AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Retired M-Z > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-10-24, 02:56   Link #30981
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
If the author can't provide all information necessary to deduce the answer he intended, the author cannot be trusted.

That trust isn't free. It comes with an obligation that one can argue Ryukishi didn't live up to sufficiently.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-24, 07:51   Link #30982
GuestSpeaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
According to Ryu (through Beatrice) we are supposed to trust that he did.

The real issue probably is that we have reached a point where without hindsight, we can't gauge what is a correct clue and what is not. Doesn't mean we weren't given the tools to solve it.
GuestSpeaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-24, 09:02   Link #30983
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Well the actual fact (huh, imagine that) is that we were specifically not told enough about gold text's actual operation at the time except that it's sometimes stronger than red and sometimes not stronger than red (a statement which may not even necessarily be true). I quite remember the theorizing about "how does this even work again?" lasting well into Requiem or so. There just wasn't enough information, in part because the gold statement came out of nowhere, was phrased in a way that made it appear to be identical to red (even though we were told it isn't, just not in what way), and seemed at the time to exist solely to pull Battler's bacon out of the fire.

And when we eventually found out more about it, the whole thing turned out to kinda not matter all that much to the climax of ep5. A hero escaping through a heretofore-unknown means is usually bad writing, but if we're swiftly shown the sequence of events that led up to this and perhaps have it shown that all the pieces were in place for this daring escape if we knew where to look for them, it can be salvaged. Even knowing what gold truth does, it... really doesn't bear on Battler's situation at all, nor was there ever any particularly meaningful indication that (1) knowing the truth would make Battler the Game Master with prerogative to use the gold right away in somebody else's game (a later interview and Dawn clarified this, but End did not), (2) the gold would be acceptable under the circumstances, and (3) the gold would even be useful in the face of Erika's blanket investigative reds.

Now you can argue that the whole gold thing was foreshadowed in ep3 with Beatrice telling Eva-Beatrice whatever she told her. But we don't know what she said, and neither did Battler, so even if Beatrice was indeed making use of gold truth there, we don't know how she was doing it. Furthermore, Beatrice was still basically the Game Master and creator of that board, so there's not necessarily any reason to assume Battler (who didn't create ep5's board) could do the same thing just because he happened to be qualified to be a GM all of a sudden.

Subsequent illumination of the nature and use of gold truth doesn't particularly help matters any. Ryukishi has said anybody who knows what's going on can use it, which is why Battler and Elder-Beato and such can use it. Okay... well that didn't really get mentioned before, but fine. Why was he allowed to introduce it? Before everybody was like "HURR DURR HUMAN SIDE GOTTA BACK THAT UP BRAH" but that all changes when he whips out an unsupported premise instead of a fact? Even though that fact had already been established to everyone involved in the games and was being conveniently ignored by Erika the whole time? The argument seems to be "it's true because being able to use it means Battler knows the truth, so if he says it then he must be right." That's basically a tautology; Battler is speaking the truth because Battler has just done something that only a person who knows the truth can do. Except this is the first time we've actually ever seen this, and Battler just suddenly does it. It completely destroys the tension of the climax, and it's not anywhere near as interesting or convincing as Battler's other arguments which just use red and blue.

Nothing that comes later in the text really suggests that the end of End was much more than an asspull. Even making the assumption that the whole gold truth thing was foreshadowed and intended, and works as described, Battler's sudden use of it and everyone's more or less immediate acceptance of it is not later revealed to have really been all that meaningful. In fact, it makes Battler's supplementary attacks and theories somehow less meaningful, because instead of having to actually come up with a counterattack under the unfair rules that are imposed upon him in the trial we now know he is a wizard possessed of esoteric knowledge who can just say things (and at the time of ep5, we aren't even sure entirely what the things he can say are limited by).

Why was this necessary at all? Battler could have extracted himself without it. It's like having Beato show up at the end of Dawn and just use a gold truth to punch Erika in the uterus. Instead she actually, you know... constructs a mystery that beats Erika at her own game, playing by the red and blue truths that have already been established. She is using a fundamental premise of the game to her advantage, but she's not just announcing it and declaring that she wins.

