[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[winter 923]

Actually there may be some resons why he would keep shkannon a secret.
First the ...sorry i do not know the english word. "herdenverhalten" "do as the other do" "do not question if the mass does not question" he just came back to his family after 6 years.
Second he knows about George/Shannon and maybe even about the engagement (dunno how much he knows in ep5) this could be a prickly subject.

is it hinted in the novel why he would keep the lie alive? that's up for everyone to decide for himself.

Ya Higurashi and Umineko are so different -_- Higurashi plays in 2 towns, only a handfull of persons and around 2 weeks. Umineko "kills" off 17 People in 2 days on a small island but then again, im glad when i buy a CD from a band i like and not every song sounds the same.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Judoh

The way I can tell is this game has no difficulty level Episode 2 had a high difficulty level. And to go further he used actual human murderers for his fantasy scenes. Yes there is magic mixed in, but that's something you have to do on the witch's side.

Episode 2 and episode 6 are completely different in terms of fantasy scenes on difficulty. The scenes are actually more similar to episodes 3 and 4 than episode 2.

Difficulty level explains why one might be harder to solve than the other, but it doesn't mean that one is less true than the other. By EP6, we already know magic=lies, so it's guaranteed to be easier than EP2 just by that. I think the real hint from this should be that the magic scenes always count as clues that match the truth in some way, not just in EP6.

[Renall]

Again though, whatever Battler's reason, if we assume this is Piece-Battler doing the lying, he has to be lying to someone. The problem with accepting the parlor count as a subsequently-told lie - and under normal circumstances that's no problem to accept at all - is that there's nobody that we know of to whom this information is ever conveyed. If Battler doesn't lie to any other person on the board, he has to be lying to:

• The Meta-World, which Piece-Battler does not know exists (though it could be a meta-narrative construction and Piece-Battler's actual perception was overwritten).
• Nobody, which means he's fond of lying to himself about what he himself has perceived for no reason whatsoever.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

Again though, whatever Battler's reason, if we assume this is Piece-Battler doing the lying, he has to be lying to someone. The problem with accepting the parlor count as a subsequently-told lie - and under normal circumstances that's no problem to accept at all - is that there's nobody that we know of to whom this information is ever conveyed. If Battler doesn't lie to any other person on the board, he has to be lying to:

• The Meta-World, which Piece-Battler does not know exists (though it could be a meta-narrative construction and Piece-Battler's actual perception was overwritten).
• Nobody, which means he's fond of lying to himself about what he himself has perceived for no reason whatsoever.

Or, you have the possibility that I've suggested. The scenes we are shown represent how Battler would have written the story at the end. In other words, the 'truth' that he would claim is true. After all, we have been allowed to follow his perspective several times, and he is, practically speaking, the Watson, the Hastings, of Umineko.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

I think the real hint from this should be that the magic scenes always count as clues that match the truth in some way, not just in EP6.

I didn't say just in episode 6 did I? I said Episode 6 is more true than the scenes were in episode 2.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Judoh

I didn't say just in episode 6 did I? I said Episode 6 is more true than episode 2.

Right, and I don't see how you can conclude that. I'm not even entirely sure what you mean by it.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Or, you have the possibility that I've suggested. The scenes we are shown represent how Battler would have written the story at the end. In other words, the 'truth' that he would claim is true. After all, we have been allowed to follow his perspective several times, and he is, practically speaking, the Watson, the Hastings, of Umineko.

In which case, what stops him from doing that very thing in other episodes? He could've had Shannon and Kanon hanging out all the time around him if he wanted if he were just concluding the story after the fact... if Shkanon were true.

Of course this "theory" runs into the tiny problem of having no evidence whatsoever at any point, ever. Is it possible for Piece-Battler to lie? Yes. Is it possible for Piece-Battler to lie after the fact? Yes. Is there any evidence whatsoever that Piece-Battler did lie during or after the fact? Absolutely not. In fact, short of our violent rejection of Erika's existence or Shannon and Kanon existing as separate entities in the same place, we have no reason to doubt Battler's testimony in that scene at all. If Shkanon and Erika-Doesn't-Exist both turn out false, we'd all look very stupid for doubting Battler's earnest reporting of a simple fact about which he had no reason to lie... and didn't.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

In which case, what stops him from doing that very thing in other episodes? He could've had Shannon and Kanon hanging out all the time around him if he wanted if he were just concluding the story after the fact... if Shkanon were true.

You imply a contradiction where there is none. The difference between the question and core arcs is that piece Battler finds out Sayo's secret in the core arcs only, I believe. That's why the first twilights are fake in those games, and that's why the killer in both is clearly not the "Beatrice" from EP1-4.

