[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Leafsnail]

Well, it says noone else can claim the name of Kanon.

Not that Kanon can't claim other names.

[winter 923]

A Name identiefies a Person. It is proven that 2 Persons do not need 2 Bodys (not in the game or in red but in the real world). An Alter Ego is an acepted different Person. Shannon and Kanon are only aliases. ofc no one can claim to be someone who he is not. Shannon can not claim to be Kanon not even his Name that does not change the fact that Shannon=Sayo and Kanon=Yoshiya since these are only Aliases (It is possible that all of these are alliases so Kanon=Yoshiya=?). If Shkannon is true they also share the same Body.
So BodyX=Shannon+Kanon. but Shannon ≠ Kannon. The only problem i have with that theory is that she could kill off a Persona on free will, so it seems. This is highly arguable. Shannon can not kill Kanon sporadically. Kanon can not kill himself sporadically. This is a long process which often is futile. If they both are different Personas one can not kill another off. Faking death ofc would be possible. For now i accept Shkannon as one of many still functionable theories.

[Verg Avesta]

During my re-play of episode 6, there's something strange I noticed in one of the final scenes. Namely, the way that Erika is killed. After Beato uses her red truth to deny the existence of Kanon inside the guest room, we have a small flash of Dlanor suddenly jumping into scene, yelling to Beatrice that she should "say no more, it's over already" or something similiar. No matter how you look at this, it's as if Dlanor thinks Beato is going overboard. The scene flashes so fast it does not even show up in the read-history.

Now, combine this with the fact that when Erika is dying, Gertrude says she is suffering from a "third degree concept denial". This might sound like a magical mumbo-jumbo, but if one actually thinks about those words, they start to sound strange. Instead of just being some kind of wound from having her theory shot down, doesn't it sound more like Beatrice denied Erika herself?

Now, combine this with Erika's speech about how she can finally face the truth about herself. To be honest, to me during that re-play, it started sound less like Erika's theories about Kanon being denied, but about Erika herself being suddenly denied. But how would that red truth deny the concept of "Erika"?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

Now, combine this with Erika's speech about how she can finally face the truth about herself. To be honest, to me during that re-play, it started sound less like Erika's theories about Kanon being denied, but about Erika herself being suddenly denied. But how would that red truth deny the concept of "Erika"?

..."Yoshiya" is a gender-irrelevant name...

[Verg Avesta]

Originally Posted by Oliver

..."Yoshiya" is a gender-irrelevant name...

Well....

This opened up a kind of disturbing possibility...

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Verg Avesta

This opened up a kind of disturbing possibility...

There's actually more to it. I'm reading the script directly at the moment and noticed something.

Erika (narration): "If I only notice the closet, she'll have Kanon hide under the bed. And if I only notice the bed, she'll have Kanon hide in the closet. Even though either one would be right, I'd lose no matter which I chose. Unless I expose both at the same time, I can't checkmate her...!" (Emphasis mine.)

Then Erika proceeds to wax poetic about how this is a "legitimate logic trick" in a witch's game, a cheap sleight of hand and cheating in a mystery, and how beautiful it would be.

Now... what exactly is so beautiful about hiding somewhere other than the closet!? Why exactly cannot Erika cite both hiding places in one blue sentence, how would it make it any less valid? What exactly prevents Beatrice from saying "Kanon does not exist in the guest room" right now, does she want to draw it out?

And does Erika in the end hit both hiding places at the same time? No, she doesn't!

Therefore, something limits Erika to only making a single shot, wherein the second shot will always inevitably fail and produce "Kanon does not exist in the room" whether she guesses right on the first shot or not.

It's like Erika is hiding in one of those two hiding places herself and until she is uncovered, the other may be occupied by Kanon, but once she uncovers one and finds nobody there, neither her nor Kanon are allowed to exist in the room.

[Jan-Poo]

Now I think there's something that most people are forgetting about Erika's erasing.

Battler was about to be erased as well in EP4.

[Verg Avesta]

Originally Posted by Oliver

It's like Erika is hiding in one of those two hiding places herself and until she is uncovered, the other may be occupied by Kanon, but once she uncovers one and finds nobody there, neither her nor Kanon are allowed to exist in the room.

This thought actually occurred to me too. I guess a good example would be to think that there are two "slots" in the guest room in which a person can exist. When two of them are open, both Erika and Kanon can exist there simultaneously. However, if other is revealed to contain no one, it becomes impossible for there to exist two people in the room.

Note also how Erika literally "dies" after the showdown. She just got her blue truth denied, nothing more. Battler did not die after something like that. And as Eiserne Jungfrau say, Bernkastel is not there. She can't throw Erika into that "worst kakera there is" if she's not present, so it cannot be that. Erika literally dies and is erased, just like she is in the TIPS screen. Unless it would be something that'd erased her existence, I don't think any red truth would affect her that way.

It can be argued that the death is because of the dueling pistols, but I find that unlikely. Kanon did not get erased after getting shot. He stayed in the meta-level, didn't he?

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Now I think there's something that most people are forgetting about Erika's erasing.

Battler was about to be erased as well in EP4.

Do you mean that stuff about not being the son of Ushiroymia Asumu?

[Sniesk]

Originally Posted by chronotrig

I agree with you for the most part, so I'm not sure what you're taking issue with here.

