[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Really? I think that anything that emerged from his story on the matter can be reconducted to simple encyclopedic knowledge. There's nothing that really makes me think that he actually read the whole work or even part of it.

Fair enough, I might be wrong. Still I think there's a lot about Umineko that's influenced by Purgatorio. I suppose it could come from encyclopedic knowledge but he at leasts did his research right if that's the case.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Ah yes, I almost forgot that, but I also noticed that discrepancy.
The hidden frames seem to raise even more questions, like for the example the presence of George.

The George part is easy to explain if you remember that it's Eva's diary we are talking about. Think about their confrontation in episode 6.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Honestly, probably nobody is completely free from that kind of bias, and yes that includes myself. To avoid that trap is therefore better to try ways to invalidate your theory rather than trying ways to validate it. That's a general rule that works in the whole field of experimentations of any kind.

It's true that I often approach these particular questions from an angle that assumes a certain answer. However, that's because I feel like RK07 has already given us this answer, just not the ways to get there.

ShKanon, up until its complete confirmation in episode 6, was very easy to find ways to invalidate.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

However in Umineko this kind of process tend to become ridiculous when you are entitled to dismiss entire scenes as "fake". How exactly can you invalidate a theory then? There has to be a logic behind that. And if there isn't... well then it's probably useless to even try to speculate.

It's a fair point. I'm aware that there are problems with my theory that all of episode 4's 1998 is fictional and therefore unreliable (most of them being from a literary usefulness standpoint). I wouldn't even be surprised if that theory is wrong, but if it is, I would still think the bottle-stories' origins are some kind of trick or another; I just wouldn't have a good idea what the trick is.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

There is absolutely no comparison to, for example, Shkanon that can count on his side several dialogues that directly point at that with the correct interpretation.

Oh I dunno, there are other circumstantial hints such as their common interest in mystery novels, their common interest in Battler/Touya, Ikuko's mysterious background etc.

Plus 'Touya'=18 and 'Ikuko'=19... that's no accident and, I believe, quite a far cry from "absolutely no comparison to ShKanon". It obviously points at Ikuko=Yasu.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

However that's no proof that there is absolutely something odd about them.

Spoiler for Higurashi:

The whole story is made you to believe that curse of Oyashiro-sama can't possibly be a coincidence. It is impossible that people just happen to die every year after the festival so it's either a curse or the work of a human.

But you know what? For the most part it WAS just a coincidence.

I'm largely talking about Ange's incredulous reaction when she realized how big the letters were.

Spoiler for Higurashi:

Wasn't it a combination of coincidence and Takano's work? Iirc by the third year she was intentionally carrying out the "curse". Heck her whole motive involved her egoistic desire to be the one responsible for it.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

That seemed fairly suggestive to me, personally.

What does he even mean by "the number theory"? I need more context. Original Japanese might help too.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

It really is circumstantial, instead of using the number connection I used the religious one.

Well, there's no reason that one connection precludes the other.

Originally Posted by Judoh

Fair enough. But why can you say something like this in red?

Die the death.The Great equalizer is the DEATH

Does that even really mean anything...? How is it true? Is it just said in red because it's cool?

hi-hhihihhihihihihihihihihihihi[!!] is The Truth. Don't question it.

Spoiler for we just need love:

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

He then goes on about how basically the sheep deserve heaven for being good people and the goats deserve to burn in hell for being bad people.

Do you think RK07, a person that MUST have read some choice segments of the bible out of necessity for his novel, was somehow influenced by this. Would you rather be a sheep or a goat?

There's more to this than you're probably putting into it, although I think you have probably put more thought into it than Ryukishi ever did.

The distinction between the sheep and goats in the parable is that, faced with the opportunity to do certain small kindnesses for "the least of my brothers" (i.e. the sick, the imprisoned, etc.), the sheep did those things and the goats did not.

Both the sheep and goats of the parable express surprise when the Son of Man equivocates doing or not doing these things with directly doing help or harm to him. The point Jesus is making in the parable, of course, being that doing virtuous things for other human beings is itself glorifying God and failing to do virtuous things is sinful even if the person is not directly acting against God.

Okay, so how does this come back on Umineko? Well, if you want my personal opinion it probably doesn't, at least inasmuch as Ryukishi put much thought into it, but if you look at the "goats" of Umineko a prevailing theme of their existence is that they want to be right about theories and speculation and are failing to consider the whole thing where people actually died in their world (as opposed to our own, where R-Prime is a fiction) and treat it with the appropriate degree of respect and upset.

We're never shown a "sheep," but one could imagine that a crusader for justice or a person seeking truth for truth's own sake who refuses to impugn the memory of the dead just to be right would qualify. Or even just a person asking that people outside of law enforcement stop with the rampant speculation and allow those tasked with finding the truth to do their job (even though they probably never will).

Of course, as I've stressed, I really don't think RK07 put that level of thought into it (else he'd have played up the whole dichotomy). If anything I think the meaning of the goat motif in the story is their omnivorous nature and ability to deconstruct anything to feed themselves. Still, it's an interesting idea to make use of in a fan writing if you were so inclined, just not something I think he really ever intended to be a prevailing theme of the original work.

Originally Posted by Judoh

Fair enough. But why can you say something like this in red?

Die the death.The Great equalizer is the DEATH

Does that even really mean anything...? How is it true? Is it just said in red because it's cool?

I actually don't have a problem with a (bastardization of) "Death is the great equalizer" as a red statement. It's certainly factually true... once dead, rich man and pauper exist in the same state. Indeed, the Golden Land is a sort of dans macabre in a way. A bit more ghoulish than Beatrice intended, perhaps, but...