It just doesn't create a sense of mystery or wonderment. It's true that I did want to know what gold truth was, but more in the sense of "So what the hell was that, and why is it only coming up right now?" I was understandably pretty disappointed in its relative lack of prominence in Dawn (where we got one example, at least) and Requiem. He introduces a supposedly important thing at a critical juncture in ep5, uses it once as a near-throwaway which serves only to provide an additional hint as to what it even is in ep6, and more or less gives it almost no attention in ep7.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 07:49   Link #30984
GuestSpeaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Ok, so admittedly that was a well-structured and difficult to counter argument.

But honestly, what do you expect from an author who magically has people getting a serving cart stacked with plates up multiple flights of stairs on numerous occasions? He doesn't seem to sweat the details.
GuestSpeaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 11:25   Link #30985
RandomAvatarFan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
He seems to actually talk about things like that. No one shows sign of being wet in the rain for one.
__________________

Without love this picture cannot be seen.
RandomAvatarFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 13:43   Link #30986
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
It's a sliding scale though.

"How did they get a serving cart upstairs with no elevator?" is a detail you shouldn't have to sweat.

"How did the killer go outside but not get wet?" is a detail that probably shouldn't be ignored, although it doesn't necessarily have to be explained as long as there's some reasonableness to it (e.g. "Shannon wasn't seen for several minutes and was Kanon the next time she was, so she had time to dry off and change her clothes even though this wasn't specifically stated in the story").

"How did a particular magical aspect of the plot suddenly get yanked out of nowhere and then actually function?" is a detail that should not just be handwaved.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 13:51   Link #30987
Cao Ni Ma
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
It comes down to how much you can suspend your belief. The rain issue RK describes is pretty easy to discard since it would screw up the game in many ways. Things like carts on a second floor aren't really that important since there are ways to transport food easily to multiple floors without having a big elevator.

The gold truth dilemma is much harder to hand wave, probably because its on a meta level (so we cant blame Yasu just being a bad writer). You cant say "Hey just ignore this tiny detail, the story is more fun if you do" because of how important its made to be in that scene.

Its bad storytelling on part of RK because thinking about it retroactively you see how glaring a hole it is.
Cao Ni Ma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 14:57   Link #30988
Kiltias
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
I'm willing to bet there are things we haven't figured out yet.
Numbers in EP 3 are what bother me.

Battlers birthday but also the day Yasu became Beatrice.
Someone pointed this out on Youtube and FB that they might also refer to the deaths of the first 3 novels referring to Van Dines Rule about a code.

Works like a charm that I can't deem it as coincidence, though it would only bring forth more trouble as it mentions Rosa.

Another thing would be that from a comment Kyrie made in EP 3 that Hideyoshis role might be different than thought in it.....

Though I rather ask if I may elaborate first seeing that I'm feel like a nuisance here....


EDIT:
Scuse me what the (bleep)?
Just saw KNMs Part 4 (newest vid) about going against Shkanon.
Umineko isn't a real novel but a computer game thus just like any videogame, the player is a figure in the game which is why Ryukishi deceives us thus Umineko has 3 difficulties:
Easy - Magic did it.
Normal - Official Explanation
Hard - Hidden Truth.

The readers/players play against the hidden Final Boss which is Ryukishi as the novel is all about seeing through deceptions.
And as we are the players in the game so is Ryukishi per Ikuko with his weapon being deception and we need to defeat him and the normal difficulty.
So his explanation is the Golden Truth for the players satisfied with having beaten it on normal mode.
The hurdle is that people think Ryukishi messed up his story when its actually a purposely set deception so you can actually only reach the 3rd layer by strictly following his rules and what he wrote.Trust what he was writing, trust that with the rules he gave there IS a solution.

LOL:
I know there are critics saying the story makes no sense if you can't trust the Author but the irony is I DO trust the Author.I trust he's NOT Incompetent, I trust he didn't screw up the story and I DO trust the very rules he gave the story so the actual truth is the Shkanon believers are the ones not trusting Ryukishi as they're the ones thinking he messed up.

