be the explanation of Erika's existence in the story. And for a big part I agree. Too bad that's exactly the opposite you were supposed to explain.
By no means you explained why Erika had to be an inexistent character inside the story. You know the author theory very well, you know how it can explain how a character can be added to an existing story, you know it was even hinted how that happened. Denying the ghosterika theory doesn't mean at all that Erika cannot be erased from this story. In fact this is the most easier and straightforward explanation given all that has been said in EP6 and given the TIPS on "Game Master Battler".

So I'll have to use the very same argument you used against shkanon: This isn't necessary at all, rather it makes things more difficult to explain.

Originally Posted by Renall

Kanon = Kinzo

Here we're dealing with elements of family and intrigue, and harkening back to old mystery tales where a servant was a long-lost heir or other unexpected individual. We are also led to play with the notion of the reliability of red text, realizing that what is literally true may defy our expectations if more than one answer is available.

Because Erika believes that she is working toward a single truth, she does not realize that one truth may be itself applicable in multiple situations. Battler cannot afford to correct her thinking until he accomplishes his own objectives. Thus, she leaves a loophole which Battler should have recognized (given his own ordeal in ep4) and which Beatrice for some reason does.

Realizing the relationship, that Kanon and Shannon are not mere furniture, allows their existence as entities with a stake in the storyline to emerge. They are peripheral players who emerge as entities we could never have expected, and the story is enriched by the prospects. But because we are introduced to their characters through the personas they wear dressed in fantasy, we fail to realize we've been looking bald-faced at their identities and motivations all along. But even as we do that, we aren't sure... which one is "good?" Which one is "evil?" Can we really apply those labels? And what if their conflict is actually the opportunity that the true mastermind is exploiting, and not the root cause of the events?

This is a total dodge, and most of the ambiguous sentences you used could be easily used to define shkanon as well.
Family and intrigue? check
reliability of red text? check
Erika doesn't realize that there might be many truths? False, she realizes it in EP6 obviously even without Kanon Kinzo.

But let me explain why this is a total dodge. It's a total dodge because you didn't explain why Kanon should be called Kinzo.
Why something ridiculous and totally preposterous such as "Kinzo" (which is a proper name) is a title that is inherited should exist in this story? Was it ever said that Jessica or her husband would be called "Kinzo" when they become the new head? Did Eva ever said she wished for the day where she'd be called "Kinzo"? Was it ever said that Krauss would become "Kinzo" one day?

I'd like to think you can't expect me to take such a thing seriously. So let's see the other hypothesis: Kanon is Kinzo's real name. Why? Why Kinzo had to call his heir the same as himself? This is japan not america, fathers do not have the habit to consider their first son a copy of themselves and add a "junior" at the end of their names. Can you show me a single case in anime manga or real history where the head of an important japanese family decided to give his name to the heir? Can you tell me why such a ridiculous thing needs to exist in this story?

Originally Posted by Renall

Shannontrice

This is about becoming "human." Or rather, understanding what one's own humanity means through the transformative power of imagination. Shannon has lived most of her life as a servant, someone on the outside. She had a chance to experience a deeper relationship (not necessarily a romance, but something more than a mere interaction) with Battler, but she lost it because she didn't really understand where she was going with it.

Literature and imagination allow her to understand how other people think. They allow her to imagine what other people are like. And they allow her to understand the man nobody else can: Kinzo. Through understanding Kinzo's passions, Shannon begins to understand that she has her own, and that she's free to express them... but there remains something she still has to do.

To that end, she inherits the mantle of the Golden Witch, the obsession of her former master. From her experience with Battler she will cloak herself in theatrics for whatever objective she has, and with it she will finally assert herself.

