Another - Speculation & Theories (for first time viewers)

[PreSage]

Originally Posted by Hakuromatsu

PreSage, both Yukari and her mother die. And let's not get into the argument from the other thread, but it's arbitrary to discount Kubodera and his mother just because their deaths could've been voluntary.

I can't remember but did Yukari's mother die when the curse is active?

Yes, I simply did make the assumption to discount Kubodera's and his mother's deaths - but as assumptions go, I realize it could very well be wrong.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The fact that the Homeroom teacher and his Mom's deaths are both attributed to the curse is enough to indicate this idea is flawed.

Whatever deaths that occur during the curse, the denizens will most likely attribute it as a consequence of the curse, whether it really is or not. The homeroom teacher's death most likely is due to the curse but his mother's murder may not be.

So how come everyone hasn't noticed this and used it to single out the Another deductively? "You, none of your relatives died, you're the Another"?

If Kouichi's dad can have his memories rewritten while he's in India, all bets are off, yo.

Who knows? I am already puzzled by the fact that Chibiki said all memories revert back to original after graduation - and the Another is forgotten (ep6 1996 class tragedy explanation), so it makes me wonder how it is that anyone remembers anything at all? Seems like certain selective memories are retained and others are loss. A mystery unto itself.

[AuraTwilight]

Well, we know memories revert gradually, instead of being an instant snapback, because the librarian retained enough awareness to write down the names of the Anothers. And while the Another may be forgotten, and their death remembered, it seems the curse can still be recalled by way of contextual things, like "We didn't ignore someone this year, people died" and "we had an uneven number of desks".

Also, the graduation photos.

[AC-Phoenix]

As some people are indicating that the aunt could be a possibility if she was not already excluded by logic:
No - the Additional person has to be a student of that class, not a former student.

A few theories about who it could be:

Spoiler for Theories about the dead:

Theory 1 - The main character:
While people say he is from Tokyo and therefore not one of the calamity victims(thus not qualified to come back) I daresay that he is.
People's memories and even records are getting modified by the phenomenon, so you can easily assume that even existences could be modified.
We also get some hints in that direction such as Izumi saying that she has definitely seen him here before, so you can exclude her joke possibility that he died together with his mother.
BUT he could have still died back then, namely 1 1/2 year before (his father said that he was there 1 1/2 year ago before the phenomenon strikes).
The story clearly states that he had strong asthma until recently so it's not that implausible that he died the last time he was there.

His death could also be collateral damage from someone else's death.

Mei stating that he is not the dead says absolutely nothing.
Its (partly) a mystery novel so either KNOX or Van Dine rules should apply here.
Note: While a phenomenon being the 'murderer' clearly violates both of them you can still apply them for the rest as the mystery is not about who is the murderer but who is dead.

Him being the culprit is not necessarily excluded by Knox 7 (The detective must not himself commit the crime. ) as it is not certain that he really is the detective.
"Many will now say: wait - he totally is the detective, I mean he is the main char"
there iss actually one other person fulfilling the qualification to be the detective, namely Izumi in her position as head of countermeasures.

Another rule not necessarily excluding him is KNOX 1(The criminal must be someone mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to follow.)
While this would usually disqualify him immediately it does not in this case that the dead one is not aware of being dead.
However, Knox 1 is a reason to suspect everyone else


Theory 2 - Mei
While it would be indeed a bit too obvious its still a viable option.
She had cancer and could have easily died from it. While Mei states that the puppet in the coffin depicts her sister it doesn't have to be true, neither Knox nor Van Dine rules forbid the culprit (or in this case the dead) to lie, and we don't know whether the dead one is aware of being dead.

Theory 3 - Izumi

Don't ask me why but she somehow strikes me odd.
Similar to

Spoiler for comparison:

Shannon from Umineko, who was my prime suspect the whole time

.
I support this by the fact that it was only stated that last year's records were not changed, not that nothing has happened.
So now about the records:
We know that the records, as well as memories, change every year.
Now, if Izumi was the dead twice in a row it would explain why last year's record was not changed.
-> It was changed but reverted back together with all memories about it having been changed as she was the dead one twice in a row.


