[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Jan-Poo]

There is the fact that body identification through dental records is something that was used before by Ryuukishu to fake someone's death.

In the end you just need someone to swap a dental record which probably doesn't have a tight security at all and it's done.

Of course this would still involve some decent organization or the total incompetence (or complicity) of the police. But didn't we already suppose that for other theories?

The only question is: who the hell would have an interest in making the world believe that Maria is dead, while not wanting to kill her for real to make it easier?

[DukeLawliet]

Rosa. Rosa could have wanted to get the family money, get back at the family that she hated, and just leave with Maria. Go to Argentina or something. She could have gotten Maria to agree just by gibving her a hug and agreeing to restitch Sakutaro. Plus, this could explain the mass produced Sakutaros. Rosas little neh-neh from "beyond the grave" is sending design for them to Anti-Rosa.

[Sherringford]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yes you do. I just don't tell you in order to make you mad.

I somehow doubt that.

But on topic, I suppose Yasu would have an interest in making Maria fake her death to be able to live a relatively normal and happy life( we saw what happened to Ange) but I can't think of anything to support that theory.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

There is the fact that body identification through dental records is something that was used before by Ryuukishu to fake someone's death.

In the end you just need someone to swap a dental record which probably doesn't have a tight security at all and it's done.

Of course this would still involve some decent organization or the total incompetence (or complicity) of the police. But didn't we already suppose that for other theories?

The only question is: who the hell would have an interest in making the world believe that Maria is dead, while not wanting to kill her for real to make it easier?

Maria is Ikuko theory. Another hilarious twist that could be foreshadowed as far as EP1 (Maria when you grow up you'll let me fondle your breast right? uuuu I promise!) The whole incestuous overtones in EP5+ could be seen as Battler subconsciously knowing he might be fondling (or worse!) his cousin.

It explains the witch of origins tidbits, the black sheep of the family, her dad kinda . It also makes the Ikuko/Ange scenes a little more personal. Wasnt Ange going to be her disciple? She ended up being her priestess for one episode at least.

All joking aside, the government really wanted to bury the incident in Rokkenjima. Having people go about how a girl could be writing stories about what could have happen those days would keep it in the lime light. So they made sure she was dead to the public by telling them they had her jaw. Everyone else was never in question cause they never got letters written by "Ushiromiya Battler" or "Magical Gohda Chef"

e- Or they could be completely incompetent! The evidence for the actions is circumstantial and could go either way with equal probability!

[ErenselTheJester]

Originally Posted by Sherringford

Well, it's commonish for certain mystery novels to not have the culprit revealed. I don't particularly like those novels as much as I like traditional Great-Detective-Mansion-Culprit-is-You novels, but I still enjoy them more than say fantasy. He could have read one of those(fairly big subgenre in Japan if I recall correctly) and changed his mind.

Umineko's issue is that it spawned 8 novels while giving the impression at times that it would have an ending only to reveal it didn't. That made readers feel letdown rather than simply appreciate it for what it was, which is often the case with other no-ending novels. I can't recall another no-ending mystery that lasted that long(but I'm sure there must have been a few). The length is what involved the readers so much to cause that sense of betrayal some people felt, I think.

I wouldn't say his idea of simply going for a no-ending approach was wrong, I'd say the way he executed that idea was wrong. He mislead the readers for way too long.

For example, if someone hides your keys for a few minutes then reveals it was inside your car all along, you'd smile, laugh and remember it as a "wacky friend" moment. But if someone hid your keys for an entire day, then that's when the joke overstayed its welcome.

A single book, or even a series of 2 or 3 novels is something I feel is fine to end with no-ending. But something of Umineko length and more importantly with Umineko's execution just feels a bit disappointing. I wasn't left marveling at what really happened, like great no-ending novels usually end. I was left honestly not giving much of a damn.

