[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

I really don't know what else to say. You can't discuss things with a person who cherry-picks when they will hold to their premises. I presume you don't mean to do that, but that is exactly what you have done.

Cherry-picks? I've just given you a pretty simple reason for why Battler might be the filter through which we see the gameboard. Of course, it doesn't prove anything, but it does explain why the "two persons needed for a world" has appeared so often in the story. If true, it would be a very broad reason based on one of the major themes of the game.

And that is all that is needed at this point. I don't have to prove it to suggest it as a theory. We just have to see how well the rest of the story fits if this does happen to be the truth. If it doesn't, we change our theory. If it does, we keep looking. But we don't just throw it out and stop thinking about it, just because I can't say it in red text. What if we did that for your theories? I don't think you've ever provided a basis much stronger than this one. In fact, you often suggest theories by saying they probably won't work, but we should at least give them a try anyway. That's all I'm asking.

If this theory is true, and we acknowledge that the Game Master can fill in some of the gaps where Battler only has hazy, second-hand knowledge (this must be true for comments about other games to be allowed), then we can easily explain every single scene in EP1-4. Forgetting the core arcs for the time being, can we at least agree on that?

[Renall]

No, we cannot.

The authorship issue is very sticky indeed and there's a layer in there of peanut-buttery uncertainty between the BatBeatoBread in this sandwich of intersubjectivity. And I'm the man with the crippling but unspecified food allergy who can't take a bite just yet.

[Keriaku]

If my first year science courses at university have hammered in any point, it's that any theory can never be proven, only ever weaver together and then continually tested with new information. I believe this is the stage we are at in Umineko. We can make comprehensive theories involving large areas on the story as prevented. There's really no need to be arguing about things being 'proven' or not. In my opinion, that's kind of missing the point of putting these kinds of large scale theories together.

I think your theory has a lot of merit, Chronotrig. To me, it seems intuitive in a sense that the story seems to have been conveyed through Battler's perception. This seems true of the Question arcs, and EP5 and 6 seem to focus on the disconnect between Erika's gameboard perspective versus Battler's higher level one. I also like how it seems to fit nicely with the 'difficulties' that are attributed to the various episodes before you start.

[AuraTwilight]

Random idea I just thought of.

Is there actually any legitimate reason for us to think that the authors of Episodes 3 and onwards are different people?

What if the author of the message bottles survived, and wrote every other game, too?

[Renall]

Well, if we can doubt Tohya (and I think we can, to some extent), who wrote any of those other works is completely up in the air.

That said, I don't know if there's necessarily more evidence in favor of it than against it. I think there's something of a thematic shift in 3/4 that wasn't in 1/2.

[AuraTwilight]

Yea, but that doesn't necessarily mean someone else wrote it. Maybe "Ushiromiya Maria" decided now was time to shift the themes, just like Ryukishi did?

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Keriaku

To me, it seems intuitive in a sense that the story seems to have been conveyed through Battler's perception.

Well, part of the reason I think it sticks so well is because it fleshes out a theory that's been around since EP3 if not earlier, and long before I even considered the subject. That was when everyone started noticing that all magic takes place when Battler isn't around, except for the time he's drunk in EP2. Why should this be the case? EP5 gave us a possible answer by introducing the "detective" role, but that never satisfied me.

After all, we never heard about that rule in EP1-4, so there should have been a different explanation for why Battler can't see magic and everyone else, it seems, can. And there must be some non-arbitrary explanation for why showing us magic is a legal move by the Game Master. Both of these issues are explained if the story is 'the way Battler would tell it at the end of the game'. The outline of most magic scenes are the story that Beatrice tells to Battler, and in scenes where Battler can't or won't describe the details, the Game Master is allowed to supply them to match the 'storyline' they've invented for that game.

[Renall]

Again, I think you're skipping a very essential layer of interpretation (or just filtration, if you will). It may or may not be Battler's communication to the higher-order reader as the final product, but I don't think he's getting it the way you theorize, and in fact I don't think it's actually possible the way you describe it. At least absent a strictly metaphorical construction, but if I understand you correctly that isn't what you're actually suggesting.

[chronotrig]

Spoiler for size:

Well, to put it in another way, I think there are actually two tales for each story, the game and the message bottle:

First, we have story A, which meta-Beatrice tells meta-Battler. This is the game we play, with all the meta-scenes included (since meta-Battler sees or hears of most of them). By 'meta', I mean any actions by characters that don't make sense without direct knowledge of other games.