In the question arcs, Battler had no reason to lie. He was not keeping any secrets, but instead had secrets kept from him. In other words, if you want to include a magic scene in the game, you need to show that Battler would have a reason to believe it. The requirements of this theory are more strict than the commonly accepted one, not less.

Originally Posted by Renall

Of course this "theory" runs into the tiny problem of having no evidence whatsoever at any point, ever. Is it possible for Piece-Battler to lie? Yes. Is it possible for Piece-Battler to lie after the fact? Yes. Is there any evidence whatsoever that Piece-Battler did lie during or after the fact? Absolutely not. In fact, short of our violent rejection of Erika's existence or Shannon and Kanon existing as separate entities in the same place, we have no reason to doubt Battler's testimony in that scene at all. If Shkanon and Erika-Doesn't-Exist both turn out false, we'd all look very stupid for doubting Battler's earnest reporting of a simple fact about which he had no reason to lie... and didn't.

Again, this is wrong. There is plenty of evidence supporting my conclusion. That is an incontestable fact. However, there is no evidence that proves my conclusion right, just as there is no evidence proving any other theory right.

Anyways, how do you explain that scene? There were 18 people in it, but only 17 people alive on the island. Battler's viewpoint could not have shown us the truth, right?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Right, and I don't see how you can conclude that. I'm not even entirely sure what you mean by it.

I think Battler's scenes add an extra layer on top of things. He tries make things look obvious, but there's actually something extra you need to look for. The earlier games don't have the same thing. They have character development in them and they have the same lies, but their purpose is different. Since the witch's side has no chance of winning at this point it's really just special affects.

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Renall

In which case, what stops him from doing that very thing in other episodes? He could've had Shannon and Kanon hanging out all the time around him if he wanted if he were just concluding the story after the fact... if Shkanon were true.

Of course this "theory" runs into the tiny problem of having no evidence whatsoever at any point, ever. Is it possible for Piece-Battler to lie? Yes. Is it possible for Piece-Battler to lie after the fact? Yes. Is there any evidence whatsoever that Piece-Battler did lie during or after the fact? Absolutely not. In fact, short of our violent rejection of Erika's existence or Shannon and Kanon existing as separate entities in the same place, we have no reason to doubt Battler's testimony in that scene at all. If Shkanon and Erika-Doesn't-Exist both turn out false, we'd all look very stupid for doubting Battler's earnest reporting of a simple fact about which he had no reason to lie... and didn't.

This is certainly true. However, don't forget it was stated in Red that Battler was the detective in EP1-4. So if Shkanon is true, he cannot have seen Shannon and Kanon together. If Shkanon is false, then it was just really, really bad luck for us because they never happened to be together at all. If Shkanon is false, then Ryukishi could have had Battler, Shannon, and Kanon together if he felt like it.

Starting from EP5, Erika is the detective and Battler is just a regular piece. Individual characters have lied before; Natsuhi, the servants, and Nanjo must have lied at some point. They are miscellaneous pieces so this is allowed. But, don't forget that Bernkastel created her own piece to take Battler's place as detective. This could have been because Battler refused to continue the game (because of Beato's absence) and she needed a detective, or because she just wanted to create a bitchy version of herself. If Bernkastel wanted to, she could have easily controlled Battler's piece and made him the detective again. But she didn't, so Battler "de-levels" in authority. While Bernkastel certainly does make Battler more intelligent in EP5, the instance of Battler "seeing Kinzo" is proof that Battler is capable of lying in EP5.

(And this isn't entirely about what you were saying Renall, but this is my general impression on Battler and your post was the newest )

As for the motive of Battler lying, perhaps he just misinterpreted the events in the room. I use "lie" as a general term for "provides misinformation to the reader."

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Again, this is wrong. There is plenty of evidence supporting my conclusion. That is an incontestable fact.

Well here I am contesting it, because it's not there in the text.

Anyways, how do you explain that scene? There were 18 people in it, but only 17 people alive on the island. Battler's viewpoint could not have shown us the truth, right?

Turn the chessboard around: Why are we so quick to doubt a scene in which Piece-Battler's present degree of honest narration - to himself, no less - is not clearly in question? He's not seeing anything that ought to appear unusual to us, unless we already believe that Shannon is Kanon and/or Erika doesn't exist. Why is it any more valid to assume Battler must be wrong or lying in this scene because it "contradicts the red" when the reds themselves are (apparently) contradicting and thus must somehow be properly reconciled among each other anyway?

