[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Midnight Bliss

I'm a slow person, so i'm very sorry 8D but um, I interpret the tip as basically telling us that Shkanon is basically a red herring that's keeping us from the truth? Like, there's many things along the way that seem convincing, but in the end, we keep backtracking ourselves and we're always coming to "Shkanon" as the answer, when it's really a trap.
...
;-; yeah, so I wanted to know if i'm the only slow one and such, haha. if not, please explain to me if it's alright. D:

That short story bothers me. It doesn't seem to have much purpose in itself. Yeah it's a funny story but kinda pointless and definitely shortest than what ryukishi used to do. So the probability that it's actually a "message" is quite high.

However the interpretation is not so obvious. In fact it's a very hard nut to crack... it's driving me mad.

The elements we have are basically these:

Bernkastel is walking a path filled with obvious traps, and they actually are trap.
Bernkastel is suspicious of everything, as Featherinne said she suspects even the house itself is a trap, but it looks it isn't after all.
So Bernkastel suspects everything is a trap and for the most part she's correct, but she ends up suspecting even what is not a trap.
However when she hears Featherinne she decides to fall for the very first trap just to prove Featherinne was wrong.
But what if Featherinne and Lamba knew Bern was listening? What if that was all done to make Bern fall for a stupid trap?

In other words if you act like Bern and suspect everything you might even end up suspecting this very TIP is just another trap.

What's the real meaning of this story? that we need to be suspicious of everything, or that being overly suspicious is wrong? In the first case you'll just miss the tea party and act according to what that hateful Featherinne predicts, in the second case you become Lamba's laughingstock.

what is the trap? what is not the trap? This story only tells us there are a lot of traps, but it doesn't give us any insight on how to discern a trap from a non trap, and there isn't just one trap, there are many. So even if you say "that one is obviously a trap", does that really mean that the next option isn't? That's not what this story seems to suggest...

[Judoh]

If you look at as a metaphor for Umineko I come up with

Everything is the trap = none of us are right

Nothing is the trap = all of us are right

or just a pointless story

But rather than give us insight on this game I thought it was supposed to give us insight on the old game that Bern and Lambda were part of. I thought that was why Ssol posted it.

[luckyssol]

Well, I agree with Jan-Poo and others that it might be an important message. Then again, maybe it's just a pointless story.

Looking back at very first game, what was the very first obvious trap that no one fell for?

Originally Posted by Ryukishi

I want to find out just how many people can deny the witch until the very end and maintain a 'human culprit theory'.

I don't think Shkanon is the trap but I wonder what the trap really is.

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Ssol

Well, I agree with Jan-Poo and others that it might be an important message. Then again, maybe it's just a pointless story.

Looking back at very first game, what was the very first obvious trap that no one fell for?

I don't think Shkanon is the trap but I wonder what the trap really is.

What obvious trap- the witch did it or Shkannon, which has been formulated since EP 1 :P

Still Shkannon is a very obvious trap especially after EP 6, which half of is just a giant Shkannon hinting fest.

Eva being the culprit was also a pretty clear trap. I don't really get when people say Kyrie is an obvious culprit, almost to a Takano point, and then don't mention Eva being considered SUSPICIOUS since EP 1. Hell, Ryukishi gave Eva an entire arc just to show how blatant she was as a trap. Kyrie's suspicion didn't really go that high until EP 4.

Anyways, I still maintain Kyrie's involvement. Fact that Ryukishi is probably going to make a Rudolf-centric arc for EP 7, to get past all the Battler family confusion drama and what not. I would prefer a Kyrie arc, since its pretty obvious who Battler's mother is, but then again I think Ryukishi has some secret hatred of her.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

What's the real meaning of this story? that we need to be suspicious of everything, or that being overly suspicious is wrong? In the first case you'll just miss the tea party and act according to what that hateful Featherinne predicts, in the second case you become Lamba's laughingstock.

I took a second look at it again after your second message. More than the events themselves, I was thinking that this TIP gave us more characterization of Bern, Lambda and Featherine. But, I think I found something...

Featherine mentions that Bern is, or was 'clumsy, stupid and easily frightened,' which I took to mean that she is cowardly. In addition, the story suggests that if she doesn't fall for one of the traps (apparently even the last part is a 'trap') the fun, fun tea party wouldn't begin.

