[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[AuraTwilight]

Erika blatantly cheats- no dispute there. As for why a typical detective doesn't need to cheat in the same way Erika does, it's because a typical detective is always faced with an artificially constructed crime carefully designed to be deductively solvable with the the resources she has available to her in terms of abilities and information.

Which is exactly the same thing Erika faces, up to and including being written by another person. What the hell is the difference? Ergo, why does Erika need to cheat, and why does cheating NOT negate her being a deconstruction?

Erika and her cheating demonstrate this: Instead of the story requiring an artificially constructed crime to be solved by a realistic detective, the story requires a detective (Erika) with artificially concocted resources and abilities in order to solve a realistic mystery (when I call it "realistic", I mean logically realistic in terms of its deductive solvability).

This is nonsense. Umineko's mystery isn't the slightest bit realistic, not even in the way you use it here. Quality differences and fair play ideas aside, the two are equally unreal (if anything, the classic mystery is more real because it could actually happen in real life).

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Which is exactly the same thing Erika faces, up to and including being written by another person. What the hell is the difference? Ergo, why does Erika need to cheat, and why does cheating NOT negate her being a deconstruction?

The difference is that we and Erika need to "cheat" by using things like red truth etc. because the puzzles of Umineko are not solvable without them. This particular aspect of Umineko is meant to reflect murder mysteries realistically. In real life there is no guarantee whatsoever that the necessary clues to solve the case will even be available. Ergo, to play "the detective always solves the case" completely strait, she has to cheat.

[AuraTwilight]

The difference is that we and Erika need to "cheat" by using things like red truth etc. because the puzzles of Umineko are not solvable without them.

Is that actually TRUE? I mean, god knows, Battler did not take the initiative to go clue-searching and crime-solving whatsoever whenever he was the detective, sitting on his hands and trying to survive or clear everyone as innocent due to his emotional investment. And by the time Erika rolls around, she's kind of fucked because her games were predicated on previous games. What's to say clues were there and just not found?

This particular aspect of Umineko is meant to reflect murder mysteries realistically. In real life there is no guarantee whatsoever that the necessary clues to solve the case will even be available. Ergo, to play "the detective always solves the case" completely strait, she has to cheat.

That's bullshit. She doesn't even interview everyone, we don't see her investigate every room, and she doesn't even do anything to check the credibility of people's alibis beyond duck tape and Red Truth. Erika didn't use all the resources available to her on the Gameboard and immediately reached for the easy meta-tools at her disposal. Umineko's Gameboards are bullshit because they're written in an incomplete manner and then have Red Truth slapped onto them as spoonfed information, instead of having any of the Detectives try and procure information on their own.

Atleast Will actually TRIES, and he interviews people and takes their testimonies without running it through the Red Repeat-o-meter. He's a better fit for the Classic Detective than Erika has ever been, or has even ever attempted either on her part or on Ryukishi's.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Is that actually TRUE? I mean, god knows, Battler did not take the initiative to go clue-searching and crime-solving whatsoever whenever he was the detective, sitting on his hands and trying to survive or clear everyone as innocent due to his emotional investment.

But it is true; red is clearly necessary to know the solution in many cases (though perhaps not all). Take episode 2's situation with the "locked" chapel, for example: No matter how much investigation Battler may have done there would be no way to know for sure that only one key to the chapel exists. Without this and other red information about that one key there would be no way to know that Rosa's story was a lie. You could guess it, but you couldn't know it.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

And by the time Erika rolls around, she's kind of fucked because her games were predicated on previous games.

That's Erika's problem. A "realistic" mystery is not predicated on any kind of principle of intellectual fair play. The very fact that you brought this up means that you completely miss the point.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's bullshit. She doesn't even interview everyone, we don't see her investigate every room, and she doesn't even do anything to check the credibility of people's alibis beyond duck tape and Red Truth... ...And she didn't check a single corpse.

Yeah, but I don't see why she'd need to check the credibility of peoples' alibis when she's got the duck-tape. It's a completely legitimate and effective information-gathering technique if you ask me, regardless of the silly extremes she goes to in using it.

The corpse thing though. That is a legitimate point. It really makes me think she knew exactly what was going on was intentionally facilitating it.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Erika didn't use all the resources available to her on the Gameboard and immediately reached for the easy meta-tools at her disposal. Umineko's Gameboards are bullshit because they're written in an incomplete manner and then have Red Truth slapped onto them as spoonfed information, instead of having any of the Detectives try and procure information on their own.