Now that said, I agree with the screen you posted. I prefer stories to have an ending. No-ending stories feel like a gimmick to me. But...I can more or less see what made him change his mind. I just don't agree with it at all and think that for something like Umineko, an ending would have been much better than an ending without answers.

To sum up, I think no-ending mysteries aren't wrong by definition. I think they are boring. But I can't say something sucks because it doesn't fit my personal taste. And Ryuukishi's reaction probably came about because of criticism and literary influences, I think.

Truth be told, I'm happy Ryukishi didn't give Umineko a resolution. First of all, there is his case where he doesn't want to degrade the work of those who caught on the answers early, which to me is pretty bad excuse considering that we don't know who these guys are, but hey if that's then that's it. Maybe the people he's been talking about have really been working hard on this, if so then I'm fine with it. As for the rest of us, I would say that if this is it then just let it go, those guys have the answers and we have ours, so we should be happy to have came up with any conclusion to begin with.

Second, on a personal account, I didn't truly understand anything until EP8. Do you understand how scary it is to have the last episode coming out with all the answers and you don't have any solid conclusions? I don't want the answer given to me! I want to at least get a solid shot first. I don't believe in Shkanon, so I would be ticked if it was true and I would've considered Umineko a horrible myster for it. I don't believe anything in EP7 is factual truth, so if he were to say that it was, I would've been ticked at that as well. So pretty much, I wasn't worried really about the answers, but rather I can actually argue against them in order to retain the enjoyment that I had playing Umineko.

Lastly, aren't the answers given? I don't know about you, but once I read EP8 I was able to go back and things were so much clearer, so now I am able to fully understand the writings and come up with serious answers; and all this without relying on Red or any of Will's hints.

So really, it depends on how you see things. I feel sorry that you and others don't see things the way I do.

[Sherringford]

Now, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, but I do have a problem with someone being condescending. I don't see a reason to feel sorry for someone and assuming they don't "get" the answers the way you do.

I...have no idea what your post has to do with mine. I said I don't like open-ended mysteries because of my personal taste but that with that aside, I can enjoy open-ended mysteries but still didn't like the way Umineko handled its ending.

You responded by saying you were satisfied with it and that you were sorry I didn't see things the way you did. I...uh...appreciate the sentiment?

Let me try to be as clear as possible:

My favorite kind of mystery is the Golden Age sort of mystery. I still love the mystery genre as a whole though and have read novels that aren't the sacred fairplay I love so much. There are things in them that I admire and I can honestly enjoy a few of them. Umineko was disappointing with a few things in relation to Rokkenjima prime and didn't make me admire it much after it was all said and done. It has many issues like the lack of a proper detective(yes I have to mention that every five posts. It's in my contract) to convey what the author thought he was conveying at times.

[Jan-Poo]

Ryuukishi didn't even meant EP8 to give answers, it was a chapter meant to give a closure to the story, he clearly stated that EP6 and EP7 were the ones meant to give the most hints.
If you haven't understood stuff until that point you probably haven't understood anything at all.

Naturally as long as Ryuukishi doesn't write a clear answer black on white you can think you understood everything in spite of the majority of people having a completely different idea; and you can be happy with whatever theory you came up with no matter how much ridiculous and baseless it is living on the delusion that that's the same explanation that the author has in mind.

The ones who will mostly benefit from this situation are the arrogants and the egocentics. Those will believe their theory is the right one (regardless of its trueness) simply because it's the theory they came up with and they won't really be affected by the other opinions because... they are arrogants and egocentrics.
All the rest will always harbor a reasonable doubt no matter how much solid is their theory, because objectively speaking when there isn't a 90% (at least) certainty there is a reasonable doubt. In addition those who aren't egocentric have the ability to recognize no one is free from personal bias including themselves. That will inevitably lead them to the possibility that they might be wrong, which is a very healthy thing from which arrogants and egocentric are immune to.
Disagreement with other people will add fuel to the idea that they might be wrong, because general consensus is the only thing that can eliminate the chance of personal bias and if there isn't general consesus the chance that your own theory is the result of personal bias increases.