Last edited by Kiltias; 2012-10-25 at 19:13.
Kiltias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 19:10   Link #30989
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
@Kiltias: I can only speak for myself, but anything regarding EP3 is something I'd like to hear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
"How did a particular magical aspect of the plot suddenly get yanked out of nowhere and then actually function?" is a detail that should not just be handwaved.
Before talking about the actual gold text, let's look at the moment Battler's turnaround begins. After all, Erika is already defeated by the time the gold text comes around. She's relying entirely on Dlanor, and Dlanor is the only one demanding that Battler use something other than red text. That seems to mean the gold is more about establishing Battler's theory than defeating Erika's.


So I've got a question for you. Why did Lambda let Battler use the red text? This seems to be the root cause of his victory, after all.
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 19:45   Link #30990
Kiltias
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
@Kiltias: I can only speak for myself, but anything regarding EP3 is something I'd like to hear.
People are gonna complain as it involves the Chess Logic but all right.

Kyrie said this:
"This kind of thing is my husbands specialty.I'm sure he'll come to me on a white horse soon.""

White Horse =
Spoiler for White Horse:


In other words:
"I'm sure he'll come to me with the White Knight."

Kyrie and Rudolf are Bishops evidently and the white ones at that.
Eva stated herself as the King,Kyrie and Rudolf "Checkmated" her,Rudolf stated he pinned the Rook and the King/Belphegor and Evatrice.
Several other indications for Chess Pieces.

Anyway if you look at that sentence with Chess Piece = Person:
"I'm sure he'll come to me with ???"
Note that this was Kyrie talking about Rudolf never having failed to help her when she's in trouble indicating that this about:
Rudolf and ??? will come save her if needed.


So who is ???, well the possible solution would be Hideyoshi seeing as he went along with them.
Kyrie - White Bishop
Rudolf - White Bishop
Hideyosho - White Knight

However, here's the deal:
We're talking about Evatrice here and Kyrie and Rudolf were facing off against her, Kyrie even trying to shoot her.You think Hideyoshi would come with Rudolf to aid her in that?


Kyrie and Rudolf had assistance from someone else, the White Knight not being Hideyoshi or:
Kyrie didn't battle Evatrice/Eva but someone else thus Hideyoshi could help them.
Implying:
Eva had assistance that battled against her.
Possible hint:
Kyrie: "You lack in love."

Naturally this is depending on Evatrice being Eva, cause I already heard theories about Evatrice = George with his mother covering up for him in order to save his sons honour.


Also I like to ask cause I'm unsure now:
Can anyone show me an example of two sole bishops checkmating the king?
I can't see it in anything else except impossible unless the King/Evatrice was cornered by a 3rd factor.
I already lost a chess game simply cause my King couldn't move as other pieces were in it's way as example.
Kiltias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 20:55   Link #30991
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
I'm not sure. On the spur of the moment, Hideyoshi would probably try to protect Eva, but I think he'd also want to stop her from committing a crime she could never take back.

Would he help her cover up a murder that was already done with? Seems fairly likely to me. If covering up a murder meant murdering more people, would he stop her? I think he would, to save her as much as her victims.
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 21:31   Link #30992
Valkama
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
The thing I don't get about Eva being the Culprit for EP3 is why she would kill George. That has never made sense to me. Maybe if George attacked her she would injure him but she definitely wouldn't kill him.
Valkama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 22:48   Link #30993
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Well the actual fact (huh, imagine that) is that we were specifically not told enough about gold text's actual operation at the time except that it's sometimes stronger than red and sometimes not stronger than red (a statement which may not even necessarily be true). I quite remember the theorizing about "how does this even work again?" lasting well into Requiem or so.
People kept talking about it, but as I recall, what ended up being the right answer was actually proposed with supporting evidence before Dawn came out. You can work out most of it just by looking at the restrictions Battler had to dodge around, and then you can get the rest by realizing that gold truth represents Beatrice's power of endless magic in the same way that red and blue truth represent Lambda and Bern's power. There were passages all over the series about the idea of unfalsifiable theories and how everyone's belief in something creates a kind of truth.
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-25, 22:54   Link #30994
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkama View Post
The thing I don't get about Eva being the Culprit for EP3 is why she would kill George. That has never made sense to me. Maybe if George attacked her she would injure him but she definitely wouldn't kill him.
This is pretty much exactly why she can't be the culprit. She's a red herring.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 02:39   Link #30995
Drifloon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
This is pretty much exactly why she can't be the culprit. She's a red herring.
I wouldn't say that, it probably just means that someone else killed George. It'd be pretty hard for Eva to have done it anyway. The fantasy scene seems to suggest that George saw Shannon alive before he was killed, so that makes it pretty clear that Yasu did it, though I admit that I never really understood the motive for it (or for any of the murders that occur after the eighth twilight in all games).