Why is it somehow invalid to make as our foundation "Battler is telling the truth in this parlor scene" and then attempt to explain away the other details as tricks to make us doubt that? I fail to see how that is any less reasonable to assume.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

Why is it somehow invalid to make as our foundation "Battler is telling the truth in this parlor scene" and then attempt to explain away the other details as tricks to make us doubt that? I fail to see how that is any less reasonable to assume.

Because this scene was obviously a clue. The first time that Battler is given a viewpoint that is able to tell lies is also the first time that he sees all 18 people in a room. Then, later, we are told that there are only 17 people on the island.

Look, you're doing exactly what you've always accused me of doing with Shkanon, except you haven't proposed a theory to back it up. If you think you can find an internally consistent solution that explains this, be my guest. It's probably a worthwhile venture. But I don't think there will be a satisfying one.

[Renall]

I don't owe you or anyone else a theory. Nobody owes anyone anything unless they're making a definitive claim to the true and correct answer, if one even exists.

You say it's a "clue." How can you be sure of that? Again, it's true that it's the first opportunity for Battler to lie, with or without any justification. But do we really want to say that Battler wasn't going to lie until he finally could? Don't we know him better than that? Isn't Battler's simple and often emotionally-charged honesty more trustworthy than ridiculous theories about two people being one or someone seemingly present not really being there? Why can we embrace the latter as viable explanations and dismiss the former as nothing more than a "clue" for more implausible-sounding theories?

Why must we distrust Battler? The only evidence he even presents for the unreliability of his own perspective is something which can easily be interpreted as not even precisely a lie. You say it's because he's seeing something impossible. So what I'm saying is: Are we really willing to call it impossible just yet?

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Because this scene was obviously a clue. The first time that Battler is given a viewpoint that is able to tell lies is also the first time that he sees all 18 people in a room. Then, later, we are told that there are only 17 people on the island.

In my opinion, that could easily be a big trap, since up to that point we were used on relying on Battler's POV. So, what we read in that scene we took it for granted. That, and/or some people could have assume that everything in that scene was true, since the detective was around.

If R07 would have wanted to give us a real POV, he would have given us Erika's, I think. Which makes me wonder why Erika never questioned the existence of Shannon and Kanon when they weren't there (as separate people, that is).

[Renall]

Have we lost all trust for Battler now? He's going to start lying and misconstructing things because he can? If it's a trap about Battler's reliability, why does Battler challenge his own reliability in the same episode? Won't that immediately send us looking back at everything he said? Ryukishi would be expecting us to doubt that parlor scene. The phrasing of the red proves that. He wants us to doubt somebody was really there. But again I ask: Why do we not have any trust for Battler anymore?

[Used Can]

Because he's no longer the detective. For all we know, all the pieces but the detective see what the fantasy side wants them to see.

[Judoh]

Watson sees all the same things Holmes does he just doesn't come to the same conclusions. Calling Battler a 'Watson character' is probably a bad example if your using the unreliable perspective idea. Watson isn't a bumbling idiot he's pretty cultured he just doesn't have an amazing memorization ability like Sherlock Holmes.

Watson reminds me a lot of Nanjo actually I think Ryukishi based Nanjo off the Watson character.

[Renall]

The doctor buddy of a detective is a pretty solid mystery genre trope. It traces at least as far back as Watson, though I think it's even detected in Poe (and the detective novel doesn't go much further back than Poe, at least in its modern form). Nanjo being the semi-suspicious and conveniently present doctor is a clear homage, the question is what spin ryukishi's putting on him... if he's not just playing the trope straight.

[winter 923]

Originally Posted by Renall

Why must we distrust Battler?

I do distrust Battler a little if it involves Erika. In EP5 he could just prove a fact or help his Aunt from the pesky Erika but he still lies in my eyes with the Kinzo escape. In EP6 he lies to Erika that he does not read books, again Erika was pretty arrogant before that but still.

Nothing is impossible. If we take Maria's riddlebook with the cheese. Umineko is basicly the same thing. "how many cuts do you need to get 8Pieces" You won't see the cheese till EP8 and little below the picture of the cheese is also the answer printed. That is imho why so many Theories exist, no one wants to see the "playground" but then not have time to think about it.

btw, anychance that the coin and glass trick is related to EP6 closed rooms?

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Watson sees all the same things Holmes does he just doesn't come to the same conclusions. Calling Battler a 'Watson character' is probably a bad example if your using the unreliable perspective idea. Watson isn't a bumbling idiot he's pretty cultured he just doesn't have an amazing memorization ability like Sherlock Holmes.

I'm not suggesting that Battler is a bumbling idiot. Still, that doesn't mean he can't be tricked or come to the wrong conclusion about something. As Knox says:

The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.

I'd say that matches Battler pretty closely most of the time.