[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Used Can

Don't forget that Hideyoshi told George Shannon's corpse was there, when it's quite likely there was no such thing. He even knows about the engagement ring.

After George brought it up, and Kanon was out of sight, crouching. He could have been, in reality, coaching Hideyoshi on what to say.

Once again, this is strange if Kanon is Yasu(maybe?), but not strange if Shkannon is faking their death in order to move around with impunity.

As far as the presumed secrecy goes, we're not shown how Genji retrieves Nanjo and Natsuhi. Considering the fact that they were all in the parlor, chances are that Natsuhi and co. would simply have made some kind of non-suspicious excuse to leave and check on things, rather than overly draw attention to themselves and worry the children.

I would also assume that this one can be placed on natural suspicion when it comes to family members. Eva and Hideyoshi were the only ones who actually retreated back to a closed off chamber (which is weird in every regard, especially considering that Hideyoshi might have noticed something strange in the 1st twilight) and they did not come back on time, when normally they appear to be very punctual (especially Eva, when it comes to putting Natsuhi in a bad light).
When my parents were to suddenly show completely irrational behaviour and don't even show up on time...and suddenly everybody starts vanishing into their direction...after there had been a murder just that morning ... I would be pretty highstrung, too.

If we assume that Hideyoshi was in a position to notice something odd, then chances are he'd be quick enough on his feet to gain some grasp of the situation. He would, of course, inform Eva of the details of what he figured out throughout the day, and since Eva is presented as intelligent and suspicious, she'd probably be able to figure out the true situation afterwords.

Eva and Hideyoshi would only have left the room and holed up together if they felt that was the safest option, given Eva/George/Hideyoshi's ability to defend themselves.

This assumption only works if they believe that the Culprits have no weaponry (someone is shown to already possess the only gun, in this case Natsuhi). And if they possess confidence that they can legitimately repel the would-be suspects. Due to this being the only situation under which their self-imposed isolation makes sense (aside from being catty), they would have reason to believe that the number of culprits is low enough in number that they could easily take them on in hand to hand combat.

As for not showing up on time, well...Iunno. Thats an awfully thin justification for George to be suspicious. It's never actually stated that Eva and Hideyoshi are paragons of timeliness.

But I might be wrong of course, because everything on the 2nd day is suspicious.
Also considering the fact how they discover the 1st twilight:
At first it's just Kanon noticing something about the shed (which is strange if Kanon should be Yasu).
Then he gives notice to Genji and Natsuhi. But Natsuhi is too busy, so only Genji, Eva and Hideyoshi come along.
Then after they open the shed, only Genji runs back to get Nanjo and, because he runs into her, Natsuhi.
Then again, after a little while, the cousins get suspicious of their behaviour and run after them...
THAT left Eva, Hideyoshi and Kanon A LOT of private time, which is especially strange considering that it seems to be only Hideyoshi and Kanon who go to check on the corpse of Shannon.

Regarding Kanon's discovery. I don't think it's strange at all.

If YasuShkannon were an accomplice, then naturally they would be aware of the murders and the shed. In fact, if it were just that, it gives him an opportunity to paint on the magic circle himself.

Speaking of the shed discovery, here's what I also find suspicious: Why did Maria stop Battler from joining Kanon/Eva/Hideyoshi/Genji from checking the shed on the first go?

And if we acknowledge that the alone time between Kanon/Eva/Hideyoshi is suspicious, and therefore something happened, we can only conclude it affected their behavior from then on. This "conversation X" is ultimately what lead to Hideyoshi's claim on the nature of "Shannon's Corpse", as well as their self-imposed isolation.

Either way, this only continues to highlight how suspicious Kanon himself is in this episode.

[Oliver]

Random "I wonder."

Why are there four guns modified in an identical, rather unusual manner, and not a single unmodified one?... If you're collecting classic weaponry related to Western movies, even if the guns were all to be modified, they would be likely to be different. If you want to enjoy shooting in company, you need company, which is not in evidence -- all evidence refers to Kinzo shooting guns with someone singular at most, so why four and not, say, two or three. Even if you wanted to imitate some well-known Western movie, only one character would be likely to have such an unusual gun. (And in fact, is there such a movie?)

Could there be any specific reason?...

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Random "I wonder."