Quote:
I know there are critics saying the story makes no sense if you can't trust the Author but the irony is I DO trust the Author.I trust he's NOT Incompetent, I trust he didn't screw up the story and I DO trust the very rules he gave the story so the actual truth is the Shkanon believers are the ones not trusting Ryukishi as they're the ones thinking he messed up.
Haha, I haven't seen that part of the video yet, but that's pretty funny. Yes, I can see how that must appeal to people. Thinking that they're part of the elite, who beat the game on a higher difficulty than everyone else, so they can look down on the people who believe the official explanation. Even though they all just heard someone else's theory and blindly accepted it, rather than actually figuring anything out for themselves. KNM certainly does know how to manipulate people, I'll give him that.

But really, in the end, if this really was Ryukishi's intention...what exactly is the reward for beating the game on 'hard mode', so to speak?

The official explanation gives almost every scene in the game a new meaning, and provides an answer that is psychologically fascinating, meaningful and, I would say, beautiful.

What does KNM's explanation do in comparison to that? All he does is turn an incredibly unique and imaginative work into 'just another murder mystery'. He's got a solution that makes some logical sense, at the cost of any actual meaning that the story might have had.

If you prioritise finding a 'logical' solution over anything else, you're following in the footsteps of Bern and Erika, the characters who are consistently portrayed negatively throughout the series. Heck, KNM's justification for using "fake death drugs" all over the place is simply that Erika mentioned it once. When one reads the series with KNM's explanation in mind, does it really make the story any better, or any more meaningful? I don't think it does. Huge parts of the game become completely meaningless, like most of the 1998 sections and the vast majority of EP7-8, while single obscure lines are blown out of proportion to become incredibly significant, such as the thing about Nanjo's grandchild that KNM somehow manages to expand into a motive to help with a mass murder.

I just don't understand how anyone could read Umineko and come to the conclusion that Ryukishi wanted us to become intellectual rapists in this way. It seems to me that for all the time KNM has obviously spent on Umineko, he still doesn't really understand it at all.
Drifloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 04:02   Link #30996
Kiltias
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkama View Post
The thing I don't get about Eva being the Culprit for EP3 is why she would kill George. That has never made sense to me. Maybe if George attacked her she would injure him but she definitely wouldn't kill him.
I think its safe to say Eva could never kill George so whoever killed him was not her.
Quote:
I wouldn't say that, it probably just means that someone else killed George. It'd be pretty hard for Eva to have done it anyway. The fantasy scene seems to suggest that George saw Shannon alive before he was killed, so that makes it pretty clear that Yasu did it, though I admit that I never really understood the motive for it (or for any of the murders that occur after the eighth twilight in all games).
I always thought George and Shannon/Yasu were killed by one of the 3 who went into the Mansion (Or was it Guesthouse?) as Ronove refused to answer the deaths of Kyrie,Rudolf and Hideyoshi all 3 being comfirmed dead only after Nanjo was killed.


