[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 5 End of the golden witch

[ElderKain]

Originally Posted by Proto

The Knox commandments can only be used when explaining the crime from the mistery POV. If you are explaining it from a fantasy POV you are not restricted by those and can do whatever you want with your explanation. eg. Beatrice and Gaap create magical secret passages left and right during the whole game.

oh....

then what about
Knox's 2nd: It is forbidden for supernatural agencies to be employed as a detective technique.

that has a fantasy POV as well to it...

[sora1412]

Originally Posted by ElderKain

I just had my own Theory on what Knox's 5th Commandment is, lol.
Since in the Ep5 Arc, the actual use of the Knox's 5th was not not used.

ElderKain's Knox's 5th: The culprit cannot be of supernatural origin.

If the above is the case, it was purposely left out becasue if that was know, it would be instant win for Battler, and if that is the case as well, it works well with actual mysteries, like the "Hound of the Baskervilles" story on how it wasn't really a demon hound (supernatural creature) but just some trick from the culprit.
or like Scooby Doo Mysteries, lol.

If you take my Knox's 5th into consideration, it fits well with the other commandments.

I can counter that I believe

Beatrice never said she would use Knox commandments to heart and declare her mystery is an orthodox one. Also, she probably only allowed some of the commandments to remain to allow the game to be more constructive.

[~Diru~]

Originally Posted by ElderKain

I just had my own Theory on what Knox's 5th Commandment is, lol.
Since in the Ep5 Arc, the actual use of the Knox's 5th was not not used.

ElderKain's Knox's 5th: The culprit cannot be of supernatural origin.

If the above is the case, it was purposely left out becasue if that was know, it would be instant win for Battler, and if that is the case as well, it works well with actual mysteries, like the "Hound of the Baskervilles" story on how it wasn't really a demon hound (supernatural creature) but just some trick from the culprit.
or like Scooby Doo Mysteries, lol.

If you take my Knox's 5th into consideration, it fits well with the other commandments.

Well the original 5th rule is:

5. No Chinaman must figure in the story

Like this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YellowPeril

Well, you could say "No Foreigner must figure in the story" or sth. like that, but it isn't really needed in the EP5 case.

EDIT:
About

then what about
Knox's 2nd: It is forbidden for supernatural agencies to be employed as a detective technique.

that has a fantasy POV as well to it...

It is rather fantasy from a mystery POV, it just says that fantasy beings can't help the detective to come to a conclusion...

[ElderKain]

Originally Posted by ~Diru~

EDIT:
About

It is rather fantasy from a mystery POV, it just says that fantasy beings can't help the detective to come to a conclusion...

If Supernatural beings can't help with the conclusion, they can't be the culprit either, that's one of the reasons I suggested that for Knox's 5th.

Why show a rule which denies your own existence. That's my theory on why Knox's 5th wasn't displayed.

[~Diru~]

Originally Posted by ElderKain

If Supernatural beings can't help with the conclusion, they can't be the culprit either, that's one of the reasons I suggested that for Knox's 5th.

Why show a rule which denies your own existence. That's my theory on why Knox's 5th wasn't displayed.

Well if you fight using Knox' Rules as detective, than the culprit can't be a supernatural being I guess...
I don't think you can use them against a fantasy explanation at all (like: I dissapeared with magic, can magic be called a drug or hidden passage?) , so I guess they are just used to discuss one or two mystery explanations...

[ClockWorkAngel]

However the existence of Knox's fifth still does not deny the existence of a witch, only the possibility that a witch is the culprit.

And the Witch's game board doesn't need to follow all of the decalogue, only enough to make it solvable.

If we assume that the decalouge has some holding in the game, it serves as effective red and dramatically reduces the amount of possibilities; leading a single unique answer.

[ElderKain]

Originally Posted by ClockWorkAngel

However the existence of Knox's fifth still does not deny the existence of a witch, only the possibility that a witch is the culprit.

And the Witch's game board doesn't need to follow all of the decalogue, only enough to make it solvable.

If we assume that the decalouge has some holding in the game, it serves as effective red and dramatically reduces the amount of possibilities; leading a single unique answer.

lol, I'm gonna make a 4koma based off of the Knox's Commandments, lol.

For the 5th i'm gonna have it where, It's unknown, and since it's unknown Battler can fill in what he wants ^.^

Easy Win ^.^

[rogerpepitone]

Just google "Ronald-Knox rules" for the list. http://gadetection.pbworks.com/Ronal...ective+Fiction

[~Diru~]

The problem with those is, that the 5th rule would be against the whole story, as they are all "chinamen"...
When mysterys all around the world are discussed with the rules, the 5th can't really be used that way/would change to "foreigners" for example...
And because no real person on Rokkenjima is a foreigner (afaik), the rule doesn't need to be included.