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Plus 'Touya'=18 and 'Ikuko'=19... that's no accident and, I believe, quite a far cry from "absolutely no comparison to ShKanon". It obviously points at Ikuko=Yasu.

No I don't think you get what I mean. All the evidence you point at are comparable to "Shannon and kanon never appear at the same time", "Kanon is the zero of the roulette", "Kanon and Shannon are similar in appearance" and so on.

Granted those who believed in shkanon simply by that ended up being correct, but no one in his right mind thought it was conclusive proof, and only a few considered it more than a joke theory.

Things changed drastically with EP6 because we had characters quite evidently hinting at shkanon with their own words. And there were a lot of them. I'm talking about entire dialogues, and whole scenes all centered around Shkanon.

We don't have that for Ikuko = Yasu. In order to seriously believe it I'd need to see a character whose words or actions or reactions make me think that he knows or believes that Ikuko is Yasu.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Spoiler for Higurashi:

Wasn't it a combination of coincidence and Takano's work? Iirc by the third year she was intentionally carrying out the "curse". Heck her whole motive involved her egoistic desire to be the one responsible for it.

Spoiler for Higurashi:

Only the third year curse was actively orchestrated by her before the obvious 5th year. And it was also by chance!
I explain, because I think the anime didn't really do that, I don't remember... Anyway Takano initially just wanted to do something about Rika's father, because he didn't want to let them do their experiments on his daughter anymore. So she asks Okonogi to do something, and Okonogi interprets that as "eliminate him". Takano didn't even think about doing that at first! When she realizes that Okonogi has no problem with murder she likes the idea and decides to set up an Oyashiro-sama curse scenario.

The big coincidence in this case is the timing. Some people decided to kill someone and it just happened to be around the day of the festival, so they decide to wait for that exact day. The next year is the same. Satoshi just happens to reach his limit around that time and decides to wait the few days that separe him from the festival to kill his aunt.

It could have happened 6 months before and then he wouldn't have waited that long. Note that Takano is absolutely not involved in the 4th year. Not even in the disapperance of Satoshi.

The second year is the biggest coincidence of all. Satoko doesn't even reason about the festival, she just happens to become insane on that day and her parents just happen to do that trip right on that day! Additionally the fact that one corpse is found and the other is not is also a coincidence (unlike with the other cases).

The first year also happened by chance, that worker could have gone mad before the festival or a week later.

[AuraTwilight]

The play on words on Hachijo's name maybe just means she's the new Beatrice, as she is in a sense since she wrote the forgeries.

But doesn't Toya write the forgeries? At best, Ikuko kinda edits.

Concerning George (too lazy to quote messages from last page)
I can sorta get how he was suspcious to a relative extent in the early arcs.
However Chiru doesn't seem to have promoted the idea at all and instead promoted that Eva was most likely innocent.
So to go back with my original question, about a satisfying culprit, would you be really satisfied with George as culprit?
Personally I think the level of "evidence" against George is something nearly all the characters have. I also think George would be the least satisfying culprit along with Jessica as they'd come out close to being 100% fake.

Who would Eva best take the blame for, but George, her beloved son? She'd totally keep her mouth shut if he were a murderer.

Also he has a motive: fat fat fat fat.

Can someone explain It is forbidden for a servant to be the culprit!! again?
Does Yasu count as a servant? or as someone said (sorry don't remmember who) it was not spoken in Beato's gameboard,but if that's true and beato's gameboard does not support Van Dine , how was WIll able to say other rules IN Beato's Gameboard.

Well, Yasu is the heir to the household pretending to be a servant.

Bur I don't believe Yasu is the murderer, so I don't have to justify that, heehee.

Ange protecting George? Ridiculous.

Why? They're cousins.

Also @Yasu!Ikuko theory: Man, fuck logistics. Personally believing that Yasu was innocent, let her have a happy ending. Jeeze.

Also, Lyrical's argument is convincing.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

It doesn't mean it is smart to assume there is another purpose. Let me make a few examples:

One person is found in possession of 10 kg of drugs. Considering it is a certain fact that he actively entered in possession of them, is it smart to think he isn't planning to sell them?

Another person trying to join a manifestation is found in possession of a gas mask, molotovs, and other several damaging tools. Is it smart to think that he didn't plan anything bad?

I don't think so.

I'm not criticizing the law or saying it's smart to assume there's another purpose.
In real life I personally don't even care if you've another purpose. It's forbidden, that's the end of it.
But we're talking about a fictional story and we're trying to figure out the character of a guy and his intentions and Umineko showed many characters don't act according to the MOST obvious explanation.
Kinzo is expecially defined as a weird guy.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

That's not what Ryuukishi said.

Yes, I know. Problem is there's a definite truth for him, who knows all the answers but what about us? We don't have a definite truth, just theories. Unless you've way to prove with certain one is exact, you don't have a definite truth in your hands.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

A mad caring grandad. Even supposing that he acted as it was shown in EP8 that doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't kill his family out of a gamble.

Yes, it doesn't mean he can't and it doesn't mean he can.
Let's agree we don't know what he would do, okay?

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

So what is your method to choose which is false and which is true?

I try to put myself from the perspective of the author and think about where he would lie and where he wouldn't. That's through this method that I reached the conclusion that it was more likely that he lied about the people dying in EP3 rather than pulling a shkanon troll in EP6.

