2011-07-03, 15:19 | Link #23041 | ||
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
Although, it's entirely possible to know intellectually that something is fake and still have a visceral reaction to it. Quote:
By the time the six were found, they had all already died. Anyone who started out thinking the victims were fake would assume that the gore was from Shannon's makeup and wouldn't fiddle with the corpses, and everyone else would just see perfectly legitimate dead bodies, so none of your objections apply.
__________________
Last edited by LyricalAura; 2011-07-03 at 15:34. |
||
2011-07-03, 15:33 | Link #23042 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
|
So yeah Rosa decided to lock her siblings who she thought where alive inside a chapel for all day. They got plenty of sweets and soda in there they'll be fine! Also while the initial events in the chapel are fake the events after Battler and co got there are most like not. Rosa went physically pale when she remembered that the door was locked. Then again, if the door was never locked that would give us a clue of Rosa's ability to act eh?
Maybe Rosa never locked the door after that scene in the first place...the door is locked with a golden thread... |
2011-07-03, 15:36 | Link #23043 |
Senior Member
|
Hypotheses:
1) E2T1 is real, and every innocent thinks it is real. 2) E2T1 is fake; Rosa isn't involved. 3) E2T1 is fake; Rosa is involved. 4) E2T1 is real, but some innocents (Rosa for one) think it is fake. My comments are is response to hypothesis 4. Try to imagine, in hypothesis 3, the scene right before Kanon is sent to "find Nanjo". I'd expect the victims to be sitting up, stretching, until right before Kanon leaves, maybe even a little after he leaves. There'll probably be a last-minute script check before he goes. Therefore, I have serious problems with hypothesis 4: "Geez everyone; we've got a few minutes; you don't need to get into character yet." And as somebody who has done the "coffin trick" for Halloween, yes, for an untrained person, staying motionless for 8 minutes is tough. Eva's martial arts training might include such training, but it stretches imagination to claim that the other five could all pull it off believably.
__________________
|
2011-07-03, 22:17 | Link #23044 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
What if the siblings got into an uber fight, all ended up dying, then Rosa, being the only survivor, thrust them into the chapel and gave them that grotesque makeup to make it look like she couldn't have possibly committed it?
Maybe the motive for the Rosa-partner theories should be ''What accident happened that made her have to create the illusion of the witch'' instead of ''is she able to be bribed/mislead from being incompetent?). |
2011-07-03, 22:24 | Link #23045 |
Senior Member
|
cronnoponno: "The six people were already dead by the time they were discovered! All were killed by other people! All six were genuine victims, and did not take part in a mutual murder! There was no simultaneous murder!!" (「6人は発見時にすでに全員死亡していた! 全員が他殺だ! 6人は全員が純粋な犠牲者であり、相互の殺人には関与しない! 相打ち殺人は存在しない!!」)
__________________
|
2011-07-03, 22:56 | Link #23046 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
''All were killed by other people''. meaning anyone so long as it isn't themselves.