Ironically, of course, she is doing this not as Sayo, not as Shannon, but as Beatrice. And now we're left with the conundrum brought up through Ange, Featherinne, and ep6 Battler: Can other people as readily understand who we are through these presentations we put on as we understand ourselves in writing and staging them? If we don't have the courage to reach out to someone directly, how can we be sure they'll understand when we couch it in metaphor and dress it up with mysteries and fantasy and romance? Why can't we "just say it," as Battler wondered? Why is it more valuable to say something in story than it is to be direct? And... is it more valuable? Is there some value in Battler's bold honesty? Theatrics can't save the Ushiromiya family. But maybe honesty can.

This at the very least is an explanation that doesn't run around the subject. But do you realize that the explanation you give is merely speculative? You can't really say that such interpretation of Shannontrice is correct, in fact I have doubts on many of the points you raised.

So what do you expect from me is providing a merely speculative explanation to justify ShKanon? It's not really my thing to go on a tangent, I actually dislike such things. I prefer to base my thoughts on clues that were presented on the story rather than make speculations grounded on thin air. But I believe chronotrig went on a very lengthy explanation of that kind and I believe you have read that too. I believe you were told how Sayo was meant to both incarnate both the legend of the witch as Beatrice and the new family head as Kanon.

And at the end of that explanation, why can't I say something like

To that end, she inherits the mantle of the Golden Witch and the one of the new head, the obsession of her former master. From her experience with Battler she will cloak herself in theatrics for whatever objective she has, and with it she will finally assert herself.

Ironically, of course, she is doing this not as Sayo, not as Shannon, but as Beatrice and Kanon. And now we're left with the conundrum brought up through Ange, Featherinne, and ep6 Battler: Can other people as readily understand who we are through these presentations we put on as we understand ourselves in writing and staging them? If we don't have the courage to reach out to someone directly, how can we be sure they'll understand when we couch it in metaphor and dress it up with mysteries and fantasy and romance? Why can't we "just say it," as Battler wondered? Why is it more valuable to say something in story than it is to be direct? And... is it more valuable? Is there some value in Battler's bold honesty? Theatrics can't save the Ushiromiya family. But maybe honesty can.

But I have the feeling I don't actually need to copy an paste these mere sophistries. I'm quite sure that if you really tried you could come up with "wonderful explanation" for shkanon on the same lines. After all this isn't logic at all. With such literary artifacts, you could say whatever you want.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

But I have the feeling I don't actually need to copy an paste these mere sophistries. I'm quite sure that if you really tried you could come up with "wonderful explanation" for shkanon on the same lines. After all this isn't logic at all. With such literary artifacts, you could say whatever you want.

I'm afraid those "literary artifacts" as you term it are explicitly what he requested from you in that post using orange text a ways back. The term is actually correct, because they are indeed literary, that is, they treat the idea in question as literature rather than a logic construct. A theory on why exactly did the author do it and what did they want to say, as it relies on motivations and purely human contents, cannot possibly be expressed in another way. There is nothing at all unusual in using that kind of discourse in literary criticism.

So if you are sure it's possible, is there really a problem in humouring your opponent and doing it, now that you know what he wants?

[Renall]

I don't think you understand my point, and I don't know if you have any interest in trying. If you think the goal is to explain everything in detail when talking about literary themes, then I can say nothing further to you, because you have no framework for discussing these things. All you want to do is fight over whose theory is right and anything else simply does not matter to you. Everything else is dismissed as sophistry. Fine. You've put that out there. Now I know not to bother trying to talk to you about that. But I think it still matters.

You apparently completely failed to grasp the whole "assume the theory is true and see if you can thematically justify it" aspect of the discussion. Nothing I said exists to be "contradicted." It's a literary interpretation. That is what I am asking for. An adequate literary interpretation should be able to make Shkanon fit perfectly into the thematic and literary elements of the story.

chronotrig's theory at least tries to do this. My problem with that was in the interpretations, assumptions, and other foundational issues, but if his version of Shkanon were true at least he's got an interepretation that explains what it's doing there. It requires a lot of logical leaps, but if those leaps were proven true, it does aspire to make some kind of point.