So that's it, the only winners of a game that has no resolution are those who believe they are winners out of arrogance.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Then she's a subversion, not a deconstruction. She is 100% not a deconstruction.

We clearly have different definitions of the word. I was first explained the word from a friend of mine (of whose opinion on scholarly matters I have great respect for). Then I checked Google for it and found only one site with a clear definition of genre deconstruction: tvtropes, which presented a definition that made sense with how I already understood the word. I know you don't have much respect for tvtropes, so what exactly is the definition you use, and what is your source?

Originally Posted by Renall

Okonogi knows about it, it seems to have been a publicized kind of miraculous thing. As we retreat from that view, we become uncertain if the event itself ever happened...

Okay, I had forgotten Okonogi mentions it. He calls it a rumor. Although if it's a rumor we are talking about, then it's quite conceivable that the authors could actually plant it themselves.

Originally Posted by Renall

The scene itself has witnesses actually already in it: the bodyguards. If such an event ever happened, it'd be hard to believe one of these guys didn't rumor mill it to the press. People have sold out way more inconsequential stories for a pittance.

Surviving a fall off of a skyscaper I would say is a far far bigger miracle than some mooks keeping their mouths shut. The mooks may or may not squeal; it's just more Devil's Proof. In any case, it's certainly enough of a possibility to excite some credulous witch hunters without any solid evidence.

Anyway, I didn't really wanna get into so much of an argument over this, and I don't think that RK07 is ignoring Google; that's just plain retarded.

And I'm surprised no one has brought up the most easily verifiable event of episode 4 1998: Kasumi's death. Unless the Sumadera's are so secretive that they hide the existence of their own heir, then it's pretty obviously fiction (unless Kasumi actually did disappear... somehow).

Originally Posted by Sherringford

Umineko was disappointing with a few things in relation to Rokkenjima prime and didn't make me admire it much after it was all said and done. It has many issues like the lack of a proper detective(yes I have to mention that every five posts. It's in my contract) to convey what the author thought he was conveying at times.

I think leaving us somewhat in the dark as to what the rules of the game even were (in part by excluding a proper detective) was precisely RK07's intent. A large part of the thinking in Umineko is figuring out what the rules are. I can understand why someone would hate this, though. I find it pretty frustrating myself at times; I mean how are we supposed to play a game without knowing the rules, even if learning the rules is the objective of the game? It's a catch 22.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Ryuukishi didn't even meant EP8 to give answers, it was a chapter meant to give a closure to the story, he clearly stated that EP6 and EP7 were the ones meant to give the most hints.

He said that, but the fact is that episode 8 told us more than any other episode about the "real" world. I think he's just not classifying the "real" world as the story's main mystery.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Naturally as long as Ryuukishi doesn't write a clear answer black on white you can think you understood everything in spite of the majority of people having a completely different idea; and you can be happy with whatever theory you came up with no matter how much ridiculous and baseless it is living on the delusion that that's the same explanation that the author has in mind...
-snip-
...So that's it, the only winners of a game that has no resolution are those who believe they are winners out of arrogance.

They are false winners. (I hope you aren't talking about anyone on this forum, like me )

I have a bit more "love" for everyone. I find that people, when in doubt, often argue even more fervently than if they are truly confident; they have a need to "defend" their weakened position so they display a false confidence, which often comes off as arrogance but is in truth a form of desperation, in order to project their precious, but fragile, belief more strongly. And yes, I admit I do this too. You'll see this especially often when a person is having doubts about their most core beliefs, like their religion, or the integrity of a loved one.

So when I see people intensely butting heads on this forum, I think that this may well mean that they are actually subconsciously beginning to revise their theories and acknowledge the other side's argument. Of course, this is not the case as often as it is, and people are often just plain being arrogant jerks. But then again, maybe they aren't .