I have however often the impression that a lot of people rather use the methods
1) What I like is true, what I don't like is fake
2) What fits with my pet theory is true, what it doesn't is fake

I have the impression you're expressing judgements on the method people chose without even knowing which is.
Have you considered I might have been using the same method as you but merely came to different conclusions and you reject my idea because it doesn't fit your theory or because you don't like it?

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Because you say I said thing that I never said. Namely that anyone who possess a gun is a murderer and that Kinzo is a mass murderer. And on the last part of this post you just said that I said that Battler was acting logically, even though I didn't.

You're nitpicking at each word I say. Isn't it a bit too much to ask me to quote exactly everything you said?
Also, in case you don't remember, the gun thing was an example.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Wait, you agree with this?

I agree she might have done it in the games. I think I already said many times I don't think she did so in Rokkenjima Prime.
But weren't we comparing the idea she did so with the idea Kinzo did the same?

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Attempt murder is only slightly less criminal than actual murder. I wouldn't say "merely".

Again nitpicking each word I say? It's obvious I don't condone attempted murder. But I don't think we were talking about this.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

If that's so, yes. But if he was gambling and if he was prepared to let the bomb go off should random event x happen, then he wouldn't be a mass murderer just for mere luck.

Yes, if we can prove he was prepared to let the bomb go off while on the island there was people he is no better than Yasu.
We can't prove it though. Even assuming he really did play russian roulette (and we can't prove if he did it), we can't know if he did when people was there or if he temporally sent them off the island for his own reasons.
In the games Yasu surely set off the bomb. In game 2 & 4 she surely killed herself without stopping the bomb.
I tend to assume in R Prime Yasu didn't set the bomb and merely played a murder game, however, if I'm wrong, she set off the bomb with the idea of letting it explode and assuming the people had really low chances to solve the epitaph and stop the murders.
She technically believed she was playing Russian Roulette with a six shot gun that had 5 bullets in, in fact she was hoping for a miracle.
Hell, from how she describe things she might have been even believing she was playing Russian Roulette with a fully charged gun and the miracle would be that despite pointing it at your head the bullet would miss anyway (which had happen in real life by the way. In some cases trembling hands are your best friend).

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Personally... hell no! Drowning looks like a terrible death to me. Anyway you are assuming that Battler knew the cave would crumble. That's probably not the case. All he thought was that he was safe from the explosion, he probably didn't think he wasn't completely safe from the shockwave.

Well, I guess our different opinion streams from the fact that for us the worst death is something different.
No, I'm assuming Battler couldn't know the cave was a safe place so he couldn't be sure it wouldn't crumble.
Since for me dying buried alive would be a worse death than drowning and I see more chances for the tunnel to crumble than for him to drown I would go for the sea.
You think risking to drown would be worse and that he has more chances to be safe in the tunnel so you think he would stay there.

Truth is it's up to Battler to decide which option would look less risky/scary to him.

We don't know what he actually did or could do, we're merely assuming he did this or that because to us it looks more logic. If, for example, he fainted, it wasn't a matter of choices anymore.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

No, I never said he was acting logically. I said he woudn't jump on a boat in the middle of a typhoon. I said he wasn't thinking straight but that's a far shot from saying he was acting randomly.

Maybe I understood you wrong so feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you but the reason you gave for him not jumping on the boat wasn't that it would be illogic? You might have used other words though (I can't find the exact quote) but wasn't that the idea behind your words?

Anyway if he was following a logic that was... well, logic not just to him but to external observers as well, he was acting logically.
If he was following a logic that was logic for him only, well he wasn't acting randomly on purpose but, for an external observer, it would be the same as he acting randomly because, since he's not in Battler's mind and can't follow his mind process, he can't find a logic pattern in his actions.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

A person that is under mild effect of alcohol might not think straight, but that doesn't mean he'd do something completley crazy and random or that he wouldn't recognize an apparent danger.

Yes, because a person under mind effect of alcohol might be still capable of some logical thinking, though his perception might be messed up so he still might be able not to recognize a danger.

Now, according to you Battler was capable to decide that staying there was less dangerous than leaving but that after the island exploded he wasn't capable to realize that waiting on the island after the explosion occurred was safer than trying to reach a 'nearby' island on his own, that he wanted to be found but not that getting far from the island would make harder for others to find him.

Logically speaking I can see the danger of being on the island BEFORE the explosion, not afterward and one of the basic rules for being found is to stay where others can find you.

[Keriaku]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Yes; a witch did it with her magic.

But no one approaching from a mystery angle is going to buy that. Maybe, to put it another way, you mean to say that RK07 is saying that 'the actual incident shouldn't even be approached as a "mystery"'. Actually, I'd agree with that assessment. I still want to know, though.

Hmm.... I was thinking something more along the lines of an 'accident' explanation, one where everyone became involved in some kind of deaths. Something like everyone was equally guilty, so there's really no point in trying to pinpoint a single culprit.

This is what I think Ryukishi is building up for Rokkenjima Prime, where if the 'truth' ever came out it would be too heavily colored by whoever is telling it to really be 'true'. This is what seems to have happened in the EP7 Tea Party, if that is Eva's perspective.

And the series gives ton of information to support this kind of idea. The illusion of Kinzo makes tension high. Almost everyone on the island is capable of murder, either in defense or for gain. Perhaps no one person had a chance to go on a rampage once shit hit the fan because everyone started fighting and taking sides. And even if we named a 'culprit', how can all the people telling various sorts of lies be not guilty?

People involved with the various illusons on the island (Beatrice's game and keeping Kinzo alive being the biggest) are the ones that created the environment for all the adults to be in such high stress. These things are a necessary part of what caused the incident. And this includes Maria in the guilty grouping.

