[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 6 Dawn of the golden witch

[Renall]

I don't actually think Knox's 4th specifically prohibits a person having a disease. There would probably have to be some evidence of course if a person isn't actively suffering from its effects in a way that is obvious.

Agatha Christie was always fond of people with conditions (usually physical of course), or people faking conditions, but it was always usually very clearly presented and central to the plot. The problem with a mental disorder is that a bad writer can always just write the person normally then pull out the crazy whenever they want.

It's harder to get around the guy with pneumonia killing someone at night without hacking up a storm and waking half the place, but it's a lot easier to be like "Surprise! He was schizophrenic!" without even stopping to consider how difficult it would be for a person like that to fit in and act normally the majority of the time.

If DID were involved somehow in Umineko, one would be forced to question the good sense of the people involved in covering it up and managing it, especially to have that person working on the day of the family conference, when stress and alterations to routine (routine can really help a person with a mental disorder, if it's maintained) would be at their peak.

[UsagiTenpura]

Concerning the final red.
I was thinking that Chronotrig is probaby right.
17 Humans/Persons refers to bodies/corpses.
At the point that red was said, Kyrie, Natsuhi, Rosa, Eva and Maria were dead.

6 Corpses (including Kinzo)
10 Normal Humans
1 Shkanon

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Judoh

It's like they introduced a checker piece on the chess board and said "since this piece is from outside the board it can move anywhere, make any number of moves during a turn, check any piece it wants, and it doesn't break any of the rules because it's not a chess piece.".

That is such a perfect description about Erika.
However I have to add something. Even for arc 1-2-3-4 pieces actions doesn't make necessarily realistic sense. I'm going to use an arc 6 example to prove my point.

Battler found a realistic and possible way to reset the chainlock from outside with the hanger thing. However he ultimately couldn't do it, because there is a rule against it. In a larger sense, the very idea that "character x" cannot do "action x" because of "knox x" is proof enough IMO that the character's actions doesn't make realistic sense. No person in their right mind would consider "red rules" and "knox rules" when making any actions at any times in their life.

Now if pieces are restricted from doing things that a person could normally do because of additional rules, I do not think it's unfair to have them doing things that normally no one can do. Possibly the best example is this : No matter what the culprit never failed so far. At the very least was never caught in the act. That's very unrealistic in itself.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Possibly the best example is this : No matter what the culprit never failed so far. At the very least was never caught in the act. That's very unrealistic in itself.

How do you know? What if they were killed in the act at least once?

[Renall]

Battler could not repair the chain lock from the outside because he didn't have time. Erika/"Erika" was not in the bathroom for long enough to engage in any complicated maneuvers.

Metaphorically, the reason none of his methods worked within the Logic Error itself is because the Logic Error solution was not based on the actions of one person from the start. Battler in fact could not escape alone; he did escape, and he did so with Kanon's help.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Oliver

How do you know? What if they were killed in the act at least once?

If that's the case that's even less realistic, even tho the culprit got killed, whoever did so never attempted to expose that culprit's truth. No matter what "excuse" the story gives, we know perfectly well that Knox 6th prevents the truth from simply coming up to Battler. As I said, at that point trying to make perfect sense out of the gameboard ends up creating more nonsense.

Actually Knox 6th makes it so no one except Battler and Erika even had the right to expose the truth.

Edit: What? Erika had the time to use tools to undo Battler's setup but he didn't have to reset a chain lock from outside? Not to mention that the game doesn't claim anything like that. You just decided on your own that Battler didn't have time to.

Beside Renal, seriously, think about this for one second.
You disbelieve everything about Shkanon, so all the Shkanon scenes are useless in arc 6 to you.
You disbelieve the meta-world being meaningful or true, again making all it's scenes useless.
You also disbelieve every scenes shown from Erika's pov within arc 6 (and I assume 5)
I assume you are aware that since death were faked at first, most scenes we see from other char's perspective is falsified.
Have to add, you also somehow believe that every red truth and knox rules just happens to be followed perfectly and that there's nothing weird about it.