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

So when I see people intensely butting heads on this forum, I think that this may well mean that they are actually subconsciously beginning to revise their theories and acknowledge the other side's argument. Of course, this is not the case as often as it is, and people are often just plain being arrogant jerks. But then again, maybe they aren't .

A lot of this comes from people deciding that Umineko was one thing or another, despite it never being said so. Or believing there was a promise made when there was never one. Or thinking that something happened that could never have possibly happened. (Or even thinking that something is 'improbable' which has very little meaning in fiction.)

When people get like this they end up with an emotional conclusion, like Umineko is, to quote many here, an "abomination." Despite that really having no particular meaning with respect to a work of fiction, or even a work of of detective mystery fiction.


The thing is, what Ryukishi didn't respect wasn't the story or the genre; it was the readers. Or rather he didn't respect any except the few who figured out the some or most of the truths. So the ones who didn't arrive at enough truths to feel satisfied (however many truths they feel they need) feel hurt and when people are hurt they push back. Especially when they turn into a mob.

"We've given the word 'mob' a bad name!" -- Dr. Hibbert - Simpsons

You can see how Umineko has really provoked an emotional response and like it or not, this is a sign of art. It could be really bad art, but it's provoking, at the least. 8) It also shouldn't be viewed as a novel per se; it's not a written self contained work like traditional novels, but a back and forth. The audience response between each episode should also be considered part of Umineko in the way same way that theatre sports requires audience participation. (He does call it a 'Sound Novel' though, although I think it's transcended the use of the word novel now. Novel Sports? heh...)


Ok, now I haven't criticized any one in particular, nor am I really saying that not getting the truths is an indicator of something like stupidity or etc. But the people who feel badly would read my words wrongly and interpret this as some kind of an attack. (Similar to how people can scream at you while you totally agree with them.) If I don't add the following paragraph, there would probably be a flame war.


Ultimately, I feel Ryukishi needs to (and maybe at a later date would) end Umineko officially and expose the parts of the story he worked out. (I'm sure there are particulars on Rokkenjima Prime that he has no need to work out.) Maybe he's just being coy right now, but if he doesn't, nevermind the English fans; I'm sure the Japanese otaku fans will end up dragging it out of him one day. There will be constant badgering, I'd bet. And although that's not ideal, I'm saying that's not something we should be above doing at all... >:3


(Disclaimer: A number of my theories have played out just as keikaku, so I would rate myself in one of the 'satisfied' group. However, I don't have all the answers, especially the ones that require detective/mystery background; such as the gunshot/dresser/string trick Shannon copied from And Then There Were None.)

[AuraTwilight]

We clearly have different definitions of the word. I was first explained the word from a friend of mine (of whose opinion on scholarly matters I have great respect for). Then I checked Google for it and found only one site with a clear definition of genre deconstruction: tvtropes, which presented a definition that made sense with how I already understood the word. I know you don't have much respect for tvtropes, so what exactly is the definition you use, and what is your source?

The TVTropes one is consistent enough with what I've been saying. A Deconstruction takes a trope apart and portrays it realistically, as in "how would this work if it actually happened?" Maybe Erika's ATTITUDE fits that; maybe Erika-as-represenative-of-Witch-Hunter-egotism fits that, but as the Classic Detective, she does not fulfill this, because she doesn't have enough in common with them, and her detective's authority is not even vaguely realistic.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I think leaving us somewhat in the dark as to what the rules of the game even were (in part by excluding a proper detective) was precisely RK07's intent. A large part of the thinking in Umineko is figuring out what the rules are. I can understand why someone would hate this, though. I find it pretty frustrating myself at times; I mean how are we supposed to play a game without knowing the rules, even if learning the rules is the objective of the game? It's a catch 22.

It actually isn't, if the outcome of the game can only be reached by a certain set of rules.