I parallel this to Higurashi's Rule Z for what the Sonozaki family did, creating an 'environment' or atmosphere resulting in murder.

Under this kind of idea, no one is mastermind guilty. Rather everyone is guilty, so the incident should stay as an 'accident'. And if Ryuukishi tells us what happened in Rokkenjima Prime, then it'll have to be from someone's perspective. And since it can't be unbiased, there is no objective telling of events.

It makes complete sense with why Ryuukishi said EP7 was the end of the mystery part of the series. Is this an unsatisfying answer for people?

[rogerpepitone]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Spoiler for Higurashi:

The second year is the biggest coincidence of all. Satoko doesn't even reason about the festival, she just happens to become insane on that day and her parents just happen to do that trip right on that day! Additionally the fact that one corpse is found and the other is not is also a coincidence (unlike with the other cases).

Spoiler:

Her parents didn't "just happen" to go on a trip that day; they went out of town that day because it was the anniversary. And Satoko didn't "just happen" to go off that day; her parents taking her far away, up atop a cliff, was the trigger.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Why? They're cousins.

Ange would also be protecting Eva's memory at the same time by protecting George. Since she's found sympathy for her at this point I gather?

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Renall

I wanted to tangent for a second because I wanted to get back to a thing we were on a page or two ago and got away from.

Namely, I'm a bit perplexed by Ryukishi's thought process with respect to the Battler/Kyrie/Rudolf-as-culprits thing and whether we're supposed to believe it or reject it as him being a tease and a troll.

He loves teasing this theory, perhaps more than he likes talking about Yasu even. There's the ep7 Tea Party, Bern's game in ep8, Eva's behavior, BLACK BATTLER (*funk riff*) in an extra TIP, and all of it seems designed to throw the idea into our face, yet with so many questions and problems attached that it's almost like we're not really supposed to believe it.

Yet at the same time... he's not really offering us any evidence that we're not supposed to believe it. The only thing telling me Battler WASN'T the culprit is that the narrative has given me no good reason to believe he had a motive and the only reason I don't believe Kyrie is the culprit is that her stated motive makes no sense given her prior characterization. The facts themselves don't seem to exonerate the theory Ryukishi keeps pushing, only the meta-fictional notion that the narrative is somehow "wrong" if we accept it as true, leaving us with too many questions that aren't adequately answered. As dumb as Yasu's stated motive is, it is at least a motive. Battler isn't even given one. Why should I believe Ryukishi's teasing that he's the culprit?

Yet at the same time, why is he teasing me with something he knows I have too many problems with to believe? Who does he think is actually being fooled? Is his goal to fool anyone? What the hell is his goal with this whole branch of Umineko's endgame?

Is he trying to generate a dichotomy between "Yasu culprit" which has too many problems of fact and "Battler culprit" which has too many problems of motive, and expecting us to choose between them? Are we supposed to reject both and settle on a third answer? What's the evidence we're meant to use to discern and prove that, then? Certainly we've not been able to do it so far, and we've tried.

I think that it's possible we've more than one culprit on Rokkenjima and that we place the blame on Rudolf and Kirye (and possibly Battler) because we didn't hear their side of the story.

Let's pick EP 7. It says that Eva and Hideyoshi were the first to push the trigger and that killed two people. But we overlook this because we believe it happened by accident as it was told.

Now... it's hard to think that EVERYONE died by accident however people might have shot other people believing they were a threat... in fact in EP 2 Rosa wanted to shoot Battler because she believed he was the culprit.

My guess is that is possible there's a 'multiple culprit' answer with each culprit acting for a reason he believed 'acceptable' (in short he didn't kill due to greed or hate or cruelty but by mistake, in self defence, believing he was protecting someone, out of paranoia).

However I couldn't work up yet a theory that would allow multiple culprits to kill so many people without generating a scenery in which people are shooting randomly at each other...

We've to assume only 2, at best 3 people (if you want to assume Shannon survived as well) out of 16 people survived if we want to assume the bomb exploded to cover it and not to kill the survivors.
It means 'at best' 13 people were killed.

Unless someone had a machine gun or went paranoid and started shooting like a madman it's really hard to find a way to make this fit.

For example: Krauss and Natsuhi were killed by mistake by Hideyoshi and Eva like in EP 7.
The siblings hid their death but their death cause Rosa to go paranoid. She kills Maria in a fit of rage without meaning to (it's what Battler suggested in EP 3) which doesn't help her to calm down, then begin threatening everyone with a gun (EP 2). Maybe she shot someone (Let's say Gohda, Kumasawa and Nanjo). In fear she'll shot someone else, someone (let's say Kirye) shot her (EP 7 again, only this time there's self defence as motive to kill her). She dies.

Meanwhile Krauss and Natsuhi are nowhere to be found.
Jessica becomes suspicious of Eva and attacks her (EP 3). George gets in between. Now I'm not sure Jessica can kill George with a fist of hers but George might accidentally kill her with a kick of his. Jessica dies.
In shock George runs to Shannon but something goes wrong, he seems crazy and dangerous. Battler gets in between the two have a scuffle and believing he's protecting Battler Rudolf kill George. Hideyoshi comes and kills Rudolf for Killing George. Kirye comes and kill Hideyoshi for killing Rudolf and/or threatening Battler. Eva joins, she'd like to kill everyone else for killing her husband and son but Battler managed to escape. Kirye has no such luck.

