2010-12-16, 10:24 | Link #19821 | ||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
At least with twins we have the option to find evidence showing one person is in the same place at the same time (thus indicating there are two people). There is absolutely no way to present affirmative evidence that two people are one person. "They never appear at the same time" is not evidence. Quote:
Natsuhi says "I'd like all the servants to be present for a meeting. I'll need Runon, Manon, Shannon, and Kanon present on that day." Shkanon does... what now? It's fiction. Quote:
No affirmative evidence exists before ep6. Sooooooooooo... Quote:
I have more faith in these people than that. The adults are flawed as hell, but they've been shown to rise to the occasion just as often, if not more often, than they falter. This "any of them could be blinded by money, enough to mass murder" goes too far. Do they need money? Yes. Are they desperate for money? Yes. Are they desperate enough to kill? I don't know, I hope not. Desperate enough to kill everyone? Come on, are you kidding me? EDIT: And Spectator's Authority didn't prevent Maria from putting her own spin on her meetings with Beatrice, remember. Similar to her red in ep6; Maria believes things in the context that she believes them. If it were possible that Eva willfully distorted her own truth to the point that she believed events as they were depicted in the Tea Party, it's theoretically possible to say that was some sort of Spectator Authority - Eva scenario.
__________________
|
||||
2010-12-16, 11:22 | Link #19822 | |
Sticky Fingers
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
Then there's a page saying that there was no sound (at first), but then comes the next one that says that someone answered and it resounded in the middle of the theater: Spoiler for Anouncing:
This is the important page. The final line says "まるで、演目の始まりを告げるかのようだった。", which is basically: "almost as if to inform of the beginning of a musical". And the very next page is: Spoiler for hesodemokande:
Spoiler for babaa:
Eva. |
|
2010-12-16, 11:53 | Link #19823 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: HK, China
|
I am dubious about the EP7 tea party being narration of Eva's point of view,
because I don't think she knew or thought that Shannon loved Battler before loving George, and the meeting was supposedly secret between Shannon and George, Eva should not have any idea about it, while being in the mansion all the time.
__________________
|
2010-12-16, 11:55 | Link #19824 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Hmmm. You are right, I completely forgot about that, or rather at the time I thought that was just another way for Bern to mock Ange.
But the problem still remains. How could Eva have misunderstood that much? Frankly speaking I think Musouka's idea that it's all true makes more sense than the idea that it was just a huge misunderstanding from Eva's part. If anything I'd say this is the version of the story of an Eva that lost her sanity since a long time, or something she made up completely to torture Ange and hide the truth. @Ijirmis: Or maybe the true culprit is George and Eva created that story to give Ange the worst answer to her persisting questions. That of course means that Eva realized the "truth" of Shannon, George and Battler in that unfortunate day.
__________________
|
2010-12-16, 12:19 | Link #19825 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
|
Quote:
To put it another way, could you prove that Kinzo was dead before the reveal in EP4? Many of us guessed it, since it was the easiest of Umineko's secrets, but I don't think there's any absolute evidence for it. However, even though it can't be proven, it makes many scenes add up in a way they didn't before, so people accept it as a good theory. Shkanon is the same. Whether you noticed them or not (I didn't), there are plenty of hints to let people think up the theory. This has been proven beyond any doubt by the simple fact that it existed before EP5. And, if you apply that theory, several scenes like the (now confirmed) lack of Shannon's corpse in EP1, the EP2 backstory scenes (which must be reread to be understood), the EP3 first twilight (why did the culprit choose to make a closed room of that complicated shape), and the lack of Kanon's corpse in EP2 and EP4 all make sense. To simplify this even more, EP3 is the only time in any game when both corpses are found, and in every other game, at least one of them disappears at or immediately after the first twilight, never to be seen again, dead or alive. Quote:
I'll add that, if Natsuhi instead says "I want to meet all of the servants right now", Genji or Shannon can just say that Kanon is in Kinzo's study. Natsuhi isn't allowed in there, and the rumors suggest that some servants have spent large amounts of time alone with Kinzo in his study. The fact that Kinzo's sudden whims make for an excellent excuse has been pounded into us over and over again by now. Quote:
The point of Umineko is that we can't open the cat box and question the witnesses. No matter how much we suspected that Kinzo was dead, we couldn't have proven it until the answer was confirmed in EP4. But we could still make theories about it and find the answer.