Why are there four guns modified in an identical, rather unusual manner, and not a single unmodified one?... If you're collecting classic weaponry related to Western movies, even if the guns were all to be modified, they would be likely to be different. If you want to enjoy shooting in company, you need company, which is not in evidence -- all evidence refers to Kinzo shooting guns with someone singular at most, so why four and not, say, two or three. Even if you wanted to imitate some well-known Western movie, only one character would be likely to have such an unusual gun. (And in fact, is there such a movie?)

Could there be any specific reason?...

Because they were cheap knockoffs meant to only be functional and little else. Like a lot of other "collector's items", I guess. I mean, it's not like those replica Buster Swords you can find on the internet can actually cut down someone, right?

But it is rather odd that there would be so many, I agree there.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Because they were cheap knockoffs meant to only be functional and little else. Like a lot of other "collector's items", I guess. I mean, it's not like those replica Buster Swords you can find on the internet can actually cut down someone, right?

Umm, not quite. An 1894 model Winchester was in production by the original Winchester Repeating Arms Company (and nobody else) since 1894 uninterrupted all the way until 2006 (!) and while the connoisseurs say the quality has declined after the production changes introduced in 1964, it's just as much of a gun as it was in 1894 even after that, and well, there's nothing stopping Kinzo from getting the pre-1964 guns anyway, back in 1963 for example. So they're about as real as they get.

The modifications themselves are notable for a few things:

1. You can do them yourself, doesn't require much more than a pair of hands and some basic tools. Kinzo definitely didn't have to buy pre-modified guns and could have real ones imported.
2. Modding will significantly decrease precision of the original gun (shorter barrel) and power, particularly when used with a .410 cartridge (much of the powder in a shot charge keeps burning while in the barrel, barrel is shorter - power dissipates)
3. I also suspect that would make them louder, though I'm not certain on that.
4. Owning high-caliber rifles (that's what that Winchester is, it's not a shotgun) has been illegal since forever. Not like Kinzo couldn't shrug at this, living on an island and all, but it's something to keep in mind.

Also, Ep7 says Rudolf somehow owns one, even though it doesn't say if it's modified. A lever action shotgun would be no problem to own. A lever-action rifle on the other hand, would require him to break the law in a situation completely unlike Kinzo's.

EDIT: Some further research.

An 1894 Winchester is indeed a classic weapon in a very famous Western movie -- in particular, A Fistful of Dollars -- essentially, the one that restarted the Western genre in the US and the one Rudolf was definitely a fan of. There are a lot of things of note about this:

1. The text says 1894. But the rifle in the film switches between 1892 and 1894 with no explanation.
2. The film came out in 1964 in Italy (It was a joint Italian/German/Spanish co-production too) and in 1967 in the US. No idea when the Japanese release happened, but I'd say, 1970. If that was Kinzo's inspiration, that sounds... quite a bit late. Huh?
3. It's the weapon of the film's major villain. Clint Eastwood's hero uses a Colt Single Action Army 5 1/2" Artillery, which is the .45 Colt weapon in there -- the Winchesters are .38-.40 and .30-.30 respectively.
4. No weapons in the film were modified. I have so far failed to find a Western movie which features a sawed-off rifle, even.
5. The film involves... gold.

Hmmmm....

EDIT EDIT: Correction, Japanese release was in 1965. Still late, though.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Scratch all that, I think I have located the only case of a Western where someone uses a sawed-off rifle. Problem is, it's a TV series on CBS that ran 1958-1961.

[Solachinx]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

I would also assume that this one can be placed on natural suspicion when it comes to family members. Eva and Hideyoshi were the only ones who actually retreated back to a closed off chamber (which is weird in every regard, especially considering that Hideyoshi might have noticed something strange in the 1st twilight) and they did not come back on time, when normally they appear to be very punctual (especially Eva, when it comes to putting Natsuhi in a bad light).
When my parents were to suddenly show completely irrational behaviour and don't even show up on time...and suddenly everybody starts vanishing into their direction...after there had been a murder just that morning ... I would be pretty highstrung, too.

But I might be wrong of course, because everything on the 2nd day is suspicious.
Also considering the fact how they discover the 1st twilight:
At first it's just Kanon noticing something about the shed (which is strange if Kanon should be Yasu).
Then he gives notice to Genji and Natsuhi. But Natsuhi is too busy, so only Genji, Eva and Hideyoshi come along.
Then after they open the shed, only Genji runs back to get Nanjo and, because he runs into her, Natsuhi.
Then again, after a little while, the cousins get suspicious of their behaviour and run after them...
THAT left Eva, Hideyoshi and Kanon A LOT of private time, which is especially strange considering that it seems to be only Hideyoshi and Kanon who go to check on the corpse of Shannon.