''All six were genuine victims'', Nothing changes if they were the victims of a sibling fight. ''The six people were already dead by the time they were discovered!'', who discovered them? If they killed each other, Rosa discovered them, then moved them, nothing changes. ''There was no simultaneous murder!'' Is very vague. ''Did not take part in a mutual murder!'' There were 6 ''victims'', an even amount of people, there has never been a rule saying that something that is not a corpse can't be called a corpse. Mutual can imply ''two people square off in a fight and kill eachother'', meaning, as long as this doesn't happen, the massacre can still happen. AKA: Kyrie kills Krauss, someone who's not Krauss kills Kyrie, and so on. As long as ''Krauss and rudolph got into a fight, with there being one victor'', this can happen, at least we can interpret it that way. To further elaborate, it's like episode 7. Krauss and Hideyoshi sort of fought, Hideyoshi survived, Natsuhi and Eva fought, Eva survived. There was no ''draws''. If Rosa saw this, it's only natural that, as a survivor and a fellow sibling, guess who would get the highest amount of blame? Last edited by cronnoponno; 2011-07-03 at 23:26. |
2011-07-03, 23:25 | Link #23047 | ||
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
First, you have to assume that she wasn't shown where the bomb mechanism was. If she had any idea, she would have run there and shut it off as soon as she found Shannon dead. So that means she would need to have taken it on faith that the bomb existed at all. Possibly she'd do that out of fear after being faced with six corpses, but I don't know. Second, you have to explain why Rosa didn't try to warn anyone or flee the mansion with Maria during the various times that Shannon and Genji were away from the group. After going up to the study she even had a weapon; wouldn't it have been a better idea to capture them and figure out something with the other survivors? Quote:
- "All six were genuine victims." They weren't guilty of anything related to each other's murders. - "They did not take part in a mutual murder." None of them killed each other. - "There was no simultaneous murder." Specifically denies Battler's bullshit theory about them standing in a circle shooting each other, but also covers the possibility that there was a shootout and the last two people killed each other. This pile of red is extremely clear and repeats the same idea four different ways. You can't establish otherwise without twisting the semantics of Beatrice's words in a way that she professes to hate. Besides which, where are you saying they got the weapons from, and why would Rosa hide them if she was blameless?
__________________
Last edited by LyricalAura; 2011-07-03 at 23:43. |
||
2011-07-04, 00:03 | Link #23048 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
I explained it all in the bottom, and the way red is worded, even if Beatrice says it, is subject to question. It always has been, every single piece of red in this story has been able to be worked around by twisting logic and thinking outside the box rather than in it, and Battler himself confesses to loving this sort of twisted logic in EP 8.
They can be interpreted as victims even if they committed murder themselves. There is no rule stating a culprit cannot be a victim of a murder. There are 6 victims in the first twilight, this means this can be pulled off as a chain. Lets say we have 6 people, Bob, Jack, Jil, Diana, John, and Mark. It's a mutual death if Mark gets in a fight with John, and they kill each other. However it is not mutual if Bob kills Jack, then Diana kills Bob, then Jil kills Diana, then John kills Jil, then Mark kills John, then the phsyco witch Sodayasu, or even the other sibling Rosane could have committed the final murder. Thus, no kills are mutual killings, it is one-sided, where the victims are victims. ''All were killed by other people''. If Rosa does discover the last survivor, we can say the last survivor said ''Fuck it, might as well kill everyone'' like Bern predicted in ep 7, and was killed by Rosa in her own self-defense(Like a certain Eva in EP 7). Then, knowing no one would even blink twice at this story, figured it'd be more beneficial to hide the corpses in the chapel, or Yasu could have killed the survivor, then Rosa stumbled on them randomly, thus not knowing the truth herself, then changing the crime scene by moving the corpses because if she announced the crime she feared she'd be the one suspected, in any case, many scenarios and possibilities can be true after the murders, however the core riddle can be solved this way. I also was not implying that they ''all killed each other at the same time''. Also, we're not taking into account if they had weapons or not, as long as it was feasibly possible that they can be killed, it can become part of the tale. As unlikely as it is, Beatrice, as the game master, can make it happen, so long as ''The chances aren't zero''. Last edited by cronnoponno; 2011-07-04 at 00:57. |
2011-07-04, 01:02 | Link #23049 | |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
Quote:
And on that note: At the time (singular) the six who were in the chapel were killed, the culprit (singular) was in the chapel!
__________________
|
|
2011-07-04, 01:15 | Link #23050 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Quote:
EDIT: Okay I believe I have my quotes fixed to be more accurate now. Last edited by cronnoponno; 2011-07-04 at 02:13. |
|
2011-07-04, 02:07 | Link #23051 |
Zurajanai! Katsura da!
Join Date: Jul 2010
|
The six people were already dead by the time they were discovered!