Second, we have story B, which is the story piece-Battler would tell at the end of the game (the aforementioned "piece-Beatrice's world" that she tells to piece-Battler). In games where Beatrice's plan goes off without a major hitch, story B is same as the message bottles. I think this only happens in EP1 and EP2, though, since message bottles seem to tell tales of successful Beatrice murders, and EP3-6 probably don't go as Beatrice planned.

Since it doesn't seem to make logical sense to have meta-scenes present in story B, and we know there are meta-scenes in story A, it should be clear by EP4 that there are two separate 'versions' of each game. This is hinted to even more strongly if we think about the message bottles, which seem to have contained no meta-elements (see the Witch Hunt prof in EP4).
We have to ask ourselves: why are the message bottles different from the whole episodes? And this story A/story B provides an explanation.

The important point here is that story A not only includes extra scenes, but has a different overall story arc. The huge EP3 Beatrice troll can't have been something from Battler's mind, and it also wouldn't make sense in a message bottle. I think the Game Master has to use story B as a base, but since Battler's perspective contains blind spots, they're allowed to fill in the blanks to tell their own story, in which the meta-characters are also actors.

The purpose of story B is to create a set of magic murders that Battler will be unable to solve and will hopefully believe in. The purpose of story A, in meta-Beatrice's games, is to slowly lead meta-Battler to the truth (we know this by EP5). Because the purpose of these two stories is different, the overall story arc is different. That's why the Game Master is allowed to use blind spots in the original story to create their own story arc. Beatrice tried to keep story A and story B as close to each other as possible, since that was her idea of 'beauty' in a game board, and because that would make it easier for Battler to figure out the nature of this game. However, Lambda and Bern didn't give a sh**, so they cranked up the blind spots to max, which is why EP5 is such a mess.

To sum up, story B is the story piece-Battler tells. Story A is the story meta-Battler hears. B is influenced by the lies piece Beatrice told for piece Battler's benefit, and A is conducted by meta-Beatrice for meta-Battler's benefit.

[AuraTwilight]

Hachijou Tohya says there are red ink passages in the stories.

[Renall]

I think it's more of a Story A/B/C, but you're not entirely off the reservation. However, I don't think that - bar certain circumstances where he's actually the originator of the text at some level - Battler is actually communicating so much as the final layer placed on the story before we get the finished package is viewing the interpretive process made by him (or whoever else happens to be reading; it need not be only one, since the works are alleged to be public).

So more along the lines of:

Original Story -> Author Engages Reader -> Result of Reader's Reasoning

All mashed together so that we can't immediately tell which is which.

We shouldn't immediately assume that the literary figures of Beatrice and Battler are necessarily meant to represent the persons who embodied "Beatrice" and "Battler," regardless of whether those two people did in fact engage in some literary jockeying. It's equally possible they stand in for Author and Reader. This could explain ambiguities like Meta-Battler seemingly not knowing what happened on Rokkenjima when the actual person Ushiromiya Battler ought to at least be able to spin certain reds independent of anything Beatrice tries to do.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Hachijou Tohya says there are red ink passages in the stories.

True, but the end of EP6 makes it pretty clear that either Hachijo or Featherine is a fake. Either Featherine is a character created by Hachijo, or Hachijo is a piece created by Featherine. If the latter is true, then since Featherine acknowledges that she doesn't know the answer, and has probably only read the games we've seen so far, we can't blindly accept anything Hachijo says. Hachijo's theory is a very possible one though, and I don't think it makes sense for her to be entirely wrong. But in the end, I think it's closer to Battler's theories in the question arcs as far as how much we can trust it.

Oh, and the reason I think Hachijo is the fake one is because Featherine actually appears in later games and because the few times we see Hachijo are almost all obviously meta. That, and the fact that it doesn't make sense for someone to have written EP4's future scenes before Ange actually went to Rokkenjima.

Originally Posted by Renall

I think it's more of a Story A/B/C, but you're not entirely off the reservation. However, I don't think that - bar certain circumstances where he's actually the originator of the text at some level - Battler is actually communicating so much as the final layer placed on the story before we get the finished package is viewing the interpretive process made by him (or whoever else happens to be reading; it need not be only one, since the works are alleged to be public).

@Renall: Of course, there's probably a level that explains why the meta-world exists, but that may or may not be important for understanding the inner workings of the game. I think that story A/B can explain all of the scenes in the game (at least up until EP4, to keep it simple for now), if we take the meta-world scenes at face value. In other words, pretend that meta-Battler is sucked into a meta-world and forced to play several games. Regardless of who or what meta-Battler actually is, he must be capable of solving the game. And for him, that game is just story A/B, along with figuring out the rulesets like lies and furniture death.