Genji commits suicide since he believes the Ushiromiya are dead and feels responsible for it.

Eva sets the bomb and escape to Kuwadorian. Battler also escaped but, by mistake (or in order to avoid Eva) takes a wrong turn.

Everything goes KABOOM.

Theoretically a possible scenery (likely with some revision) but, after a while with so many people killing other people by mistake or because they went insane it gets RIDICULE.

An evil culprit is probably more depressing and is a story with less love but sounds more rational as explanation.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I
Yes, I know. Problem is there's a definite truth for him, who knows all the answers but what about us? We don't have a definite truth, just theories. Unless you've way to prove with certain one is exact, you don't have a definite truth in your hands.
Yes, it doesn't mean he can't and it doesn't mean he can.
Let's agree we don't know what he would do, okay?

I think you are missing the point of this thread and of the mystery sleuthing in general. We are not supposed to give up to the phylosophical impossibility to know the truth with 100% certainty and be agnostic on everything. We are supposed to use our logic and the elements at our disposal to reach conclusions.

Think it like the problem of the three boxes in EP8. After only two remains if you use your logic correctly you'll know that the prize has more probabilities to be on the other box and not on the one you chose. You still don't know where the prize is it might be on the box you own. But if you know that the higher probability is in the other, WHY you'd want to stick with the one you chose randomly?

Asking me to acknowledge that I don't know the truth is as pointless as asking me to acknowlede that I don't know in which box the prize is, as if the logic that led me to conclude which is more probable didn't mean a thing.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Have you considered I might have been using the same method as you but merely came to different conclusions and you reject my idea because it doesn't fit your theory or because you don't like it?

Have you considered that I might have done that?

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Yes, if we can prove he was prepared to let the bomb go off while on the island there was people he is no better than Yasu.
We can't prove it though.

Again you are missing the point completely. Stop asking me to prove stuff. I just need to show the logic that leads to the most probable conclusion.

Don't you realize that you are playing the part of the witch as soon as you need to resort to "you can't prove it!" to defend your argument? I can't prove you that devils don't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that it's illogic to assume they exist.

Try to show faults in my logic, show me why your pov is more logical. Stop talking about proving stuff.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Maybe I understood you wrong so feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you but the reason you gave for him not jumping on the boat wasn't that it would be illogic?

I don't remember saying that. Maybe I said that it would be illogic to think that Battler jumped on the boat in the middle of a typhoon? That's quite different from saying that he was acting logically.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Anyway if he was following a logic that was... well, logic not just to him but to external observers as well, he was acting logically.
If he was following a logic that was logic for him only, well he wasn't acting randomly on purpose but, for an external observer, it would be the same as he acting randomly because, since he's not in Battler's mind and can't follow his mind process, he can't find a logic pattern in his actions.

things are not completely white or completely black. I'm sure you understand the difference between "not thinking straight" and "being batshit crazy".

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Yes, because a person under mind effect of alcohol might be still capable of some logical thinking, though his perception might be messed up so he still might be able not to recognize a danger.

And not thinking straight doesn't mean not thinking at all.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Now, according to you Battler was capable to decide that staying there was less dangerous than leaving

I'm not assuming that kind of speculative thinking. I'm assuming that he was capable to recognize a death threat if he saw it. But before that I'm assuming that his irrational fear of boats and weavy water would trigger first.

No actually in the first place I'm only assuming that he wasn't thinking straight after the explosion already occured and at that time the water was already calm. I never said he wasn't thinking straight before the explosion.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

but that after the island exploded he wasn't capable to realize that waiting on the island after the explosion occurred was safer than trying to reach a 'nearby' island on his own, that he wanted to be found but not that getting far from the island would make harder for others to find him.

No I'm assuming something completely different. He wasn't thinking straight so he could only see the basic things and not the more complex. If he was thinking straight he would have waited for rescue, instead the only thing he could think is that he couldn't remain there. So he tried to go "somewhere" without even knowing where he was heading.

People in confusional state do reason that way, and they are known for roaming aimlessly.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Keriaku

Hmm.... I was thinking something more along the lines of an 'accident' explanation, one where everyone became involved in some kind of deaths. Something like everyone was equally guilty, so there's really no point in trying to pinpoint a single culprit.

This is what I think Ryukishi is building up for Rokkenjima Prime, where if the 'truth' ever came out it would be too heavily colored by whoever is telling it to really be 'true'. This is what seems to have happened in the EP7 Tea Party, if that is Eva's perspective.

And the series gives ton of information to support this kind of idea. The illusion of Kinzo makes tension high. Almost everyone on the island is capable of murder, either in defense or for gain. Perhaps no one person had a chance to go on a rampage once shit hit the fan because everyone started fighting and taking sides. And even if we named a 'culprit', how can all the people telling various sorts of lies be not guilty?

People involved with the various illusons on the island (Beatrice's game and keeping Kinzo alive being the biggest) are the ones that created the environment for all the adults to be in such high stress. These things are a necessary part of what caused the incident. And this includes Maria in the guilty grouping.

I parallel this to Higurashi's Rule Z for what the Sonozaki family did, creating an 'environment' or atmosphere resulting in murder.

Under this kind of idea, no one is mastermind guilty. Rather everyone is guilty, so the incident should stay as an 'accident'. And if Ryuukishi tells us what happened in Rokkenjima Prime, then it'll have to be from someone's perspective. And since it can't be unbiased, there is no objective telling of events.

It makes complete sense with why Ryuukishi said EP7 was the end of the mystery part of the series. Is this an unsatisfying answer for people?

