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

[AuraTwilight]

That's another thing, unfortunately. Battler is called incompetent, he's treated as effectively a Watson, and continuously his ideas and theories are said to be wrong or otherwise not thought out well-enough if they're partly correct. The intention here is that Battler doesn't hold our hand and we come to the answers on our own, which is fine, but in this instance it can give a lot of people the idea that since Battler is bringing it up, the whole name-switcharoo thing, and thus things like Name Death, are something we should get away from.

Hell, he's still doing it, in a way, with things like Black Battler insinuating the possibility that Battler Culprit Theory isn't true, like Renall pointed out. There's an undercurrent of implication where the ideas our protagonist gives us are ideas to shoot down and so we should think of the things he DIDN'T think of. Shkanon is an example of things like that, but components of the theory were shot down, so to me it's remniscent of havinga destination, but Ryukishi put a hole in the bridge.

Does that make sense?

[UsagiTenpura]

Wait.
What?
You're telling me that as readers we should trust a fantasy culprit and distrust a non-fantasy detective? You then claim the author broke our trust because the fantasy culprit turned out to be a "liar" while the non-fantasy detective turned out not to be always wrong?

I don't even see how I could be convinced this is right.

[AuraTwilight]

No, that's not it, that was just a tangential little rant not really connected to the last thing I said; sorry for not clarifying.

Battler is basically treated as a Watson despite his 'detective' title, and he never really solves the mysteries for us; he acts as our self-insert to get us part of the way towards the destination Ryukishi wants us to reach, and falls short of getting there completely so we can reason things out ourselves. I've no problem with that. The thing is, however, that Battler brings up things like nametricks which get debunked within the story or otherwise comes very close to Shkanon, but misses it.

So it's hard to guess at that early point of the story if we're supposed to GO FOR Shkanon, or back off from it.

Spoiler:

It's not the only time he does things that can be interpreted this way; Lion, for example, pretty much exists just to bring up gender ambiguity to Yasu's character where there wasn't before, but Lion's PS3 voice is so undeniably female that it seems to shoot down that question immediately. I'm not saying it confirms that Lion/Yasu is female, but it certainly does seem he brings up questions and drops them as they peak his interest as a writer.

[Bluemail]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

So it's hard to guess at that early point of the story if we're supposed to GO FOR Shkanon, or back off from it.

As a reply to this and some of your recent complaints: Isn't it supposed to be like that? Red herrings make noise which makes guessing the right answer harder. We're not supposed to certainly know which set of hints leads to the correct theory in the question arcs. Though I might appreciate in some way more compact Umineko (not DEEN-compact, mind you).

Spoiler for EP7:

We thought about who could be moving around and killing people, thus not suspecting ones who are declared dead in red (made me think of Rosa in EP2). I guess Ryuukishi got hooked on this idea and developed the Shkanon trick. It is all about misleading. But isn't that what mysteries do all the time?

It was so close though. We could have said the thing about Shannon being the main personality, whose death means the body is dead and cannot move. Only the reds about the linked closed rooms in EP3 and the logic error solution in EP6 are against this theory. EP3 one could technically be solved by Shannon not being the culprit. EP6 conclusion is quite hard to avoid though. Though there's still the issue of Kanon being personality-dead, maybe there wouldn't be this many complaints this way.

And why are you talking about Yasu and Lion here, in the EP5 thread? Shouldn't that be under spoilers?

[AuraTwilight]

As a reply to this and some of your recent complaints: Isn't it supposed to be like that? Red herrings make noise which makes guessing the right answer harder. We're not supposed to certainly know which set of hints leads to the correct theory in the question arcs. Though I might appreciate in some way more compact Umineko (not DEEN-compact, mind you).

Right, and I appreciate that, that's fine. As a result, though, it's kind of not fair to expect Battler or Erika to have seen it so "obviously", and it's not fair to criticize the fanbase for not thinking, Ryukishi.

I have no problem with the ambiguity, but for how characters and readers are treated for how they handled it.

And why are you talking about -- here, in the EP5 thread? Shouldn't that be under spoilers?

Oops! Kylon kinda mixed me around. I'll edit my posts immediately.

[Kealym]

@Bluemail

Indeed, there is no mystery, as of the end of EP4, that was NOT solvable on the assumption that Shannon and Kanon were physically distinct accomplices who tended to violently disagree about something before the end of the game.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by Kealym

@Bluemail

Indeed, there is no mystery, as of the end of EP4, that was NOT solvable on the assumption that Shannon and Kanon were physically distinct accomplices who tended to violently disagree about something before the end of the game.

If you're saying we need Shkannon to solve the mysteries, then sir I would like to disagree with you. Otherwise, ignore this.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

otherwise comes very close to Shkanon, but misses it.