[ElderKain]

Originally Posted by ~Diru~

The problem with those is, that the 5th rule would be against the whole story, as they are all "chinamen"...
When mysterys all around the world are discussed with the rules, the 5th can't really be used that way/would change to "foreigners" for example...
And because no real person on Rokkenjima is a foreigner (afaik), the rule doesn't need to be included.

I think it means that

Knox's 5th: Eastern Mystery theories can not be used in a Western Mystery plot and vice-versa.

That's how I interpret the Chinaman part of that dialogue

I think that's why it was left out of Umineko, because Umineko involves both.

[~Diru~]

Originally Posted by ElderKain

I think it means that

Knox's 5th: Eastern Mystery theories can not be used in a Western Mystery plot and vice-versa.

That's how I interpret the Chinaman part of that dialogue

I read that this rule was similiar to "the butler did it" nowadays, some asian person was the culprit almost every time

[MuzikalNotes]

If I remember correctly, the 'Chinaman' refers to how, around the end of a book, some random person (normally foreigner, hence the name) just comes around and is just shown to be the culprit; this also violates the 1st commandment/rule. It's almost the same as the 1st, though, so adding it in doesn't really add up to anything.

[Knicknevin]

Originally Posted by ~Diru~

The problem with those is, that the 5th rule would be against the whole story, as they are all "chinamen"...
When mysteries all around the world are discussed with the rules, the 5th can't really be used that way/would change to "foreigners" for example...
And because no real person on Rokkenjima is a foreigner (afaik), the rule doesn't need to be included.

Knox's 5th is a counter to probably the worst of all bad mystery writer habits- the Scooby Doo principle. The Scooby Doo principle is 'anyone who has been even briefly mentioned can be the culprit, with no further clues presented'.

Therefore, if the detective made a theory that The boat captain is the culprit!, it wouldn't even need to be discussed. The 5th simply removes such a minor character from consideration. To clarify- the 5th reinforces the assertion that there must be proper clues and foreshadowing. Many bad mystery writers in Knox's day would have just a single sentence, like "Mr. xxxx had a Chinaman working for him" with nothing more said on the subject, and then at the end the detective would reveal this Chinaman to be the culprit.

But "Chinaman" is just an analogy for any character without enough development to be made a valid suspect by the reader.

[ElderKain]

Originally Posted by ~Diru~

I read that this rule was similiar to "the butler did it", some asian person was the culprit almost every time

Well that's kinda like what was mentioned in Umineko Arc5 Tea Party, where battler was talking to Dlanor was talking with Battler about interpretations of the Knox Decalogue, as they could be viewed in different ways.

[chronotrig]

Okay, just to clarify things, because this has come up over and over again.

Knox's 5th does not mean "a foreign-ish person cannot be the culprit". It addresses a specific trend in Western detective novels at the time and therefore has no relevance to Umineko. Ryuukishi could have used it if he wanted to, but he would be forced to change it from it's original intended meaning.

[ElderKain]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Okay, just to clarify things, because this has come up over and over again.

Knox's 5th does not mean "a foreign-ish person cannot be the culprit". It addresses a specific trend in Western detective novels at the time and therefore has no relevance to Umineko. Ryuukishi could have used it if he wanted to, but he would be forced to change it from it's original intended meaning.

I'm surprised Battler didn't ask about Knox's 5th...
Especially since in the Tea Party, he was asking what were the Knox Decalogues, lol.

When they were being explained, I didn't hear about the 5th, so I was wondering as well... lol.

Since it doesn't mention anything about it in Umineko, I guess I can just fill in what I want for it ^.^
Let my Imagination go wild ^.^

[~Diru~]

Originally Posted by ElderKain

I'm surprised Battler didn't ask about Knox's 5th...
Especially since in the Tea Party, he was asking what were the Knox Decalogues, lol.

When they were being explained, I didn't hear about the 5th, so I was wondering as well... lol.

Since it doesn't mention anything about it in Umineko, I guess I can just fill in what I want for it ^.^
Let my Imagination go wild ^.^

I don't think it works like this

[Arkwright]

I suppose if there were an equivalent to Knox's 5th in the Umineko universe, it would be:

It is forbidden for a stranger of unknown origins to be the culprit.

Which doesn't really apply to this story, because everyone knows each other. It would be like if Erika happened to be there in every game from the start, wasn't the detective, and turned out to be behind everything. It's just a device to prevent an easy scapegoat from cheapening the story.

