[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

The one-sentence summary is: It's an intentional contrast to the Beatrice magic scenes, only inverting mystery and fantasy while remaining no less fantastic. While we in this thread may be well-established with the notion that we can't take magic scenes completely at face value (and thus, we can't necessarily take a non-magic scene completely at face value either), there are probably a lot of people who need that hint.

That aside, it seems to trip the rest of us up, so...

I mean, honestly? Honestly? Erika is the most ridiculous character on the board (magic or "real") since Beatrice herself. And she serves an almost identical narrative function (cruel antagonist who throws red text around and tries to make out someone as a suspect).

Well, the Beatrice magic scenes all seem to follow the magic=lies pattern. In other words, it seems as though false things can be shown to the reader if all witnesses claim that it was true. In my Battler-centric theory, false things can be shown as long as Battler would claim that it's true by the game's end. However, I don't think it makes sense to just say "fake scenes exist, therefore any scene can be fake". There has to be some kind of mechanism for determining what's true and what's false or there's no point in showing most of the story. Unless I've missed something.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Well, the Beatrice magic scenes all seem to follow the magic=lies pattern. In other words, it seems as though false things can be shown to the reader if all witnesses claim that it was true. In my Battler-centric theory, false things can be shown as long as Battler would claim that it's true by the game's end. However, I don't think it makes sense to just say "fake scenes exist, therefore any scene can be fake". There has to be some kind of mechanism for determining what's true and what's false or there's no point in showing most of the story. Unless I've missed something.

Well I think there are definitely scenes that people still have difficulty interpreting if we assume they have some truth to them.

For example in episode 3. Beatrice summons "Lucifer" and has her duel with Kanon. This is impossible to interpret as a real scene unless we assume more than 4 people were in Kinzo's room or that Kanon was literally having a fight and a conversation a with paper weight. There are also the barriers and swords that we have to find representations for. How do I interpret this? Is Krauss as the oldest sibling getting in a gun fight with Kanon? I don't even want to think about the implications that could bring. It's just easier to claim it never happened like Battler does with the magic fight that happens later.

I don't consider the intros to the games as fantasy scenes because they set up the plot for the game. I don't even deny that Beatrice was talking to Shannon because her existing before the two days in october doesn't affect the fact that she doesn't exist during those two days.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Well, the Beatrice magic scenes all seem to follow the magic=lies pattern. In other words, it seems as though false things can be shown to the reader if all witnesses claim that it was true. In my Battler-centric theory, false things can be shown as long as Battler would claim that it's true by the game's end. However, I don't think it makes sense to just say "fake scenes exist, therefore any scene can be fake". There has to be some kind of mechanism for determining what's true and what's false or there's no point in showing most of the story. Unless I've missed something.

This would make sense, except there are scenes which have no witnesses to lie about them. The scene itself cannot exist as a construction of any conscious entity on the board other than the culprit, and if the culprit is the sole witness, her or she has absolutely no reason to speak on the matter whatsoever. Thus, there must be scenes which are at best metaphor, and Erika scenes can serve exactly the same purpose.

In addition, casting Erika as "the desire to concoct a seemingly plausible scenario in which to entrap Natsuhi as a murderer" shifts those scenes directly into the magic=lies camp anyway. So really, it is pretty much the same thing.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

Well, the Beatrice magic scenes all seem to follow the magic=lies pattern. In other words, it seems as though false things can be shown to the reader if all witnesses claim that it was true. In my Battler-centric theory, false things can be shown as long as Battler would claim that it's true by the game's end. However, I don't think it makes sense to just say "fake scenes exist, therefore any scene can be fake". There has to be some kind of mechanism for determining what's true and what's false or there's no point in showing most of the story. Unless I've missed something.

There were two mechanisms proposed for Erika (unless I missed others).

1. Oliver's theory: Erika doesn't have an actual body on the game board, so her "existence" requires her perspective to be mediated by one of the metas. Although she's forbidden to lie about her own perspective, her mediator is allowed to lie to her about her perspective in order to insert her into the story.

2. My theory: An exact reading of the red text forbids Erika to become a culprit by lying about mysteries, but she can still lie about something that isn't a mystery, namely something that all of the players already know about. In that situation it's less of a lie than a house rule. Erika has motive to lie about being alive on the game board because she doesn't want to be dead, and all of the players were conspiring to allow it (except Battler, who was sitting out and therefore doesn't matter).

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Renall

This would make sense, except there are scenes which have no witnesses to lie about them. The scene itself cannot exist as a construction of any conscious entity on the board other than the culprit, and if the culprit is the sole witness, her or she has absolutely no reason to speak on the matter whatsoever. Thus, there must be scenes which are at best metaphor, and Erika scenes can serve exactly the same purpose.