When did he ever guess that?

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

If you're saying we need Shkannon to solve the mysteries, then sir I would like to disagree with you. Otherwise, ignore this.

Then we agree - Shkanon wasn't necessary for solving a single Ep1-4 mystery.

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

When did he ever guess that?

I can think of, off the top of my head - BATTLER suspected Jessica of Nanjo's murder in Banquet. When confronted with Ushiromiya Jessica has not committed murder, he theorized that Jessica might have multiple personalities that are considered distinct from her usual self, so Beatrice went on (perhaps she had to, even) to specify No actions caused by Jessica's body had any relation to or influence on the murder of Nanjo

Alas, since BATTLER is more of a Watson than a Holmes, he never picks up this sort of reasoning, again.

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by Kealym

Then we agree - Shkanon wasn't necessary for solving a single Ep1-4 mystery.





I can think of, off the top of my head - BATTLER suspected Jessica of Nanjo's murder in Banquet. When confronted with Ushiromiya Jessica has not committed murder, he theorized that Jessica might have multiple personalities that are considered distinct from her usual self, so Beatrice went on (perhaps she had to, even) to specify No actions caused by Jessica's body had any relation to or influence on the murder of Nanjo

Alas, since BATTLER is more of a Watson than a Holmes, he never picks up this sort of reasoning, again.

Oh okay, then multiple personalities is plausible theory. Yay! I can take ep7 as having more serious value now. Anyways, I have one question though. Why didn't she deny Jessica having multiple personalities?

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Battler reasoned something about the names not matching up with the people on the island to explain Nanjo's murder.
It's not like a silly theory about small bombs or whatnot.
... Actually I'd sorta like to imagine what would people's reactions be if Battler's small bomb theory turned out to be true...

Funny enough there was a bomb in Umineko... only it wasn't small. Maybe it would have been better if it were... -_-

Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester

Oh okay, then multiple personalities is plausible theory. Yay! I can take ep7 as having more serious value now. Anyways, I have one question though. Why didn't she deny Jessica having multiple personalities?

Because Jessica likes to play the role of 'Jessie' in school (being lively and a singer) and because sometimes she faked asthma attacks in order to look like a fair lady.

None of this constitute a real second personality in psychology but maybe it would constitute a real second personality in Yasu's book so she couldn't affirm it.

On the other side it's possible she simply wanted to cut that line of thoughts.
It wasn't Jessica nor in mind or in body so she didn't want to insist on Battler trying to prove it was Jessica.

Or it was supposed to be a hint. No action caused by Jessica's body killed Shannon... but what about the action of someone else's body?

[Kylon99]

Hello again, Aura. Here we go.

I didn't see this post earlier, no wonder I didn't see your response to the car analogy.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

But it's not actually dead; it's just stalled. Moreover, the context of the statement INTUITIVELY allows the reader to know that you're talking about a machine, not a person. The novel never comes out and says that Shannon and Kanon are not people until ages later. Sure, they're called furniture, but whenever they do they also go "But we're human/can become human" and we're given no indication it's not just some Fantasy thing.

Ok... no need to go into this, because later on in another post...

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Right, but it deliberately misleads the reader to think something that isn't true ("Betsy is a person and she is deceased"), and it hampers people's reasoning to understand what you're trying to convey, so you have NO REASON not to pick a better word choice unless you're being dishonest.

Great, this is the point I was trying to make. I was purposely trying to show you a dishonest 'truth.' I think this is what other people were trying to tell you too, but you kept insisting that the red was a lie. I can see it your way, but I can see what the other people were getting at as well.


This maybe illustrates the whole thing better:

1. A statement being a lie or a truth in of itself. "The grass is green."
2. A statement causing a proper representation or a misrepresentation of the facts. "The grass is green (but it's summer right now and the grass in the front yard is a toasty brown.)"

You are saying the red is doing #2. No problem. I am totally agreeing that 'Shannon is dead' or especially 'Kanon is dead' is a clear misrepresentation. But all I'm saying is that the red is doing #1. It is true for the person speaking it.

[AuraTwilight]

Great, this is the point I was trying to make. I was purposely trying to show you a dishonest 'truth.' I think this is what other people were trying to tell you too, but you kept insisting that the red was a lie. I can see it your way, but I can see what the other people were getting at as well.

What I'm saying is that it's a lie in that words are being made to mean things that they don't usually mean; if we can change the meanings of words without telling anyone, then how can we be sure what any red word means? "Person" could mean "Sandwich" for all we know.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

What I'm saying is that it's a lie in that words are being made to mean things that they don't usually mean; if we can change the meanings of words without telling anyone, then how can we be sure what any red word means? "Person" could mean "Sandwich" for all we know.

