[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Used Can

There being a disguise is not the real issue, though. There being someone who can pull the disguise and make it believable is. But well, it was said in EP5 that the Knox Decalogue was up to interpretation, so what you say may be right.

A bit Off topic, but I just finished Sherlocke Holme's "A Case of Identity". Apparently not being seen together and having a motive to deceive someone that you're another person is hint enough for being capable of a disguise.

The only other requirement would be that with the exception of this one day on 1986 that Shannon and Kanon never be on duty on the same day to keep the internal story line consistent. So the fact that they're both on duty on October 4th and 5th is just a bit of bad luck. In other words for the logic to work Shkanon couldn't have planned to present itself, but was forced to due to Natsuhi's schedule having them both be there on the same day for the first time. Therefore due to certain complications Shkanon couldn't refuse.

[serverwolf]

sherlocke holmes is not really a knox mystery... in the book i have, you can't guess anthing about who the murderer. (simply becuse the murderer apper only once and almost in the end, plus the murdere have disgusid himself to a she, but there were never clus for that...)
sherlocke holmes is great mystery, however not all of its book (i only have 1, so i dont know about the rest)are "acceptable"

[Thunder Book]

For the Holmes thing, that would be a decent hint IMHO Judoh. Not definitive proof but a hint.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Thunder Book

For the Holmes thing, that would be a decent hint IMHO Judoh. Not definitive proof but a hint.

Well he's definitely read the Sherlock Holmes stories.

http://community.livejournal.com/witchhunters/7134.html

K: I asked because often times there are players who mentioned, "Since there aren't enough clues, I'll stop thinking." I think no matter there are enough clues or not, players should think on it together. It's a shame to give up.

(Translator's Note: In the next part, Ryukishi07 talks about one of Sherlock Holmes' story, The Adventure of the Dancing Men from The Return of Sherlock Holmes.)

R: There is a classic mystery story that talks about a series of secret codes. The main character first counted the number of times each symbol appears, and then he figured out that it was similar to the frequency of English letters. From that he concluded that this was an English-letter substitution decipher, then he went to the newspaper agency to find out the frequency of letters.

K: There is a story like that.

R: He compared the frequency of the symbols with the frequency of letters, performed a substitution, and finally deciphered the code.

K: Actually I've also tried this method.

R: Hohoho (smile).

[rogerpepitone]

Holmes was never considered to be fair-play mystery.

Schedules are arranged well in advance; in Episode 2, Shannon mentioned knowing that Kanon would have the day off on Jessica's school fair.

Also, I think Krauss and Natsuhi must have known the truth about Shkannon at least since Kinzo died; they wouldn't have assigned Shannon or Kanon to be on the island unless s/he were in on the secret.

[Judoh]

None of those things present problems with what I'm suggesting.

Shkanon would have to know all of those things of course. However only one of these two have been shown to know about the Kinzo conspiracy and that person would be Kanon. We have absolutely nothing suggesting that Shannon is involved in that other than that she bears the crest of the one winged eagle, and of course Kanon.

[LaplaceNoMa]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

Holmes was never considered to be fair-play mystery.

Schedules are arranged well in advance; in Episode 2, Shannon mentioned knowing that Kanon would have the day off on Jessica's school fair.

Also, I think Krauss and Natsuhi must have known the truth about Shkannon at least since Kinzo died; they wouldn't have assigned Shannon or Kanon to be on the island unless s/he were in on the secret.

And when exactly did Kinzo die? We know that two years ago several things happened:

1) Portrait and the epitaph were displayed;
2) Kanon started working
3) Gohda started working a bit later

We also know that Kinzo died MORE than one year ago. It is even possible to speculate that the portrait was displayed AFTER Kinzo died.

[rogerpepitone]

Kanon's been working for about three years. And remember the flashback scene in Episode 2 (about a year and a half ago) when George and Shannon start? It's implied Kinzo comes out then.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by LaplaceNoMa

And when exactly did Kinzo die? We know that two years ago several things happened:

1) Portrait and the epitaph were displayed;
2) Kanon started working
3) Gohda started working a bit later

We also know that Kinzo died MORE than one year ago. It is even possible to speculate that the portrait was displayed AFTER Kinzo died.

An epitaph is a poem in praise of a deceased person. Until now we've thought of the epitaph as Beatrice's epitaph, but that may not be true. If it was made to praise Kinzo it reads a bit differently. But the last few lines kind of make that seem weird huh?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

And remember the flashback scene in Episode 2 (about a year and a half ago) when George and Shannon start? It's implied Kinzo comes out then.

The Anime titles say this happened in 1984. Well At least I think Shannon's meeting with Beatrice did and since that seems to happen after all that stuff I'd say it was 1984 when that happened.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by LaplaceNoMa

And when exactly did Kinzo die? We know that two years ago several things happened:

1) Portrait and the epitaph were displayed;
2) Kanon started working
3) Gohda started working a bit later

We also know that Kinzo died MORE than one year ago. It is even possible to speculate that the portrait was displayed AFTER Kinzo died.