That's why I think the Battler-centric theory is needed. A scene with no witnesses exists as a cat box. Anyone can interpret it in any way they want, and people are allowed to let their own conclusions and interpretations be heard. So, if Battler is the narrator, scenes in which he doesn't appear can be included in the narration based on his best guess at what happened in them. Something very similar to this happened in the ABC Murders, if anyone's read that (the more Agatha Christie I read, the more I realize that every single one of her books seems to have something in Umineko ).

Also, for the flat-out magic scenes in EP2 and EP3, that can be explained as long as Battler was convinced by someone that magic exists. He does have a motive. In EP2, it's because he can't bear the thought that one of the people close to him is a murderer, and in EP3, it might be because piece-Beatrice used her North Wind and the Sun strategy (not the trick at the end, the strategy itself). In EP4, we're even clearly shown who convinces him.

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

There were two mechanisms proposed for Erika (unless I missed others).

1. Oliver's theory: Erika doesn't have an actual body on the game board, so her "existence" requires her perspective to be mediated by one of the metas. Although she's forbidden to lie about her own perspective, her mediator is allowed to lie to her about her perspective in order to insert her into the story.

2. My theory: An exact reading of the red text forbids Erika to become a culprit by lying about mysteries, but she can still lie about something that isn't a mystery, namely something that all of the players already know about. In that situation it's less of a lie than a house rule. Erika has motive to lie about being alive on the game board because she doesn't want to be dead, and all of the players were conspiring to allow it (except Battler, who was sitting out and therefore doesn't matter).

For 1, that means we need to accept that a scene witnessed by everyone on the island can be falsified for no human reason. In EP5, it would mean that we are never shown a non-meta scene with very few possible exceptions. In other words, we are never shown the game at all, just the commentary. Since it's a replay, it still works out, but that's what this theory seems to imply.

I don't know, it just feels a bit too easy for me.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

That's why I think the Battler-centric theory is needed. A scene with no witnesses exists as a cat box. Anyone can interpret it in any way they want, and people are allowed to let their own conclusions and interpretations be heard. So, if Battler is the narrator, scenes in which he doesn't appear can be included in the narration based on his best guess at what happened in them. Something very similar to this happened in the ABC Murders, if anyone's read that (the more Agatha Christie I read, the more I realize that every single one of her books seems to have something in Umineko ).

Why would he guess that things happened in the way they're portrayed? It's out of character, especially for Piece-Battler, to engage in speculation of that nature.

Also, for the flat-out magic scenes in EP2 and EP3, that can be explained as long as Battler was convinced by someone that magic exists. He does have a motive. In EP2, it's because he can't bear the thought that one of the people close to him is a murderer, and in EP3, it might be because piece-Beatrice used her North Wind and the Sun strategy (not the trick at the end, the strategy itself). In EP4, we're even clearly shown who convinces him.

Except there exist scenes which, quite literally, no one witnessed who is ever alive to tell Battler about it later, or who it is ever demonstrated or even insinuated does tell Battler. Can I buy that someone spun him a yarn at the end of ep2? Sure. That's not where the problem lies.

For 1, that means we need to accept that a scene witnessed by everyone on the island can be falsified for no human reason.

Shkanon is pretty much the same thing, it is a theory which exists for no human reason to pacify meta-information.

In EP5, it would mean that we are never shown a non-meta scene with very few possible exceptions. In other words, we are never shown the game at all, just the commentary. Since it's a replay, it still works out, but that's what this theory seems to imply.

What exactly is wrong with that interpretation?

I don't know, it just feels a bit too easy for me.

Really now.

[chronotrig]

@Renall:

Except there exist scenes which, quite literally, no one witnessed who is ever alive to tell Battler about it later, or who it is ever demonstrated or even insinuated does tell Battler. Can I buy that someone spun him a yarn at the end of ep2? Sure. That's not where the problem lies.

There aren't too many scenes where we know that no one ever told Battler about them. For the vast majority of the murders, the actual killer could have survived, meaning that Battler could have had a witness account. If that killer also happens to be Shkanon, all of the flashback scenes in EP2 are explained. We are explicitly told that Battler believed the story he was told at the end was the truth, so this is in no way unfair. The way Ange dies in EP4 explains all of the Ange and Maria scenes. EP3 is more tricky, but we know something must have happened between the time Jessica got blinded and the time Battler accused Eva of the murders. Battler was either told something, saw something, or figured something out, and the former seems the most likely to me.

Shkanon is pretty much the same thing, it is a theory which exists for no human reason to pacify meta-information.