Theory 4 - There never was a dead
very unlikely as it would spoil the fun a bit.

There never was a dead person, only a mad librarian who killed students every year with an unknwon method x and had several accomplices such as the homeroom teacher and the assisting homeroom teacher.

This theory would not violate the Knox rules as a culprit is allowed to lead the detective on a wrong way as long as it is hinted.
The hint in this case would be him being the librarian, and also the one probably every counter measure officer speaks to first.
So it would have been easy for him to lead them astray from the truth.
This theory would also explain why the homeroom teacher committed suicide, namely the pressure of his guilt.
Memories are not really being altered in this case and people are just block them.

In this theory the phenomenon would be similar to Umineko's witch, simply a very good trick striking fear into the hearts of people and making it appear like everything was a phenomenon.

While I concentrated on the librarian, every other person could of course be the culprit too, even someone who has already died like student having had a heart attack.(hes just an example
A general rule here is:
Every death the detective cannot confirm himself is not certain.
Examples for certain deaths in this anime:

- death by umbrella
- death by suicide
- (death by Elevator)

Additional Information
Its most likely one of the students introduced to us early in the story(episode one or two), so you can technically exclude everone who was not introduced there or will be introduced later.

[TinyRedLeaf]

As the series enters its mid-point, I've come to wonder if we're being lured away from what seems to be a separate mystery, namely that of Mei's apparently dysfunctional family.

While it seems abundantly clear — for now — that Mei is not the other, other hints are being dropped that much about her is far from "normal". The emotional distance between Mei and her mother (and Mei's reluctance to talk about it), the revelation that she had a stillborn younger sister, the dolls and their association with death and, last but not least, Mei's certainty that Kouichi is not the "one".

Why is she so sure? What does she know that she hasn't yet revealed? Could the dolls literally be "voodoo" dolls that represent the townsfolk (hence the reason Mei was taking a doll to the morgue that first night Kouichi met her: it represented her recently departed cousin)?

What could it mean, for Mei to literally have a space of her own on the other side of the coffin? Does she draw death like the dolls, being herself an incomplete soul that attract things from beyond?

Everyone is so focused on finding the "other" at the moment that I'm growing sceptical that "it" is the heart of the mystery. Call it a gut instinct (inspired in part by the ED, Anamnesis). There are clues, but no strings to thread them together as of yet. But I'll call it first: I think we're being fooled. Mei has and always been key to Yomiyama's predicament, and it will likely end badly for her.

[AC-Phoenix]

Mei knowing that Koichi is not the dead one is actually makes her a lot more suspicious than any other character, because only the dead one could say this for sure.

As I said behind the spoiler tag:

It has to be someonee introduced in either episode 1 or 2, otherwise that person would not fulfill the requirement of being introduced in the early parts of the story, but no one whose thougths we were allowed to follow, which excludes everyone beside the Koichi.
However, Umineko has shown that there are ways to work around that rule, and we still don't know if the dead knows that he is dead.
Because if the dead one is not aware of his stutation, we being allowed to follow Koichi's thoughts would not violate the KNOX rules.

Rule one only leaves a few people as suspects, namely everyone being shown in the outro(Except the ones having died for sure), all other characters have yet to be introduced, EXCEPT theory 4 from my post above is true, then we get an additional suspect.

I also agree that the dolls might represent the townsfolk, the room behind the coffin is not really Mei's own room though but just has an elevator leading to her flat.
But the dolls being representative would actually point to Mei again.

Still, my prime supect is Izumi.
Last years records not being changed is also easily explained: Its the same dead person as last year and not a different one. This way the records not being altered is just fine.

Another thing we know is that if you leave something at the shrine you are able to stop the curse. Its probably something makabre though as the one having found out about it seemed pretty shocked even after several years.

[AuraTwilight]

It has to be someonee introduced in either episode 1 or 2, otherwise that person would not fulfill the requirement of being introduced in the early parts of the story, but no one whose thougths we were allowed to follow, which excludes everyone beside the Koichi.
However, Umineko has shown that there are ways to work around that rule, and we still don't know if the dead knows that he is dead.
Because if the dead one is not aware of his stutation, we being allowed to follow Koichi's thoughts would not violate the KNOX rules.