I'm with you on this. Suddenly it's not so easy, it's like strolling along and suddenly seeing you're in a minefield.

Basically you can say, yes, because a person tricked me once, all the other things they said can be tricks. But this thinking leads us nowhere. I'm thinking we need to add in consideration of the speaker's character.


Seeing as we're in the EP5 thread, I think we were supposed to contrast and compare Lambda's game with Beatrice's game. I say compare because both their tricks are on the same level. Lambda dancing around a knock that never existed in the first place, versus a Shkannon that was never actually there in the first place.

But maybe we're supposed to pick up on the attitudes of the two. Lambda was tricking people just to get the chance to humiliate Erika. It's not like any of this was dear to her; so it was a trick for humiliation. Beatrice, ... uh...

Spoiler for Spoilers for EP6!:

Beatrice's trick was supposed to be dodging around something she did *not* want to give away. Something she longed for Battler to find out on his own and come to the conclusion that he had forgotten his promise. She's being deceptive, but because she wants the one she loves to come to the conclusion by himself. (And of course, only when the previous Beatrice died did Battler and Moe-Beatrice actually figure it out... and at that that time no qualms about giving it away. Which is why Battler asked Moe-Beatrice if it was okay and she said it was.)

Anyways, sorry for the rambling... I think the answer is, this does devalue the guarantee the red text was supposed to have. Or rather, maybe it devalues the guarantee that Beatrice was supposed to give. Ultimately though, this devalues red text into something no less than white text. But this gives us a new opportunity though.

[AuraTwilight]

Basically you can say, yes, because a person tricked me once, all the other things they said can be tricks. But this thinking leads us nowhere. I'm thinking we need to add in consideration of the speaker's character.

You're right, but the thing is, Meta-characters are much too mecurial; it is both their strength and their weakness that their character is whatever the situation calls them to know, their personalities, knowledge, and even allegiences changing at the drop of a meta-scene. So this isn't very helpful.

Anyways, sorry for the rambling... I think the answer is, this does devalue the guarantee the red text was supposed to have. Or rather, maybe it devalues the guarantee that Beatrice was supposed to give. Ultimately though, this devalues red text into something no less than white text. But this gives us a new opportunity though.

I'll agree on this. I suppose the main point I'm making is red isn't special anymore. You can still trust it as like with every other statement; at this point the color does nothing but draw attention to passages.

[unsuspectingvisitor]

I just realize something that can justify the red truth about shkanon. The Red truth about their deaths didn't tell us about the time of death so it's possible that Shannon and kanon died at the same time.

[Kylon99]

Definitely there were instances red text that evaded it by this trick. In fact the cousins death in EP5 was evaded because Lambda slipped in a "this is the midnight answer session of the second day." So she felt justified declaring people who were initially playing dead to be actually dead.


But I figure there must have been instances where Shannon and Kanon weren't actually dead while Beatrice and Battler were arguing in the earlier episodes. So those need to be addressed.

[AuraTwilight]

That doesn't really work.

Kanon is dead. (Used by Beatrice in Tea Party.)
Among the five people in Kyrie's group, he was the first to die.
In short, he was the 9th victim.

Kanon died before Battler dealt with Beatrice, who is physically the same person as Kanon, and she must have killed herself or otherwise died after talking with Battler. Meaning that Kanon did not die at the same time as Beatrice/Shannon.

[unsuspectingvisitor]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That doesn't really work.

Kanon is dead. (Used by Beatrice in Tea Party.)
Among the five people in Kyrie's group, he was the first to die.
In short, he was the 9th victim.

Kanon died before Battler dealt with Beatrice, who is physically the same person as Kanon, and she must have killed herself or otherwise died after talking with Battler. Meaning that Kanon did not die at the same time as Beatrice/Shannon.

Well i don't have a rebuttal to that. you win. But regarding their corpses in ep4 can you explain why Shannon's and Dr. Nanjo's head was half destroyed? who destroyed their heads? It's impossible that a gun can do that kind of damage since Kyrie , George, Kumasawa, and gohda had a clean gun shot wound in the head.

[AuraTwilight]

That doesn't mean it's impossible; you can effect the blast of a gun dependent on things like whether or not it's sawed off, how close it is to the target's face, and other things like that.

[Kealym]

What Aura said.

Basically, we've been teased with this information that there tend to be two distinct types of wounds in these deaths - pinpoint holes, and boom-headshot-explosion holes, even though we've no reason to believe that more than one type of gun was readily available.

And there's not really a good solution to Shannon's death in Alliance other than her suiciding at the well grate with the same gun we can assume she's always used.