[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

*points to the flashback of screenshots that briefly show Shannon and Kanon in them*

Though you could argue that this could have been the subjective memory triggered by what he read as the content of the message bottle. It is a good point though.

Keyword here is subgenre.

Yes, the keyword that investigation novels are just one subgenre of a very huge field of mystery novels. There are even those where a solution is never given or where the detective is outright wrong...or where the detective uses a magical deus ex machina to solve the case. One series I started reading, Mubôden, plays in a fantasy world where investigation is working totally different, so far that people say it's not investigation at all, it's ghost hunting.

Interviewing people is still investigation. It's also something Battler doesn't do.

What else is Battler's duel with Beatrice than an armchair detective challenge?!

Then have him say that. As long as we're dealing with subjective bullshit, why not? He was raised thinking he was the baby she gave birth to, and there's no one to contest it, and Asumu did have A baby.

If Yasu can redefine how dying works, Battler can redefine birth.

These are two different things. Battler was not "given life from the womb of Ushiromiya Asumu", but Kanon "passed away in Jessica's room". It's something that you can consider...killing a part of yourself is not a complete redefinition of death, it's one of many meanings that this word can hold.
Come on, who didn't consider personality death at least from EP3 on?! I don't know why you are so tense with that exact line. Of course you could say that it could work for everybody...which it did in a way. We were often given misleading information about death...be it time (EP3 - 4th, 5th, 6th), order (EP2 - 4th, 5th, 6th) or actual state of death (Shkannon and possible others).

Alright, fine, but that concept comes AFTER EP2, and at the time I was arguing that Shkanon is nothing but a lucky guess in EP2.

Of course, but you are supposed to go back and reread and reevaluate certain parts. Only because you were given hints beforehand doesn't make them ineffective.

[AuraTwilight]

He's not the Game Master. The GM is the arbiter of what gets accepted as red truth, so in the end everything would have to fit Beato's interpretation.

Fine, but do you deny that if she allowed it, the statement would be valid as I described?

Are we arguing, effectively, that the Red truth means whatever Beatrice says it means, regardless of what words actually come out of her fucking mouth?

Because that's what I've been arguing since the beginning.

What else is Battler's duel with Beatrice than an armchair detective challenge?!

Do you really want to go that route? Because the information he extracts from Beatrice in the meta-world would be a Supernatural Agency.

Regardless, I was talking about Piece-Battler, the one who seems to actually be the 'Detective', so to speak.

Meta-Battler is basically the reader.

These are two different things. Battler was not "given life from the womb of Ushiromiya Asumu", but Kanon "passed away in Jessica's room". It's something that you can consider...killing a part of yourself is not a complete redefinition of death, it's one of many meanings that this word can hold.

"Killing" is different from "Dead." We've gone over this.

Come on, who didn't consider personality death at least from EP3 on?! I don't know why you are so tense with that exact line. Of course you could say that it could work for everybody...which it did in a way. We were often given misleading information about death...be it time (EP3 - 4th, 5th, 6th), order (EP2 - 4th, 5th, 6th) or actual state of death (Shkannon and possible others).

"People considering it" and "This is totally fair and not complete bullshit" are two entirely different things. Stop misunderstanding.

Of course, but you are supposed to go back and reread and reevaluate certain parts. Only because you were given hints beforehand doesn't make them ineffective.

I'm aware, but this isn't the point I was arguing.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Semantics isn't the word I'd use; it implies a level of wordplay when really it's just flat out lying. If we're going to be subjective about what shit means, then why not just say A piece of candy appeared under the teacup with magic?

She could say that, if that's what she actually believed.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Name tricks and the like are a league apart from this "dead" issue. Why aren't people understanding this?

Like I said before, it's not "dead" that's being redefined, but rather the nature of Shannon and Kanon is being insufficiently revealed. If you know what S&K actually are then it's obvious what "dead" means when applied to them regardless of any literal meaning. Thus, if S&K's nature is known there's no grounds for complaint.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The problem is that by allowing this, every piece of information we've ever been given becomes entirely pointless. We might as well have never gotten the Red Truth rule and we're right back to the earlier part of EP2, because everything is fucking bullshit now.

Red reveals subjective truths. Subjective truths are useful; a major point of Umineko was to destroy the reader's reliance on objective information to form their theories.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Fine, but do you deny that if she allowed it, the statement would be valid as I described?

Are we arguing, effectively, that the Red truth means whatever Beatrice says it means, regardless of what words actually come out of her fucking mouth?

Because that's what I've been arguing since the beginning.

I never thought this was in dispute. I thought the question was whether she abused that privilege.

[Xenon_gun]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

She could say that, if that's what she actually believed.

From a certain point of view, that might work, but...

Red reveals subjective truths. Subjective truths are useful; a major point of Umineko was to destroy the reader's reliance on objective information to form their theories.

This sounds problematic to me. Subjectivity is OK, but what about when one objectively knows what is true, like the Gamemaster should? Should one be allowed to say, for example, "Sun spins around the Earth.", from the point that person learned otherwise onwards?

By the way I am reading this proposal, it would only give a small fragment of the truth-giver's irrational decision-making process or thoughts... unless the person/witch is using it to intentionally misdirect, when you get even less. There is just too much noise to get anything useful out of it.

[AuraTwilight]

She could say that, if that's what she actually believed.

Red is useless bullshit you can lie in, then, got it.

Like I said before, it's not "dead" that's being redefined, but rather the nature of Shannon and Kanon is being insufficiently revealed. If you know what S&K actually are then it's obvious what "dead" means when applied to them regardless of any literal meaning. Thus, if S&K's nature is known there's no grounds for complaint.

If they can return from being dead, they're not actually dead. By redefining Shannon and Kanon, their deaths are defined into an ephemeral, abstract, ultimately temporary and meaningless state. It becomes misdirection of the highest sort of which Battler doesn't benefit.

Red reveals subjective truths. Subjective truths are useful; a major point of Umineko was to destroy the reader's reliance on objective information to form their theories.

And the LARGER point of Umineko is being able to trust the author. Which the "dead" issue runs COUNTER to. Ryukishi betrayed our trust and broke his own rules.

I never thought this was in dispute. I thought the question was whether she abused that privilege.

Well, the two are pretty much synonymous. If she does it at all she's abusing it, and if she doesn't do it there's no way to evaluate if such a privilege actually exists (unless someone else abuses it).

[Sherringford]

Jesus tapdancing Christ, you guys post a lot. I forget to check the thread for a day and there are three new pages? Wow.

Anyway, catching up:

I believe the 'X is dead' isn't a problem so much as a waste. Can we see where the author is going with that? Yes. With that in mind, I don't consider it cheating. We can see where the author is going with it, we all saw it coming. We discussed it a lot before it was "confirmed."

But I think it's a waste. It honestly could have led to a more intricate mystery than Shkanon. Shkanon solves itself, doesn't do much and isn't really hard enough to solve. But the red truth system could have been used in less loophole happy ways to create a better story.

Also above cheating or anything else, I think it was just overall a pretty dumb idea. It works within the context of the story, it makes sense within the context of the story, but it's still dumb and renders the story itself rather pointless.

The story presents itself in a way that red text is initially reliable then slowly becomes unreliable. The red text is perfectly useless, but that's the point Ryuukishi wanted to make.

It just so happens that I didn't enjoy that point.

(So really it comes down to "AND I DON'T LIKE IT" from me again)

Well, if you think about what homunculi are it could be considered another hint. They are artificial humanoid beings created by an alchemist to perform his tasks in his stead and aid him in his daily chores. Exactly what Shannon and Kanon are.

...C'mon I generally agree with you, but you gotta admit this is stretching the definition of "hint" a bit.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

While in a mystery novel he'd need to INVESTIGATE.

Hey, c'mon now. Let's not pretend Nero Wolfe doesn't exist. I know the man is fat but let's not pretend he is not a detective.


------------

By the by, on the mystery genre topic, I finally got my hands on the Randal Garett series, which is about locked-rooms in a world where magic exists. Jesus Christ the series isn't even that hard to find but it took me way too long to get it for some reason.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Red is useless bullshit you can lie in, then, got it.

...

If they can return from being dead, they're not actually dead. By redefining Shannon and Kanon, their deaths are defined into an ephemeral, abstract, ultimately temporary and meaningless state. It becomes misdirection of the highest sort of which Battler doesn't benefit.

...

And the LARGER point of Umineko is being able to trust the author. Which the "dead" issue runs COUNTER to. Ryukishi betrayed our trust and broke his own rules.

Where exactly is the promise that "trusting the author" means that they must have exactly the same worldview as you do? Trust is about believing that the author is trying in good faith to communicate with you, it's not a guarantee that you'll automatically start out understanding them or even that they'll communicate in a clear and straightforward manner. The author might have a good reason to be roundabout while still wanting you to understand.

And another thing... This idea came up in the story as well, but just because your notion of death is the popular opinion, why exactly does that invalidate Beatrice's position? You understand that your belief is also subjective, right?

[rogerpepitone]

Originally Posted by Sherringford

Hey, c'mon now. Let's not pretend Nero Wolfe doesn't exist. I know the man is fat but let's not pretend he is not a detective.

Nero Wolfe doesn't leave his brownstone (except in _The Red Box_, _Too Many Cooks_, _Some Buried Caesar_, _Too Many Detectives_, _The Next Witness_, _Poison A La Carte_, _The Black Mountain_, _Immune To Murder_, _Christmas Party_, _In The Best Families_), but the crime scene sometimes comes to him (_Disguise For Murder_, _A Family Affair_, _Help Wanted, Male_, _Eenie, Meenie, Murder, Moe_, _Before Midnight_), and even when he does stay in his brownstone, he takes an active role in the investigation, sending Archie and others out, and has suspects / witnesses brought to him.

The old man in the corner is the traditional example of an armchair detective, who takes no active role in investigations.

----

As for rules / fair play, those wouldn't matter if he weren't positioning this as a game.

[AuraTwilight]

And another thing... This idea came up in the story as well, but just because your notion of death is the popular opinion, why exactly does that invalidate Beatrice's position? You understand that your belief is also subjective, right?

Because BATTLER DOESN'T KNOW IT.

If she had defined it for him like she did her definition of "Locked Room", it wouldn't be a problem. She deliberately changed information without telling him. This is the problem, and everyone trying to justify the subjectiveness of Beatrice's thoughts are missing the point spectacularly.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Xenon_gun

From a certain point of view, that might work, but...

Maria and Beatrice said Sakutarou is the one and only in the world, and is entirely irreplaceable, but that was actually factually wrong, apparently.

Wasn't there a point where the idea that Beatrice could say witches exist came up, but she wouldn't say something like that because there couldn't be a game that way?

Originally Posted by Xenon_gun

This sounds problematic to me. Subjectivity is OK, but what about when one objectively knows what is true, like the Gamemaster should? Should one be allowed to say, for example, "Sun spins around the Earth.", from the point that person learned otherwise onwards?

By the way I am reading this proposal, it would only give a small fragment of the truth-giver's irrational decision-making process or thoughts... unless the person/witch is using it to intentionally misdirect, when you get even less. There is just too much noise to get anything useful out of it.

That's the thing about the game. Within the context of the game, Beatrice's subjective truth is the objective truth. Anything Beatrice says in Red is absolutely true in her world view. She's basically laying her world view bare and hoping someone understands and accepts it.

Originally Posted by Sherringford

I believe the 'X is dead' isn't a problem so much as a waste... ...The story presents itself in a way that red text is initially reliable then slowly becomes unreliable. The red text is perfectly useless, but that's the point Ryuukishi wanted to make.

It just so happens that I didn't enjoy that point.

(So really it comes down to "AND I DON'T LIKE IT" from me again)

I kind of liked this point myself, but +1 to this intelligent post nonetheless.

[AuraTwilight]

Maria and Beatrice said Sakutarou is the one and only in the world, and is entirely irreplaceable, but that was actually factually wrong, apparently.

It's wrong in 1998. Is it wrong in 1986?

Wasn't there a point where the idea that Beatrice could say witches exist came up, but she wouldn't say something like that because there couldn't be a game that way?

She says she could. She never demonstrates it. Battler asks her why she can't say if it Witches exist.

In a way she was dodging the question.

[cronnoponno]

Don't Witches exist? I mean, we have an idea of the word, what they are, what they do, ect. I could easily say witches exist, and most likely it's possible to in red, but if she said that to Battler....how early did this scene happen again?

I know she said there wouldn't even be a game if she claimed magic exists in red(which she seemed to imply she still could). I don't remember what episode the witch one came from, but if it was near the beginning she probably feared Battler wouldn't be ready to retaliate.

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It's wrong in 1998. Is it wrong in 1986?

This, in particular, may be something to bear in mind regarding the truth about the one Sakutarou. It's driven in several times that the Truth of the future takes priority over the Truths of the past.

[cronnoponno]

I have a question, why is Maria intelligent to know that misusing reds to justify magic is wrong?

For example, her meta-battle with Erika. She clearly knew the rules, clearly did not plainly say Beatrice poofed it in there, and was really only fooled due to her childish innocence of believe Erika wasn't a complete bitch and thinking she understood the bigger picture of magic.

Is this another example of Tohya, Ryukishi's, or whatevers, character decay?

I mean, if you try to flat out deny witches exist to her, she will flat out assure you they exist, she doesn't seem like she would easily know how to avoid the real, human answer. She seems like she would just say ''UUUU, MARIA IS RIGHT, BEATRICE IS MAGIC, BEATRICE CAST A SPELL TO MAKE IT IN THERE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID, UUU!

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Because BATTLER DOESN'T KNOW IT.

If she had defined it for him like she did her definition of "Locked Room", it wouldn't be a problem. She deliberately changed information without telling him. This is the problem, and everyone trying to justify the subjectiveness of Beatrice's thoughts are missing the point spectacularly.

But by the end of EP5, Battler was able to figure it out. In other words, Beato put enough information and hints in her stories that she didn't NEED to tell him directly. Given that the entire point of this exercise, for her, was to have him reach an understanding of her worldview by solving a mystery, why on earth would she need to say it straight out? You don't start a mystery by laying out the answer on the first page (unless it's a Chinese-style Judge Dee kind of thing, I guess).

[AuraTwilight]

Don't Witches exist? I mean, we have an idea of the word, what they are, what they do, ect. I could easily say witches exist, and most likely it's possible to in red, but if she said that to Battler....how early did this scene happen again?

Witch = Someone who uses magic. If magic doesn't exist, neither can witches.

It happened in Episode 2, the second she brought up the red, really.

I have a question, why is Maria intelligent to know that misusing reds to justify magic is wrong?

For example, her meta-battle with Erika. She clearly knew the rules, clearly did not plainly say Beatrice poofed it in there, and was really only fooled due to her childish innocence of believe Erika wasn't a complete bitch and thinking she understood the bigger picture of magic.

It's a Meta-Scene. You understand what that means, right? Characters in the Meta-Plane don't, per se, HAVE a knowledge base. They know whatever the author needs them to know. Take for example, Chick Beato in EP6, who was just born and has zero life experiences, but mentions to Elder Beato, "Ah, like how when I have a cold, and reading the bottle after taking medicine helps me feel better!"

She can't have had an experience like that. The experience is written in because the text needs her to.

Meta-characters are actors on a stage.

But by the end of EP5, Battler was able to figure it out. In other words, Beato put enough information and hints in her stories that she didn't NEED to tell him directly. Given that the entire point of this exercise, for her, was to have him reach an understanding of her worldview by solving a mystery, why on earth would she need to say it straight out?

He only figured it out because he had a goddamn magical epiphany involving seeing multiple worlds at once in a clairvoyant vision to parallel Toya recovering his memories. It's not like he applied deductive reasoning.

Even if such were the case, it DOESN'T MATTER; Beatrice deliberately lied to him and stacked the game against him and held him at fault for not being able to win as fast as she wanted despite her attempts to deliberately obfuscate information. If you're going to redefine a term, and you don't mention that you've done so, and you state the term in a magical "Always True" language, then you are both 1) Lying, and 2) Deliberately giving someone false input to take advantage of their ignorance.

It's not like those reds are even what caused him to figure it out. He did so because Shkanon was really fucking obvious despite how dumb it was. The whole "Shannon and Kanon are dead thing doesn't even help Battler understand anything; it doesn't even help him understand HER, like she's trying to get him to do. It's just a piece of misdirection that slows down his progress, but does not actually serve to aid his understanding.

There's no reason for it other than to dick around with him. That's why it's dishonest.

[Kealym]

Furthermore, I would say that Maria, the human, seems to have been taught Beato's method of proving magic in providing a seemingly impossible situation. Or rather, not the method, but the idea behind why it's necessary, similar to Maria understanding that Beatrice needs to complete the ritual to regain power.

Also, yeah, Meta scene. ALL of the witches pick up on just about every quirk of the red immediately (Bern, Evatrice, Lambda, Maria). The only person who had to learn the hard way was Battler.

[cronnoponno]

So basically:

''Maria honey, my magic isn't powerful enough to manifest itself without a logical explanation and performance, so make it really hard to guess the trick so my power can grow and really not require any explanation!''

''Uuu, will practice!''


That explains it really well, and answers my question lol...and the talk of the Meta scenes, which honestly still confuse me.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

He only figured it out because he had a goddamn magical epiphany involving seeing multiple worlds at once in a clairvoyant vision to parallel Toya recovering his memories. It's not like he applied deductive reasoning.

That's like claiming Dr. Fell or whoever other series detective doesn't solve his cases by reasoning because he doesn't immediately reveal his thought process the moment he figures out the answer. It's a completely baseless statement.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Even if such were the case, it DOESN'T MATTER; Beatrice deliberately lied to him and stacked the game against him and held him at fault for not being able to win as fast as she wanted despite her attempts to deliberately obfuscate information. If you're going to redefine a term, and you don't mention that you've done so, and you state the term in a magical "Always True" language, then you are both 1) Lying, and 2) Deliberately giving someone false input to take advantage of their ignorance.

Maybe this is a point on which we're just never going to agree. But to me, it looks like you're basically claiming it's invalid and dishonest to write a mystery in which the puzzle centers on a hidden premise of the setting, and I don't understand how you can just unilaterally lop off the whole ontological mystery subgenre like that.

Yes, Beatrice made the mystery really hard, because she wanted Battler to really remember and prove that he understood her. It was supposed to take a miracle, an eternity of games. She didn't withdraw because he took too long, she withdrew because he stopped taking the game seriously. Even though at that time she'd been honestly trying to tune the difficulty for him, what's the point if he refuses to play properly?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It's not like those reds are even what caused him to figure it out. He did so because Shkanon was really fucking obvious despite how dumb it was. The whole "Shannon and Kanon are dead thing doesn't even help Battler understand anything; it doesn't even help him understand HER, like she's trying to get him to do. It's just a piece of misdirection that slows down his progress, but does not actually serve to aid his understanding.

And by now you're just irrationally projecting. We didn't see his reasoning process was, so how could you possibly know? Maybe that was actually the keystone? Rather, without that as a hook, I think reasoning past the point of "crazy girl who switches costumes for some reason" would be fairly difficult.

Even if it weren't strictly necessary, what would that even matter? There are lots of traditional mysteries that do the same thing. For instance, in

Spoiler for Carr novel, details sub-spoilered:

Spoiler for The Hollow Man:

Didn't a whole set of false alibis that massively complicated the case only come into existence because a clock was coincidentally set to the wrong time? That's also a "piece of misdirection that slows down progress but doesn't aid understanding," isn't it?

[AuraTwilight]

That's like claiming Dr. Fell or whoever other series detective doesn't solve his cases by reasoning because he doesn't immediately reveal his thought process the moment he figures out the answer. It's a completely baseless statement.

The whole "And then...I knew..." sequence seems to indicate a sudden rush of information.

Maybe this is a point on which we're just never going to agree. But to me, it looks like you're basically claiming it's invalid and dishonest to write a mystery in which the puzzle centers on a hidden premise of the setting, and I don't understand how you can just unilaterally lop off the whole ontological mystery subgenre like that.

It's not the hidden premise that gets me so much as the way she presents it. It's deliberately misleading in a way that doesn't help Battler's reasoning.

Yes, Beatrice made the mystery really hard, because she wanted Battler to really remember and prove that he understood her. It was supposed to take a miracle, an eternity of games. She didn't withdraw because he took too long, she withdrew because he stopped taking the game seriously. Even though at that time she'd been honestly trying to tune the difficulty for him, what's the point if he refuses to play properly?

How the fuck could she expect him to treat the game seriously if they're not playing with the same set of rules as each other? She told him he's playing Game X when she's playing Game Y and he's none the wiser. Then he finds out Game X is retarded, which is her intent, but he doesn't notice her clues that Game Y exists, so he's like "fuck it."

And by now you're just irrationally projecting. We didn't see his reasoning process was, so how could you possibly know? Maybe that was actually the keystone? Rather, without that as a hook, I think reasoning past the point of "crazy girl who switches costumes for some reason" would be fairly difficult.

This isn't entirely true. He does do a significant portion of his thinking outloud; Hell, as a Meta-character, he doesn't really possess the conceit of unhinted thought processes.

You're just trying to use a Devil's Proof argument to defend Ryukishi, here.

Even if it weren't strictly necessary, what would that even matter? There are lots of traditional mysteries that do the same thing.

Your example isn't comparable to the Shkanon death thing. The clock aided in understanding by revealing a contradiction in alibis. Shkanon is a complicating problem that causes and solves itself and doesn't really matter to the murders at hand if you remove them. It's just a distraction.