That's the problem. If I show you the default setup of a chess board, then the layout at checkmate, will you ever be able to figure out how to play chess? Probably not. What if I showed you each individual step, or at least a number of steps in between? That is, the result of this move or that move. Could you learn to play chess?

Very possibly... if I gave you enough information. And in fact, if I do it right, I don't need to show you checkmate at all. You could reliably intuit exactly how the game is won if you know how the king must behave when threatened.

So it is very much not a Catch-22 to learn to play a game without knowing the rules, if you see enough of it.

What Ryukishi has done is asked us to learn to play his game. He's shown us the initial setup and refuses to show us the endgame. Fine. Has he shown us enough of his game to know how endgame is reached? Maybe, maybe not. Has he shown us enough of his game to be certain of how to play it? I would submit that he clearly has not done this, as too many people have invented too many rulesets that may lead to the assumed endgame(s). But we can't know for sure. It's like our hypothetical slice-of-game chess example never showing us how a knight moves, or how a pawn captures, or not showing us enough responses to check to know how a king behaves when threatened. These are things we cannot know by process of elimination. There must be hints, and for the observational snapshots to be effective teachers, we must be able to use those hints to learn the game and know at least roughly how the game was played.

[Wanderer]

Thanks Renall. My earlier remarks were a very cursory look at an issue which you have expanded here beautifully.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I have a bit more "love" for everyone. I find that people, when in doubt, often argue even more fervently than if they are truly confident; they have a need to "defend" their weakened position so they display a false confidence, which often comes off as arrogance but is in truth a form of desperation, in order to project their precious, but fragile, belief more strongly. And yes, I admit I do this too. You'll see this especially often when a person is having doubts about their most core beliefs, like their religion, or the integrity of a loved one.

So when I see people intensely butting heads on this forum, I think that this may well mean that they are actually subconsciously beginning to revise their theories and acknowledge the other side's argument. Of course, this is not the case as often as it is, and people are often just plain being arrogant jerks. But then again, maybe they aren't .

I actually am like that, I show more assertivness than I actually have but in the end I'm not really capable of completely believe my own theory if I don't get consensus from other people, that's probably why I and many others try so hard to get it with their argument. Then again general consensus doesn't make something true it is well possible that a single person gets it right while everyone else doesn't. Improbable, but still possible.

Oh and I'll come out and admit that sometimes I think I understand things better than other people, which means I'm arrogant to a certain extent but at least I'm not arrogant enough to claim I have understood everything.

Originally Posted by Kylon99

The thing is, what Ryukishi didn't respect wasn't the story or the genre; it was the readers. Or rather he didn't respect any except the few who figured out the some or most of the truths. So the ones who didn't arrive at enough truths to feel satisfied (however many truths they feel they need) feel hurt and when people are hurt they push back. Especially when they turn into a mob.

I have the feeling that if I were to tell Ryuukishi all that I have understood and when he'd probably tell me that I got a good score and expect that I'm satisfied.
And that would mean he is underestimating my expectations.

The point is... I've invested a lot in this story, I loved this story and as anyone who is familiar with anime and romance certainly knows: when you love someone you want to know everything about that person. The same thing apply here. I want to know everything about this story and not knowing everything makes me sad...

I might have reached a good understanding, but it's not everything. And now let me clarify this: I never expected to be able to understand everything by myself, I don't even think it's possible. However Ryuukishi didn't give us an explanation and want us to find the truth by ourselves, but then he should have given us the means to do that.

What I expected from Umineko was for this story to let me try and understand what I could understand to the best of my abilities and then tell me eveything that I couldn't understand by my own.

Let's take this for example:
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...postcount=1452

That was back at the time of EP5, there weren't really many hints to back that theory but it turned out to be pretty close to what was later explained in EP7. I didn't write it there but I thought Beatrice was probably the wife of that German official.
In the end it was the daughter of an Italian official, but how exactly could I tell that at the time? It was simply impossible to arrive to such fine details with the few hints at disposal.