You're so full of it it's not even funny.

She did a shit-ton of information-gathering work; arguably way more than a typical detective would. The main difference is that it was done off-screen because she wasn't the viewpoint character. The Decalogue notwithstanding, Erika worked for nearly every single red she got. Reds were mostly used to confirm that the information her techniques gathered was accurate, or that testimony she gathered was true; or it confirmed things that were impossible for her to investigate, such as Krauss is not the culprit.

[Jan-Poo]

Wanderer I think at this point in order to get an agreement with me you'd need to argue two points:

The first is that Erika respects the trope and doesn't alters it by exaggerrating it. A deconstruction isn't supposed to "make up" a trope and then deconstruct it, it must be an already existing trope. If you think that Ryuukishi meant Erika to be the iconic detective (and I don't think so) I'd have to conclude that he grossly misunderstood the trope and he made a grotesque caricature of it. The fact that Erika goes to the point of killing people herself is a clear example.

The second point you'd need to argue is where the trope clashes with realism to provide a decunstruction? Where is the logic connection between the supposed trope of the detective being able to defy the laws of logic, physics and reality itself in order to gather clues and the apparent lack of any interest about finding the real culprit?

How can you argue that this is the logical realistical consequence? Why if Erika really has this great power you think she has doesn't use it to find the real culprit and to get to the real solution?


That apart some answers to what you said:

Erika shows what a detective would have to be and do in order to fit the trope "the detective always solves the case using deductive logic".

It's not convenient for you to claim this is the trope that Erika represents, because one point of the definition of a deconstruction is that it doesn't subvert the trope. Erika didn't solve any case. At best she solved some riddles but never once she solved a murder case in Umineko.

By comparison if at is you said that the trope of superhero is that "he saves the world destroys evil and makes everyone happy". If that was true Watchmen would be a subversion and not a deconstruction. In reality the trope here is the figure of the superhero itself, not its impact on the world.
You should think the same about your case, else you lose your argument from start.

Doctor Manhattan is a wonderful deconstruction that supposes what a human-turned-godlike-being would actually be like. It's a deconstruction that asks how a trope would realistically play out. However, when it comes to deconstructing the god-like-being trope by asking how the trope would realistically manifest itself, I'm not even sure you effectively can. The best answers would be tropy themselves (like the nuclear accident that lead to his creation in the actual story). Alternatively, you could make his manifestation "realistic" by saying he got his god-like powers through extensive spoon-bending practice. Silly, right? Incidentally, this deconstruction method was used to explain the powers of another Watchman character: Ozymandias. Although his powers are far from that of the god-like Doctor Manhattan, his demigod-like super speed and ability to catch bullets was achieved entirely through training and discipline. Ozymandias is also a wonderful deconstruction character for numerous other reasons, which I won't get into right now.

I will claim here that it is flat out impossible to realistically explain how something unrealistic can happen. It's a paradox, it's an oxymoron.
There is no realistic explanation on how Doctor Manhattan could achive his godlike status and there's no realistic explanation on how Ozymandias could gain his superior abilities simply by training hard, there is also absolutely no realistic explanation about Night Hawk possessing superior technology. Alan Moore didn't even try to deconstruct that because it was impossible, he kept the unrealistic tropes giving the best possible explanation that he could find, he then operated his deconstruction by placing these unrealistic tropes inside a realistic environment.

If I understood correctly you claim that in the case of Erika the Author tried to realistically imagine how to justify the often unrealistic abilities of a detective. However I deny the claim that your assumed explanation is realistic in any way. How do you explain Erika's impossible abilities? Superior metaknowledge? How is superior metaknowledge realistic in any way?

[Uberzaki]

Hi guys, I just reached a breakthrough last night, it is intensely spoilerific; but I am aware of what this thread is for. After figuring this one out, the rest of Umineko almost fell into place.

I have figured out Battler's sin. It will also give insight to the mind behind the culprits of the Rokkenjima disaster (If there was one)

I am very excited, perhaps too much. I got stuck somewhere else, but I have had so much fun that I am giving you the opportunity to catch my starting point and have some fun too.

If you still want to figure out Battler's sin for yourself; then skip the next spoiler. I believe I have almost figured out the meta scenes as well (or I believe so, but I don't want to argue about them right now untill I have figured them out to a certain extent; this may be impossible for me since I have yet to read EPs 7 and 8).

If the moderator wants to delete this post, he can do so as well.