__________________
Last edited by chronotrig; 2010-12-16 at 12:45. |
|||
2010-12-16, 12:43 | Link #19826 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
But Renall still has a point that a normal person would begin to suspect something if two servants never showed up at the same time and place for three years. And if you add to that the fact that they also look very similar...
There's another interesting thing to consider. Is there are any proof that a male fukuin servant ever existed before Kanon? Regardless of Yasu's true sex we can be pretty sure that she was introduced as a female. We have also never seen any servant that wasn't female. In addition Yasu was the only one that stayed in a single room. I strongly doubt that Natsuhi would allow mixing male and female servants in the same bedrooms, so you can't postulate that there was a single male fukuin servant, there should have been at least two. But that's very unlikely considering another proof: Jessica was surprised when she saw a male fukuin servant. Which means it was something unusual. Considering all this, it is very unlikely that Kanon would pass unobserved. Natsuhi and Krauss would probably consider him an anomaly as much as they did with Yasu.
__________________
|
2010-12-16, 14:11 | Link #19827 | ||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Seeing them at the same time would be evidence that tends to prove they are not the same person. Asking to meet one while the other is present and repeatedly getting excuses (a la Will's insistence in ep7) would be evidence that tends to prove they are (or at least that something is wrong with seeing both at once). Finding Shannon's outfit hastily tossed on a bed in a guestroom you saw Kanon leaving would tend to prove they are (even if there might be some other reason, like Shannon slipping out a window naked for some reason). In ep1-4, Battler never puts himself in a circumstance in which he would be suspicious that Kanon and Shannon are not directly present at the same time. In fact, the only time he believes himself to be in proximity to both is ep1's First Twilight, and he can't confirm it. Nor does he seem to think it impossible, or follow up on it in any way. This is exactly the opposite of evidence. It's barely even considered to be circumstantial. It isn't "proof" in the sense that it isn't a fact that tends to make something more or less true. Not seeing two people together at the same time is a fact, it's just not a fact that tends to show that a conclusion (they are one person/they aren't one person) is more likely to be true. It may be a fact worth investigating, but it isn't proof of anything. And note that they do appear together, out of Battler's sight. Disguise theories require us to believe every single scene of this nature is deceptive or metaphorical. Kinzo in fact is different, because there is evidence that tends to show this is true. Scenes with Kinzo in his office being magical or inconsistently-characterized. Refusal by Krauss and Natsuhi to ever let anyone see him under any circumstances. The way Rosa dismisses protecting him after "speaking" with him. The reaction Krauss has to Kyrie's suggestion (and the suggestion itself) that Kinzo is already dead. The fact that his body is always incinerated. It's a mountain of circumstantial evidence and one direct piece of affirmative evidence (the constantly burned corpse). To make the two remotely equivalent, people would only have gone as far as "No one can see Father." "Okay." And then never discussed it again or cared. "No one can see Kinzo because he doesn't want visitors" by itself is not evidence that tends to prove it more or less true that he's alive or dead. It's the dearth of evidence that damns it, not the circumstantial nature. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course we're warned against that in ep5. But the point is, "proof" is not an absolute standard. It depends on what you're willing to accept. If you can accept Erika's circumstantial evidence, then you can accept her conclusion. If you can't, you won't. If you can accept Bernkastel's presentation, you can accept her conclusion too. If not, you can't. If you can accept Battler's answer in ep8 (presumably), you can accept his conclusion. Could any case be wrong? Could Ryukishi flat-out say "This is the truth: <statement answering everything>," and could we still doubt it? Yep. But I don't think Disguise Shkanon passes any reasonable standard of "proof" on the evidence of ep1-4 alone. A fiction approach avoids all these problems and is actually supported by more evidence and by direct evidence that physically exists (or at least, that we're told exists).
__________________
|
||||
2010-12-16, 14:30 | Link #19828 |
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
I don't agree that the oddity of Shannon and Kanon never being together didn't reach any warning level. Like at all.
Why are you creating your argument on piece Battler's perspective? Who the hell cares? For us readers there were tons of hints to reach that conclusion. Id didn't say that I was 99% sure that there was a reason for them to never show up together in front of Battler back when EP5 still needed to be released for nothing. I rarely say that I'm totally sure about something, but when I do I'm almost always correct, because when I do, I have pretty damn good evidences and rational arguments to support that claim. The evidence of Shannon and Kanon never showing up together and the strangeness related to the excuses that made that possible paired with the persistence of that pattern throughout the various episodes were alarmingly high. It was also noticed, and not only by me, that Kanon seemed to work like an internal conscious for Shannon, considering that he just happened to see scenes involving Shannon while remaining completely unnoticed by others, as if he was some kind of ninja.