No, that is factually untrue.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

There aren't too many scenes where we know that no one ever told Battler about them. For the vast majority of the murders, the actual killer could have survived, meaning that Battler could have had a witness account.

So it's dirty pool to have an all-meta episode, but completely unsubstantiated things told to Battler that we never once see or hear are okay?

If that killer also happens to be Shkanon, all of the flashback scenes in EP2 are explained.

And yet, you never, ever, ever ask yourself "and if the killer doesn't happen to be Shkanon..." Your theory will never be acceptable without considering alternatives.

We are explicitly told that Battler believed the story he was told at the end was the truth, so this is in no way unfair.

We are also never told what he was told.

The way Ange dies in EP4 explains all of the Ange and Maria scenes.

I'm not following you.

EP3 is more tricky, but we know something must have happened between the time Jessica got blinded and the time Battler accused Eva of the murders. Battler was either told something, saw something, or figured something out, and the former seems the most likely to me.

And who, pray tell, has the knowledge available to tell him? And it's useless anyway, as it leads him to accuse Eva, who is physically incapable of having caused most of the murders and may well have caused none of them. And no, no one else is alive at this time but him, Eva, and Jessica.

No, that is factually untrue.

You have never once been able to demonstrate it, so I don't think either of us can claim it's factually true or untrue until something officially confirms or denies it, because it exists for the very purpose of being divisive (and, I would venture to guess, little else).

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

@Renall:

If that killer also happens to be Shkanon, all of the flashback scenes in EP2 are explained.

Well this is one of the things I'd like to have explained. Why MUST Shkanon be the killer for the theory to work? Beatrice doesn't kill anyone in any of the scenes shown. People don't tend to see it this way, but a Shkanon conspiracy to fool Battler actually supports Jessica and George culprit theories. Jessitrice specifically works because in this case specifically Jessica would be a great asset in creating Shannon's disguises.

We are explicitly told that Battler believed the story he was told at the end was the truth, so this is in no way unfair. The way Ange dies in EP4 explains all of the Ange and Maria scenes. EP3 is more tricky, but we know something must have happened between the time Jessica got blinded and the time Battler accused Eva of the murders. Battler was either told something, saw something, or figured something out, and the former seems the most likely to me.

That's not where the problem lies. Sure Battler accepted what Beatrice told him is the truth. Sure Ange dying might explain the scenes with Maria. But what bearing does this have on what Battler finds out by turning the chessboard over on Beatrice? It doesn't. Piece Battler and Meta Battler are separate points of view and we should treat them as such. If piece Battler had already figured out everything (and wasn't deceived by magic theory) by episode 2 there would be no reason for him to continue up to episode 5.

Again the scenes at the end of games are not an issue pertaining to the culprit. They don't need to be explained because they stand on their own while reality is degrading.

[chronotrig]

Spoiler for size:

Originally Posted by Renall

So it's dirty pool to have an all-meta episode, but completely unsubstantiated things told to Battler that we never once see or hear are okay?

The climax at the very end of EP2 had piece-Battler hearing "the entire story" from someone claiming to be Beatrice. I don't see how you could possible say that's unfair.
And EP4 is even more obvious, showing us the time that Battler does hear the magic story told to him. In EP1, Battler doesn't hear a fake story, but we also don't see magic scenes. In other words, every Episode except EP3 made it extremely obvious that someone had told Battler some story.

And yes, I do think not showing us the exact conversation that Battler has with the culprit at the end of each game is hardly unfair.

Originally Posted by Renall

And yet, you never, ever, ever ask yourself "and if the killer doesn't happen to be Shkanon..." Your theory will never be acceptable without considering alternatives.

So, you refuse to even consider something that has Shkanon in it?

Originally Posted by Renall

We are also never told what he was told.

Yes, but if you had a guess, what would be near the top of the list?

Originally Posted by Renall

And who, pray tell, has the knowledge available to tell him? And it's useless anyway, as it leads him to accuse Eva, who is physically incapable of having caused most of the murders and may well have caused none of them.

What? Eva is capable of committing all of the murders in EP3, if you'd like. Of course, I don't think she did, but it is possible. And it doesn't matter whether that story was true or not as long as Battler believed in it.

And no, no one else is alive at this time but him, Eva, and Jessica.

Say it in red.

Originally Posted by Renall

You have never once been able to demonstrate it, so I don't think either of us can claim it's factually true or untrue until something officially confirms or denies it, because it exists for the very purpose of being divisive (and, I would venture to guess, little else).