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I think that it's possible we've more than one culprit on Rokkenjima and that we place the blame on Rudolf and Kirye (and possibly Battler) because we didn't hear their side of the story.

Let's pick EP 7. It says that Eva and Hideyoshi were the first to push the trigger and that killed two people. But we overlook this because we believe it happened by accident as it was told.

Now... it's hard to think that EVERYONE died by accident however people might have shot other people believing they were a threat... in fact in EP 2 Rosa wanted to shoot Battler because she believed he was the culprit.

My guess is that is possible there's a 'multiple culprit' answer with each culprit acting for a reason he believed 'acceptable' (in short he didn't kill due to greed or hate or cruelty but by mistake, in self defence, believing he was protecting someone, out of paranoia).

However I couldn't work up yet a theory that would allow multiple culprits to kill so many people without generating a scenery in which people are shooting randomly at each other...

We've to assume only 2, at best 3 people (if you want to assume Shannon survived as well) out of 16 people survived if we want to assume the bomb exploded to cover it and not to kill the survivors.
It means 'at best' 13 people were killed.

Unless someone had a machine gun or went paranoid and started shooting like a madman it's really hard to find a way to make this fit.

For example: Krauss and Natsuhi were killed by mistake by Hideyoshi and Eva like in EP 7.
The siblings hid their death but their death cause Rosa to go paranoid. She kills Maria in a fit of rage without meaning to (it's what Battler suggested in EP 3) which doesn't help her to calm down, then begin threatening everyone with a gun (EP 2). Maybe she shot someone (Let's say Gohda, Kumasawa and Nanjo). In fear she'll shot someone else, someone (let's say Kirye) shot her (EP 7 again, only this time there's self defence as motive to kill her). She dies.

Meanwhile Krauss and Natsuhi are nowhere to be found.
Jessica becomes suspicious of Eva and attacks her (EP 3). George gets in between. Now I'm not sure Jessica can kill George with a fist of hers but George might accidentally kill her with a kick of his. Jessica dies.
In shock George runs to Shannon but something goes wrong, he seems crazy and dangerous. Battler gets in between the two have a scuffle and believing he's protecting Battler Rudolf kill George. Hideyoshi comes and kills Rudolf for Killing George. Kirye comes and kill Hideyoshi for killing Rudolf and/or threatening Battler. Eva joins, she'd like to kill everyone else for killing her husband and son but Battler managed to escape. Kirye has no such luck.

Genji commits suicide since he believes the Ushiromiya are dead and feels responsible for it.

Eva sets the bomb and escape to Kuwadorian. Battler also escaped but, by mistake (or in order to avoid Eva) takes a wrong turn.

Everything goes KABOOM.

Theoretically a possible scenery (likely with some revision) but, after a while with so many people killing other people by mistake or because they went insane it gets RIDICULE.

An evil culprit is probably more depressing and is a story with less love but sounds more rational as explanation.

Keriaku and jjBlue1 you seem to have come to similar conclusions with this more than one culprit idea. and they sound probable.

But I think we arrive to the same problem as all the other theories. What about GOHDA? Forget intentionally murdering him why would anyone accidentally kill him? Gohda couldn't hurt a fly there's no way he could scare people!

Although if you can find a reason for that maybe it'd be more satisfying than 'screw him!'?

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Keriaku and jjBlue1 you seem to have come to similar conclusions with this more than one culprit idea. and they sound probable.

But I think we arrive to the same problem as all the other theories. What about GOHDA? Forget intentionally murdering him why would anyone accidentally kill him? Gohda couldn't hurt a fly there's no way he could scare people!

Although if you can find a reason for that maybe it'd be more satisfying than 'screw him!'?

*nods* the deaths of Gohda, Kumasawa, Nanjo and Genji are the hardest to explain because it's unlikely that they represented a threat or were killed out of hate.

In order to kill them you have to:
- be paranoic and think that anyone is a threat
- think they are accomplices of someone dangerous (you're being a bit more logical in your paranoia as 3 of them were accomplice of Krauss and Natsuhi and of Shannon... it's up to depate if Krauss, Natsuhi and Shannon were 'dangerous')
- be responsible of a murder and fear they would testify against you (the same can apply if someone you care is responsible for a murder and you fear they would testify against him)
- be trying to shot at someone for some reason and have one of them end up on your line of shooting
- have them go paranoid and become dangerous (possibly Gohda... I doubt the other 3 would go paranoid)
- mistake them for one of the murder (you find them near to a corpse and with a gun in their hands and think they killed him when they just find him and picked up the gun... they think it was you who killed him as you've the gun... gunshots ensue and we say bye to one of the servants.)

Note that I use 'they' but the motive might apply also for one of them only (actually in many cases it would be better if it applied for one of them only).

Also there's the chance Genji committed suicide. In EP 2 he likely knows about the bomb but does nothing to stop it. I'll say if he were to believe his masters died he might consider not surviving to the tragedy.

Here's an interesting thought.

What if it was Genji who caused the island to blow up?

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I agree with UsagiTempura that I can't really see how Umineko can have a satisfying culprit at this point.
But the main problem is that no matter what you pick, it would come out as either a total ass pull (Hey the culprit is Hideyoshi, who had a complicated story and background that made him do that, but none of that was ever told or properly hinted through 8 fucking arcs!) or the confirmation of one of the usual suspects that however doesn't make anyone happy or satisfied: ("Kyrie did it, the goats were right! meh..." or "Yasu did it... and it was awfully stupid...")