__________________
|
2010-12-16, 14:36 | Link #19829 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
If we don't focus on Piece-Battler, then there is mountainous evidence that Shannon and Kanon are separate people. People who favor Shkanon have to work hard to deny those things, and forcing Piece-Battler's primacy is usually the way they do it. I'm just playing that game.
Regardless, are you using meta-fictional knowledge to draw conclusions from the facts made? The same way we could use, say, Knox and Dine to attempt to eliminate culprits? I'd be careful with that. Makes you wonder whether that's some kind of trap. A fair mystery shouldn't require us to look to outside "rules" or meta-knowledge of how a genre "works" to solve it. If ep1-4 are fair mysteries (or a fair mystery), we should not need facts not in evidence (i.e. outside sources).
__________________
|
2010-12-16, 14:37 | Link #19830 | ||||
The True Culprit
|
Quote:
Thump. "SUPER HOT LOL TEEN HORMONES." Jessica's consistently shown to be not that smart. Quote:
Also, "Try and do anything about my evil Shkanon plot or try and fire me or I tell everyone about Kinzo, bitch." Quote:
EVERYTHING SEGUES TOGETHER HAHA I WIN. Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2010-12-16, 14:43 | Link #19831 | ||
別にいいけど
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
|
Quote:
You are using the usual double standard on the matter. You have clearly used evidence that was outside of piece-Battler's perspective to prove your point on Kinzo just on the post before. Quote:
Admit it, you are using a double standard. You can't see this matter objectively.
__________________
|
||
2010-12-16, 14:52 | Link #19832 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
|
Quote:
Spoiler for Inconsistant characterization:
Spoiler for Refusal to let people see Kinzo:
And I don't see how the burned corpse in any way proves that Kinzo was dead before the start of the games. If you're going to count that, why don't you count the fact that either Kanon's corpse or Shannon's corpse is missing in nearly every game, and Kanon's corpse was only checked once in EP3 at the end of a suspicious chain of closed rooms?
__________________
Last edited by chronotrig; 2010-12-16 at 15:04. |
|
2010-12-16, 15:27 | Link #19833 | |||||||
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
I won't be so foolish as to get into a shouting match over who is viewing this matter "objectively." No one can view this matter objectively. My position is very clear on what I think is true. As is yours. Pot, kettle, much? Accusing me of being non-objective is an empty argument. I'm not objective, but I am capable of looking at a situation rationally. And I can see nothing that would permit a rational conclusion as to what is being proposed. "Shkanon" can still be true, but it cannot be true that Shannon and Kanon are one character within the fiction (even if Yasu was essentially both of them at heart in her own existence) because the story simply does not address that. A matter which is not even relevant to the fiction cannot be portrayed as such a critical element. It would be as foolish as believing Huck Finn is secretly Abraham Lincoln. We can't find anything saying otherwise, but we don't have any proof they're not. All we can really say is "I don't think Mark Twain was trying to even address that possibility." The difference here is I think Ryukishi, consciously aware of Shmion, knew everyone would jump to the Shkanon conclusion and let the fictional characters aspect slip right under their noses because they'd willfully misread all the scenes as "evidence" of Shkanon rather than evidence of something else. You're looking at "suspicious circumstances" and concluding that only one answer could possibly explain it. As to whether only one answer can explain it, I can't say. As to whether your answer does explain it, it does not. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And it's patently untrue that "no one saw Kinzo." Kinzo was seen four times by Battler. In fact, he supposedly saw him every single episode. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||
2010-12-16, 16:03 | Link #19834 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
|
Quote:
You call Kinzo's behavior inconsistent, but can you provide some concrete examples of how? You demand examples from Shkanon supporters, so this is hardly an unfair request. It needs to be something more solid that "well, in one game, he decided not to write a will, but in another, he reluctantly agreed". That's not a change in character, it's just a different decision he made, and could have been caused by a slightly different series of events preceding the story or after the story starts. Quote:
I'll take EP4, since it's the easiest to argue. According to Battler, Kyrie claimed that Kanon's corpse fell into the well as they were climbing out. It seems very unlikely that it was even possible to enter or exit the well, so this part is almost certainly a lie, either by Kyrie or someone holding Kyrie hostage. So, why would anyone lie about this? If we use your own reasoning, the most likely reason for hiding a corpse is because the corpse, in its undamaged form, would be suspect for some reason. Why would Kanon's corpse be suspect? Unlike Kinzo's case, the answer isn't obvious, but the problem is still just as clear.