Spoiler for Battler's Sin:

Battler's sin is removing himself from the Ushiromiya family register 6 years prior after Asumu's demise. This means that any Gold obtained from marrying Yasu would not reach the other Ushiromiyas.

As for the reason I have not reached episodes 7 and 8? I don't think that story is worth my time. This thread, the writings of all the posters are far more entertaining than any of Umineko; and so I thank you all for that.

That said, the great thing about Umineko is that you can paste any truth onto the game as long as you understand the heart of it, but that is for another time.

My post probably shows I do not understand the heart yet.

"In some ways, genre is a marketing tool."

[Revelation]

Originally Posted by Uberzaki

As for the reason I have not reached episodes 7 and 8? I don't think that story is worth my time.

You should at least read EP7 to see if your answer was close or not, since I believe most of the "heart" is revealed.

I'll just say you're on the right track with the first part.

Though, I have to ask since my memory is very fuzzy, wasn't Battler put back on the register when he returned?

[Uberzaki]

Considering they apparently begged him to come back, they might have not had time to do so; since they also couldn't foresee Ange being sick either. Although whether any foul play was actually involved is something I don't want to reveal for the (not malicious) fun of it.

Of course, I am excited enough to be watching my post like a hawk for now.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Uberzaki

Spoiler for Battler's Sin:

Battler's sin is removing himself from the Ushiromiya family register 6 years prior after Asumu's demise. This means that any Gold obtained from marrying Yasu would not reach the other Ushiromiyas.

This is the first thing 'piece Battler thinks is his sin in episode 4. And This is how Beatrice responded.

Beatrice: ......Is that all...?"

Battler: "What.........? ............What do you mean 'is that all', ......I've exposed everything about me, right? Why so unsatisfied?

Beatrice: "The settlement of your sins is still insufficient."

Battler: "Settlement? ......What the hell, are you asking me to prostrate myself right here and apologize like Dad did...?!"

Beatrice: "............That's not it. I have no interest in matters concerning your immediate family or your home. Where are we? Rokkenjima. The main residence of the Ushiromiya head family. ......Isn't there a sin you should remember, fitting for this place......?"

Battler: "............Are you, ......saying that I have...another sin......?"

As for the reason I have not reached episodes 7 and 8? I don't think that story is worth my time. This thread, the writings of all the posters are far more entertaining than any of Umineko; and so I thank you all for that.

You should probably reconsider that then. Because there's so many subtle implications toward things in the text that you're not going to get a good understanding of Umineko or make a working theory without actually reading it.

[Uberzaki]

You should probably reconsider that then. Because there's so many subtle implications toward things in the text that you're not going to get a good understanding of Umineko or make a working theory without actually reading it.

I can't really argue with that; and I sound extremely arrogant for it. Of course, I mean no harm by making my post sound like the greatest thing in the world, just excited; is all (and you guys have seen a lot of that by now). There is a lot of symbolism in Umineko, and writing it all down is difficult anyway, as I said.

The fact that Yasu is covering up for someone makes me wonder who she actually is, for one thing. Battler's own wondering at who his aunt and cousin Beatrice may be is another thing.

The evidence you just stated is a big help, I had completely forgotten that part and actually helps me get to what is Battler's sin is, and helps support that foul play is really involved, which means that Battler was actually aware of what he was doing.

[Judoh]

No problem. : ). And I could see what you meant too. Making theories is really the most fun part in Umineko.

[AuraTwilight]

You're so full of it it's not even funny.

Welp, now we've gotten to personal attacks. Fuck you, I'm done. You're just repeating the same points over and over stubbornly anyway.

[Uberzaki]

So is there any evidence against Battler, Kyrie and Rudolf perpetrating some sort of name change which would supposedly allow them to take as much of the gold for themselves as possible?

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Golden Dream

You should at least read EP7 to see if your answer was close or not, since I believe most of the "heart" is revealed.

I'll just say you're on the right track with the first part.

Though, I have to ask since my memory is very fuzzy, wasn't Battler put back on the register when he returned?

It was said that Battler was put back on the family register as soon as he agreed to return into the Ushiromiya family.

"It started to get more and more ridiculous!! I thought it was about time for me to cool my head as well. So I said I'd put it all behind me as long as Dad apologized. On the day of Grandpa's funeral! And then, he really did put his hands on the floor and apologize...!! Looking unbelievably pathetic...! Dad did that and seriously bowed his head to me, you see...?! ......When I saw that, it felt like it'd be stupid to keep it up any longer.