Since you're playing crazy word games with the red - my definition of discovery is that only someone unaware of the six dead people can 'discover' them. The seventh person to complete the circlejerk of death in the chapel for your scenario could be either: 1. an accomplice/subculprit who met and killed the sixth person that survived the late night quintet chapel manslaughter 2. the mastermind culprit in the most common and truest sense There is no room left for the seventh person that completed the circlejerk to be unaware of the madness that happened at the chapel because all six of the dead people were discovered dead, not "five dead and one alive but will soon be dead once the seventh person pops a cap in him/her". Your first scenario with Rosa being the innocent passerby wouldn't work UNLESS you are saying that the seventh person (Rosa) was aware of the murders in the chapel yet was not intending to kill anyone, went to the chapel, met the sixth survivor, and killed the survivor via self-defense. That's one badass innocent seventh person to complete the circlejerk. Might come close to small bombs even For your other scenario where Rosa is the eighth person to arrive at the chapel and discovers the dead six - Rosa would be doing a lot of unnecessary work just to make sure people believe that everyone else was equally suspicious as she was. If the culprit didn't already, Rosa would have to move dinner table and crapload of halloween stuff into chapel, move bodies onto chairs, carve up stomachs, stuff candy into said stomachs, and place a one-winged eagle letter and three gold ingots on the table. Also, there were no traces of blood or anything of that sort to suggest the bodies were moved. Furthermore, Beatrice is already a perfect scapegoat. Why not just let the seventh person be the one to kill all six in the chapel? Rosa would be suspected, sure, but she could still place the blame on the mysterious guest Beatrice easily. The servants (minus Gohda) would agree with Rosa that Beatrice did arrive. As for your questioning of the definition of culprit, there's no true way to prove it to you. The moment you doubt the red down to each and every single word is when the definition of every single word (not just the red) will be subject to equal doubt from you. You can doubt gold, blue, purple, whatever and however you want so long as you know what theory you wish to come up with and squeeze it through words of all seven colours of the rainbow. Dangerously close to Erika. Or maybe even worse? Only way you'd be satisfied is if ryukishi compiled an 'Umineko Dictionary' with the definition of every single word used. Actually, I think I would want him to publish that dictionary... |
2011-07-04, 02:31 | Link #23052 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Quote:
Last edited by cronnoponno; 2011-07-04 at 03:02. |
|
2011-07-04, 03:26 | Link #23053 |
The True Culprit
|
Well, yea, to an extent, it kind of is about that. While trickery is involved to extent, there's not really any canonical results of words being utterly redefined to be divorced from their common usage successfully. We're supposed to trust the Reds or else they're useless to us, and you can just semantically argue them to mean anything you want.
A good rule of thumb is if you have to interpret a red to mean something it's never implied to mean, you're doing it wrong.
__________________
|
2011-07-04, 04:41 | Link #23054 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
I understand why one would become distrustful of red after the death of personalities and such. However that part was only accepted until it was practically impossible to deny it. Now you can think that this sort of trickery is not limited to that specific case, but there aren't hints for other particular interpretations.
At this point cronnoponno I want to ask what is that you are actually trying to achieve. Do you want to prove you can find a theory that can explain things without being denied? or Do you want to understand the "truth" that Ryuukishi hid between the lines of this story? In the first case, have fun if you want. But when your premises are that there is no reliably perspective, there is no reliable narrator and the red truths can be freely interpreted, it doesn't seem like a remarkable task in my opinion. The possibilities are near infinite. In the second case I think you need to reason a bit more on the general story and on what Ryuukishi was trying to accomplish, what kind of story he has in mind and try to deduce what kind of trick he'd use based on the already solved cases. Also you'd need to consider Will's cryptic solution and the various interviews Ryuukishi relesead. Simply looking at red truths and trying to squeeze theories past them won't be enough.
__________________
|
2011-07-04, 08:45 | Link #23055 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
That's kind of an important redefinition.
__________________
|
|
2011-07-04, 09:26 | Link #23056 |
Dea ex Kakera
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
|
I'll take this one. This is actually just a translation artifact; the original phrase literally means "each person's death was caused by someone other than that person", i.e. nobody killed themselves.