There's no evidence that this follows KNOX rules or any other Umineko conventions. Infact, given that this is a supernatural horror story, and not a Detective Mystery story, we can probably say for certain that KNOX is meaningless.

[AC-Phoenix]

Arrgs blue and red, now you got me fired up for discussion

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

There's no evidence that this follows KNOX rules or any other Umineko conventions. In fact, given that this is a supernatural horror story, and not a Detective Mystery story, we can probably say for certain that KNOX is meaningless.

Well actually they are still valid and were only stretched, as the Mystery is not about 'who's done it, how done and why done' - these were already given in the first few episodes.

Please not that The Dead is actually alive(until the graduation picture is taken, that is)
You see, as long as the person is flesh and blood they do not violate rule 2 rule. I admit the rules were stretched quite a lot though.
therefore,

This story has a mystery. It has a detective and a mystery to be solved. it being a horror story does not exclude it from being a mystery at all.
This mystery is, as of yet, not about how the crime was committed or why. This information was already given to us before the first death took place. Until proven otherwise, this mystery is therefore about who is it, which is slightly different from 'who has committed the crime.


We also have to wait whether the scenes shown in the preview are the main characters dreams, as there is still room for doubt that there even is a phenomenon. There are even a few hints pointing into that direction. All deaths until now could be explained by applying logic.

Another mystery we have to solve is who the detective actually is, since both Izumi and Koichi would fall under that job description. And yes, the character shown most is not necessarily the detective.
A good example for this is the book 'Sleeping Murder'.
Ms. Marple definitely is the detective, yet not the character shown most, and also not the character whose thoughts you follow most of the time.

I therefore say that there is room for doubt about the detectives identity, as both of them would fit the requirements

You might now say that Koichi is still one of the suspects for being dead and this would violate KNOX 1 again

Koichi being the dead does not necessarily violate the rules. It only violates them if, and only if the dead one is aware of being dead, which the main character is obviously not.

In contrast, Van Dine's rule to have but one detective was already violated, as Several people are conducting the investigation and could be considered of bearing the title of 'detective, so we can say for sure that they do not apply.

We were also given several hints that the phenomenon might not be a phenomenon, but a tricky way of murder using one or more minor accomplices at several occasions. One of them is the part were a girl was saved from death once, and has yet to die, while all other incidents immediately resulted in death.

Thus, the application of Knox rules as a method of solving the mystery about the dead person is not a faulty move as everything until now can be explained by giving logical statements.

Thus, the application of Knox rules as a method of solving the mystery about the dead person is not a faulty move as everything until now can be explained by giving logical statements.

Another being a Horror Story does not exclude it from being a mystery, neither dos the supernatural part as it is not important for the solving the mystery.
Furthermore, there is at least one hint that either Knox or Van Dine rules apply as we were, as both rules demand given the opportunity to examine every piece of evidence and draw the right conclusions from them if shrewd enough.

Van Dine's rules were already broken, in regards to the actual mystery.




I therefore say that Knox rules are applicable in regards to the Mystery of 'who is the dead' as the dead is, at the moment, in fact a living person until either revealed by the graduation picture or the detective!
The defense rests.

[AuraTwilight]

This story has a mystery. It has a detective and a mystery to be solved. it being a horror story does not exclude it from being a mystery at all.

False red, Logic Error flagged. A mystery story, as defined by Father Knox, is a crime fiction in which a human culprit is committing murders for human motives, wicked or otherwise, and should be solvable without resorting to supernatural agencies and occult speculations. The fact that the situation at hand is a supernatural phenomena in which 'fate' and 'coincidence' cause supernatural deaths to occur disqualifies Another as a mystery story by Knox's definitions. If you are not going to use the rules in their proper context, you shouldn't use them at all.