__________________
Last edited by chronotrig; 2010-12-16 at 16:15. |
||
2010-12-16, 16:30 | Link #19835 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
The main differences are Weepy Kinzo, Brooding Kinzo (these two are self-evident and not entirely inconsistent), Natsuhi's Kinzo (which is blatantly out of character with the others), and Goldsmith. Those are quite different interpretations of Kinzo, and that's fine if they're interpretations. But that is circumstantial evidence that he himself is fictional. The difference is Kinzo's existence is an acknowledged "reality." However, the Kinzo we see is a fiction. Because there is no "living Kinzo." "Ushiromiya Kinzo" is dead, and filling his role is a fictional Kinzo.
I think there is a blatant overlooking of the unusual nature in which Kanon and Shannon seem to have character development between episodes. They are not suddenly more or less knowledgeable about Beatrice; they actually gain knowledge as they interact with her more. This is impossible given an episodic structure, but it is entirely consistent with the idea of a continuous narrative (and we do have one of those in Umineko in spite of episodic structures). Pretend for a moment that 1-4 are a continuous narrative in spite of the looping:
The question of something like "why can't furniture love?" is misstated. Why can't fictional characters love? Of course they can. They just need to work their way to it. Again, that doesn't mean Shannon and Kanon != Yasu. It just means Yasu isn't in her own stories, and later stories unknowingly omit her. Yet those that seek the "truth" pay the fictions their due and allow them their happy ending in ep6. But those aren't the only "characters" that matter, as George says.
__________________
|
2010-12-16, 17:15 | Link #19836 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
|
Quote:
Goldsmith can hardly count as a different interpretation of Kinzo, since we only see him after Kyrie suggests that Kinzo might be dead. Hints after the answer has been stated, whether it's confirmed or not, can hardly be used in an analogy with Shkanon. So, in the end, there isn't much of a contradiction in behavior at all. Just one scene where he displays an improbable but not impossible regard for Natsuhi. The real problem with his personality is how crazy it is, not that it changes a lot. And I don't think mood swings in a character like Kinzo count as a personality change. As for your arguments about Shannon and Kanon, I agree that there's something strange about them, but why are you assuming that it's an entirely different 'strangeness' from the one we see in Kinzo? By that, I mean assuming that it's a level of fiction that exists outside of the games, not inside. The fact that Kinzo doesn't make sense might hint that he's a fictional character, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he died at time X before the crime and people A, B, and C knew about it and kept quiet for reason Y. In the same way, even if we guess that Shannon and Kanon are fictional characters, that doesn't necessarily explain all the details of why that is the case. We could go with a Double-trice theory where both Shannon and Kanon are assumed personalities, if we want. That's why you need to consider external evidence. For example, do you have an explanation for why Kanon's corpse was hidden in EP4?
__________________
|
|
2010-12-16, 17:24 | Link #19838 |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
While I think Kanon's corpse probably should be explained I want to point out that this is not the only thing Kyrie lies about during that phone call. She's also not the only person who does this in that episode. Minus a phone call from George to Jessica of the same reliability there is no reason Jessica should know any of the things she says she does.
__________________
|
2010-12-16, 17:32 | Link #19839 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-12-16, 17:33 | Link #19840 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Kyrie suggesting Kinzo is dead is not the same as "the answer has now been provided that Kinzo is dead." Kinzo is only confirmed dead at the end, by Beatrice. A character suggesting something may be true is not a solvability lock, else Shannontrice would've been locked down halfway through the first or second episode.
chronotrig also clearly did not read what I wrote if he thinks Fictional Shkanon and Fictional Kinzo are any different. I believe this represents a fundamental misunderstanding, which is pretty annoying because you've always been very close to the idea as I'm advancing it. Getting over the disguise hump is incredibly liberating. There's no need for all this backpedaling and scrambling to explain anything. You no longer have to defend a concept which is not necessary or essential. It makes thematic sense, is supported by multiple story elements and general forms of evidence, and is a repeated concept in both the original stories and Chiru. The Battler thing becomes both a hint and misdirection, the ep5 scene requires no bending on anyone's part to explain, and the ep6 resolution has an answer that relies on neither physical nor personality death. Really, does it benefit to hold out on it? Based on what you've told me yourself, chronotrig, this works quite well with theories you've held forever, bar some minor modifications. And, I should note, it allows Yasu to exist as a character in the ep1-4 story without actually existing in Shannon, Kanon, or Beatrice.
__________________
|
|
|