Do we really know that he died more than one year ago?
We only know that he was already dead when the games start
And here is the problem:
He could have died the moment he throws the ring out to not violate the red or he could have died several months/years before...

[LaplaceNoMa]

Let me turn the discussion to something else now: I'm re-reading ep2 and I've been reminded of something that's been bugging me ever since the first time I read ep2.

Look at the first two reds used by Beatrice.

when I speak the truth, I will use red.
Everything I speak in red is the truth!

Let's say we have 4 possible outcomes.

White = lies
White = truth
Red = lies
Red = truth

Once again: when I speak the truth, I will use red.

In other words, it's 'if truth then red'. It eliminates the 'truth=white' equation.

Next: Everything I speak in red is the truth!
It eliminates the 'red=lies' equation.

In other words, by this logic, we have 'red=truth' and 'white=lies' logic statements.
It probably wasn't something intended by R07, or it might even be a translation issue, but still... This is a way to look at things

[musouka]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

Do we really know that he died more than one year ago?
We only know that he was already dead when the games start
And here is the problem:
He could have died the moment he throws the ring out to not violate the red or he could have died several months/years before...

No, he couldn't.

Kinzo was dead during last year's conference, but he was alive at least two years ago because he came and spoke to Eva personally. We know this because the portrait existed at this time, and it's only two years old. We know that the scenes are taking place at roughly the same time, because Beatrice mentions George's omiai, which was brought up in the previous scene.

[UsagiTenpura]

The thing about magic is that from a certain perspective 100% of every scenes of Umineko is magic. On different levels different things can be magic from different perspectives. Rewriting the story is also probably a form of "magic" that can't really be compared to other forms of magic.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by LaplaceNoMa

Let me turn the discussion to something else now: I'm re-reading ep2 and I've been reminded of something that's been bugging me ever since the first time I read ep2.

Look at the first two reds used by Beatrice.

when I speak the truth, I will use red.
Everything I speak in red is the truth!

Let's say we have 4 possible outcomes.

White = lies
White = truth
Red = lies
Red = truth

Once again: when I speak the truth, I will use red.

In other words, it's 'if truth then red'. It eliminates the 'truth=white' equation.

Next: Everything I speak in red is the truth!
It eliminates the 'red=lies' equation.

In other words, by this logic, we have 'red=truth' and 'white=lies' logic statements.
It probably wasn't something intended by R07, or it might even be a translation issue, but still... This is a way to look at things

Wow that's a ridiculous mistake if it was made by Ryukishi.
... Well then again You can't trust anything, you can't trust any words that aren't red...!! was said.

[ameskitty]

Just because you can't trust something doesn't mean it's 100% not true. I wouldn't blindly trust some random guy at the bus stop, for example, but if asked him the time and he gave me it, I wouldn't have any reason not to believe him, either.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Wow that's a ridiculous mistake if it was made by Ryukishi.
... Well then again You can't trust anything, you can't trust any words that aren't red...!! was said.

You wanna know what else is fun with logic?

"Without love, it can't be seen," translated into a logical statement, is:

If no love, then not seen

The following statements DO NOT logically follow:

If not seen, then no love
"If you don't see it, there's no love."

If love, then seen
"With love, it can be seen."

The following statement does:

If seen, then love
"If it's seen, there was love."

Still feel comfortable trying to solve things by "looking at the story with love?" You may be doing it backwards. If you solve things, it merely proves you had love all along.

Though technically those two statements can be true. They just aren't necessarily true.

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Renall

You wanna know what else is fun with logic?

"Without love, it can't be seen," translated into a logical statement, is:

If no love, then not seen

The following statements DO NOT logically follow:

If not seen, then no love
"If you don't see it, there's no love."

If love, then seen
"With love, it can be seen."

The following statement does:

If seen, then love
"If it's seen, there was love."

Still feel comfortable trying to solve things by "looking at the story with love?" You may be doing it backwards. If you solve things, it merely proves you had love all along.

Though technically those two statements can be true. They just aren't necessarily true.

Yes, but don't forget that the same author said that "Hempel's Raven"= logical contrapositives.

[Oliver]

The biggest question remains what is "love" in this statement.

Generally, any kind of "love" does not modify relationship to entities which have no relation to the object of said love, so it has to be love for someone or something rather specific. Without knowing this specific, you may well be mistaken about having the love in question when you actually do not.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

Yes, but don't forget that the same author said that "Hempel's Raven"= logical contrapositives.

Um. While I agree that Beatrice severely misrepresented and dumbed down Hempel's Raven, she didn't quite dumb it down that much.