The point is that for this reason there is nothing strange for Erika to use the red. Since she achieved certainty in killing them, she can say it in red. And since the GM cannot change the fact that they were alive anymore (she attacked them and they probably resisted, so she witnessed the content of that cat box) she can say in red that they were alive. Even without Detective Authority, she witnessed with her piece to a scene that can't be false as it would mean that her piece is lying to "herself" and faking her perspective.

[winter 923]

did Erika not destroy herself? stating she is a detective while killing...tststs.

[UsagiTenpura]

Sorta random, but in Arc 5 Ronove says that "you can scribble on the board or throw the pieces at your opponent"(but it wouldn't be elegant). My understanding of the inconsistencies of arc 5 and 6 (mainly Erika's odd behaviors and having everyone trying to bully Natsuhi) are a result of just that. The "Rokkenjima game" is meant to be played while staying "in character" and do proper "roleplay" but in arc 5 and Erika's actions in arc 6 evades that, basically pushing them to the limit of "possible".

Also, in the author theory "scribble on the board" can sorta explain why Erika can use red truth imo.

[m0h]

Originally Posted by Sniesk

The point is that for this reason there is nothing strange for Erika to use the red. Since she achieved certainty in killing them, she can say it in red. And since the GM cannot change the fact that they were alive anymore (she attacked them and they probably resisted, so she witnessed the content of that cat box) she can say in red that they were alive. Even without Detective Authority, she witnessed with her piece to a scene that can't be false as it would mean that her piece is lying to "herself" and faking her perspective.

I'd like to point out something that integrates what my italian brother said. ( Ehila' fratello! )
We can now define Red Truth as "an action witnessed or verified by the user"

Look at what's been elevated at Red Truth status: Dlanor's seals ( made by hand by Erika ) and Erika's murders ( she personally sewered her victims' heads )
though, Red Truth is simple truth , not perfect truth, so Red truth can be sometimes surpassed by Gold Truth ( that's controlled by the Game Master ) and other times can surpass Gold Truth ( since Erika can effect the time flow of the game, her red EXPERIENCED truth can surpass any Gold Truth Battler would have thrown at her. IMHO. )

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Sniesk

The point is that for this reason there is nothing strange for Erika to use the red. Since she achieved certainty in killing them, she can say it in red. And since the GM cannot change the fact that they were alive anymore (she attacked them and they probably resisted, so she witnessed the content of that cat box) she can say in red that they were alive. Even without Detective Authority, she witnessed with her piece to a scene that can't be false as it would mean that her piece is lying to "herself" and faking her perspective.

My whole point for the section was that Erika can't just 'witness' everything her piece does. Remember, the whole point of EP6 was to show us that nothing is set in stone until the Game Master shows it. So, it's possible for the Game Master to have two different stories at the same time. If so, which one would piece-Erika see?

For example, what if Battler was planning two tricks, one were those 5 were dead, and one where they were alive. That way, if Erika struck down one theory, he could just switch to the other (and the last scene of EP6 confirms that this is a valid way for the witch to fight). In that case, would Erika see them as alive or dead when she goes behind Battler's back?

[Jan-Poo]

I don't agree with that.

Since the detective has absolute objective perspective, the knox rules themselves can elevate anything that the detective sees into a red text.

So the option to change what a detective has witnessed does not exist. That would be automatically a logic error.

[Leafsnail]

Battler was only allowed to retrospectively change his plot since Erika retrospectively changed her actions. That's what she said when she found the letter and "remembered" she'd actually sealed Battler's room.

[Oliver]

Checking my memory against collective memory.

Does George, ever, tell Shannon explicitly that he loves her, in no uncertain terms, no lines cut short? Does she ever do the same?

There's one instance of George saying "'Shannon, I love you'. With just those words, I can stand back up, over and over again." but - he says that to Gaap of all people, and calls her "Shannon" instead of "Sayo".

With all the sap poured over the topic, you would think there would be an instance of him saying that to her face, but I can't find it.

...help?...

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Checking my memory against collective memory.

Does George, ever, tell Shannon explicitly that he loves her, in no uncertain terms, no lines cut short? Does she ever do the same?

There's one instance of George saying "'Shannon, I love you'. With just those words, I can stand back up, over and over again." but - he says that to Gaap of all people, and calls her "Shannon" instead of "Sayo".

With all the sap poured over the topic, you would think there would be an instance of him saying that to her face, but I can't find it.

...help?...

I don't remember an instance of that. But Ryukishi did say that they do love each other in an interview, if I remember correctly. I cannot quote that interview though, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

I don't remember an instance of that. But Ryukishi did say that they do love each other in an interview, if I remember correctly. I cannot quote that interview though, so take it with a grain of salt.

Tracking down that interview to see what he said exactly would be very interesting, any leads?

[chronotrig]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I don't agree with that.

Since the detective has absolute objective perspective, the knox rules themselves can elevate anything that the detective sees into a red text.

So the option to change what a detective has witnessed does not exist. That would be automatically a logic error.

Again, I don't disagree with you here. We're not talking about changing what the detective has witnessed, we're talking about how the detective is even able to witness things in the first place. How does Erika know what was going on in Battler's mind?

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

I don't remember an instance of that. But Ryukishi did say that they do love each other in an interview, if I remember correctly. I cannot quote that interview though, so take it with a grain of salt.

I remember reading that too, but I can't find the interview where he said it.