Regarding the part with any murder after the 8th Twilight:
EP 1: Natsuhi was a survivor that wasn't supposed to be alive as she was supposed to die in the 1st with the charm having saved her.
Jessica handing her the charm screwed up the order Yasu intended, probably the reason why there were only 5 in the shed, then again IMO it makes more sense that there were 6 with Yasu faking it.IIRC Battler mentioned he couldn't count the corpses on one hand.Correct me if I'm wrong though.
It's interesting that Natsuhi would have originally died at the first.
Natsuhi - Krauss
Kyrie - Rudolf

Gohda always seemed to random.Also interesting:
Natsuhi,Krauss,Kyrie,Rudolf. If Battler and Jessica would have been in there then it'd be all the people who sat on the same side of the dinner table.
Instead, those two were saved by the Scorpion Charm, Jessica because Maria DID hand her one so still Taboo.
Might be looking into it too much but how they were seated is just odd.
Eva - Rosa - George - Maria - Hideyoshi - Nanjo
Krauss-Rudolf-Jessica-Battler-Natsuhi-Kyrie

Wait:
Nanjo - Accomplice
Maria - Messenger
Hideyoshi - Accomplice (?)
Eva - Evatrice
Rosa - Accomplice in EP 2?
George - Double death with Jessica.

And not just random people either:
Maria - Rosa
Eva - Hideyoshi - George
Nanjo

Regarding EP 3:
I see it 2 ways:
George was killed by Yasu as he caught her being alive and also killed Nanjo.
I suspect Yasu feared Nanjo would side with Eva to kill Jessica so it might be more Kanon.
Implying Yasus personalities went haywire in it.
Seeing George reincarnated Shannons personality.
And am I mixing up EP's now or didn't Kanons ghost or something appear in front of blind Jessica?
Could mean that its not some ghost but it was actually Yasu/Kanon who killed Nanjo.

My 2nd way:
Kyrie,Rudolf and Hideyoshi weren't comfirmed dead until after Nanjos death.
If Kyrie or Rudolf were actually alive killing George, I can see Evas motive for killing Battler.

Someone mentioned an interesting idea here, George going on a killing streak because Shannon actually decided for Battler.

EDIT:
I forgot the numbers.
Youtuber got me inspired.
Look at the deaths and see if you can find it first when looking at Battlers Birthday in regards to him and Beatrices "Birthday" in regards to her.:
The 07
The 15
-
The 11
and the 29

All 4 fit to the deaths.

Last edited by Kiltias; 2012-10-26 at 06:22.
Kiltias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 09:12   Link #30997
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
So I've got a question for you. Why did Lambda let Battler use the red text? This seems to be the root cause of his victory, after all.
Pretty much for the same reason Ryukishi did: To make it more interesting in an otherwise static situation. And because she knows he knows the truth now. Whether he does or not really shouldn't change the rules though.

There's no point in Battler's apotheosis if we are intentionally left with gaps in understanding he also ought to have (even if the person he is representing perhaps doesn't, but we don't know that guy exists yet). There's also no point in it if it lets him extract himself from his situation "just because." The problem is that even if the gold text works as advertised, Battler isn't really proving his point.

Essentially, Battler has advanced an alternative theory which allows it to be introduced that Kinzo is already dead (and he has another tack on this theory which he busts out after the gold is used which seals it up). Except he still can't just say that; he points out himself that there is no objective way to verify it. He then is just... sorta like "Yeah this is it." Now, why might he say that?

Let's assume for the moment that his gold truth is not some unsolicited thing, but an actual "golden truth," as Will would put it, that establishes some manner of illusion, or could do so, on the board itself. Let's also look at the context for this. Battler wants to say that Kinzo is dead in red. Erika does not want to allow this and thus Battler must produce "proof of a human's truth that could be used to make that point."