What is even left of arc 6? The absurdly impossible Ange/Hachijou scenes? Maybe a few gameboard scene now and then.

[Renall]

Why would that be? There's plenty of reasons you could kill the culprit and not tell anybody. Maybe you intended to and got killed first. Or you thought you'd be accused of murder. Or it was random self-defense and you have no idea why you were attacked. Or you think there are others.

Beside Renal, seriously, think about this for one second.
You disbelieve everything about Shkanon, so all the Shkanon scenes are useless in arc 6 to you.
You disbelieve the meta-world being meaningful or true, again making all it's scenes useless.
You also disbelieve every scenes shown from Erika's pov within arc 6 (and I assume 5)
I assume you are aware that since death were faked at first, most scenes we see from other char's perspective is falsified.
Have to add, you also somehow believe that every red truth and knox rules just happens to be followed perfectly and that there's nothing weird about it.

None of these statements about what I "believe" are true.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Renall

Or you think there are others.None of these statements about what I "believe" are true.

I simply cumulated every theory and arguments you gave out so far. If you argue against your own belief then well okay, I have nothing to counter to that, but what's the point? I guess being a devil's advocate of some sort.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

I simply cumulated every theory and arguments you gave out so far. If you argue against your own belief then well okay, I have nothing to counter to that, but what's the point? I guess being a devil's advocate of some sort.

You haven't noticed me acting a devil's advocate before? Did you miss all those times I actually helped refine Shkanon arguments, which you know I personally think is a stupid answer?

You are also drawing ridiculous inferences. Saying people believe the story must "inexplicably" conform to the red is looking at the situation completely backwards. Pieces are not aware of the red. They are not aware of the meta-world. It has no influence on them. The meta-world is reflective of their actions; that they conform to the red and Knox rules is because the author has made that guarantee and the pieces act accordingly. They do not know instinctively that red exists, but their actions do not contradict it. This isn't weird or happenstance, this is conscious effort on ryukishi's part.

Also I have no idea where you got the idea that I consider Erika/"Erika's" perspective unreliable. As chronotrig has said, Meta-Erika may not even have access to "her" own perspective, relying on others like Dlanor to tell her what has happened or what she can do. Honestly, Piece-Erika's earnest first-person perspective is something I think very possibly could be trusted if we ever saw it, no matter who she is.

[UsagiTenpura]

I didn't claim you'd have to believe everything about arc 6, simply that you seems to believe nothing about it.
However I am sorry but no, what you're saying is exactly what I said. Characters just happens to follow the red and knox according to what you say.
I am not saying the pieces are aware of it, there's no reasons to believe so, but that's still what they do. So it's one of this:

Either someone controls them from a plane above the gameboard (such as Ryukishi) so that they follow all these rules, which still makes them rules that no normal person would have to follow, and still shows that it's not making perfect realistic sense.

Or they just happens to somehow act in a way that perfectly fits these rules by some sort of miracle.

[Renall]

It's not a miracle when you can actively select only those stories in which the rules are followed. It still must be possible that characters will act in conformity with them. If it were only within the nature of one character as written to violate Knox, the contradiction would be if he or she didn't. It isn't that hard to understand.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Renall

It isn't that hard to understand.

That's exactly how I feel as well.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Characters just happens to follow the red and knox according to what you say.

Sorry, but, I have to say that this is the only thing that makes sense, since the pieces aren't aware of the red. Haven't you ever noticed that the red describes what a piece did, as opposed to what they will do? Beato never says "And now Shannon will leave the mansion and go to the guest house!"

[Moogleking]

The red describes past events or the state of the world. There is no such thing as characters following the red.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by musouka

Sorry, but, I have to say that this is the only thing that makes sense, since the pieces aren't aware of the red. Haven't you ever noticed that the red describes what a piece did, as opposed to what they will do? Beato never says "And now Shannon will leave the mansion and go to the guest house!"

First, I won't bother to try to explain that any fiction doesn't make perfect realistic sense fundamentally.