In order to have a satisfying culprit you'd need at least (at least!) one chapter entirely centered on the culprit motive and the background that led him to that decision. However the only character that got that is Yasu.

Kyrie just grabbing the chance to get the money is just lame... and retarded...

Let me say this, but any kind of murder plan where you have an apparent motive and that doesn't also include the construction of an alibi for yourself is far from being a smart plan. Even worse if you won't be able to deny that you were in fact on the crime scene at the time of the crime! Even worse if it'd be hard to explain who else could do it beside you.

*nods*
Yes, although it's real that greed is the motive for many crimes somehow having Kirye and Rudolf to kill so many people in cold blood just for the money doesn't sound like a motive good enough.

When it was said that Ange was left in the Sumadera care I thought it could have been possible the Sumadera were blackmailing her and Rudolf so that if they weren't to pay Ange would die or something, giving them a more personal reason to be in need of money and be ready to do everything to get it but there's no evidence they were blackmailed.
(and still, murdering everyone is a big hard to swallow)

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

That seemed fairly suggestive to me, personally. But even without that, there's the strong thematic argument for it, and a bunch of issues that would be explained, like:

- Why does Ikuko randomly adopt a stranger into her family and keep him a secret? (Because she knew who he was and didn't want him to become a suspect in the incident.)
- Why do things that Battler shouldn't have known keep finding their way into Tohya's stories? (Because they were inserted by Ikuko.)
- Why are the third and fourth games considered by Will and Clair to be Beatrice's work? (Because Ikuko helped write them.)
- What was Yasu doing during the two-year blank leading up to the incident? (She was secretly building the identity of "the rich novelist Ikuko Hachijou" and considering whether to abandon her life on the island.)

I so agree with all you said.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

By that logic I can deduce that obscure knowledge concerning italian subs of WW2 is not a minor element of the story.
Nearly all writers do some mythology and technical research to know what they are using in their stories. There isn't anything very particular about that.
Also Im fairly certain that most of Ryuukishi's "research" can be resumed as reading the divine comedy (concerning religious symbols), which he obviously did.

Hum... I personally find that the chances Italy would try to hide its gold in Japan extremely low if not inexistant but let's forget this and go for the guys that likely had the job.

Funny enough from the way they are described I can bet they're member of the 'X' Mas, an Italian unit of the Regia Marina (Royal Navvy). The X in their name is supposed to mean 10th, so yes, there's a number in their name (they were supposed to have the same name as Giulio Cesare's fave divison).

Spoiler for Info about the Xª MAS you might or not might care to read:

Likely very few people know this but the Xª MAS was a highly patriotic corp with very well trained members who fought till the end of the war and had as main goal to protect their country's honour and territories. They had no political colour which caused them to get in disagrement often with the Fascist government of north Italy. They decided almost immediately they wouldn't surrender as they judged it dishonorable and managed to get an agreement with the German forces so they had more freedom than any other military corpse Fascist Italy had.
Their most famous action was the sinking of Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and a tanker in a single night using 6 men and 3 manned torpedoes.
They definitely fit the description we're given.

However, apart from being named after a number and... well, being the only ones who had APPARENTLY the fitting characteristics to do the job (carrying the gold and Beatrice to Rokkenjima and being patriotic and good enough to stand against the soldiers in a Japanese military base)... I can't see any other reason for Ryukishi to involve them.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Have you considered that I might have done that?

Yes, but I saw no evidence you accepted that the same premise could lead me to a different logic conclusion. Even your example about chosing boxes implies you're doing the logic choice while I'm merely picking up at random or stubbornly insisting on a box that I've picked up at random when I could reason think over and agree with you.

I already told you why I disagree with you, why I don't think your point of view is more logical than mine but we're merely bouncing the ball back and forth.

You don't persuade me, I don't persuade you. End of the story.

Since we can't find an agreement on our theories let's at least agree we disagree and get done with this.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

All the evidence you point at are comparable to "Shannon and kanon never appear at the same time", "Kanon is the zero of the roulette", "Kanon and Shannon are similar in appearance" and so on.

Yes! It is! I am comparing the hints of Ikuko=Yasu as they are now to the hints of ShKanon before ShKanon was fully revealed. ShKanon, by actually being right, made a precedent: if the hints for ShKanon (as you wrote above) were good enough for ShKanon to turn out true, then the hints for Ikuko=Yasu as they are now are good enough for Ikuko=Yasu to be true.

Originally Posted by Keriaku

no one is mastermind guilty. Rather everyone is guilty, so the incident should stay as an 'accident'. And if Ryuukishi tells us what happened in Rokkenjima Prime, then it'll have to be from someone's perspective. And since it can't be unbiased, there is no objective telling of events.

Yeah there definitely is this angle. It's definitely an idea that RK07 was putting forth, if only implicitly. And of course what's written in Eva's diary is Red Truth, but we all know Red Truth is subjective truth.

On the other hand, it's a hard sell to claim that "everyone is equally guilty". I have to think that some people are more responsible for it than others, but I definitively agree that it's not black and white with completely evil villains and perfectly innocent victims (Gohda and a few others arguably notwithstanding). I mean, Kyrie loves Ange; how can anyone doubt that?

Originally Posted by Judoh

Keriaku and jjBlue1 you seem to have come to similar conclusions with this more than one culprit idea. and they sound probable.

But I think we arrive to the same problem as all the other theories. What about GOHDA? Forget intentionally murdering him why would anyone accidentally kill him? Gohda couldn't hurt a fly there's no way he could scare people!

