[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Yes..., but if she's not an existing person anyway the real culprit is masked by her in that episode. That and Krauss isn't involved in murder in that one either.

There is only one culprit in each episode, so the moment she killed someone no one else could kill anyone.

Moreover, even though she is non-existing in most game boards, she did exist in that game board in specific. Red about her exists.

Therefore, the culprit for 1-4 can be different from the culprit for 5 and 6.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

There is only one culprit in each episode, so the moment she killed someone no one else could kill anyone.

Moreover, even though she is non-existing in most game boards, she did exist in that game board in specific. Red about her exists.

Red about a person assigned the name "Erika" exists. What makes you so sure it wasn't the singular culprit, rebranded "Erika?"

And before we get on a tangent about the validity of titular name theory: Kanon, Shannon.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

There is only one culprit in each episode, so the moment she killed someone no one else could kill anyone.

I don't see that rule saying only one person can be a murderer just that only one person can shoulder the guilt of the crime.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Moreover, even though she is non-existing in most game boards, she did exist in that game board in specific. Red about her exists.

Only in forgeries though, which even witch hunters don't fully trust. It's possible to apply her name to mask her over another person. Although that person is probably different in Dawn then in End.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Renall

Red about a person assigned the name "Erika" exists. What makes you so sure it wasn't the singular culprit, rebranded "Erika?"

And before we get on a tangent about the validity of titular name theory: Kanon, Shannon.

Devil's proof. I am not intending to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the culprit changes. However, my theory goes like this.
Erika has been shown as the culprit. However it was said in red that she counted as an extra person. Moreover, even if it's not possible to prove that she is not just a name somebody claimed, the possibility that she is an extra person only present in games 5 and 6 is undeniable. If such possibility is to be accepted, then what should follow is that Erika is the killer for episode 6 and Dine's 12th. There must be but one culprit. From that we can assume that the possibility that the criminal changes from game to game exists, especially as Beato was not responsible for all games, and only she knows the killer's identity!

In summary, I'm not trying to present proof of a fact, but of a possibility.

I don't see that rule saying only one person can be a murderer just that only one person can shoulder the guilt of the crime.

The complete rule is

12. There must be but one culprit, no matter how many murders are committed. The culprit may, of course, have a minor helper or co-plotter; but the entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature.

The rule is meant to say that there is only one murderer. Anything else would be streching it, and I don't think Ryuukishi would do that. When he "broke" Knox by remodeling it, he still kept its original intention. That would be just making up new rules and calling them "The Van Dine rules."

[KnightOfTwo]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Devil's proof. I am not intending to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the culprit changes. However, my theory goes like this.
Erika has been shown as the culprit. However it was said in red that she counted as an extra person. Moreover, even if it's not possible to prove that she is not just a name somebody claimed, the possibility that she is an extra person only present in games 5 and 6 is undeniable. If such possibility is to be accepted, then what should follow is that Erika is the killer for episode 6 and Dine's 12th. There must be but one culprit. From that we can assume that the possibility that the criminal changes from game to game exists, especially as Beato was not responsible for all games, and only she knows the killer's identity!

In summary, I'm not trying to present proof of a fact, but of a possibility.



The complete rule is

The rule is meant to say that there is only one murderer. Anything else would be streching it, and I don't think Ryuukishi would do that. When he "broke" Knox by remodeling it, he still kept its original intention. That would be just making up new rules and calling them "The Van Dine rules."

The problem I have with that is that it makes the EP7 tea party a flat out lie. While I doubt the legitimacy of how it was anyway, if Dine's 12th were to apply then EP7 violates it.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by KnightOfTwo

The problem I have with that is that it makes the EP7 tea party a flat out lie. While I doubt the legitimacy of how it was anyway, if Dine's 12th were to apply then EP7 violates it.

Which would lead us to the conclusion that the tea party is a fake. That's how I see it. Had Will fought Bern about THOSE murders, he would have won in a heartbeat.

Bern:"EVERYONE KILLED EACH OTHER!"

Will:"Yeah no. Van Dine time."

Bern:"Why didn't I think that the Van Dine detective I hired would use the Van Dine rules? IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE IT COMIIINNNGGGGG"[bern dies, George becomes the villain for episode 8]

Seriously though, I believe in the Van Dine rules, and because of that I assume that at least part of the tea party is fake.

EDIT:

Random question, since Ryuukishi used Knox and Dine already, you guys think he will use the Detection Oath in episode 8 just for the hell of it? Or Chandler's rules? Or...
...Okay fine I got Dine and Knox, I should be happy for those two. BUT DAMN IT INCLUDE RAYMOND!

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Judoh

Well here is the first block to that from episode 5.

Ushiromiya Krauss is not the culprit.

This red would have to be universal or each game would have to be a different culprit right? Right?

Not the culprit of which game, exactly?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Random question, since Ryuukishi used Knox and Dine already, you guys think he will use the Detection Oath in episode 8 just for the hell of it? Or Chandler's rules? Or...
...Okay fine I got Dine and Knox, I should be happy for those two. BUT DAMN IT INCLUDE RAYMOND!

Detection oath? My bet is no, because, if my understanding is correct, [extremely long and hard to verbalise explanation that includes a quarter of a social anthropology textbook skipped] he is fundamentally opposed to taking it seriously.

But Chandler's rules, surprisingly, might show up.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Detection oath? My bet is no, because, if my understanding is correct, [extremely long and hard to verbalise explanation that includes a quarter of a social anthropology textbook skipped] he is fundamentally opposed to taking it seriously.

But Chandler's rules, surprisingly, might show up.

The Oath changed a lot over the years, so really Ryuukishi could get away with anything. There are only two sacred rules in the Oath he needs to obey really.