Let us go with the operating theory that a golden truth is a "human's truth," and this is why Battler is using it. This essentially boils his argument down to the following:

BATTLER: Your theory is wrong because Kinzo is dead.
ERIKA: Prove it.
BATTLER: There exists a corpse, and that corpse might be Kinzo's.
ERIKA: Prove it.
BATTLER: I can't.
ERIKA: Right, because there's no way to say it's Kinzo's, so I win.
BATTLER: Well, no. There is a way to say it's Kinzo's: Everybody can just agree that it's Kinzo's, or I can lie that it's Kinzo's, or at least state it's Kinzo's based on a reasonable belief that I hold.
ERIKA: Okay, so you can't prove my theory is actually invalid. Just that you're capable of lying about evidence to make people doubt me, which is irrelevant in this meta-theater where objective truth can be tossed around.
BATTLER: I guess. Also, I was in on everything and the victims weren't really dead, so nobody's alibi holds up. I'm not an objective viewpoint so everything I saw and did could be a lie. This invalidates your theory far more comprehensively than any of this nonsense about Kinzo, and I could have pointed this out at any time.
ERIKA: Why didn't you?
BATTLER: I'unno. Anyway I'm a wizard.

You see the problem? Battler is making a point, but only in the very narrow sense that he is answering Erika's demand that he produce a "human's truth." What Erika appears to have meant is that she wants a truth by which a human could verify an objective fact without supernatural aid; what Battler appears to do with the gold is demonstrate the existence of a truth which a human can "verify" by just agreeing that's what the truth is. This does technically answer her demand. It doesn't, however, actually satisfy it. Worse, unlike Beatrice in Dawn who is also answering a question that wasn't actually asked, he's not actually even really contributing anything to the argument by doing it. Yeah, a human could just agree that a corpse is Kinzo's... so? That's pretty much what Dlanor is driving at in the first place.

The structure of the argument sort of doesn't even need the gold. You could still use it, but I think it best saved for the end if it shows up anywhere at all. This is how I would structure the argument:
  • Erika presents her insanely detailed alibi setup for 24:00 to 1:00, indicating that nobody but Natsuhi could have been involved. Battler questions how the bodies could have disappeared later given that Natsuhi's position in the morning was known (thus, how could she be the culprit).
  • Erika proposes that Kinzo moved the bodies. At this point, she makes some admission about Kinzo which is designed to explain away that nobody could have seen him but Natsuhi at any time. Perhaps something that would require Kinzo have been in Natsuhi's room at the time they were solving the epitaph, to establish him as her accomplice.
  • Battler counters with the theory that he committed the murders after 1:00. Erika assures him that based upon her observation, it was impossible for the crime to have happened after 1:00.
  • Battler instead proposes that the deaths did not happen during the 1:00 to the discovery period at all. Erika argues this is impossible because Battler's viewpoint is objective.
  • Battler argues that his viewpoint is not objective because Erika is the detective instead of him. Erika demands evidence that this is true.
  • Battler points out seeing Kinzo, which should not have happened. He explains that either he did see Kinzo and Erika's admission about Kinzo's behavior and location is wrong, or he didn't see Kinzo and his viewpoint is therefore non-objective. Since Erika still believes Kinzo is integral to her theory, she permits that his viewpoint be non-objective.
  • Battler therefore concludes an equally-valid theory that the "crime" was faked with his participation, and nobody died until after the discovery, opening the possibility that Natsuhi isn't guilty.
  • Erika, however, points out that her theory about Natsuhi and Kinzo is equally valid, so the two are only ever able to reach a total stalemate.
  • Battler now attacks the notion that Kinzo could be alive, with Erika demanding something to support this. Battler suggests that it is possible to present a corpse which might be identifiable as Kinzo. Erika counters that there is no objective way to verify this. Battler argues that Rokkenjima is a closed state, and the corpse must belong to somebody who ought to be on the island. He argues that if everyone else is alive, the corpse cannot be anyone but Kinzo.
  • OPTIONAL: Erika counters that everyone might not be alive, but that even if they are, there exists "no possible way for a human to say the corpse is Kinzo's."
  • OPTIONAL: Battler now uses the gold truth, demonstrating that there is a way for a human to say that. Erika is unable to understand, but all the witches acknowledge that Battler is right. Nobody tells Erika despite her insistent demands.
  • On the weight of the evidence, Lambda and Dlanor conclude Battler's theory to have greater validity than Erika's. Erika understands why she lost (her theory is flimsier than Battler's), but doesn't understand what Battler was doing with the gold truth.
It's only slightly different, but by changing the structure and adding more meat to the Kinzo argument, it allows the gold to function as a capstone that merely demonstrates Battler's mastery of understanding rather than permitting him to continue making an argument he probably could've made anyway. Is it less dramatic? Probably. However, it also works more appropriately here as a "finishing move" as it's been described in interviews. The fact that he does it is what causes Lambda to finally just admit the whole thing was silly and he's been right the whole time. It also makes the gold unnecessary; Battler's theory seems more complete than Erika's even without it, so it's not something that must be relied upon. However, by everyone's agreement with it, Erika's theory is entirely and finally discarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
People kept talking about it, but as I recall, what ended up being the right answer was actually proposed with supporting evidence before Dawn came out. You can work out most of it just by looking at the restrictions Battler had to dodge around, and then you can get the rest by realizing that gold truth represents Beatrice's power of endless magic in the same way that red and blue truth represent Lambda and Bern's power. There were passages all over the series about the idea of unfalsifiable theories and how everyone's belief in something creates a kind of truth.
If by that you mean someone guessed, well yeah. People guessed Yasu by ep4. You could sort of retroactively say the person "saw the hints," but it's more that they took a thematic guess and happened to be right before sufficient evidence was in. If indeed sufficient evidence ever was in on the gold.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 11:21   Link #30998
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
So I've got a question for you. Why did Lambda let Battler use the red text? This seems to be the root cause of his victory, after all.
Well, Lambda promoted Battler to Golden Witch/wizard so as such he could use red and even use Beato's furnitures.
Also Battler used red in EP 4 also.
Also EP 5 showed that even Natsuhi could use red when it was a truth they possessed. She knew for sure she only told Shannon about which season she liked so the text had it written in red... even though I don't think Natsuhi was aware of it.
So, if Battler now knows for sure how things went and it's not just a theory but the truth I guess he can use red.