I'm sure Mom thought the same thing! Every time Dad and I fought, Mom would always laugh and mediate for us. 'Oh, were you fighting over something that silly?' is what she'd say. ......I could feel Mom saying that and laughing...!!

Therefore, ......while I couldn't go so far as to say I'd forgive him, .........I thought it might be alright to start over again from zero. So I decided to wind everything back to how it was six years ago. .........Then I returned to the Ushiromiya family register...!! I'd also cried, raged, and worried for a whole six years!

It might have been the same way with Dad, and for my dead Mom. Maybe even for Kyrie-san and Ange. ......So we went back to zero, and I returned to being Ushiromiya Battler!!! That's my immediate family's problem, ......and has nothing to do with the Ushiromiya family!!

You aren't qualified to judge that to be a sin, and I have no duty to show repentance to you! If there was anyone I should have done that for, you've already killed them!! So I won't apologize for anything! I won't repent!! That is my answer for this test!!!"

Beato also knew Battler had returned to the Ushiromiya family register...

However. Even though it occurred around the time of the deaths of your grandparents, you did well to return to the Ushiromiya register. For that, let us give you a chance to purify that sin yourself. Now is the time to compensate for your sin of six years ago.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Uberzaki

So is there any evidence against Battler, Kyrie and Rudolf perpetrating some sort of name change which would supposedly allow them to take as much of the gold for themselves as possible?

If you look at it from a legal perspective, none of the Ushiromiyas have any right to the gold at all regardless of whether they're on the family register or not. Kinzo basically stole it from the Repubblica di Salo, so if it actually came to light that the Ushiromiya family knew where it was, it would get repossessed by one government or another in a heartbeat.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

If you look at it from a legal perspective, none of the Ushiromiyas have any right to the gold at all regardless of whether they're on the family register or not. Kinzo basically stole it from the Repubblica di Salo, so if it actually came to light that the Ushiromiya family knew where it was, it would get repossessed by one government or another in a heartbeat.

Moreover, the gold really plausibly can't leave the island, so it's legally and logistically tied up in the secrecy of its existence. It doesn't really matter who it "belongs" to, as basically anyone who knows about it exercises a sort of de facto control over it. After all, anyone who is aware of its existence can call the police or government.

I'm not sure how you'd describe that in Game Theory. It's basically a scenario where everyone loses if anyone reports the gold, and everyone theoretically wins as long as they gain some sort of benefit from the existence of the gold (even if that benefit is merely doing nothing). If the others in control of the gold try to freeze someone else out, then the rational solution for that person becomes to talk (better nobody have the gold than only me losing). Therefore, the best solution is to stop expanding the control class by not telling anyone.

Of course one can also take the unorthodox measure of lowering the numbers of the control class manually. Winchester-style manually.

[Kylon99]

Sorry for replying so late. I'm currently cycling around my country and am in the middle of nowhere. With an internet connection.

Spoiler for Whoa... turned out pretty long...:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I actually am like that, I show more assertivness than I actually have but in the end I'm not really capable of completely believe my own theory if I don't get consensus from other people, that's probably why I and many others try so hard to get it with their argument. Then again general consensus doesn't make something true it is well possible that a single person gets it right while everyone else doesn't.

This! This! 8) This is what I was thinking around episodes 5 and 6. I too had problems believing my own theories, or even other people's theories despite them being sound. Around that time I made some posts saying that the difference between a detective in a novel (say, Sherlock Holmes) and us is that they take the clues and reach to farther conclusions, whereas we would sit back and go... "Really? Can't be... Really?" etc.

(This might be like the third time I mentioned this though, but since the crowd has changed... please bear with me. )

So the difference is something like supreme confidence in a detective vs. a normal reader. Without that supreme confidence, you would have to mark down all the branches and the forks in the logic. "If this, then that. Otherwise it's this." Sometimes it's not a binary tree either... It would be like trying to calculate all the moves from the beginning of a chess game: Open with a pawn? Or knight? Then calculate all the resulting possibilities from that... What a detective does is, metaphorically speaking, is play with confidence until the mid or end game where it's easier to do the calculations. In other words, early clues are marked down as something which can be used to sort irrelevant evidence from the relevant. Etc...

Until I adopted this philosophy, I could get nowhere in Umineko... or any other mystery for that matter.

The trap is thinking that mere conjecture can be wrong. Of course it can be wrong. Even the detectives get it wrong sometimes as the story goes along. 8) But even being wrong has its uses sometimes.... because not all your thinking will collapse. Only a small part of it.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Let's take this for example:
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...postcount=1452

That was back at the time of EP5, there weren't really many hints to back that theory but it turned out to be pretty close to what was later explained in EP7. I didn't write it there but I thought Beatrice was probably the wife of that German official.
In the end it was the daughter of an Italian official, but how exactly could I tell that at the time? It was simply impossible to arrive to such fine details with the few hints at disposal.