[Renall]

Can't both Hachijou and Featherine be fake (in some way, such as the individual presented not being the actual "Hachijou Tohya")? It would resolve the feedback loop in a way one or the other being the "right" one doesn't.

And I think it a bit silly to dismiss any interpretive layer as not important.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

Can't both Hachijou and Featherine be fake (in some way, such as the individual presented not being the actual "Hachijou Tohya")? It would resolve the feedback loop in a way one or the other being the "right" one doesn't.

And I think it a bit silly to dismiss any interpretive layer as not important.

Didn't say it wasn't important, just said that it might be possible to sort out most of the game's details without it, and gave a reason why. And if it is possible to sort out most of the game's details without it, that's hardly a weak point for a theory.

After all, what if the meta-world represents a real inter-Kakera world like the opening of Minagoroshi? Or if it's the cat box of Beatrice's head right before she dies? Or, what if it's the way Battler thinks about the crime before telling Ange about it in the future? If any of these ways or countless others is true, then the nature of the meta-world might be very important to explain how the meta-story will end, but it would only have an occasional effect on how each game is played, and that mostly when dealing with the motives of meta-world characters.

In other words, try the theory, see if it works, and if it does, then we can search for an explanation of the meta-world itself.

[Renall]

I think we just fundamentally disagree on what is the more important part.

[Leafsnail]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm gonna have to shoot down the idea right then and there, then, since that means that the entire Chiru arc is driving us AWAY from the truth.

Oh, and thanks, Judoh, you beat me to it, I was about to post that.

Or just demonstrating how much you'd be able to do if there were no restrictions to what you could say in red.

Originally Posted by Renall

After Jessica was injured, Eva was always under Battler's supervision. Jessica is not injured in any episode but 3. Even if you argue her injury in ep2, Eva is dead already.

I'm not saying "Reds apply to all games" - I'm saying that reds apply to the episode they're said in and Rokkenjima prime. So in the real event, Jessica was injured and Eva stayed with her.

Originally Posted by Renall

By the way, Eva is dead: When the six were killed in the chapel, the culprit was inside the chapel! But Eva is alive.

No contradiction. "The 6 in the chapel" are never named. In fact, this is the main reason I had this idea.

Originally Posted by Renall

Kanon was a "victim:" In short, he was the 9th victim. Yet no kind of human or dead person on the island could have killed Kanon! So unless he was a victim of fashion... and with that beret I could buy it.

Ah, I aknowledge this one. But you can be the victim of a non lethal assault.

Originally Posted by Renall

Regarding the unidentified corpses, all of their identities are guaranteed. Therefore, no body double tricks exist! Yet there is only one "unidentified" corpse in ep4, not more than one.

See above - the reds don't have to apply to all games, just to a common "prime" scenario. There were multiple unidentified corpses on RP (or there was one ingame and one on RP - either works).

Originally Posted by Renall

After the master keys came into Rosa's control, never did any of them leave her hands! Except for the time when she lent it to Battler to unlock Natsuhi's room. Rosa never had control of the maser keys in any episode but ep2, and the referenced event didn't happen in any other episode.

See above. On RP, Rosa got control of the masterkeys.

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

I think we just fundamentally disagree on what is the more important part.

That may be, but since you haven't shown any proof that your way is the right one, I don't think you can say that you're "more right" than I am. So, if my way can give us a resolution to certain issues, it doesn't make sense for you to call it "bad writing" just because your way can't resolve them.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Leafsnail

Ah, I aknowledge this one. But you can be the victim of a non lethal assault.

That'd count as an accident, no? And so, we've got: "Kanon did not die in an accident!"

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by Used Can

That'd count as an accident, no? And so, we've got: "Kanon did not die in an accident!"

No, you're missing his point. (I think) He meant that Kanon was a victim of a non-lethal accident, but died because of another cause. That satisfied both reds, though I'm not so sure until I see the original Japanese writings of the "victim" here. These things get really confusing when you read it with different languages.

[Used Can]

The word for victim (犠牲者) is there, but I don't see how it can refer to anything else, when we're told: Kanon is dead. Amongst the five people in Kyrie's group, he was the first to die. In other words, this means he's the 9th victim.

Taking into account Umineko's jargon based on the whole deal with chess, and the devil's roulette, rather than "victim," I'd say "sacrifice" would, probably, be a more suitable word.