Your theory is plausible, but I don't see how they could fake their own deaths; someone who was found in the shed could've killed someone else, blasted the cadaver's face off, and switch clothes (if this was planned, they could've even prepared wigs). I don't see how you can fake a stake (and a bullet) in the head. Then again, I don't recall Battler seeing either corpse.....

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Solachinx

Your theory is plausible, but I don't see how they could fake their own deaths; someone who was found in the shed could've killed someone else, blasted the cadaver's face off, and switch clothes (if this was planned, they could've even prepared wigs). I don't see how you can fake a stake (and a bullet) in the head. Then again, I don't recall Battler seeing either corpse.....

Concerning all of Episode 1: 身元不明死体について、その身元を全て保証する (All identities of all unidentifiable corpses are hereby guaranteed)
That would leave only Krauss to actually ake his death, which is rather impossible, because as far as I remember Battler actually commented on seeing Krauss with half his face...and if the manga is (as Ryukishi claims) full of visual hints, he should be actually dead.
But we also know that something about Shannon's corpse must have been off (meaning it was either not there, not her or not a corpse). In that context it's interesting how that red truth is constructed 身元不明死体, which means it talks only of those corpses which have been robbed of their face, not of any other corpse. That would leave Shannon, Krauss, Eva, Hideyoshi, Kanon and Natsuhi in the range of suspicion.

夏妃を射殺したのはトラップじゃなく、ちゃんと銃を構えて引き金を引いてしっかり射殺したのよ ！ (What shot and killed Natsuhi was not a trap, it was a readied gun which shot her to death by the trigger being pulled), again absolutes Natsuhi from being the final murderer. That would leave Shannon, Krauss, Eva, Hideyoshi and Kanon in the circle of suspects to have faked their death.

Concerning the 2nd twilight it says 二人は他殺である！[...] (Both of them were murdered). Which means, unless they were able to kill each other at the exact same time and somehow stumble to their final positions they cannot have been overarching murderers at all. So we are left with Shannon, Krauss and Kanon as possible suspects in faking their death.

If we assume that something was promised between at least Kanon and Hideyoshi in exchange for Hideyoshi saying that he found Shannon in the back of the shed, someone has a motive to kill off those two as well.
Hideyoshi must have known something if Shannon is 'the corpse that can't return to the earth' (otherwise it would imply that Krauss is Beatrice). When Hideyoshi returned to their room in the mansion with Eva, Kanon might have suspected for him to tell Eva the truth and assuming she would not stay silent about that, he would have to kill her.
Kanon and Genji were the first to arrive at the room and it was only Kanon and Kumasawa who were present when the chain was cut. Additionally we learned that the chain was an illusion in the confrontation between will and Clair.

At least now Genji and Kumasawa should suspect something about Kanon, if that scene did not go as we saw and there was no chain. Maybe even Genji helped him by disposing of Kinzo's corpse in the incinerator.
After that he created as much chaos as possible so that Genji and Kumasawa would not have a moment in private with someone they could turn to and he made Kumasawa even more suspicious, by allowing her to come with him to the basement.
There he staged his death and was taken away by Dr. Nanjo and Jessica. He filled them both in on some of his secrets, because Jessica loves him and Nanjo might be open to sugestions if gold is involved. So both of them helped him to get away with it.

Then they went to the study (I think it was even suggested by Genji and/or Nanjo). To create further chaos Kanon asked Jessica to plant the letter on the table in a moment where nobody would see it, assuming that the 3 people closest to Kinzo and thus possibly Beatrice would be the first to be sent out. George and Battler were not suspicious so far, so they would hardly be a problem.
This would also explain a scene in the manga, where Maria is asked where Beatrice is and she points in the direction of Natsuhi and says she is right behind her. If Maria saw Jessica planting the letter, that would make her a witch to Maria.

After the servants went out they were surprised by Kanon (they did not even have to be in the parlour yet) and were killed for knowing too much. He brought them into the parlour and ordered Maria to call the study as soon as he would have gone and also to lock the parlour from the inside and put the letter on the table. Because as we all know 源次、熊沢、南條は殺人者ではない (Genji, Kumasawa and Nanjo aren't murderer) as well as 同室していた真里亞は殺していないぞ！ (They were not killed by Maria who was in the same room).