I get the sense that there are simply some things that are not welcome for discussion here. But this is the ep6 thread, not the Spoilers & Speculations thread, so it doesn't all have to be speculation and argument over details here. This thread is also for impressions and reviews. If we want to quibble endlessly over detail, I'm fine with that being somewhere, but why is it anathema to talk about theme without someone derailing into the same old discussions of plot points? Why does everyone have to be living and dying over particulars? It's getting really tedious.

[Jan-Poo]

Well I think at the very least I finally clearly understand what are you trying to discuss. Oliver hit the nail pretty well.

However I can't help to wonder why of all the theories that where speculated to this point, and of all the theories that I made, only shkanon definitely requires a perfect and clear explanation of the narrative necessity behind it.

I can only suppose that's because you could aways find an answer in all the other cases, but why you assume everyone else does? I mean... have I ever done that before?

Maybe you think this is a shallow approach, but I don't see it that way. In my opinion this game is about understanding what's going on, the tricks, and so on. And I'm satisfied with that. Not because I don't care about the more profound meanings behind them but because I think the author never leaved enough clues to deduce such things and those are only meant to be understood when the author himself explains them.
After all in the case someone finds all the truths, he wouldn't have many reasons to read the solution. In my case? In my case after I find the tricks, I'm looking forward to see how the author will explain their reason to be.

For example, I was able to spot quite easily that Kinzo was already dead. But did I understood all the implications on a narrative level? No, I didn't even try and I'm quite sure that I could never understand all that if not by mere chance.

Let's make another example. Think about my volcano theory. You probably don't think it's correct but I don't think you opposed it as fiercely as you oppose shkanon either.
Why you never asked me what does the volcano theory explain?
Why you never asked me what is its reason to exist?
Why you never asked me why it's necessary?

The problem is... the volcano theory doesn't explain anything that any other bomb theory explains, I don't have any clue why it exists and it's not even necessary from a literary pov.
And yet all hints tell me that it was a volcanic explosion and that's enough of a reason for me to think this is probably what happened in the story. That's the same reason I believed Kinzo was already dead, no more, no less.
But it's not true that I don't care about all those questions, that's what makes me look forward to EP7. I simply don't think trying to "imagine" what the answers could be is worth my time.

A riddle is meant to be solved, but a story is meant to be read.


As a last note. When I made you notice that you don't have a perfectly satisfying explanation about the love test, you made me notice that the fact you don't have one doesn't mean that there can't be one.

Right, I can accept that argument. Then why can't accept this argument: the fact that I can't tell what's narrative necessity or value of shkanon doesn't mean that there can't possibly be one.

[Renall]

I think the difference is that you can know where the author is going without questioning the details, but you can't really deal as easily going the other direction.

What I mean by that is, you can look at a theme and figure that the narrative is moving to a point that supports it, but not know for sure how it will be written to get there.

Like say I have a theory that Umineko is headed for a bittersweet ending, and you have a theory that it's heading for a happy ending. Neither one of us necessarily knows how it will reach that point, and even if we have some theories, they're probably woefully incomplete. Still, we can point to themes and previous scenes that suggest that one ending or the other is likely, then argue over which is the better fit or which is more likely. We can't really prove it until it actually happens, but it's not an unreasonable thing to debate.

That's the advantage of a top-down theory. It can handwave the facts below it. A lot of culprit theories do this even now. They say "Well soandso was the culprit." Then they sort of disregard actually trying to explain when and how the culprit accomplished all of his/her tasks. That's fine if you just want to show that, thematically, such a scenario is "fitting." But it doesn't really demonstrate, if your goal is to discretely explain each episode, how that culprit theory is effective.

George and Kyrie culprit theories work this way. They really don't bother explaining how either of them could have committed most murders. Instead, they point to themes and say "So doesn't it make sense that this person could be the culprit?" And we must concede that yes, thematically, it appears that it could be so. But then how'd it work?