Well, I think you were supposed to understand up to the point that the original Beatrice was a young Italian woman and that's about it. The Italian comes from the pronunciation of her name that people found out early on... we kept calling her 'Beat-triss' like in the English and I remember someone saying the official pronunciation was 'Bea-to-riichee' or however it was supposed to be in Italian.

I really don't think you need to have come up with the story of the submarine, the chlorine, or that she and Kinzo spoke English. Nor needing to know about the remnants of the facist Italian government, etc. Basically, except for the Italy thing, I think you had all the right points that *could* be gotten:
- secret military base
- refugee from WW2
- brought the gold from WW2
- gold remained hidden

I don't think you're responsible for coming up with the rest; basically the details that he didn't hint about. In other words, if there were no hints or clues at all about something, you aren't responsible for coming up with it. Often you can see detectives in mystery novels do the same thing; they come up with some conjecture that covers the major points and the details are secondary. Like for example the detective may only care to the point that X wanted to kill Y, but didn't know the reason for it. All he detected was the hatred. And when X confesses, he comes up with a backstory that the detective never felt was his responsibility to figure out. etc...

This goes back to what I was saying though; if we had the supreme confidence of a detective we would cement these details and reach further; what happened to this refugee? What years did she arrive? Does this match up with the 19-yr old Beatrice? Etc, etc... I, too, was paralyzed at thinking only up to here. "It's gotta be Nazi gold, right? One wing eagle? Right? Nah... can't be... right? Right?" And then I stopped thinking because I was unsure...

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

So basically, I got to that point and I'm pretty satisfied with myself for that, but that's the best that I could do with my own strength and I don't think I nor anyone could do better if not by blind luck. So then I need the author to explain the story and not just because then I can know that I "won", but because I can know those particulars that I wouldn't otherwise be able to understand. ever.

I'm glad that Ryuukishi decided to write and explain that backstory, it was probably the best part of EP7 for me. But because of that I hoped he would do the same for all the rest in EP8. Without that, I'm left with the feeling that this story is incomplete.

We were definitely meant to co-operate and gang up on Ryukishi. But (I'm not sure he anticipated this) it seemed like not only can you get consenting ideas on the internet but the dissenting ideas everyone has can cause enough disruption in that 'supreme confidence' thing I mentioned. If Umineko is a work of genius it is this part and not the prose, in my opinion. (In this way it's the non-novel part that makes it exceptional... it's the interaction with the fans.) After all, how do you trick several million people? You make them trick each other. 8) I mean, we even had people disagreeing with the Taiwan theory until the very end. And some people STILL weren't convinced of the Epitaph Fakery going on by EP7 and 8.... Maybe I give him too much credit; maybe he never knew this would happen... but I think he must have had some idea after Higurashi.


By the way Jan, there is at least one other point you should be satisfied with. I think it was you who came up with one of the early ideas of the Epitaph Theory or Epitaph Game on this board. Basically, it's the idea that they were faking and playing this 'play-dead' game. I think this was right after Episode 5, so maybe we were a bit late in figuring it out but at least we got the idea before Episode 6 when Erika and the story told us flat out that they were. 8)

It's because of that that I was able to come up with the Key Theory; the idea that one of the siblings are recruited to act as the Key as I state in my signature link. I'm not sure everyone has realized this is what's going on as of yet either, though... but I didn't see any objections in the past.

Maybe what we need aren't more 'theories' but we need some posts on "Here's the answer; now how the hell were we supposed to come up with that?"


By the way... ok, unfortunately this is another theory and not an answer.... Have you guys noticed how with episode 6 and onwards the story makes extra special care not to let us know how much Jessica and possibly George knows about Yasu's plans? Or with Jessica they don't even let us know if she knows Kinzo is dead! The automatic assumption is that she doesn't based on what Krauss and the others said they would do; exclude her from knowing. But Yasu may have let her in on it.

So, doesn't this smell suspicious? うさんの香り indeed... I think we need to go back and look at the story from the point that Jessica and maybe George were in on the entire plot. How does it read differently? Forget that the motive is suspicious for now; after all we can't imagine Jessica wanting to kill the entire family like Yasu yet. But how do their actions play out differently if we assume their knowledge is different? For example, could Jessica have purposely given the scorpion charm to Natsuhi?