When the others entered the parlour it was to be expected that the cousins would go for Maria, while Natsuhi would be drawn to the letter. In that she would have probably found a short explanation about the gold and the child of Beatrice, which would draw her to the location given in the letter. In the great hall she would confront Kanon, but having no prior knowledge of Kinzo's guns would probably fail to properly shoot a target from a distance, but Kanon, having practiced before, would have an advantage.
Natsuhi is killed when the cousins break out of the study and at 24:00 the bomb explodes, erasing all traces of a murder ever happening.

(This is of course only my theory for Episode 1 and probably the one which has the most potential to be true)

[TehChron]

What's Kanon's motive?

And there's ample evidence of adherence to Dine in the story, so the culprit being a servant "Just Because" doesn't fly. We also need to treat Kanon as an individual entity, thanks to the red. So your theory is lacking arguably the most critical element, the "whydunnit".

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by TehChron

What's Kanon's motive?

And there's ample evidence of adherence to Dine in the story, so the culprit being a servant "Just Because" doesn't fly. We need to treat Kanon as an individual entity, thanks to the red. So your theory is lacking arguably the most critical element, the "whydunnit".

There could be two possible explanations to whydunnit so far.
If he is a role played by Yasu, then he would follow the original plan in case nobody solves the epitaph and nobody comes to rescue her. Her love to Battler will forever be unfulfilled and after having to leave with George, even Beatrice will 'die'. Therefore it could be an act of desperation, because she does not want to give up what she created.

If he is a seperate being, it could be what he implied in the boiler room, he will stop Beatrice's game at all costs. In that case, it could be that Beatrice's goal is in fact for people to FIND the gold and be able to leave the island. So maybe it's like he said, when Shannon died, he would take over and carry on the killing. Maybe he misunderstood part of the original plan or he did not want to leave the island from the start, so he is in a 'better everyone dies, than just me being unhappy' state of mind.

It's not impossible to think of a motive for Kanon, especially after what we learned during the Chiru arcs, but already when looking at his relationship to Shannon during the first 4.

And Dine's rule about servants...yes, that is a tricky part, but that would not be any better if Shannon was the culprit. You can excuse that of course in the Shkannonen-Yasu theory, by saying that they aren't servants in the first place, but the current family head playing two servants.

And just out of curiosity, if Kanon did not fake his death, how do you explain:
全ての生存者にアリバイがある！　さらに死者も含めようぞ！！　つまり、島の如何なる人間にも死者にも、嘉 音は殺せなかった！ (All survivors have alibis! Let's also include the dead into this! That means, nobody on the island living human or dead, could have killed Kanon!)
And who would be the 'corpse that could not return to the earth' in the 1st twilight?

[Frisko]

That red only refers to direct methods of murder (as evidenced by the statement that everyone had an alibi), in other words Kanon was killed by Trap X.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

There could be two possible explanations to whydunnit so far.
If he is a role played by Yasu, then he would follow the original plan in case nobody solves the epitaph and nobody comes to rescue her. Her love to Battler will forever be unfulfilled and after having to leave with George, even Beatrice will 'die'. Therefore it could be an act of desperation, because she does not want to give up what she created.

What original plan? We don't even understand the nature of "the bomb" as it's been presented. After all this effort, it's highly unlikely that the true cause of the Rokkenjimma explosion would be a blatant violation of Knox's 4th.

No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end.

That's precisely what all of that talk about munitions is.

If he is a seperate being, it could be what he implied in the boiler room, he will stop Beatrice's game at all costs. In that case, it could be that Beatrice's goal is in fact for people to FIND the gold and be able to leave the island. So maybe it's like he said, when Shannon died, he would take over and carry on the killing. Maybe he misunderstood part of the original plan or he did not want to leave the island from the start, so he is in a 'better everyone dies, than just me being unhappy' state of mind.

Only if we accept that Shannon really died. It has never been stated in red, and it's thrown in our faces that even if Kanon is a separate entity, Shannon is only a part of Yasu.

It's not impossible to think of a motive for Kanon, especially after what we learned during the Chiru arcs, but already when looking at his relationship to Shannon during the first 4.

Then it wouldn't be solvable with just Episodes 1-4 without being a violation of Dine's 11th.

11. A servant must not be chosen by the author as the culprit. This is begging a noble question. It is a too easy solution. The culprit must be a decidedly worth-while person — one that wouldn't ordinarily come under suspicion.

It may not be impossible to think of a motive for Kanon, but it sure hadn't been presented to us beforehand.