It doesn't even matter if the deaths are supernatural or not; they're not being caused by a living human. There is no criminal to catch. This is checkmate. You lose.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

False red, Logic Error flagged. A mystery story, as defined by Father Knox, is a crime fiction in which a human culprit is committing murders for human motives, wicked or otherwise, and should be solvable without resorting to supernatural agencies and occult speculations. The fact that the situation at hand is a supernatural phenomena in which 'fate' and 'coincidence' cause supernatural deaths to occur disqualifies Another as a mystery story by Knox's definitions. If you are not going to use the rules in their proper context, you shouldn't use them at all.

It doesn't even matter if the deaths are supernatural or not; they're not being caused by a living human. There is no criminal to catch. This is checkmate. You lose.

You got me in a tigth spot there i'll givve you that.
Yet, I have not yet lost.


There is still room to doubt a supernatural being being the 'culprit'.
Every single murder can be explained by using a human culpirt.

For example, the incident at with the glass panel.
Neither does Knox forbid for deaths having nothing to do with the actual crime to happen, nordoes the situation at hand exclude a foul play.
A culprit simply needed to push the panel, them not being shown is just a depiction of him not being in the detectives line of sight.

There is also the hint of no measure working at all, not even exorcism.

Also, there are several characters easily able to falsify evidence. The librarian for example was in charge of all records and could have easily led astray every single officer of countermeasures.
His motive does not have to be clear to us until the final deduction.

You can even explain the memory loss is explainable by using scientific means, which are both logically and don't need a long explaination.


Some of Agatha Christie's novels are not about murder while you can solve all her novels applying Knox rules.
This myystery is simply wrapped up in another story.

Rule 2 rules supernatural beings out as culprit - yet again we are not looking for a criminal, but a person being alive until a certain condition is met. Until this point the person is alive, and thus qualified to be 'a human culprit'.
This way of construing is allowed by using teleological interpretation when looking upon said rule.

It is not the first time a novel is meant to be solved with Knox rules, while they are far stretched.

We are in fact referring to such a case at them moment by using colored 'truths'



You can also apply Knox rules solely by using the dead one being alive again as their crime. Its simply an anaology.

also his definition of Mystery Novels does dissallow the author to apply them solely for the part of solving the mystery behind identities.


Again, only supernatural entities violate Knox 2, the Dead however is, as far as the actual mystery is concerned, a living person until a certain condition is met, and does thus not violate Rule 2 while it is in effect.


All of this is a possibility not necessarily the truth. - Yet enough to avoid a checkmate for now.

[AuraTwilight]

There is still room to doubt a supernatural being being the 'culprit'.
Every single murder can be explained by using a human culpirt.

No one is responsible for the first death seen on screen. Accidents are not acceptable by Knox rules, so...

Also, please present clues that the incidents are being caused by human entities. Knox does not allow for the solving of crimes without clues being presented.

You can even explain the memory loss is explainable by using scientific means, which are both logically and don't need a long explaination.

It is forbidden for unknown drugs or hard to understand scientific devices to be used. Have fun explaining how everyone's memories can be altered without them, while also presenting clues for their existence.

It is not the first time a novel is meant to be solved with Knox rules, while they are far stretched.

We are in fact referring to such a case at them moment by using colored 'truths'

Umineko and Another are not similar enough for this point to be made. The possibility of a human culprit responsible for what was going on was a central point of contention in Umineko's premise, when this hasn't even been considered as a possibility in Another. Furthermore, while Umineko referenced mystery novels throughout it's text, Another has been referencing John Saul, Stephen King, HP Lovecraft, and other supernatural horror writers. There is no evidence that this is even superficially a mystery story. It is a suspenseful thriller at best, but those are an entirely different genre from what you could apply the Decalogue of Father Knox.

Again, only supernatural entities violate Knox 2, the Dead however is, as far as the actual mystery is concerned, a living person until a certain condition is met, and does thus not violate Rule 2 while it is in effect.

The Another is not consciously performing any murders, since they don't even know that they themselves are the dead person. Therefore by Knox's defining of the terms, they are not the culprit. The culprit must be defined by wicked intentions and purposeful assault.

[EroKing]

What's with all the blue and red in this page? Umineko fans enjoying this show?

Episode 8
I get the feeling Reiko and her sister were twins. One of the two (most likely Reiko) is really dead.