Second, pieces not being aware of red/meta rules is suggesting that they are pieces. When you control a videogame character, said character is not aware they're being controlled. Any character in any story is never aware that the writer controls their actions, thought and feelings, even in the breaking the 4th wall case where the characters are made to say they are aware of it.

Edit : Do not make up arguments that I never made please. I never suggested a character follows red in that way.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

When you control a videogame character, said character is not aware they're being controlled.

You cannot control a videogame character by retroactive movement. What you're saying is like watching a cut scene and then claiming "I made that character walk across the screen". Again, red does not describe actions before they are taken, unless it is a foregone, inescapable conclusion. ("I will kill you.")

If what you are saying is true, the entire game would be in red.

[Kylon99]

You can control characters if they are characters in *your* story. As such, most of the story is under your control, although the plausibility is not always co-operative.

There could be many, many more things that can be stated in red in the game. Like maybe, if the things we suspect to be true are actually true there could be: "They were faking their deaths." Or "Kinzo wrote a will and gave it to Genji."

When I developed the Author Theory, the theory of the Red Text had to be developed along side it since that's the only logical place the Red could come from if it wasn't from something like.. 'magic did it.'

[Moogleking]

The problem is the only way you can really solve the mystery is by figuring out what people's motives are. If you attribute their motives to "They're in a story so the author made them act that way this time" then you might as well give up. You can explain nothing.

Whenever you start looking at any of the problems in the game "Why was Battler still in his room in ep6 after he faked death?" for example, you can counter it by saying "It is part of the game, so the actual person in the story doesn't really have a reason."

It doesn't help you solve the mystery at all. Instead, you only eliminate things that would have helped you reason about the people and the environment.

Unless you take each game as a series of real events, taken by real people with real motivations, hidden by the deception of the meta-world, the game is completely unsolvable.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Moogleking

The problem is the only way you can really solve the mystery is by figuring out what people's motives are. If you attribute their motives to "They're in a story so the author made them act that way this time" then you might as well give up. You can explain nothing.

Whenever you start looking at any of the problems in the game "Why was Battler still in his room in ep6 after he faked death?" for example, you can counter it by saying "It is part of the game, so the actual person in the story doesn't really have a reason."

It doesn't help you solve the mystery at all. Instead, you only eliminate things that would have helped you reason about the people and the environment.

Unless you take each game as a series of real events, taken by real people with real motivations, hidden by the deception of the meta-world, the game is completely unsolvable.

Well, no one said anything about giving up. And I don't subscribe exactly to the idea that EP6 is useless. Neither does the idea that something is fictional means that it's all useless. See the Author Theory + the Historical Method theory in my signature.


But wait a second... are you saying that a detective novel must actually have been a real event for it to be solvable? That's absurd. I mean.. the last time I read a Sherlock Holmes novel, I *know* it's fictional AND I know it's solvable.

A good author can author a story where the characters and events are believable. You don't need everything to be reality.

EDIT: In fact, rather than fiction, it is reality that can make a particular story unsolvable. Try the case of Jack the Ripper, for example

[Moogleking]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

Well, no one said anything about giving up. And I don't subscribe exactly to the idea that EP6 is useless. Neither does the idea that something is fictional means that it's all useless. See the Author Theory + the Historical Method theory in my signature.


But wait a second... are you saying that a detective novel must actually have been a real event for it to be solvable? That's absurd. I mean.. the last time I read a Sherlock Holmes novel, I *know* it's fictional AND I know it's solvable.

A good author can author a story where the characters and events are believable. You don't need everything to be reality.

EDIT: In fact, rather than fiction, it is reality that can make a particular story unsolvable. Try the case of Jack the Ripper, for example

You seem to be taking what I said slightly out of context. The detective novel must be based in a world where events and characters are real and their motivations are real. Everything must be presented as if it were real within the world of the story. In Umineko though, you have things outside of the story (gameboard) trying to deceive you about the events going on in it. People here are arguing, for example, that episode 6 doesn't have to make sense because it isn't really real. They're being deceived by the magic scenes into thinking that the characters and story don't have to make sense. If you believe that, you've lost Umineko.