And Dine's rule about servants...yes, that is a tricky part, but that would not be any better if Shannon was the culprit. You can excuse that of course in the Shkannonen-Yasu theory, by saying that they aren't servants in the first place, but the current family head playing two servants.

That is correct. But the culprit in that case is Yasu, not Kanon. Of course, that would still present an interesting problem:

3. There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar.

Yasu is propped up throughout the story as the love interest of Battler, the apparent Detective.

If we accept the explanations as they presently are, then we have more or less a blatant violation of Dine's 3rd right here. But it's possible to circumvent this issue while also adhering to a certain other trope of the mystery genre that most of us have been overlooking:

Knox's 9th.

The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal from the reader any thoughts which pass through his mind: his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.

Now who fits that bill in this story, I wonder?

Who's incompetent enough to be our Watson?

And just out of curiosity, if Kanon did not fake his death, how do you explain:
全ての生存者にアリバイがある！　さらに死者も含めようぞ！！　つまり、島の如何なる人間にも死者にも、嘉 音は殺せなかった！ (All survivors have alibis! Let's also include the dead into this! That means, nobody on the island living human or dead, could have killed Kanon!)
And who would be the 'corpse that could not return to the earth' in the 1st twilight?

Who says it was a faked death? It's personality death. Problem solved. That's a bigger issue if we consider, as you've proposed, that Kanon has his own body, rather than being loaned out Yasu's.

Your theory is not a "Yasu is the Culprit" theory, its a "Kanon is the culprit" theory, which simply doesn't work. Personally speaking, Im still surprised that no one else is picking up on that detail I mentioned earlier in this post.

[Kamar]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Spoiler for for space:

Umm, not quite. An 1894 model Winchester was in production by the original Winchester Repeating Arms Company (and nobody else) since 1894 uninterrupted all the way until 2006 (!) and while the connoisseurs say the quality has declined after the production changes introduced in 1964, it's just as much of a gun as it was in 1894 even after that, and well, there's nothing stopping Kinzo from getting the pre-1964 guns anyway, back in 1963 for example. So they're about as real as they get.

The modifications themselves are notable for a few things:

1. You can do them yourself, doesn't require much more than a pair of hands and some basic tools. Kinzo definitely didn't have to buy pre-modified guns and could have real ones imported.
2. Modding will significantly decrease precision of the original gun (shorter barrel) and power, particularly when used with a .410 cartridge (much of the powder in a shot charge keeps burning while in the barrel, barrel is shorter - power dissipates)
3. I also suspect that would make them louder, though I'm not certain on that.
4. Owning high-caliber rifles (that's what that Winchester is, it's not a shotgun) has been illegal since forever. Not like Kinzo couldn't shrug at this, living on an island and all, but it's something to keep in mind.

Also, Ep7 says Rudolf somehow owns one, even though it doesn't say if it's modified. A lever action shotgun would be no problem to own. A lever-action rifle on the other hand, would require him to break the law in a situation completely unlike Kinzo's.

EDIT: Some further research.

An 1894 Winchester is indeed a classic weapon in a very famous Western movie -- in particular, A Fistful of Dollars -- essentially, the one that restarted the Western genre in the US and the one Rudolf was definitely a fan of. There are a lot of things of note about this:

1. The text says 1894. But the rifle in the film switches between 1892 and 1894 with no explanation.
2. The film came out in 1964 in Italy (It was a joint Italian/German/Spanish co-production too) and in 1967 in the US. No idea when the Japanese release happened, but I'd say, 1970. If that was Kinzo's inspiration, that sounds... quite a bit late. Huh?
3. It's the weapon of the film's major villain. Clint Eastwood's hero uses a Colt Single Action Army 5 1/2" Artillery, which is the .45 Colt weapon in there -- the Winchesters are .38-.40 and .30-.30 respectively.
4. No weapons in the film were modified. I have so far failed to find a Western movie which features a sawed-off rifle, even.
5. The film involves... gold.

Hmmmm....

EDIT EDIT: Correction, Japanese release was in 1965. Still late, though.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Scratch all that, I think I have located the only case of a Western where someone uses a sawed-off rifle. Problem is, it's a TV series on CBS that ran 1958-1961.

Isn't it explicitly stated in a TIPS or somewhere that they are replicas of the Mare's Leg from that show?

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Who says it was a faked death? It's personality death. Problem solved. That's a bigger issue if we consider, as you've proposed, that Kanon has his own body, rather than being loaned out Yasu's.

Your theory is not a "Yasu is the Culprit" theory, its a "Kanon is the culprit" theory, which simply doesn't work. Personally speaking, Im still surprised that no one else is picking up on that detail I mentioned earlier in this post.

I never wanted to imply that the culprit has to be Kanon because Kanon's state of being is still a rather unstable concept. I just used the name 'Kanon' because it is the person we see during that arc, for example in Episode 2 we would have to assume that he drops the Kanon persona first, then stops being Shannon.
I'm also more of a friend of the Shkannon theory, but it poses some other problems that I found no way around as of now.

Even if we assume that the death in the boiler room is personality death, the events would still play out pretty much the same as I proposed, wouldn't they?!
Unless of course Kanon just fakes his death to catch a culprit who also faked his death, which I would accuse of being an anti-climax.

If we accept the explanations as they presently are, then we have more or less a blatant violation of Dine's 3rd right here. But it's possible to circumvent this issue while also adhering to a certain other trope of the mystery genre that most of us have been overlooking:

Knox's 9th.

Who's incompetent enough to be our Watson?

I assume you are refering to the widespread idea that we could also construct Battler as the story's Watson and be without a fixed detective throughout the whole story. While that would work in regards to Battler (because he is no classical Golden Age detective) there are too many modern mysteries that alltogether dropped the concept of one fixed Watsonian companion who serves as the mediator between the detective's genius and the reader's 'feeble mind'. Umineko even rephrased the 9th rule into a more general 観測者は自分の判断・解釈を主張することが許される。(The observer mast be allowed to pass his own judgment and reasoning), refusing to call for a fixed Watsonian companion and only saying that the reader's judgment is not allowed to be clouded by half wisdom or wrong understanding of a situation (implying for example that the red truth must not be a lie).

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

I never wanted to imply that the culprit has to be Kanon because Kanon's state of being is still a rather unstable concept. I just used the name 'Kanon' because it is the person we see during that arc, for example in Episode 2 we would have to assume that he drops the Kanon persona first, then stops being Shannon.
I'm also more of a friend of the Shkannon theory, but it poses some other problems that I found no way around as of now.

Even if we assume that the death in the boiler room is personality death, the events would still play out pretty much the same as I proposed, wouldn't they?!
Unless of course Kanon just fakes his death to catch a culprit who also faked his death, which I would accuse of being an anti-climax.

Events going along that way or no, we are still lacking a "whydunnit", and the majority of my objections still apply.

That being said, sorry for misunderstanding your meaning in the use of "Kanon".

I also favor a "Shkannon" theory, so Im trying to see how you react to it to see if I can uncover any weaknesses in my own suspicions. Sorry for playing Devil's Advocate.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Events going along that way or no, we are still lacking a "whydunnit", and the majority of my objections still apply.

That being said, sorry for misunderstanding your meaning in the use of "Kanon".

I also favor a "Shkannon" theory, so Im trying to see how you react to it to see if I can uncover any weaknesses in my own suspicions. Sorry for playing Devil's Advocate.

No problem at all, battles of reason are bound to get rough and I rather have an opponent who counters often so that I can test out mz own theories.
I think it's important to stick to your own theory as long as possible and as long as it has a chance to stand against the reasoning of others.

Hey, reasoning and thinking is the biggest fun part of Umineko for me.

And concerning the whydunnit: I think what many people forget and what I am trying to piece together, between reading as a hobby, writing a thesis, applying for a conference and searching for a part time job, is that the why does not have to be constructed solely from the background of the culprit. In fact the action of murder from the culprit can be the result of an unfortunate succession of events, all connected to different people, the important thing is, that in the end they all somehow influence the life of the culprit in such a way that murder seems to be the only escape from those. Many culprits in modern mysteries (and even many Golden Age classics) do not murder because of being a 'single black nature' that Dine calls for, but because of unfortunate fate and/or wrong reasoning on their side. In the end the culprit is not only 'evil', he or she is also a mirror-image of the detective.
If we look at the life of the person who is currently holding the role of Beatrice (and assume that it is Yasu-Shkannon), then it is not a good one. Even though s/he knows that those people aren't evil, they do evil things and Yasu is trapped in that system, because as long as the epitaph is not solved s/he cannot leave the island. Assuming this is the last conference everything would have went well one way or the other ... but due to Battler's presence something changed and it's of course this small fact that made it all collapse...but nobody has yet actually provided any idea why it is Battler's presence that changes so much and that's the problem ... even I have yet to figure that out.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

No problem at all, battles of reason are bound to get rough and I rather have an opponent who counters often so that I can test out mz own theories.
I think it's important to stick to your own theory as long as possible and as long as it has a chance to stand against the reasoning of others.

Hey, reasoning and thinking is the biggest fun part of Umineko for me.

Yeah I tend to get carried away with those things too easily. I'm simply far too competitive.

That being said...

My objections still apply

Originally Posted by chounokoe

I assume you are refering to the widespread idea that we could also construct Battler as the story's Watson and be without a fixed detective throughout the whole story. While that would work in regards to Battler (because he is no classical Golden Age detective) there are too many modern mysteries that alltogether dropped the concept of one fixed Watsonian companion who serves as the mediator between the detective's genius and the reader's 'feeble mind'. Umineko even rephrased the 9th rule into a more general 観測者は自分の判断・解釈を主張することが許される。(The observer mast be allowed to pass his own judgment and reasoning), refusing to call for a fixed Watsonian companion and only saying that the reader's judgment is not allowed to be clouded by half wisdom or wrong understanding of a situation (implying for example that the red truth must not be a lie).

No.

This story has a detective.

Originally Posted by Dine's 6th

6. The detective novel must have a detective in it; and a detective is not a detective unless he detects. His function is to gather clues that will eventually lead to the person who did the dirty work in the first chapter; and if the detective does not reach his conclusions through an analysis of those clues, he has no more solved his problem than the schoolboy who gets his answer out of the back of the arithmetic.

What Im saying is that its not just our job to perceive the culprit, but we also need to perceive who the detective is. It's never once been stated in red that Battler is the detective.

And while it may seem convenient to say that there is no true detective in this story, that's simply a cheat on Ryukishi's part. I don't think he'd go through the trouble of bringing up both Knox and Dine if he was going to flagrantly violate all of their commandments, especially regarding Dine's 6th.

Understanding the detective enables us to understand who is not the culprit. And from there, via applying the red truth, we can understand who the true culprit of the murders is.

And Dine's 6th clearly removes the possibility of the Detective of the story being someone who is not present in the novel itself. We are not the detective. Umineko has a pretty large cast, actually, so there are a lot of viable possible solutions. Especially since some of those characters have doubles in the Meta-world, such as MARIA, ANGE, and BATTLER.

I wonder what the meaning of that is, by the way? It's almost as if we're supposed to consider those types as some kind of separate character entirely. But why on earth would Ryukishi go that far?

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by TehChron

What Im saying is that its not just our job to perceive the culprit, but we also need to perceive who the detective is. It's never once been stated in red that Battler is the detective.

While I basically agree that it would be too soon to decide on the detective after just a few pages, I think it is clear that Battler holds the role of the detective during Beatrice's game. And there was a red truth in Episode 5　これまでのあなたは探偵デシタ！ (You have been the detective until this time).

It would also make things too difficult afterwards if we would have to start questioning the authority of the detective after the case should be solvable, especially if he is directly quoted to be the detective.
If we had to search for a Watsonian companion I would almost say it is Ange, because she acts more in favour of emotion than based on pure reasoning. Her judgment is severly clouded by her wish to free her family, disenabling her to search for the culprit among the full array of suspects. This also hinders her from reaching the full truth behind the case, because she would have to assume that even her family is able to have fault in it, which she does not want to.

I wonder what the meaning of that is, by the way? It's almost as if we're supposed to consider those types as some kind of separate character entirely. But why on earth would Ryukishi go that far?

Meta-Fiction is a very common trope of post modern mystery fiction, especially in Japan. Ryukishi only gave us a far more metaphorical Meta-Plane than what we usually have. Instead of just having someone who observes a case from a point later in time, we have characters who observe it from a point that enables us to deal with a fixed set of characters, while adding fluidity to the actuall story.

Imagine how difficult it would have been if we had experienced the different events each time, without the comments of the meta plane. So I think it's more an additional help to have fixed characters to see as a representation of yourself within the story.
And yes, in a way they do exist, don't they? What's keeping them from existing?!
I wouldn't even mind if the Meta-Plane would keep existing even after the case has been solved, because as we've seen, the only real influence those characters can take on people in the real world is appearing to them in dreams.
I think I would be able to accept this small grain of fantasy within the story.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

While I basically agree that it would be too soon to decide on the detective after just a few pages, I think it is clear that Battler holds the role of the detective during Beatrice's game. And there was a red truth in Episode 5　これまでのあなたは探偵デシタ！ (You have been the detective until this time).

Where? This can only be referring to either the conversation Virgilia had with Battler after the proclamation had been made, or when it Erika was first declared to be so by Bernkastel. Otherwise the context wouldn't make any sense.

And I dont see that red in those conversations.

It would also make things too difficult afterwards if we would have to start questioning the authority of the detective after the case should be solvable, especially if he is directly quoted to be the detective.
If we had to search for a Watsonian companion I would almost say it is Ange, because she acts more in favour of emotion than based on pure reasoning. Her judgment is severly clouded by her wish to free her family, disenabling her to search for the culprit among the full array of suspects. This also hinders her from reaching the full truth behind the case, because she would have to assume that even her family is able to have fault in it, which she does not want to.

Based on the fact that I didn't see that red after you brought it up (if I had missed it, itd be a pretty painful oversight on my part), the above quoted statement can be ignored for now.

Meta-Fiction is a very common trope of post modern mystery fiction, especially in Japan. Ryukishi only gave us a far more metaphorical Meta-Plane than what we usually have. Instead of just having someone who observes a case from a point later in time, we have characters who observe it from a point that enables us to deal with a fixed set of characters, while adding fluidity to the actuall story.

I'll certainly accept it as a storytelling device. But why go so far as to reinforce that these are different characters than the ones on the game board?

Imagine how difficult it would have been if we had experienced the different events each time, without the comments of the meta plane. So I think it's more an additional help to have fixed characters to see as a representation of yourself within the story.

Ah...So essentially Umineko with the same toolset as we had with Higurashi.

That honestly sounds fun after this.

And yes, in a way they do exist, don't they? What's keeping them from existing?!
I wouldn't even mind if the Meta-Plane would keep existing even after the case has been solved, because as we've seen, the only real influence those characters can take on people in the real world is appearing to them in dreams.
I think I would be able to accept this small grain of fantasy within the story.

Neither would I, to be honest. Even accepting the meta-plane as "fantasy", there's still a lot of backstory behind the meta bits left to explain. There's no longer any real question at this point that Umineko and Higurashi, and whatever other "When They Cry 5" when it comes out are all part of the same larger meta-narrative/universe.

But once again, why insist that BATTLER and Battler are the same, yet different characters? Is it laziness, or what?

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Where? This can only be referring to either the conversation Virgilia had with Battler after the proclamation had been made, or when it Erika was first declared to be so by Bernkastel. Otherwise the context wouldn't make any sense.

Dlanor told Battler that. The context referred to games 1-4.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Used Can

Dlanor told Battler that. The context referred to games 1-4.

Exactly. It was I believe in the final battle against Erika in EP5, when Battler could already use his own reasoning.
At that point he was trying to undermine his own characterization and Dlanor was arguing that he cannot suddenly change his character around based on one game only and that he cannot be a subjective party as he has been the detective so far. Therefore the same rules that apply to Erika applied to him as well.

The full red truth is

ノックス第8条、提示されない手掛かりでの解決を禁ズ！　これまでのあなたは探偵デシタ！　そのあなたが今 回は探偵でなく、私見を交える観測者であったことは示されていたのデスカ！！　それがない限り、あなたには 主観を偽る権利はありマセンッ！！ (Knox Rule #8: It is forbidden to reach a solution based on unpresented clues! You have been the detective until this game! Was it indicated that you are an observer who can mix in personal oppinion?! Unless that is so, you do not have the right to feign subjectivity!!)

But once again, why insist that BATTLER and Battler are the same, yet different characters? Is it laziness, or what?

I think it's impossible not to do that.
BATTLER must have knowledge about every possible event of all games and even of things that lie outside of Battler's direct field of vision, because WE have to know them. Letting Battler know those things would imply more magical interference than we can subtract from the story afterwards without taking Battler completely out of the equation.
I think you could have as well used a character who had no direct relation to the gameboard characters, like Will, from the beginning, but we wouldn't have felt as much with that character as we have with BATTLER and all the Battlers. The Battlers' failure also becomes so much more tragic, because there is an overarching Battler ripping his hair out because of their actions. AND not to forget it adds the possibility of a Happy End for BATTLER and Beato, without having to insert a deus ex machina, where Battler survives.
So I wouldn't call it laziness, but more a form of literary device to make the whole plot more dramatic and fluent.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Used Can

Dlanor told Battler that. The context referred to games 1-4.

Ah, the Tea Party?

Im going to go check that.