The obvious thing is that yes, there are traps all along the way. And some new discussion at the last part made us fall for the trap at the beginning, even though we knew it's a trap.


But for some reason I can relate to why Featherine said she was a coward. If Bern never fell for any of the traps at all, the tea party would never have started. If the traps are the traps in the mystery, I took it to mean that if we simply hesitated to put forth theories, even knowing they were wrong, then we would never arrive at the tea party or the truth. We have to go and fall for the traps, realize our mistakes and then go from there. Maybe that's what he's saying?

As I might have said before, please excuse me if this is a repeat: If you take a rather stereotypical super detective and place them in Umineko (not Erika-like of course), what would be the difference between him and someone who is merely intelligent (like Battler.) It's that he has supreme confidence in his ability and his theories; there's no hesitation. Right from the outset he would have declared that no magic exists and as he went along he would have immediately suspected anyone lying about magic. Etc, etc. Even if the theory is proven false later he's not hesitant to come up with one. Didn't Ryukishi once say that some of can come up with the right idea but then holds back saying, "I need to see more proof first?"

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

As I might have said before, please excuse me if this is a repeat: If you take a rather stereotypical super detective and place them in Umineko (not Erika-like of course), what would be the difference between him and someone who is merely intelligent (like Battler.) It's that he has supreme confidence in his ability and his theories; there's no hesitation. Right from the outset he would have declared that no magic exists and as he went along he would have immediately suspected anyone lying about magic. Etc, etc. Even if the theory is proven false later he's not hesitant to come up with one. Didn't Ryukishi once say that some of can come up with the right idea but then holds back saying, "I need to see more proof first?"

We can be right and not need all the hints is what your saying? We're focusing too much on proof?

Well one thing we have yet to decide on is a motive for the murders. Maybe the trap we are falling into is our indecisiveness? We like to come up with a lot of theories for who and how people can do what, but when it comes to why we don't want to accept a clear motive. I think I said this before, but whenever I say someone could be ordered to kill someone (hinted) or bribed to kill someone (double hinted) people don't want to accept it. So maybe the trap we are falling into is our indecisiveness kind of like Bern's indecisiveness when she sat down to think. We haven't been able to accept a clear motive for people besides Beatrice to murder people because subconsciously we don't want to beleive anyone could commit murder. In fact this was the trap Battler fell into in almost all of the question arcs....He cared too much and couldn't find a motive. Maybe I'm onto something...

[Renall]

Again, though, merely recognizing that any theory is possibly a trap, we just have to assume it true and false, and test it to see what happens. Shkanon, for instance, may or may not be a trap; but most of us have pretended it's true/false, and asked if we can explain it either way. And indeed we basically can, though proponents of one or the other aren't always satisfied by the opposite side's coherence or incoherence.

The only risk of a trap is stumbling in it and becoming, well, trapped in it. It's like the game itself says, it's when you stop thinking that you wind up in trouble. I don't feel particularly threatened by the possibility a trap exists because I don't yet have what I believe to be a complete answer. It's only when a theory is set in stone that a trap is fatal to it (or only when a theory absolutely needs something that turns out to be a trap, but few theories do).

EDIT: Also, on the topic of cowardice and indecisiveness... a person could certainly be called a coward if they refuse to be resolute, but in a sense this is against Bern's nature. To be able to find a one-in-a-million chance of something, it's necessary to be indecisive and play every possible angle so that if the one chance opens you can jump on it. Someone like Lambda has it in her nature to be certain about her point of view and soldier on. And what one might call cowardice, another might well call caution. Say what you will about cowards, they're survivors.

[Judoh]

I think by indecisiveness I was talking about how the train of thought we've had so far, and that Battler and Bern use, is to find the "who", "how", and "why", but when we get to the "why" that's where I think a lot of people stop thinking. We don't want to beleive that someone could kill 17 people, but in this story everyone usually dies. That's what I mean by indecisiveness it's that we get stuck at this one part.

So I think we should be working on the why first and then the who and how naturally come afterward. That's what I think the trap is. It's not a threat. It's like you said. It's the place where we stop thinking.

[Renall]

Well, why not look at it in reverse; who do you think wouldn't kill 17 people?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

Well, why not look at it in reverse; who do you think wouldn't kill 17 people?