Both are important. But where you're debating from determines which is more relevant. It's the difference between "I definitely think that" and "wouldn't it be interesting if." Nobody seriously believes Gohda Accident Theory is the answer to ep2. But it's funny, and trying to make it work is funny.

My problem with Shkanon is it stalls a lot from a top-down and bottom-up perspective. It isn't very useful at explaining how the theoretical Shkanon accomplishes his/her tasks. But that's fine, if it's thematically supported. And it is... vaguely. But it requires a lot of assumptions in order to craft it into a thematic overture for the entire series, especially given how under-promoted it is in episodes outside of 2 and 6. My issue from the top-down is that most other theories I've encountered attempt to engage thematic elements which appear in nearly every episode. That doesn't mean thematic elements of Shkanon, or things it is thematically tied to, don't exist in every episode. It means I do not believe those avenues have been adequately explored, and cynically, I'm not entirely convinced they actually are there to be seen. That's why I criticize the Shkanontrice identity; it's essentially piggybacking Shannontrice's thematic elements with Shkanon's, when there is no particular reason the latter deserves to be considered with the same weight as the former. The two certainly don't stand as equals in isolation from each other.

I'll be frank, I'm not wholly convinced Shannon and Kanon are as important as they're made out to be. Which isn't to say there's no good reason they cannot be some of the most important characters on the board, and given their suspect status as potential culprits it seems highly likely, but I still wonder. We thought Maria was extremely important too, and since ep4 it seems like she's lost prominence. Was ep6 their swan song? If it was, why, especially if one of them is "Beatrice?" That's a thematic question I have no real idea how to answer.

[m0h]

To me the love test was necessary to show that there is a couple that cannot have a future because 1 CHARACTER doesn't exist. I'd like to point out that in every single game, the pair Kanon-Jessica doesn't develop AT ALL. Kanon has always said "I'M FORNITURE", denying he was human.

We always let that slide pass our theories just because is "TOO MUCH OF AN HINT". But if it was just an elusive hint, why R07 insists on Kanon, and just in the latest games he gains "freedom of action" but it always fail?

EDIT: don't take the comment "too much of an hint" personally, Renall, i'm not going to troll anyone in here

I'd also like to point out something.
Battler reached the truth thanks to Knox and "love".
Love between Reader and Writer, where you have to trust the hints.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by m0h

EDIT: don't take the comment "too much of an hint" personally, Renall, i'm not going to troll anyone in here

I'd also like to point out something.
Battler reached the truth thanks to Knox and "love".
Love between Reader and Writer, where you have to trust the hints.

I think Oliver demonstrated this point the best. The love trial is about who do you love the most? If you love the characters who would you rather give up? Would you give up Shannon? Kanon? Beatrice? Or Erika because she's completely new? I think this is where most people are going here. Shannon and Kanon have been characters for much longer and people like them more. A lot of people would rather get rid of an egotistic know-it-all detective than our servants. We have more love for them than Erika and that's why we defend their existence by denying Shkanon/kshannon, imaginary friend theories, etc.

[m0h]

Originally Posted by Judoh

I think Oliver demonstrated this point the best. The love trial is about who do you love the most? If you love the characters who would you rather give up? Would you give up Shannon? Kanon? Beatrice? Or Erika because she's completely new? I think this is where most people are going here. Shannon and Kanon have been characters for much longer and people like them more. A lot of people would rather get rid of an egotistic know-it-all detective than our servants. We have more love for them than Erika and that's why we defend their existence by denying Shkanon/kshannon, imaginary friend theories, etc

Wouldn't that be the same mistake that Battler made when he refused to belive that his family could feed a MURDERER? Too much fond of people.

I also do like the two servants, but i always had the impression that Kanon was too much of a mistery. No personality, similar to a robot. It gains personality only WHEN SHANNON IS NEAR.

EDIT: and the reaction of BATTLER about the love trial was pretty cold: uninterested, bored. Just as if the outcome would have been natural, already decided.