So basically, I got to that point and I'm pretty satisfied with myself for that, but that's the best that I could do with my own strenght and I don't think I nor anyone could do better if not by blind luck. So then I need the author to explain the story and not just because then I can know that I "won", but because I can know those particulars that I wouldn't otherwise be able to understand. ever.

I'm glad that Ryuukishi decided to write and explain that backstory, it was probably the best part of EP7 for me. But because of that I hoped he would do the same for all the rest in EP8. Without that, I'm left with the feeling that this story is incomplete.

At the end of the story... I'll never know what happened, and isn't that the same as your favorite serial being interrupted prematurely? How can anyone be happy of that?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The TVTropes one is consistent enough with what I've been saying. A Deconstruction takes a trope apart and portrays it realistically, as in "how would this work if it actually happened?" Maybe Erika's ATTITUDE fits that; maybe Erika-as-represenative-of-Witch-Hunter-egotism fits that, but as the Classic Detective, she does not fulfill this, because she doesn't have enough in common with them, and her detective's authority is not even vaguely realistic.

I'm actually more radical than that, I don't see anything of that in Erika. What exactly Erika deconstructs? Did the author used her as a way to show how would a detective act in reality?
REALITY?!
Is there anything that Erika did in EP5 that you would expect from a detective in the real world? Seriously?
Not even her attitude qualifies for that, and to be honest her arrogance and lack of morality isn't even subversive. She really isn't that far from Sherlock Holmes on that regard. I mean... Sherlock Holmes literally killed his dog just to prove his theory. As for being arrogant and a Mary-sue well... yeah... definitely.

[Sherringford]

Hey now, it was Mrs. Hudson's dog, not his. And the dog was dying anyway!
...That doesn't change much but I had to mention that!

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I'm actually more radical than that, I don't see anything of that in Erika. What exactly Erika deconstructs? Did the author used her as a way to show how would a detective act in reality?

Not act, be. Erika demonstrates the god-like powers that a person would have to have in order to realistically be a trope detective (detective authority, super-intelligence, super-observation skills, ability to shape the world to Knox's Decalogue). Her behavior is another step from that; from those god-like powers comes a personality that places truth over life, and not just any truth, the truth she decides the world should conform to. It's a very clear deconstruction.

Well, that's my view, anyway. It's certainly not AT's or many others'.

[AuraTwilight]

Not act, be. Erika demonstrates the god-like powers that a person would have to have in order to realistically be a trope detective (detective authority, super-intelligence, super-observation skills, ability to shape the world to Knox's Decalogue).

No detective any does any of that. They're smart, and perceptive, and they have good memory, and they can boss people around because peeps are dyin' all up in here, but that's it.

Also, the Mystery rules are not PROSCRIPTIVE, I swear I want to punch Ryukishi in the throat over that.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

No detective any does any of that. They're smart, and perceptive, and they have good memory, and they can boss people around because peeps are dyin' all up in here, but that's it.

Also, the Mystery rules are not PROSCRIPTIVE, I swear I want to punch Ryukishi in the throat over that.

They're not just smart, they're always the smartest person in the story's entire world. They're not just perceptive and have a good memory, they always notice the key clues needed to solve whatever mystery they encounter, no matter how subtle and innane they are. The cases they encounter are always solvable because they conform to a set of rules meant to assist the detective. And no, they are not proscriptive, but are used as desired for the detective (using Dlanor, Erika chooses how to apply the Decalogue) to ensure that the detective can solve the mystery.

Detectives are super-people; they have to be for the genre to function. Else we see the murder-mystery through the eyes of an incompetent, and really don't get very far.

[Jan-Poo]

Wanderer, normally a deconstruction keeps the "trope" and examines how reality would work if that trope existed in reality. So basically the trope is the only unrealistic factor that is mantained.