Maria is the first person I can think of at the top of my head. I wasn't necessarily saying one person kills 17 people though.

add in the reds about Nanjo, Kumasawa and Battler and that makes 4.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Maria is the first person I can think of at the top of my head.

Maria couldn't; but I also agree that she wouldn't. Whatever she may say, I don't buy that she'd be willing to go through with it by her own hand.

I would also probably eliminate Battler and Natsuhi right off. Not merely because of red and whatnot, but it just doesn't seem in either of their natures given the characterization we've seen of them. Even if Natsuhi might kill someone, I don't think she'd kill everyone. And I can't see Battler intentionally killing at all.

Who else? I think there are some people Eva would not kill. Her husband and her son. Remember, we're not asking who wouldn't kill a person, just who wouldn't be able to go through with killing everyone. Naturally, we can't rule out the people who might kill somebody, but we can perhaps rule them out of certain things.

Question is... how many people have been characterized in a way that lets you say with some definitiveness that you don't believe them capable of murder?

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Judoh

We can be right and not need all the hints is what your saying? We're focusing too much on proof?

Well one thing we have yet to decide on is a motive for the murders. Maybe the trap we are falling into is our indecisiveness? We like to come up with a lot of theories for who and how people can do what, but when it comes to why we don't want to accept a clear motive.

We should not be afraid to be wrong so that we may reach the truth, is what I think Ryukishi is saying. Perhaps we have to fall into a trap in order to reach the truth to Umineko?

Originally Posted by Renall

EDIT: Also, on the topic of cowardice and indecisiveness... a person could certainly be called a coward if they refuse to be resolute, but in a sense this is against Bern's nature. To be able to find a one-in-a-million chance of something, it's necessary to be indecisive and play every possible angle so that if the one chance opens you can jump on it. Someone like Lambda has it in her nature to be certain about her point of view and soldier on. And what one might call cowardice, another might well call caution. Say what you will about cowards, they're survivors.

Well, since I figure Featherine is a meanie, perhaps her calling Bern a coward is a bit too harsh. But it's true that we all get stuck and can't progress even if we're afraid of falling into a trap and being shamed.

Originally Posted by Judoh

I think by indecisiveness I was talking about how the train of thought we've had so far, and that Battler and Bern use, is to find the "who", "how", and "why", but when we get to the "why" that's where I think a lot of people stop thinking. We don't want to beleive that someone could kill 17 people, but in this story everyone usually dies. That's what I mean by indecisiveness it's that we get stuck at this one part.

So I think we should be working on the why first and then the who and how naturally come afterward. That's what I think the trap is. It's not a threat. It's like you said. It's the place where we stop thinking.

I think coming up with the 'why' will be the hardest in mystery novels. Mind you, I think this is what Ryukishi's been trying to fight against. It was said by Christopher Dine, I think that the 'why' in mystery novels is unnecessary. Any author of even minor merit can come up with a motive easily. To him (and he fancied himself a mystery connoisseur) the who and how was more important. I think we've seen enough evidence that Umineko is against this idea; we need to care about the people in the mystery too. But I think it will still be very, very hard. 8)


Ok, so assuming the trap IS Shkannon; specifically the dual identity disorder theory of Shannon. I've been trying to think of something else that can appear as dual identity but not actually be it. For example, Shannon and Kanon are interchangeable identities. This doesn't solve the body count, but it's an idea. What else can appear to be dual-identity but not?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

Maria couldn't; but I also agree that she wouldn't. Whatever she may say, I don't buy that she'd be willing to go through with it by her own hand.

I would also probably eliminate Battler and Natsuhi right off. Not merely because of red and whatnot, but it just doesn't seem in either of their natures given the characterization we've seen of them. Even if Natsuhi might kill someone, I don't think she'd kill everyone. And I can't see Battler intentionally killing at all.

Who else? I think there are some people Eva would not kill. Her husband and her son. Remember, we're not asking who wouldn't kill a person, just who wouldn't be able to go through with killing everyone. Naturally, we can't rule out the people who might kill somebody, but we can perhaps rule them out of certain things.

Question is... how many people have been characterized in a way that lets you say with some definitiveness that you don't believe them capable of murder?