No, I mean it's factually untrue to say that Shkanon exists for no human reason by that theory's claims. In that theory, the reason Shannon and Kanon appear as separate people is because humans on the game board mistakenly think that they are. It is a lie that worked. This is in comparison to that particular Erika theory, which seemed to say that Erika was only a meta-entity (or at least that most Erika scenes were only meta-scenes).

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

The climax at the very end of EP2 had piece-Battler hearing "the entire story" from someone claiming to be Beatrice. I don't see how you could possible say that's unfair.
And EP4 is even more obvious, showing us the time that Battler does hear the magic story told to him.

I don't think anyone says this is unfair. I think they just don't put as much emphasis on it as you do.

Also when does this happen in episode 4? The only time I am aware of a story being told to Battler like that is in episode 2. I don't know what your talking about.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

And EP4 is even more obvious, showing us the time that Battler does hear the magic story told to him.

Yeah, but this time it's Kyrie who is telling him.

So, you refuse to even consider something that has Shkanon in it?

I have, many times, defended Shkanon in this thread to the best of my understanding of the theory. It's just deeply flawed enough and incapable of answering anything that it's hard to use it effectively in debates.

Yes, but if you had a guess, what would be near the top of the list?

Probably what you're thinking, but we aren't even sure who the person he met was, or if it was the living "Beatrice."

What? Eva is capable of committing all of the murders in EP3, if you'd like. Of course, I don't think she did, but it is possible. And it doesn't matter whether that story was true or not as long as Battler believed in it.

No, Eva cannot commit the majority of the murders in ep3. It's basically impossible, and she has no reason to do the ones where it's "possible but not likely." To wit:

First Twilight: Either all the adults are in on it (which makes absolutely no sense and is ludicrous), or the deaths were faked and people were killed off at the last second by a straggler, for which there is no evidence that Eva was the straggler and indeed it seems very unlikely she would be as Hideyoshi was with her almost the whole time.

Second Twilight: Possible.

Fourth/Fifth/Sixth Twilight: Impossible. She wasn't even there, and one of them wasn't dead and would never be killable by the time Eva was capable of doing so (under Battler's supervision).

Seventh/Eighth Twilight: Possible.

Ninth Twilight: It does appear she killed Battler, but she was also quite crazed at the time and is hardly culpable. And nothing says she killed Jessica at all, or if she even had the time or knew where to find her.

Oh, and she's gonna kill George? Nnnnnot likely.

Say it in red.

Gosh, if only someone had said something like...

Spoiler for Some sorta web or something...:

Kinzo is dead
Krauss is dead
Natsuhi is dead
Hideyoshi is dead
George is dead
Rudolf is dead
Kyrie is dead
Rosa is dead
Maria is dead
Genji is dead
Shannon is dead
Kanon is dead
Gohda is dead
Kumasawa is dead
Nanjo is dead
The 15 people mentioned are dead
Battler is alive
Eva is alive
Jessica is alive

After this point, who is going to tell him? Before this point, who was going to tell him but Nanjo and the person who killed Nanjo? Shannon is not alive at this point, no matter how hard you wish it, and if she through some contrivance is, it's a crap twist that wrecks the entire mystery of ep3.

No, I mean it's factually untrue to say that Shkanon exists for no human reason by that theory's claims. In that theory, the reason Shannon and Kanon appear as separate people is because humans on the game board mistakenly think that they are. It is a lie that worked. This is in comparison to that particular Erika theory, which seemed to say that Erika was only a meta-entity.

There is no stated purpose on the board for this lie to exist, and this is something you have always dodged. There is no benefit to it on the board, and in fact it works to Shkanon's detriment to have to be two people. It makes no sense at all.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

I have, many times, defended Shkanon in this thread to the best of my understanding of the theory. It's just deeply flawed enough and incapable of answering anything that it's hard to use it effectively in debates.

I'm just quoting you because you're the last to post, but I wanted to interject at this point and say something about Shkannon.

I don't deny the possibility of Shkannon but I don't necessarily think that just because it's a conspiracy that it MUST be the cause of the murders. In the same way that EP5 has shown us that there's a conspiracy with Kinzo's death and the person running that conspiracy isn't the cause of the murders.

There is at least one other conspiracy from the servants trying to fake Beatrice and the first twilights but that too doesn't necessarily mean that they MUST lead to murders.


I think there exists a few people here who are trying to argue that Shkannon automatically includes the idea of murder. And the two ideas are irrevocably bound. I don't think that holds, logically speaking.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

I think there exists a few people here who are trying to argue that Shkannon automatically includes the idea of murder. And the two ideas are irrevocably bound. I don't think that holds, logically speaking.