EP 4 showed also he won't be able to use red if his belief was untrue so I think Battler's red is an extra demostration he solved the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkama View Post
The thing I don't get about Eva being the Culprit for EP3 is why she would kill George. That has never made sense to me. Maybe if George attacked her she would injure him but she definitely wouldn't kill him.
For me Eva was an accomplice, the real culprit being Yasu again.
Eva-Beatrice represents that Yasu was using her as red herring, like she was doing with Natsuhi in Ep 5 and, at the same time, might represent the fight inside Eva about accepting to be an accomplice in this just for the gold.

Let's pretend Eva didn't solve the epitaph but was handed the solution and the title in exchange for cooperation in a 'murderer game'. She's shown the gold. She agreed to help although she has her doubts but she's promised nothing will happen to those whom she holds dear.
However when she's about to leave she meets Rosa, who had followed her.
So she comes to an agreement with Rosa so that she won't say anything so that Eva will secretly be able to continue playing accomplice.
However Yasu thinks Rosa might know something she shouldn't and therefore killed her and Maria.
Eva begins to regret making an agreement with 'Beatrice' just for the gold and headship but doesn't dare to confess.

It's likely that although Beato contacted her she didn't show herself in person, like she did with Natsuhi so, even if Eva wanted to talk with whom she could talk?

From here things go downhill. Yasu keeps on killing and Eva doesn't know whom to suspect. In the end she believes it's Battler who's the culprit and shoots him while Yasu was busy offing Nanjo (and possibly creating a mystery of how Jessica could reach another room and claim Kanon leads her there).

No idea if Yasu offed Jessica too or let her there, Eva went searching for her, wanting to tell her she had killed the one she believed to be culprit, found Nanjo dead, knew it coudn't have been Battler so believed Jessica did it, offed Jessica and then escaped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Essentially, Battler has advanced an alternative theory which allows it to be introduced that Kinzo is already dead (and he has another tack on this theory which he busts out after the gold is used which seals it up). Except he still can't just say that; he points out himself that there is no objective way to verify it. He then is just... sorta like "Yeah this is it." Now, why might he say that?
Personally I always thought that the golden truth represent a firm, personal belief and therefore a truth that, for that person, doesn't need proof.