We also saw Mei going to the morgue in the very first episode. That scene needs to have some significance. What if she too had a twin? With the memory tampering going on surely there is a possibility of people forgetting about her.
Can the possibility of such a connection help in figuring what's going on? Still no clue
But enjoying the show completely as it's quite impossible to make out which scenes are the important keys in figuring out this mystery.

On a personal note, watched the episode last night and had a hard time going to sleep due to that freaky preview.

Spoiler for Shot from the preview - Enhanced with some shadows/highlights filter, a bit gory:

Isn't that the dude who died this week?

My gut feeling says not all of it a nightmare this time. Having a wild imagination is suffering

[Dengar]

But... Reiko isn't in class 3 right now. O_o

What's a KNOX rule?

[Skyfall]

What's a KNOX rule?

http://www.thrillingdetective.com/trivia/triv186.html

Basically widely considered the "standards" to which a good detective/mystery story should adhere to. Note that it doesn't really apply to stories of supernatural nature though (in fact one of the "rules" is that the culprit must be human), so it's best not to get caught up in them when analyzing something like Another - they are written with a different (distinctly non-supernatural) genre in mind.

Originally Posted by Dengar

But... Reiko isn't in class 3 right now. O_o

While that might be an instinctive assumption to make, there actually isn't anything that cements the necessity for Another to be someone in class 3 directly. In fact we have a clue to the opposite - the countermeasure of ignoring someone in class 3 was said to be effective 50% of the time. Which raises the question: what causes it to be ineffective during the other half of the time ?

The only likely answer is that the Another isn't necessarily someone from class 3, but someone connected to it within the same 2 degrees of separation that the phenomenon affects. In this case, pretending someone doesn't exist in class 3 likely wouldn't have the desired effect indeed, because the Another wasn't there in the first place, so it would become a situation of barking up the wrong tree.

[EroKing]

The theory that the "another" is a student is still just a theory o_O

Edit: ninjaed by Skyfall

[Dengar]

That doesn't even make sense. If the extra is someone outside the class, then the class shouldn't have an extra student. It doesn't make sense.

[Skyfall]

This part is a bit iffy, and class 3 is definitely in the center for the phenomenon, but we have to remember that said part was Mei's (not even the librarian's) speculation - it seems likely at this point, but we can't be sure that's the actual trigger for the phenomenon. I don't have a clear suggestion regarding what else it might be at this time, but I know one thing for sure - the countermeasure only works half the time, and they have no idea why.

We can't pretend that this piece of information doesn't exist, so we have to confront the question it poses (and the possible implications): why does ignoring someone within class 3 only work sometimes?

And the only answer that I can come up with is: the Another didn't directly exist in class 3 to begin with during said year, thus ignoring someone from the class had no effect.

What we do know about the phenomenon is that affects people within 2 degrees of separation from someone who is part of class 3, which IIRC mirrors the circumstances surrounding the death of original Misaki - he and his family members, up to two degrees, were lost when their house burned down.

Now let's take that trail of thought further: the class pretended that only Misaki still exists, yet the phenomenon saw fit to involve people up to two degrees of separation anyway. Why ?

The lives of Misaki and his family were claimed by a single incident, thus I speculate this: denying the death of Misaki denied the effect of said incident as a whole, thus denying the death of Misaki's family by proxy. Misaki and his family exist as one in this equation - they were all claimed by the same fire, so pretending part of it didn't happen doesn't work. You either acknowledge the tragedy as a whole, or you don't.

Thus we have the reason why family members of those connected to class 3 are in danger as well - because that's what happened in the incident that started all this. Not only was Misaki's death denied, but that of his family as well, up to two degrees of separation, by association.

With that in mind, is it really safe to claim that someone from class 3 specifically is the Another ? As opposed to someone within the same bloodline range in regards to class 3 whose death was originally denied ?

Given that the countermeasure only works 50% of the time, I'd say the answer is evidently "no". And this is exactly the trap the librarian has fallen in to - so focused on class 3 specifically, that he can only helplessly shrug and admit of having no idea why it doesn't work when it doesn't. Rather than repeating the same mistake and being over-focused on class 3 exclusively, it's important for us to look at the things he might have overlooked in the tunnel-visioned focus on it.