However you are basically saying that a deconstruction in order to justify the trope in reality changes reality further by adding more unrealistic stuff.

Erika doesn't have your usual detective abilities she has them multiplied by 100. Ryuukishi didn't keep the trope, it took it and exaggerated it.
Besides Erika doesn't play her role in a realistic scenario but in a completely metaphysical environment, that defies from the beginning the very basic purpose of a deconstruction.

How can Erika be the deconstruction of a detective, that is a character that shows the trope detective in a realistic scenario when the realistic scenario is removed from the beginning?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Erika doesn't have your usual detective abilities she has them multiplied by 100. Ryuukishi didn't keep the trope, it took it and exaggerated it.
Besides Erika doesn't play her role in a realistic scenario but in a completely metaphysical environment, that defies from the beginning the very basic purpose of a deconstruction.

How can Erika be the deconstruction of a detective, that is a character that shows the trope detective in a realistic scenario when the realistic scenario is removed from the beginning?

Does she really? I think Erika can be seen as both a comment and a deconstruction.
Let's look at it like that, there are basically two Erikas around.
One is the teenage girl/selfproclaimed superdetective who arrives at the island.
The other is the metaphysical Erika who is serving as the detective's perspective from the meta world.

The island's Erika is basically a detective thrown into an environment that is quite usual for a detective and she basically uses everyday tricks to secure her own ways. She sets booby traps, checks corpses cocerning their life and death status, deduces from evidence...she basically does nothing that a normal detective wouldn't do.
Yet the metaphysical Erika makes us aware of something. Erika has to be basically beyond being human in order to fullfil all these tasks. A detective cannot know wether there are no secret passageways, a detective cannot observe and secure all exits, a detective cannot perfectly deduce from evidence in an environment where everybody s/he gains information from has their own agenda.
And then comes the twist on the meta-level: Erika is incompetent!
She does not serve an inherent form of justice or has access to any universal truth through her powers. She is just ruthless and emotionless enough to just force her solution on the story and the readers.

It is basically inverted deconstruction as it shows through metaphorical depiction of literary criticism how being the detective is not about being right it is about securing your ways so you can't be proven wrong.
In that way it proves again that the detective is only a mirror-image of the culprit. Their methods and morals are basically the same, they just need to outsmart the other in order for chaos or order to win.

[Renall]

The problem is, to be a proper literary deconstruction a character must be separated in some fashion from the normal story environment he or she occupies, or else the environment must be right but the character must be different.

Piece Erika is nothing more or less than a literary detective in a literary detective setting. She is not in "reality." She is in a murder mystery story filled with unrealistic levels of rich person intrigue and dark stormy nights. She even comments on this herself, and how the situation she's in so closely resembles the sort of circumstance in which a murder occurs. Genre self-awareness is not a deconstruction. Indeed, nothing about this setup is in any way a literary deconstruction. She is a detective character in a detective character's setting, and her particular story plays out pretty much normally for the genre. Sure, she's wrong, but at no point does ep5's storyline actually play that out (it does in the meta-world, but not in the storyline of the board itself).

Detectives being wrong isn't even a deconstruction. Plenty of straight-up Golden Age mystery novels feature a detective reaching a conclusion which is intentionally or unintentionally wrong. One of the most famous mysteries of all time involves the detective intentionally discarding the right answer. And that wasn't a deconstruction of the genre.

A deconstruction of the genre would be if Erika showed up on the island, was a big pain in the ass to everyone else while they're trying to have a nice family dinner, got in the way of everyone and caused a bunch of nuisance distractions with her duct taping shenanigans that in no way impeded the murderer or helped her gather clues, fingered Natsuhi as a suspect based on her flawed "deductions," and then while everyone was focused on Natsuhi she stepped into the bathroom and was strangled to death by George with her own duct tape.

And then forensic testing found George's fingerprints and bite marks on the tape, and that's what convicts him.

Then it's also irony.