[k//eternal]

Like chronotrig mentioned, Knox's 5th involves a trend in Western detective fiction in which some villain of Oriental origin was used as a sort of cheap stock ending (kind of similar to the "bastard" in Shakespeare's time).

I wouldn't read too much into its exclusion.

[Knicknevin]

Moving along, let's bring things back to the murders for the time being. I had a few thoughts I'd like nitpicked.

With regards to Renall's post earlier:

Originally Posted by Renall

You can't let on. Same reason Battler is arguing against her. If everybody just agreed, what would be the point? She might also start to catch on. It's also possible Battler got mad because he realized the real purpose of the "game" was to corner Natsuhi, and it stopped being fun once they started tormenting her.

The First Twilight cannot be real. It's simply not possible. Nobody's behavior makes any sense.

1) No one runs for the guns. They do this every time they have the opportunity (ep4 notwithstanding, and we don't KNOW what happened to the guns there). If they think there is a killer, they get something to defend themselves. All of the adults are alive, yet not one word is spoken of getting a weapon. Why? They believe they are in no danger.

2) They spend more time cornering Natsuhi than trying to figure out who killed everyone. Why would they specifically suspect Natsuhi at first? Why not suspect Battler's family first? Kyrie and Rudolf stand to gain the most. Not one time is any notion of their guilt suspected. That's because they're part of, or even organizing, the fake deaths and/or "game." No one suspects them because there's nobody really dead.

3) Hideyoshi talks to himself very pointedly about the door being unlocked and closing the windows. He then cries loudly over George. But he should know that, as far as he's aware, George isn't really dead. It's all an act, put on for Natsuhi whom everyone knows will be hiding in the closet. No one was in the room with him. He wasn't attacked at all.

4) Nobody bothers to search the closet, and in fact they actively prevent Erika from doing so. They would never be so daft. They knew Natsuhi was in there from the start, but they didn't want to corner her yet.

Krauss was also a 'victim' of the first twilight. He even had his room prepared to fake his death the same as the others. And I have trouble placing him in a scheme to expose his wife for hiding Kinzo's death. Or murdering an adopted child and maid. Jessica either- her protectiveness of her parents is obvious.

Better to think that the 'murders' were a ploy the family made up during the late night conference to entertain their surprise guest. Natsuhi was ordered not to speak to anyone or accept any calls by the REAL killer, in order to isolate her from the plan and make her a 'suspect'. The rest of the family probably never realized that Natsuhi wasn't actually acting. She was probably intended to take the suspects role (by the killer's suggestion) and the killer falsely told everyone else she was in on the plan.

The killer had taken Krauss from his room and detained him someplace, and after threatening Natsuhi, killed Krauss and then hunted down the other 'victims' where they were hiding.

During the search for Kinzo, Natsuhi gets cornered pretty easily by Erika and the rest of the family. The killer's plan is not to indite Natsuhi for hiding Kinzo's death, so either the killer stifles Erika's arguments by quickly accepting Battler's explanation for how Kinzo escaped, or Battler himself is the killer and rescued Natsuhi in order to squeeze the real confession he wants out of her.

Natsuhi later goes to hide in the closet as planned, and some time later, Hideyoshi finds the room he was directed to, locks himself in, and does a brief bereaved father act before faking his death.

Both Kyrie and Battler use some misdirection to prevent Erika from looking inside the closet. I have trouble finding this coincidental. Maybe the original plan was for Natsuhi to be hiding there in the first place. Or maybe it wasn't, and one of them is the killer preventing their plan from unraveling.

Either way, Natsuhi evades Erika's notice, and escapes from the room, only to be found by Erika and dragged back to the parlor, where she does her whole detective show. To everyone's surprise, Natsuhi breaks down and admits to the murders of the maid and the baby. But then Battler makes some rather creepy 'It's all useless' statements, and Natsuhi gasps. End.



Obvious suspects: Battler. Kyrie. Both of them hindered Erika at a few key turns that might have brought things into a new light. Battler in particular.

Less obvious suspects: Eva. She was the only one whose emotions seemed genuine this episode aside from Natsuhi. Also: Anyone who agreed to Battler's explanation for how Kinzo escaped his room and prevented Erika from countering.

Even less obvious suspects: Hideyoshi. If he faked his death, he had plenty of time to go kill the victims. Also, he put on a show in that locked room despite there not being anyone to benefit from it. Unless he knew Natsuhi was in the closet.

Impossible suspects: One of the other victims. They were all killed by other people. So one of the apparent victims killing the others and then committing suicide is out of the question.