[totoum]

Originally Posted by Skyfall

TL;DR…

Skyfall's post

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

While that is indeed some nice thinking you've conveniently ignored the point others have brought up:If the Another isn't in the class then why are they a desk short,because that's not speculation,that's a fact,they show up at the start of the year and they're a desk short.

The librarian says that the records go back to normal and using that he can find out who was the "Another" was (except in 1983) if that technique only worked 50 % of the time I would think thelibrarian would have told us.

[Kanon]

Originally Posted by Dengar

That doesn't even make sense. If the extra is someone outside the class, then the class shouldn't have an extra student. It doesn't make sense.

I had already posted a possible explanation before. If we assume that Reiko is Another, then Kouichi, her blood relative, could count as the extra one in the class, even if he isn't Another himself. Basically, it's as if there were two Another: Reiko, the real one and the source of the calamity; and Kouichi, her proxy (and a "fake" Another) in the class.

Originally Posted by totoum

The librarian says that the records go back to normal and using that he can find out who was the "Another" was (except in 1983) if that technique only worked 50 % of the time I would think thelibrarian would have told us.

Good point. Maybe the anime omitted to mention it, or maybe it's the first time such a thing has happened (meaning there were different reasons ignoring a student failed), or maybe we're completely wrong.

PS: never knew a tl;dr tag existed o_O

[Skyfall]

Originally Posted by totoum

While that is indeed some nice thinking you've conveniently ignored the point others have brought up:If the Another isn't in the class then why are they a desk short,because that's not speculation,that's a fact,they show up at the start of the year and they're a desk short.

That's why I said this part was iffy, but to this part I would answer basically the same thing as Kanon did above - we know that desk shortage at start of a year is an indication that Another is around and things are about to go south, but we can't be sure whether the shortage itself is the cause or a symptom.

We do know, however, that the common cure applied (pretending that someone in class 3 doesn't exist) works only half the time. Why ?

Originally Posted by totoum

The librarian says that the records go back to normal and using that he can find out who was the "Another" was (except in 1983) if that technique only worked 50 % of the time I would think thelibrarian would have told us.

I think you might be misremembering the scene. We have no indication that he ever figured out who was the Another except for year 1996 (the only one we saw with the blue footnote) - because said person (Asakura Mami) was already marked as dead in the 1993 roster, information which disappeared during 1996 but reappeared afterwards, while he clearly remembers her name on the 1996 class 3 roster. Beyond that, we saw no other footnotes indicating Another's identity on other sheets, and I don't remember the librarian saying he ever narrowed down the Another beyond this case (Though he figured the method to do so, albeit suspect to being unreliable the way I see it, see below).

We do know that records go back to "normal", which means Mami's name no longer would have been present in the 1996 roster (hence his remark that he remembers her name being there) - she didn't really "exist" during 1996, because she died in 1993. If one manages to memorize the student roster while the phenomenon is in effect, keep said memory long enough, and then compare it with the "normal" roster after said phenomenon is over, one can probably deduct who was the Another indeed. But this is far from a surefire method, considering memories are hardly reliable. From what I understood, Mami's case was special (and hence why he showed it to Mei and Koichi) because her name was already "crossed out" in the 1993 roster, which allowed him to make this specific connection for certain.

[Hakuromatsu]

Originally Posted by Kanon

I had already posted a possible explanation before. If we assume that Reiko is Another, then Kouichi, her blood relative, could count as the extra one in the class, even if he isn't Another himself. Basically, it's as if there were two Another: Reiko, the real one and the source of the calamity; and Kouichi, her proxy (and a "fake" Another) in the class.

I like this rationalization. We already know that there's a special connection between students of Class 3-3 and their blood relatives to within two degrees of separation, as there was a connection between Yomiyama Misaki and his family. This is just a logical extension of that fact.

But I think we're overanalyzing this. Here's definitive evidence from last episode that Reiko is the Another:

Spoiler: