[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Raiza Sunozaki

This reminds me of an interesting thing I thought up a while ago.
I've stated before (maybe not here though) that I hate manipulation of the red. I think the whole point of giving us the absolute truth shown through the red is so that we can accept it as true. However, this does not neccessitate the belief that the all the red is needed.

...

The red is sort of like the boundaries of the games; it gives us the limits to what we can think up for solutions. But when the red is used like this, it expands the boundaries in the game in ways we don't need, and it only serves to confuse us.
Another example is the uncertainty of Kinzo in Episode 5. We all know that Kinzo is dead, but that fact is left unknown to Erika, by some sense of amusement on Bern and Lambda's part. And when Kinzo was used in the red, it created an incorrect area of possibilities for her to use.

I share your concerns, and I think Oliver has addressed the matter adequately from a mechanical perspective. Let me try to assuage your concerns (though I can't dispense with them as I share many of them) philosophically:

First, the red is still true. It has never been the case anywhere in Umineko that the red is a lie. In the sense that Beatrice's original statement of "When I speak the truth, I will use red" remains unchallenged, we can trust the red to give us the truth.

The issue here is not a disconnect with the mechanism. It's a disconnect with the philosophical and semantic construction of "truth."

We want to be able to trust things which are true because we believe, inherently, that true statements hold more value than uncertain statements (false statements have an equivalent truth value to true ones in some cases and a superior one in others but I'll not get into that, though perhaps I should). This is strictly a value judgment and informationally it isn't necessarily correct. A statement can be "true" and present us with almost no information at all.

Example: You're driving along a road when I flag you down and tell you to stop. I warn you that "You can't cross the river ahead." How many ways can this statement be "true?"

• There is no way to cross the river ahead. You physically cannot cross.
• There is a bridge across the river ahead, but it's out of service, blocked, collapsed, or otherwise inaccessible. You cannot cross by circumstance.
• There is a way to cross the river ahead, but it requires such incredible skill that I do not surmise you are capable of doing it, and my assertion is correct. You cannot cross because of a personal trait, though others might.
• There is a perfectly accessible and crossable bridge, but if you go across you will be shot and killed because the other side of the bridge is under quarantine or lockdown. You can cross, but my warning asserted upon you a moral imperative not to cross with the implicit warning that doing so would be dangerous.
• You can't cross the river "ahead," but you can take a turn-off and cross it a little ways down the road. You are only temporarily unable to cross.
• There is no river ahead. You cannot cross something that doesn't exist to be crossed.

As you can see, all of these are possible interpretations of a logically true statement, but none of them are particularly useful in helping you think about the situation. In fact, my statement pretty much just makes thinking confusing without giving you any information at all. It would have been better for me to clarify, or for you to have continued along and investigated for yourself. However, if it was my goal to deliberately make you question what I meant, an ambiguous truth like this perfectly suits my objectives.

However, Beatrice never said red existed to make the game easier, just to make it sporting. She has, in fact, deliberately used it to mislead and has intentionally employed linguistic twisting. Thus, any hope we have that the red is not being "misused" should be discarded, because it is clear that we in fact can expect it to be utilized in a fashion which confuses us. Battler theorizes in ep2 that the red is a weapon, but that it actually limits Beatrice. That isn't necessarily true, so long as no truth value is being conceded with a given statement.

Example: Imagine a very poorly-phrased or conceived blue text theory (say... small bombs, or time travel). Denying this in red has no actual effect of weakening the position of the witch side. If it was patently absurd from the beginning, saying so doesn't do anything useful. For blue to be of any use it must be specifically grounded enough that defeating it with red forces a concession of truth which is, if not completely clear, at least reliably useful. Otherwise you wind up with misleading red that is too open to interpretation. In short, Battler's "shotgun" theory of the blue text is actually the worst possible way it can be used.

One could argue that the blue can be used to just guess every theory that can exist and it will eventually be right. But that's wrong. It can only work if one is capable of guessing every possible theory. The red allows assumption to enter the picture, which leads the blue text user into meandering territory by making them self-eliminate possibilities that have not actually been excluded. The purpose of red is not to shorten the boundaries of the game. Intentionally expanding them is an entirely valid method. Beatrice, of course, refused to do this (hence not permitting Battler to ever claim a Person X even though this would ensure he never gets anything right). But we know that Beatrice wanted her game to be solvable and thus made it so.

There is no such guarantee in Chiru, even with the presence of Knox rules. Indeed, Knox is itself a misleading thing. There is one very conspicuously absent thing from Knox's ruleset, irrespective of what Dlanor claims about the solvability of mysteries which uses it.

Did you notice?

It doesn't say anywhere that a solution has to exist... or that only one must exist.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

However, Beatrice never said red existed to make the game easier, just to make it sporting. She has, in fact, deliberately used it to mislead and has intentionally employed linguistic twisting. Thus, any hope we have that the red is not being "misused" should be discarded, because it is clear that we in fact can expect it to be utilized in a fashion which confuses us. Battler theorizes in ep2 that the red is a weapon, but that it actually limits Beatrice. That isn't necessarily true, so long as no truth value is being conceded with a given statement.

Example:

None of the six people committed suicide!

Virgilia: "Don't be fooled Battler there is something hidden in what she's saying"

Battler: Hey that's right! She said "None of the six committed suicide" Not "All of the six were killed by other people"!.

But she did improve later when she said Rosa and Maria were killed by other people. I'd say that in a way episode 3 shows Beato can be a bit incompetent too when she gets hot headed. She almost said in red that Kinzo (one of the six people) didn't die in an accident when Ronove stopped her.

[Raiza Sunozaki]

Originally Posted by Renall

*snip*

Thanks Renall, it seems you're on the same wavelength as I am.

I've been thinking, and I don't think Ryuukishi is meaning to create a deep complicated explanation to the red text. I've seen a lot of theories pop up on what the red text, from the guidelines of the story to a tool which allows modification of the story as it's progressing. To me, it just seems to further muddle the story by altering the definition of something which is already given to us.
So, I've decided just to accept it for what it is: the truth. To me, it's simply just a way of saying, in this messed up gameboard where truth is something that is hard to find, that this simple fact is undeniably true.
Ryuukishi is writing Umineko to the general otaku populace, right? That means, if we trust Ryuukishi to give us a fair game, we shouldn't need complicated philisophical solutions or abuse of twisted logic to solve the games. It's not a fun game if it isn't solvable by most of it's target audience.

Even though I keep telling myself to do so, I still haven't run through the first four Episodes again with the knowledge I've gained from Episode 5 and this thread. I really need to...

[Judoh]

On an unrelated note I just realized a flight accident related to the Korean war happened on 11/29 (from 07151129) in 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858

EDIT: hey this is pretty interesting actually.

Two North Korean agents left a bomb in the passenger cabin before departing the plane in a stopover at Abu Dhabi International Airport. The aircraft exploded over the Andaman Sea. Subsequent investigation and testimony by one of the perpetrators implicated Kim Jong-il, the son of North Korean President Kim Il-sung, in the plot.

November 29th is also apparently C.S. Lewis's birthday

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

"You can't cross the river ahead." How many ways can this statement be "true?"

• There is a bridge across the river ahead, but it's out of service, blocked, collapsed, or otherwise inaccessible. You cannot cross by circumstance.
• There is a way to cross the river ahead, but it requires such incredible skill that I do not surmise you are capable of doing it, and my assertion is correct. You cannot cross because of a personal trait, though others might.

Actually, I've been thinking about this. We all know how people try to get around the red, and we know it doesn't feel right but we can't explain it except in the most egregious situations. But I believe there is one more context for the red that we must take into account which should cut some of the points down from your list:

The red must be within the context of the story and not real life. If you take this into account then the two I've left above should be upheld by the red. Not sure about the rest though... (a bit too exhausted to think 100% clearly right now.)


A lot of the anti-red arguing I've seen tries to account for the red as if it was occurring in reality. If this was the case, then no red can possibly be true. For example, you can definitely cross any river up ahead, given enough time, willpower or resources. But in the story?

It's like how you play certain games; you don't act surprised when you walk into an invisible wall at the edge of the map. If the game was real, you *could* walk all the way to the province of Morrowind; but this is a game, there's nothing out there.


Note that this idea doesn't require you to believe in the Author Theory or anything. We know that Beatrice in effect 'authored' the games. And so did Lambda and Battler.


Speaking of Battler, I wanted to point out something else. Although he's been called the detective along with Erika, neither of them are effective at actually solving the puzzle. I don't know of any story where the detective actually failed except perhaps for "And Then There Were None." (Coincidence? heh.) But we've had 6 constant failures by the detective now.

I propose that Battler and Erika, though they may be called the 'detective' are actually characters working against the reader. In other words, because they aren't part of the solution, they are Ryukishi's method of introducing incorrect theories. This is probably part of the idea Ryukishi mentioned in EP6 when the family was playing the cheese cutting puzzle. That we've been primed incorrectly and can't think of the solution because of that. I suspect that that is Battler and Erika's role (from Ryukishi, at least.)

My semi-evidence for this is Beatrice telling Battler that is he 'incompetent' in red. 8) (To Battler)そなたは無能だ！

EDIT:
Actually, if the red holds for the context of the story then it seems to uphold:

There is no way to cross the river ahead. You physically cannot cross.
There is a bridge across the river ahead, but it's out of service, blocked, collapsed, or otherwise inaccessible. You cannot cross by circumstance.
There is a way to cross the river ahead, but it requires such incredible skill that I do not surmise you are capable of doing it, and my assertion is correct. You cannot cross because of a personal trait, though others might.
There is a perfectly accessible and crossable bridge, but if you go across you will be shot and killed because the other side of the bridge is under quarantine or lockdown. You can cross, but my warning asserted upon you a moral imperative not to cross with the implicit warning that doing so would be dangerous.

The last one I'm not sure about as described as moral imperative, but if you think about getting shot before you can cross the bridge then that holds... 8)

You can't cross the river "ahead," but you can take a turn-off and cross it a little ways down the road. You are only temporarily unable to cross.
There is no river ahead. You cannot cross something that doesn't exist to be crossed.

It should only leave something like these two...

[Renall]

Well, if you want to think of it a certain way, the reader is the detective and Battler is the Watson. In fact, Author Theory lets you read the red literally:

Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE!

I mean, okay, yes, Dlanor is talking to Battler... but the red is true the other way too isn't it?

Granted, you might say "but our viewpoint isn't objective!" Well, it actually is objective, we just aren't being shown things that are necessarily true. However, our viewpoint is not distorted by the lens of a particular character's way of thinking, so we at the very least have the ability to draw our own conclusions.

EDIT: No, the statement works for all of them, just for a certain kind of "true" and a certain emphasis on words.

For instance if I say "You can't go in there!" it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't able. However, the place I'm telling you not to go might be filled with poison gas, which would kill you. What I mean is that you can't go in there safely, which for certain interpretations of a red statement could be entirely true.

Likewise, if I say "You can't go in there!" I might not mean that no one can, but that you personally cannot.

This is harder to get away with if a line is being spoken, but for an example of what I mean, I recommend the Gene Hackman movie The Conversation.

Spoiler for The Conversation Spoiler!:

In the film, Hackman's character is recording a conversation between a man and a woman for a businessman where he overhears them saying "He'd kill us if he got the chance." This makes him feel intense guilt and concern over what to do, fearing for the life of the couple.

At the end of the film, the businessman is murdered, and Hackman's character realizes that the man and woman were responsible; their conversation actually was "he'd kill us if he got the chance." It's a change in emphasis that is nevertheless important, but since we're in text in Umineko, we don't have that advantage.

[Judoh]

Knowing Beatrice and her fantasies There could always be a troll living under the bridge or a magic circle that prevents you from crossing it Kihihi!

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Renall

Well, if you want to think of it a certain way, the reader is the detective and Battler is the Watson. In fact, Author Theory lets you read the red literally:

Until now, you have been the DETECTIVE!

I mean, okay, yes, Dlanor is talking to Battler... but the red is true the other way too isn't it?

Granted, you might say "but our viewpoint isn't objective!" Well, it actually is objective, we just aren't being shown things that are necessarily true. However, our viewpoint is not distorted by the lens of a particular character's way of thinking, so we at the very least have the ability to draw our own conclusions.

Whole thing is the detective normally narrates a story, such as Battler does. We aren't narrating Umineko. And I think a reader's viewpoint can be easily swayed depending on how they feel about a certain character.

Take Lambda for example, who's pretty much stated to be a neutral and impartial observer - mainly because she changes sides depending on who the underdog is at the time. This is exactly why she's chosen to be the logic error judge as well. I personally can say I'm not nearly as impartial as her, so me narrating the story would mean I would shine a light on certain characters in a more kind nature if I like them. When Lambda's the gamemaster in EP 5 she focuses more on the honest qualities of the characters and doesn't even try to blur it. She clearly shows Natsuhi's delusional state of mind, Krauss's bumbling nature, Eva's caring but harsh way of acting and so forth. Only time she seems to become bias is near the end, when it looks like she's been helping Bern to make up that story about Natsuhi being a seductress. But if she were truly bias then she wouldn't have let Battler become a sorcerer. Battler in EP 6, on the otherhand, is pretty much stated to not want to make everyone look like an evil jerk because he cares about them.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Marion

Whole thing is the detective normally narrates a story, such as Battler does. We aren't narrating Umineko. And I think a reader's viewpoint can be easily swayed depending on how they feel about a certain character.

It is not particularly necessary for the detective to narrate a story. It is a bit unusual for the detective to not even be a character in the story, but it's been done before and far more unusually than "the reader is the detective." There have been mysteries where the victim was the detective, etc. There have also been murder mysteries with no victim, no crime, and so forth. The elements are not indivisible.

Remember, ep6 appears to have no detective, and the only person who seems all that interested in what's actually happening is us, the readers. And we're really in a better position to evaluate everything than anyone on the board, meta-, or meta-meta- level in-story is.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Renall

This is harder to get away with if a line is being spoken, but for an example of what I mean, I recommend the Gene Hackman movie The Conversation.

Spoiler for The Conversation Spoiler!:

In the film, Hackman's character is recording a conversation between a man and a woman for a businessman where he overhears them saying "He'd kill us if he got the chance." This makes him feel intense guilt and concern over what to do, fearing for the life of the couple.

At the end of the film, the businessman is murdered, and Hackman's character realizes that the man and woman were responsible; their conversation actually was "he'd kill us if he got the chance." It's a change in emphasis that is nevertheless important, but since we're in text in Umineko, we don't have that advantage.

Wait, what? I don't quite get the difference here.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Wait, what? I don't quite get the difference here.

When he initially hears the conversation he thinks it's...

Spoiler for What he thinks he hears:

"He'd kill us if he got the chance." As in, they're afraid of being killed.

But in the end of the film it's revealed to have been

Spoiler for What it turns out to be:

"He'd kill us if he got the chance." As in, he would kill them if they weren't going to kill him first.

The entire point is the same line spoken with a slightly different emphasis completely changes its meaning. In a text medium, we don't get the emphasis a lot of the time, so we don't even have that to narrow down what a statement means. Sometimes even context doesn't help.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Renall

In a text medium, we don't get the emphasis a lot of the time, so we don't even have that to narrow down what a statement means. Sometimes even context doesn't help.

Ah, okay, thanks.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Renall

]The entire point is the same line spoken with a slightly different emphasis completely changes its meaning. In a text medium, we don't get the emphasis a lot of the time, so we don't even have that to narrow down what a statement means. Sometimes even context doesn't help.

That'd be really annoying for anyone doing a voice patch. Like the one Shirou Kaisen was working on I think.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Renall

EDIT: No, the statement works for all of them, just for a certain kind of "true" and a certain emphasis on words.

For instance if I say "You can't go in there!" it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't able. However, the place I'm telling you not to go might be filled with poison gas, which would kill you. What I mean is that you can't go in there safely, which for certain interpretations of a red statement could be entirely true.

Likewise, if I say "You can't go in there!" I might not mean that no one can, but that you personally cannot.

Err... I might have accidently hijacked your list of examples for another purpose... 8) But I was trying to talking about how people get around the red...

What I was saying was that if you consider the red as having to work within the context of the story. Or maybe I should say it that the red has only to be true for the game/story itself and does not need to be true for 'reality.'

If you take that into account then the first set of statements I listed could be effective reasons why the red is true. But then the last two won't be effective statements that keeps the red true...

There is no way to cross the river ahead. You physically cannot cross.
There is a bridge across the river ahead, but it's out of service, blocked, collapsed, or otherwise inaccessible. You cannot cross by circumstance.
There is a way to cross the river ahead, but it requires such incredible skill that I do not surmise you are capable of doing it, and my assertion is correct. You cannot cross because of a personal trait, though others might.
There is a perfectly accessible and crossable bridge, but if you go across you will be shot and killed because the other side of the bridge is under quarantine or lockdown. You can cross, but my warning asserted upon you a moral imperative not to cross with the implicit warning that doing so would be dangerous.

With this set, the red is true because there are story reasons why you can't cross the bridge. Again, this won't work if the story is reality but if the author controls it then that's fine.

In terms of why the red is true, in order of the list above:
1. The author has decided the story will not feature a bridge.
2. The author has decided the story features an impassable bridge.
3. The author has decided the character cannot cross the river due to lack of swimming ability or fear of water, etc.
4. The author has decided the story features a bridge that is sufficient to dissuade and/or deter the character from crossing.

Of course there's no way of telling which one it is without the story itself... but maybe, I'm starting to think that it doesn't matter which one. At least with Beatrice's games, i.e. EP1-4. I wouldn't bet on Lambdadelta's games.

Ok, with the last two though:

You can't cross the river "ahead," but you can take a turn-off and cross it a little ways down the road. You are only temporarily unable to cross.
There is no river ahead. You cannot cross something that doesn't exist to be crossed.

1. The red is insufficient to declare this impossible. In this case, it's because of an addition to the line, 'ahead.' Sometimes it could be due to an omission like, "midday." A new red would be needed, like, "You can't cross the river at any point!" If this is not brought up then there is the possibility that the red can be broken this way.
2. I believe the red is also insufficient in this case, so this is another way to get around the red.


This is meta-gaming at its best... but then we don't call them Meta-Battler and Meta-Beatrice for nothing. 8)

[Marion]

Originally Posted by Renall

It is not particularly necessary for the detective to narrate a story. It is a bit unusual for the detective to not even be a character in the story, but it's been done before and far more unusually than "the reader is the detective." There have been mysteries where the victim was the detective, etc. There have also been murder mysteries with no victim, no crime, and so forth. The elements are not indivisible.

Remember, ep6 appears to have no detective, and the only person who seems all that interested in what's actually happening is us, the readers. And we're really in a better position to evaluate everything than anyone on the board, meta-, or meta-meta- level in-story is.

Then what of EP 5, which had a detective present and participating in magic scenes and meta conversations.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Marion

Then what of EP 5, which had a detective present and participating in magic scenes and meta conversations.

She never narrated. So we had a detective who wasn't a narrator, which is fine. We also really never got to access her thoughts on the investigation though, at least not directly, which was somewhat more questionable.

Plus, if Erika doesn't exist at all, then she wasn't really "in" ep5 to begin with. Well, Meta-Erika was. But if Meta-Erika is the only Erika, then the detective is a character in a separate layer of narrative entirely.

[Judoh]

Originally Posted by Marion

Then what of EP 5, which had a detective present and participating in magic scenes and meta conversations.

This was one of the reasons Erika not existing became a theory. The detective shouldn't experience those situations if they have an objective point of view. These are things that a witch would do and see not a detective.

As for the narration. You'll notice from the beginning that the narration is mostly comes from the game master Lambdadelta during the set up. The phone call with Natsuhi for instance. While other scenes have other people narrating on and off like in the closet scene where Natsuhi narrates (I did I saw) and then a person spying on her narrates (she did she saw). Erika rarely is specifically shown to narrate any of the scenes in episode 5. And we are not specifically told when the narration changes. Some scenes (mostly magic scenes) are in third person without any objective Narrations.

Otherwise the people who usually narrate in episode 5 are

• Battler
  
• Natsuhi
  
• The person spying on Natsuhi (presumably the person who called her)

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Marion

Then what of EP 5, which had a detective present and participating in magic scenes and meta conversations.

...this is what I meant when I said Erika does not perceive the board directly. She somehow interacts with everyone, but some of her actions are visible to us and are very pointedly ignored by everyone else -- like that scene in the dining room in Ep5 with her screaming to lightning strikes.

Mind you, Bernkastel has it even worse. She seems to be reading the story she herself participates in and tossing out comments about the author and plot twists -- she does not actually seem to fully be 'there' even in the meta scenes.

[Renall]

It seems possible for meta-characters to perceive the board directly however. Battler and Beatrice do it all the time, especially in ep2 where they're constantly pausing the events to wander around the frozen scene and talk to each other about it.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Renall

It seems possible for meta-characters to perceive the board directly however. Battler and Beatrice do it all the time, especially in ep2 where they're constantly pausing the events to wander around the frozen scene and talk to each other about it.

It should be. But it's possible we're dealing with a much thicker layered cake:

1. Where things really happen. Where Piece-Battler lives.
2. Where interpretations happen. This is what Meta-Battler sees and where Virgilia and Ronove live, peeking one or two layers up from time to time. Virgilia, in particular, practically ascends in Ep5.
3. Where interpretations are constructed. This is where Meta-Battler actually is drinking tea with Meta-Beatrice, somewhere very virtual.
4. Where the interpretations can be judged to fit or not fit the truth and are focused into a complete theory. This is where Lambdadelta seems to live and normally a layer where the Gamemaster is.
5. Where the first layer of the readers, us, should be, but instead, Bernkastel seems to be sitting alone, reading about what she herself is doing one level below.
6. That's where us the readers are.

Bernkastel is on level 5, but is normally seen on level 4, and never sees the board directly at all. Erika 'dips down' one level further, and is on level 3 while being seen on level 2, never actually getting down to the bare metal. Battler and Beatrice actually exist simultaneously on the first three, which is why their meta versions can interact with the board sort of directly, but Erika can't.

Or some other convoluted mess along those lines.