I'd count Krauss off too he's too preoccupied to murder everyone and I don't think he'd hurt his wife even though she might just be a borrowed womb to him.

Any of the moms I'd rule out. Kyrie has potential, but I think she only kills in self defense.

Gohda is too happy I don't think he'd be able to do it.

But I think a lot of characters might be able to be pressured into killing people or bribed to some extent. The servants are good candidates in that case. Maybe the fathers too. Besides Krauss we don't know a whole lot about them.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

I think coming up with the 'why' will be the hardest in mystery novels. Mind you, I think this is what Ryukishi's been trying to fight against. It was said by Christopher Dine, I think that the 'why' in mystery novels is unnecessary. Any author of even minor merit can come up with a motive easily. To him (and he fancied himself a mystery connoisseur) the who and how was more important. I think we've seen enough evidence that Umineko is against this idea; we need to care about the people in the mystery too. But I think it will still be very, very hard. 8)

I think one thing the entire thread agrees on is that motive is not an afterthought here. It's definitely not going to be a matter of narrowing it all down, Battler fingering the suspect, and a cackling speech about how space aliens who met with the Incas gave Kinzo Nazi gold and now everyone has to die so Scooby-Uu wouldn't find it.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

Question is... how many people have been characterized in a way that lets you say with some definitiveness that you don't believe them capable of murder?

I like where this is going. As far as I can tell, everyone. Everyone has been characterized as maybe capable in some exceptional circumstances but not totally capable of mass murder of everyone. Except... Kinzo.

He's the only one who *has* characterization that implies he'd like to wipe out his whole family including servants. But instead, I keep saying 'nahhhhh' to him and instead keep hoping for some secret revelation of of one of the others to show us that they instead would be the ones.

But wasn't this supposed to be solvable at EP4? So, technically, there should be no more coming right? So... the only one that is left is... Kinzo.

[Jan-Poo]

I think most people are thinking about shkanon because of how unpopular this theory is, but if you were to ask me what are the most obvious things hinted as of now, then there is one that is hinted as much as shkanon is: shannontrice.

If you think Ryukishi is capable of pulling such a prank with shkanon, then how can we be sure that shannontrice is a safe bet?

And while ghosterika is not as blatant as shkanon, considering the final TIPS of EP6 it's a close second.

I wonder what kind of game Ryukishi is playing. Right now I'm almost certain that this debate about Kanon and Erika was something he planned. So there's a chance that this short story he made has no other purpose but to give more fuel to the fire.

[Judoh]

Erika is actually the most likely to be able to kill everyone if she wasn't the detective. Since she has no connection to anyone there.

Well I thought at one point that she might have a connection with Kyrie through her friends in Tokyo, but that's about the only connection you can fabricate.

[Renall]

Someone mentioned George has received very little first-person narration, unlike many characters. While that particular Knox rule was modified for Umineko, it is an interesting point. We know from TIPS and his general nature that George is somewhat emotionally controlling. I might not go so far as to say abusive, but he's emotionally manipulative to a point.

Likewise, characters like Hideyoshi we just don't know enough about. They seem nice, but I'm not going to write them off as incapable of murder like Natsuhi because we have so much of her thoughts to work through compared to others.

Kanontrice would be pretty funny, I think. Or Gohdatrice. Hey, you wouldn't see it coming. Neither would Battler...

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I think most people are thinking about shkanon because of how unpopular this theory is, but if you were to ask me what are the most obvious things hinted as of now, then there is one that is hinted as much as shkanon is: shannontrice.

If you think Ryukishi is capable of pulling such a prank with shkanon, then how can we be sure that shannontrice is a safe bet?

And while ghosterika is not as blatant as shkanon, considering the final TIPS of EP6 it's a close second.

I wonder what kind of game Ryukishi is playing. Right now I'm almost certain that this debate about Kanon and Erika was something he planned. So there's a chance that this short story he made has no other purpose but to give more fuel to the fire.

Jessitrice was even more unpopular back in the day. Before Erika appeared the debate was between Shannontrice, Shkanontrice and Jessitrice.

Now the debate has turned into Erika doesn't exist, Shkanon, Kanontrice, with some people still hoping for Jessitrice.

[Jan-Poo]

Hey I was pointing at Kanontrice as a viable option since EP4... but I guess I was kinda alone...