Sort of like saying God exists.

That's why it can be less strong or more strong than red. If red can shake your belief the golden truth will be destroyed. If red can't it will be stronger.

I guess the idea the GM could use it comes from the fact that the GM build the gameboard according to certain personal beliefs the GM couldn't really check, for example that Sakutaro was built by Rosa and the only one in the world.

Beato couldn't really check this as Sakutaro isn't fictional but existed in reality too and she had no control over reality nor the way to check.

She probably would have been able to say in gold that Sakutaro was Rosa's handmade gift, at least before Ange provided her with evidence there was more than 1 Sakutaro and she lost her belief in that truth.

Maria insted might be still able to say it in gold as likely she would be capable to make up an explanation she could believe in her mind and that won't deny the 'Rosa made it theory'. Of course her gold might weaken if her theory is countered by many reds... though we see that in Maria's battle with Erika, although she loses she didn't really give up therefore shaking Maria's beliefs might be harder than we think.

Red instead is more restrictive as we're proven that, no matter what you believe, you can't say it if it isn't true (at least according to the interpretation you give to your own words). However for the red you say to be accepted by the other party you either have the other accept it (usually by providing proof) or it can be rejected and, although you're saying the truth, nobody will believe you (and the red truth will have no strenght like it happened to Battler in Ep 5).

That though is how I interpret it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma View Post
It comes down to how much you can suspend your belief. The rain issue RK describes is pretty easy to discard since it would screw up the game in many ways. Things like carts on a second floor aren't really that important since there are ways to transport food easily to multiple floors without having a big elevator.

The gold truth dilemma is much harder to hand wave, probably because its on a meta level (so we cant blame Yasu just being a bad writer). You cant say "Hey just ignore this tiny detail, the story is more fun if you do" because of how important its made to be in that scene.

Its bad storytelling on part of RK because thinking about it retroactively you see how glaring a hole it is.
I would be fine with suspending my belief if it wasn't that Umineko is a game about reasoning.
In short, if someone doesn't get sopping wet in a storm I'm going to assume there's a reason and that this reason is relevant to find the solution.
Same for the carts or whatever else.
The suspension of belief works nicely when there's no reasoning to do or when I'm warned beforehand that this part will 'escape to normal logic/true facts/whatever'.

Otherwise placing something in that asks me to suspend my disbelief is misleading. How can I know I'm not supposed to wonder on it to reach the solution?

Last edited by jjblue1; 2012-10-26 at 11:40.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 15:48   Link #30999
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
The funniest thing about the rain, of course, is that characters are variously described as having gotten wet in the rain all the damn time, just ... not ... always. It makes me think of the hypothetical logic battle where Erika decides to push the point for her reasoning (remember, she DID go so far as to look at the mud on peoples shoes during her crazy CSI investigation), and Beato eventually having to just go "Look, I just don't really care about that, okay? The rain on Rokkenjima is just odd in that way, or something."

About the matter of "trust", I think there's a difference between TRUSTING an author, and thinking they're some kind of infallible Mystery Pope who never make mistakes, or subjective judgements in their own reasoning, and only offer solutions that will CERTAINLY please every person ever. It's not that I distrust Ryukishi's authorship, or "messed up his own story" or anything absurd like that ... I just think it's built on some bullshit-ery, and I accept it, since there's this HUGE running theme in the work about accepting people's bullshit-ery and understanding why they end up using said bullshit-ery.

On George in EP3, hell, the part that's always gotten me isn't that he's dead (Yasu and her shenanigans, or whatevs), but the part where Nanjo was all "Yeah, George - jump out the second story window! Go gaze upon the face of your recently murdered fiancee. I'll totes cover for you." It is SO inexplicable.
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 16:09   Link #31000
Valkama
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
To be honest Ryukishi missed out on a great opportunity to troll everyone in episode 6 with Gold truth.
Valkama is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:56.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We use Silk.