I absolutely agree with you. The same is true of Shannontrice necessarily including Shkanon. These three theories are entirely independent, and they should stand and fall separately. That is, if Shkanon isn't true, it doesn't mean Shannon isn't Beatrice, and it doesn't mean Beatrice isn't the killer... on the other hand, one or both of those could be false as well, or one or both could still be true.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

Kinzo is dead
Krauss is dead
Natsuhi is dead
Hideyoshi is dead
George is dead
Rudolf is dead
Kyrie is dead
Rosa is dead
Maria is dead
Genji is dead
Shannon is dead
Kanon is dead
Gohda is dead
Kumasawa is dead
Nanjo is dead
The 15 people mentioned are dead
Battler is alive
Eva is alive
Jessica is alive

There are a few more reds related to this.

Spoiler for more web:

After Jessica was injured, Eva was always under Battler's supervision.
Battler is neither the culprit nor an accomplice.
By this, we can establish a perfect alibi for Eva

Eva was with you the whole time.
So committing a crime was impossible for her.
Of course, Battler-kun isn't the culprit.
He wasn't forging an alibi for her, and he took the possibility that she was the culprit into account, watching her actions carefully.
No chance existed for her to do anything suspicious!
In short, at the time of the crime, only Nanjo and Jessica were in the servants' room
Ushiromiya Jessica has not committed murder

It's impossible for her to carry out a murder like that
Neither Eva nor Battler killed Nanjo, nor were they involved
The culprit who killed Nanjo was neither Battler nor Eva nor Jessica
Jessica's eyes were completely blocked, and murder was impossible for her

(This is in response to Battler's statement about Jessica having multiple personalities.)

No actions caused by Jessica's body had any relation to or influence on the murder of Nanjo
This also applies to Battler and Eva

Absolutely no factors other than humans participate in this game board

[Judoh]

To get off the Shkanon and Erika debate for a moment.

Something I've gotten interested lately is Battler's theory about himself as the culprit. And how his theory is that he's basically a chronic liar that causes the murders to happen. The important distinction here is that Battler is saying that it's possible to commit a crime and not murder anyone as long as he can intentionally lie.

His theory really seems like it would be anti-mystery from Dlanor's point of view. So what I want to see is if maybe I could use that theory and apply it to the previous episodes since Erika said she was going to do the same thing with her Natsuhi theory. Do you think I'd get very far with an anti-mystery perspective like that in the question arcs?

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Judoh

To get off the Shkanon and Erika debate for a moment.

Something I've gotten interested lately is Battler's theory about himself as the culprit. And how his theory is that he's basically a chronic liar that causes the murders to happen. The important distinction here is that Battler is saying that it's possible to commit a crime and not murder anyone as long as he can intentionally lie.

His theory really seems like it would be anti-mystery from Dlanor's point of view. So what I want to see is if maybe I could use that theory and apply it to the previous episodes since Erika said she was going to do the same thing with her Natsuhi theory. Do you think I'd get very far with an anti mystery perspective like that in the question arcs?

Well, the reason "anti-mystery" works in the Core arcs is because the narrator (presumed to be Battler) himself is allowed to lie, seeing as he is not the detective.

But in the Question arcs, our narrator is Battler, who is implied to be the detective. So, if the Knox Decalogue is to be believed, Battler cannot be the culprit, nor can he lie.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

Well, the reason "anti-mystery" works in the Core arcs is because the narrator (presumed to be Battler) himself is allowed to lie, seeing as he is not the detective.

But in the Question arcs, our narrator is Battler, who is implied to be the detective. So, if the Knox Decalogue is to be believed, Battler cannot be the culprit, nor can he lie.

Well if your anti-mystery your automatically doubting the detective's point of view right? It'd make sense that I'd have to ignore the Decalogue to some extent.

Really the only reason I'm asking is because it's something we haven't experimented with yet and it might be interesting to see where that key fits and where it doesn't.

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Well if your anti-mystery your automatically doubting the detective's point of view right? It'd make sense that I'd have to ignore the Decalogue to some extent.

I guess, but it boils down to this: are the Question arcs really "fair-play" mysteries? If not, then it is much easier to assume an anti-mystery perspective.

If they are "fair-play" mysteries, then a problem arises, because the narrator=the detective.

In the Core arcs, the narrator =/= the detective, so Battler, the person whose perspective we see most of the time, can lie or withhold information from us.

[Renall]

The problem with Battler-as-culprit is his alibi thing cuts both ways. He's with other people too much to go off and murder, though I suppose you could make the claim that he's the First Twilight killer in a few episodes, if only on the basis that nothing proves he can't be.

I don't think you can get far with this. However...