__________________
|
2011-07-04, 12:57 | Link #23057 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Quote:
''The chain of illusions holds back naught but illusions'' This tells us certain characters are allowed to be delusional, and that their perspectives must be investigated. ''Let the man of illusions go back to where he belongs'' Didn't everyone see a corpse that looked like Kinzo's? This tells us that fake corpses are allowed to be used.EDIT: This might not be true, as with EP 5's token golden truth about the corpse. ''The stake of illusions can pierce naught but illusions'' Meaning some characters aren't even there. If my solution to the knock riddle is correct, then we can note that ''Characters can mishear things, and this can be used to keep the illusion of a witch'' Lets say my theory does work, lets say that each person was killed by another person. We can then learn that ''Some murders that happened were truly impossible for just one person'', which would have made episode 7 more predictable. Also, Aura, that makes my theory easier, because now ''everyone can achieve a draw'', meaning some characters can even kill off 2 and so on, just like Kyrie in EP 7. Although this is only a possibility. My theory is that Beatrice was less definitive on her reds than later on because Battler wouldn't have been able to work his way around them as well as he started to learn in Episode 5. Bernkastel and other characters were much more clever, so more detailed reds were required. It was more important for her to teach him other things at the time, like his sin from 6 years earlier. There has been plenty of evidence to suggest that the ''real answers'' to these cases are something an average mystery fan would say ''What the fuck?'' over, such as when Battler gets saved from a logic error, he says to Beatrice ''Are you sure this answer works? People are going to start complaining that this isn't a mystery anymore...'' Meaning, we can think that the true answer is not some direct line of reasoning that can be reached by believing in some sort of honor behind Beatrice's reds, and as I have said earlier in this thread, Battler himself has screwed around with the reds to ''not restrict the witches darkness''. My motive is actually, to have these theories proven wrong, that way I can build up more reasoning, but if the only thing people are going to do is prove me wrong by telling me I am playing unfair, and then placing the morality they perceive in this game into practice(the same way I'm doing the opposite), then I unfortunately have to say that my theory does not waver, and I have even given a special hint that solving the riddle this way can imply that the actions in EP 7 can be predicted by solving it this way. I have given examples of times when the red was used unfairly, where even the main characters have used them in the ways I explained, and possible rewards given to clue the reader for solving them early. All I'm hearing in response is reds that are only being perceived lightly, and not being worked around, although that last bit about the translation artifact was something I was worried about before I was told that, if I have taken an English translation too literally and it can be worded differently in the Japanese language(which is the original language this was written in), then I fully welcome any corrections to be given on the English reds given. Last edited by cronnoponno; 2011-07-04 at 13:36. |
|
2011-07-04, 13:43 | Link #23058 | |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
This kind of game could work before Ep6 when people didn't try to find ridiculous loopholes in red truths, this game it's been since long dead. You can ignore this fact and try to discuss with other people that still haven't realized this, but I know already the outcome: you'll win; for the same reasons Dlanor couldn't beat Erika in their mini challenge in EP6.
__________________
|
|
2011-07-04, 15:26 | Link #23059 | |
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-07-04, 19:52 | Link #23060 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
Assuming Shkanon is, of course, a major part of Beato's heart, and assuming further that EP5 was written as ... ... a sort of exercise ... like, End was written under the premise of "Well maybe Shannon and Kanon are truly two physically seperate people", sort of like Banquet was written under the premise of "maybe Eva became the culprit", it explains why it's called a game "without love", because the "love" required to realize the truth of Shkanon is completely dismissed. In that sense, it would've made Dawn a bit unfair for Erika, because it implies a drastic change in the "rules" of the game that she would'nt have noticed because she gave up the objectivity of her perspective, there (though Battler had expected her to keep it ... probably). That last point I have a hard time completely reasoning out because I like the "Battler is an evil-genius troll" regarding EP6, but it depends on who you think, between him and Erika, was more predictive steps ahead of the other. Anyway, EP5, Kanon is REAL! Jessica find Zepar and Furfur and tells 'em to suck it. |
|
|
|