[Dlanor .A. Nox]

It could explain Jessica's phone CALL. In episode 4 that IS.

[Uberzaki]

You guys are probably right, after all, I haven't read episodes 7 and 8 yet; so I have probably got some major points wrong. There is obviously a lot more to Umineko than I previously thought.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Wanderer I think at this point in order to get an agreement with me you'd need to argue two points:

The first is that Erika respects the trope and doesn't alters it by exaggerrating it. A deconstruction isn't supposed to "make up" a trope and then deconstruct it, it must be an already existing trope. If you think that Ryuukishi meant Erika to be the iconic detective (and I don't think so) I'd have to conclude that he grossly misunderstood the trope and he made a grotesque caricature of it. The fact that Erika goes to the point of killing people herself is a clear example.

The second point you'd need to argue is where the trope clashes with realism to provide a decunstruction? Where is the logic connection between the supposed trope of the detective being able to defy the laws of logic, physics and reality itself in order to gather clues and the apparent lack of any interest about finding the real culprit?

How can you argue that this is the logical realistical consequence? Why if Erika really has this great power you think she has doesn't use it to find the real culprit and to get to the real solution?

It's not convenient for you to claim this is the trope that Erika represents, because one point of the definition of a deconstruction is that it doesn't subvert the trope. Erika didn't solve any case. At best she solved some riddles but never once she solved a murder case in Umineko.

By comparison if at is you said that the trope of superhero is that "he saves the world destroys evil and makes everyone happy". If that was true Watchmen would be a subversion and not a deconstruction. In reality the trope here is the figure of the superhero itself, not its impact on the world.
You should think the same about your case, else you lose your argument from start.

Wow. I really must tip my hat to this. Here is my revised position:

The trope being deconstructed is not "the detective always solves the crime deductively", but "the detective is always provided the tools needed to solve the crime deductively". This deconstruction started the moment red truth entered the game and reached a peak in episode 5 with Erika. For Erika I will also add this: The trope "The detective is an agent of justice" is inverted. This inversion is used to further showcase the aforementioned deconstruction. Episode 6 was a bridge to episode 7, which showed a reconstruction with Will solving the case simply by using good judgment, not absolutes. Also note the organization he left and the fact that he used red while he was a part of it but not after.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I will claim here that it is flat out impossible to realistically explain how something unrealistic can happen. It's a paradox, it's an oxymoron.

This is logically true. However, this does not logically preclude unrealistically explaining how something unrealistic can happen in order to illustrate that the "something unrealistic" is unrealistic. To put it in Umineko terms, there is no reason that red truth being unrealistic precludes it from being employed to illustrate that trope mysteries are unrealistic.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

There is no realistic explanation on how Doctor Manhattan could achive his godlike status and there's no realistic explanation on how Ozymandias could gain his superior abilities simply by training hard, there is also absolutely no realistic explanation about Night Hawk possessing superior technology. Alan Moore didn't even try to deconstruct that because it was impossible, he kept the unrealistic tropes giving the best possible explanation that he could find, he then operated his deconstruction by placing these unrealistic tropes inside a realistic environment.

Well, it certainly can be difficult to deconstruct manifestations of fantastic tropes. I was just giving examples as to how one might try to go about it. I even did express doubt that you could effectively deconstruct Doctor Manhattan's manifestation.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

If I understood correctly you claim that in the case of Erika the Author tried to realistically imagine how to justify the often unrealistic abilities of a detective. However I deny the claim that your assumed explanation is realistic in any way. How do you explain Erika's impossible abilities? Superior metaknowledge? How is superior metaknowledge realistic in any way?

Your understanding of my claim is close, but off in a small, but critical, way.

The only thing that I have said was meant to be realistic in Umineko was the level of solvability of the crimes. Red Truth and metaknowledge are patently not realistic. The explanation (the meta-world's involvement) is of course not realistic either. However, the important part of my claim that you are missing is that the explanations produced by deconstruction of a trope's manifestation are not required to be realistic.

What needs to be "real" is the logic behind the explanation, not the explanation itself. In other words, to deconstruct the manifestation of a trope, the trope needs a narrative device of some kind that adequately explains why the trope exists in the story's universe. Whether said narrative device is realistic or fantastic is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Welp, now we've gotten to personal attacks. Fuck you, I'm done. You're just repeating the same points over and over stubbornly anyway.

If you don't like people being mad at you, then you might want to reconsider your "aggressive arguing style".