Do you promise that your detectives shall well and truly detect the crimes presented to them, using those wits which it may please you to bestow upon them and not placing reliance on nor making use of Divine Revelation, Feminine Intuition, Mumbo-Jumbo, Jiggery-Pokery, Coincidence or the Act of God?

and

Do you solemnly swear never to conceal a vital clue from the reader?

I was kinda hoping that maybe we would get a different game master for episode 8, and they had to swear that Oath in order to be the game master.

Because it would be all kinds of cheesy and awesome.

As for Chandler, why do you think it will show up? I think it could show up because Chandler's rules(and his view on detective fiction) are similar to Ryuukishi's.
For those who don't know, the rules are the following:

1. It must be credibly motivated, both as to the original situation and the dénouement.

2. It must be technically sound as to the methods of murder and detection.

3. It must be realistic in character, setting and atmosphere. It must be about real people in a real world.

4. It must have a sound story value apart from the mystery element: i.e., the investigation itself must be an adventure worth reading.

5. It must have enough essential simplicity to be explained easily when the time comes.

6. It must baffle a reasonably intelligent reader.

7. The solution must seem inevitable once revealed.

8. It must not try to do everything at once. If it is a puzzle story operating in a rather cool, reasonable atmosphere, it cannot also be a violent adventure or a passionate romance.

9. It must punish the criminal in one way or another, not necessarily by operation of the law....If the detective fails to resolve the consequences of the crime, the story is an unresolved chord and leaves irritation behind it.

10.It must be honest with the reader.

[KnightOfTwo]

I can only imagine what the character representing those rules would be like.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by KnightOfTwo

I can only imagine what the character representing those rules would be like.

Chandler is famous for the following quotation:
"When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand." (referring to writing novels)

So I imagine it would be like...
...AWESOME. That's what it would be like.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

The Oath changed a lot over the years, so really Ryuukishi could get away with anything. There are only two sacred rules in the Oath he needs to obey really.

That's the one he can't obey if I am correct. Paradoxically, that's not because the story is constructed wrong, but because the required deduction actually is so close to feminine intuition and divine revelation in particular, as to be bloody hard to distinguish from either. It's a Zen thing.

I shall reserve explaining why I think so for a later date when I'm able to prepare a suitably long and well-supported lecture which nobody will take seriously anyway, though.

Originally Posted by Will Wright

As for Chandler, why do you think it will show up? I think it could show up because Chandler's rules(and his view on detective fiction) are similar to Ryuukishi's.

Same here. Umineko aspires to be literature which uses puzzle as a vehicle to deliver the payload that is it's real message, rather than just a puzzle on paper.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Oliver

That's the one he can't obey if I am correct. Paradoxically, that's not because the story is constructed wrong, but because the required deduction actually is so close to feminine intuition and divine revelation in particular, as to be bloody hard to distinguish from either. It's a Zen thing.

I shall reserve explaining why I think so for a later date when I'm able to prepare a suitably long and well-supported lecture which nobody will take seriously anyway, though.

Maybe there is a super secret solution and we just couldn't see it yet! We'll have to wait. But I was referring to the game master, not Ryuukishi himself. So the Oath would apply only to the howdunnits, the locked rooms and things like that. Not the Yasu stuff that we can't possibly understand.

Also, are you kidding me? The only reason I ever got my novel published is by reading and discussing philosophic interpretations of the mystery genre. I live for things like that. Would love to see your opinion on it.

Same here. Umineko aspires to be literature which uses puzzle as a vehicle to deliver the payload that is it's real message, rather than just a puzzle on paper.

Yeah. In the Golden Age, mysteries were just puzzles. With Raymond and the Japanese literature, they became about what those puzzles did to people. They used the puzzles to show us the message.

What I really want is for someone to one day do the opposite. Use a message and people to show us a magnificent puzzle. Well, who am I kidding? That's what I intend to do one day! But I got a lot of practice until that day comes.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Maybe there is a super secret solution and we just couldn't see it yet! We'll have to wait. But I was referring to the game master, not Ryuukishi himself. So the Oath would apply only to the howdunnits, the locked rooms and things like that. Not the Yasu stuff that we can't possibly understand.

Oh, that's the kicker. I don't think the Yasu stuff that we can't understand is it!

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Also, are you kidding me? The only reason I ever got my novel published is by reading and discussing philosophic interpretations of the mystery genre. I live for things like that. Would love to see your opinion on it.

Gimme an hour and watch your PM box.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

Which would lead us to the conclusion that the tea party is a fake. That's how I see it. Had Will fought Bern about THOSE murders, he would have won in a heartbeat.

Uh? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened... except Will got his ass raped... by a mob of kittens...

[Renall]

If the Chandler rules were applied, clearly they would be represented in the meta-world by a very confused Owen Taylor.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Uh? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened... except Will got his ass raped... by a mob of kittens...

I assumed that was the fight, and asked why Will didn't use the "one murderer" rule and people corrected me saying that Will was not trying to disprove the tea party, but something else.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Renall

If the Chandler rules were applied, clearly they would be represented in the meta-world by a very confused Owen Taylor.

Suddenly this made me think of the ghosts of Umineko Past, Present and Future. I don't think I can replicate the associative chain in words though.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Suddenly this made me think of the ghosts of Umineko Past, Present and Future. I don't think I can replicate the associative chain in words though.

After an encounter with the Ghosts of Rokkenjima Past (Beatrice), Present (Battler), and Future (Ange-1998), Kinzo awakens in his study, throwing open the window and calling down to Kanon:

"Boy, what day is it!?"
"Why, it's October 4th, Kinzo-sama!"

An only slightly more improbable conclusion than the discovery that Beatrice was a sled. A 100-ton solid gold sled. Which he stores in his submarine.

[Oliver]

...That encounter would neatly explain why would Kinzo want to kill everyone though.