People don't have to see someone as a threat to accidentally kill them. Say two paranoid people were fighting over a gun and then Gohda (being the *ahem* noble man that he is) tried to intervene but somehow got shot in the scuffle.

Honestly, I find Maria being killed to be the hardest to swallow. And jjblue1's idea that Rosa killed her just makes me want to cry.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Keriaku

Under this kind of idea, no one is mastermind guilty. Rather everyone is guilty, so the incident should stay as an 'accident'. And if Ryuukishi tells us what happened in Rokkenjima Prime, then it'll have to be from someone's perspective. And since it can't be unbiased, there is no objective telling of events.

It makes complete sense with why Ryuukishi said EP7 was the end of the mystery part of the series. Is this an unsatisfying answer for people?

In that such a conclusion is absolutely morally repugnant, yes, it's completely unsatisfying.

If everyone is partially guilty, than more than anything else it should not be viewed as an accident! Besides, it's highly unlikely that absolutely everyone was equally guilty. Under a circumstance where tragedy unfolds from greed, how are Gohda and Kumasawa going to be even remotely as culpable as Kyrie or Rosa?

The truth - and justice - demand knowledge be shared. That this knowledge may be biased is understandable. However, we cannot analyze testimony and determine bias or truth if that testimony has never been given. And to spread the guilt evenly when it is impossible that it was actually evenly distributed is an injustice to those who are "less guilty," even if we accept the premise that everyone is somehow partially responsible.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I think you understand what I mean, dude. We don't know anything that happened except for Battler and Eva surviving. Otherwise everything is up in the air. For all we know Ange stowed away, killed everyone as an evil genius toddler, went back home, and got amnesia.

I swear casually, even if I'm calm; you can disregard it.

But my point is that Prime is one big unknowable blank with current information. It's in no way comparable to "fuck it, magic so it's IMPOSSIBLE to REASON."

We can reason fine, but we can't confirm a damn thing, so we can't make statements like "I don't think EP8's Bern puzzle is reliable" any more than we can say "EP7 Tea Party is totally the truth."

Every bit of information we have, for the most part, is a 'maybe'.

We know quite a bit more than this for Rokkenjima Prime though.

You're right about Ange, she may not have done all the things that were written of her throughout the episodes. In general the stuff that has her doing two different things or where she experiences magical things like 'out of order' meetings with Featherine are probably not real. But there is the ending of EP8. It seems to me that that scene validated her leaving the world as Ange and becoming a novelist.

I think we shouldn't approach Umineko like it's finished, basically. So yeah, we can't confirm anything (other than what's been exposed in the stories), but it's basically like we're still in the middle of waiting for a new episode.

And actually, there's more information coming out. There's that "Warewa no kokuhaku" booklet that's coming out this December, although I think it will have more solutions for the individual episodes 1-6 instead.

I've made plans to get a hold of it (Merchandise thread) and I was thinking of summarizing it here when I do.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

If you don't like it, don't read it. Don't fucking talk to me like people have to put up with my vitrolic arguments and mannerisms and then turn around and tell me "I don't think your discussion is worth while, go elsewhere."

I try not to read it, really. But then it's everywhere and you won't stop. The main problem is you give up, and then you blame Ryukishi for it. But the reasoning where you blame him isn't either convincing... or even presented.

My main point is that this is the Spoilers, Theories and Interpretations thread, not the Present Blanket Statements, Swear at Ryukishi and Make an Asshole Of Myself thread.

There are quite a few things we can criticise Ryukishi for of course. And those things should be discussed, although, I'm saying, that maybe we shouldn't be doing this on the Spoilers, Theories and Interpretation thread for pages and pages non-stop. By saying 'go elsewhere,' I mean maybe you should be doing this on the Overall Impressions thread.

I am no moderator though, and until we get some real confirmation, go ahead, do as you please.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

May I ask, in order to continue your reasoning, how this reflects on scenes where Shannon and Kanon seem to be revived in an allegorical sense?

I'm not sure what you mean by allegorical sense, but do you mean scenes like where 'Kanon' comes back from the dead at the end of EP3 and 'saves' Jessica, even though we know that's Yasu and Kanon was already declared dead?

From a detective mystery point of view, this is probably a big no-no. But then, the main point of this whole 6, possibly 7 or 8 episodes was to try and understand what Yasu is going through. And the main point to all of this is that she has these false lives she's been living that she has to give up now. And once they've been given up she has nothing left except to kill herself. This stuff is outside the detective novel fiction, but it can still fit into the genre of 'mystery.' (i.e. say, a Steven King style mystery or other works of 'mystery' that aren't necessarily detective stories.)

Anyways, this sort of revival kept happening in every episode, mostly for Kanon. I remember asking on here time and time again about how it is that Kanon could be walking again after he was dead. Let's see.. EP2, he revives for revenge and murder. EP3 he revives to save Jessica. I don't remember him reviving in EP1, but we've kinda figured out now that he didn't really die.

As for Shannon, she has less revivals per se; but in EP3, her revivals were shown as being caused by George. That fits in with what Ryukishi has said so far that the culmination of her life is receiving acknowledgement of her love with George. But anything afterwards is death to Shannon (as Yasu has it stuck in her head that they can't actually be together.)

Shannon however seems to be the one most likely to be in possession of a gun. Or Yasu. And a pistol no less, since she did the suicide-string-gun-behind-wardrobe trick in EP2. So, EP3 makes sense where she hugs George and shoots them both with one shot from his back. EP4 makes sense where she just starts shooting people at random. And then did the suicide-string trick on top of the grate.

Anyways, is this what you meant?