[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 7 Requiem of the golden witch

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by crazysjd89

Episode 3 and the tea party are different from Epsides 1, 2, and 4 (maybe). In those episodes the epitaph is solved. This means that 'Beatrice' is no longer the culprit, if you believe the letters.

Kyrie being the culprit of the tea party was only after the gold was discovered, so in other words, someone else is probably Beatrice and the killer from Episodes 1 and 2.

Isn't that somewhat backwards? We are told Eva solves the epitaph in episode 3 and in 1, 2 and 4 we are not shown such an event. I may be wrong about 1,2 and 4 but I am a little rusty on my red.

About 'fair play'. We cannot decide if this mystery is fair play unless we actually know the truth. Bern only showed us her truth. This is similar to the talk in episode 6 about the geocentric universe.
If the epitaph is solved, Beatrice will stop killing. Let's say that is true, that does not say Shanon, Kanon, Sayo, Yoshiya, Yatsu, or Gaap can't. Let's take that last part literally, if Beatrice stops murdering... then I can see how Bern's truth receives credibility.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

Isn't that somewhat backwards? We are told Eva solves the epitaph in episode 3 and in 1, 2 and 4 we are not shown such an event. I may be wrong about 1,2 and 4 but I am a little rusty on my red.

It doesn't mean it never happens. For instance in every arc Rosa ends up going outside alone while the adults are in conference. In arc 1 for instance we're simply told Rosa fell asleep in the parlor after. During nearly the entire time Maria was in the rose garden crying, Rosa's location was basically unknown.

And then in arc 3 she's the second to find it, and in both 3 and 5 she gives hints to solve it. I'm not saying she does solve it every time, but such a possibility exists very clearly.

Actually there's also the possibility that Maria solves it as well every time.

About 'fair play'. We cannot decide if this mystery is fair play unless we actually know the truth. Bern only showed us her truth. This is similar to the talk in episode 6 about the geocentric universe.
If the epitaph is solved, Beatrice will stop killing. Let's say that is true, that does not say Shanon, Kanon, Sayo, Yoshiya, Yatsu, or Gaap can't. Let's take that last part literally, if Beatrice stops murdering... then I can see how Bern's truth receives credibility.

Omg... The scenate is actually everyone in Shkanon's mind.

No we can decide the mystery isn't fair play by the logic that riddles aren't necessarily fair, because you get to chose "the" answer among many coexisting possible one. A real fair mystery is a math equation. For instance suppose arc 5 never came out, or hadn't come out yet. It's possible that a fan reach the same theory as Erika about a Natsuhi culprit theory. There was no ways to rule out that possibility until arc 5. Tons of other such possibilities co exist until they have been ruled out. That's because Umineko is a riddle.

To be really fair tho, if Umineko was fairplay we'd have found the answer forever ago. I think that the truth in umineko is really presented as a lover trying to hint they're in love with the other but be too shy/unconfident to say it. We need a ridiculous ammount of observation skills and faith in a specific theory based on it to be able to reach any answer.

Edit : If we're to list all the personas of Shkanon I think it's not completely insane to add "zero on the roulette" from arc 1 as one of it.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

It's possible that a fan reach the same theory as Erika about a Natsuhi culprit theory. There was no ways to rule out that possibility until arc 5. Tons of other such possibilities co exist until they have been ruled out. That's because Umineko is a riddle.

Episode 2 confirmed with Episode 4 red. Even Episode 3 and 4 don't make any sense with that theory.
The simple fact the designated culprit in a theory is confirmed dead from the first twilight with certainty in 3 occurences among 4 dampens the probability near to 0.
Natsuhi being the culprit theory was never credible.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

Episode 2 confirmed with Episode 4 red.

What about it if you don't mind saying so?
If you're referring to the "people being really dead once their corpses were found" if they weren't corpse it means nothing.

Edit: She's a very credible killer, as arc 5 confirmed she did an action that at least she believes led to the death of two people, one of which being a baby and another being a maid who really had nothing to do in all of this.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

What about it if you don't mind saying so?
If you're referring to the "people being really dead once their corpses were found" if they weren't corpse it means nothing.

...Except episode 4 confirmed the first 6 were dead, and they were victims.

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Edit: She's a very credible killer, as arc 5 confirmed she did an action that at least she believes led to the death of two people, one of which being a baby and another being a maid who really had nothing to do in all of this.

That has nothing to do with what we were presented in Episode 1-4. Furthermore, the intent and past deed should not factor with possibility and actual actions in another occurence.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

No we can decide the mystery isn't fair play by the logic that riddles aren't necessarily fair, because you get to chose "the" answer among many coexisting possible one. A real fair mystery is a math equation. For instance suppose arc 5 never came out, or hadn't come out yet. It's possible that a fan reach the same theory as Erika about a Natsuhi culprit theory. There was no ways to rule out that possibility until arc 5. Tons of other such possibilities co exist until they have been ruled out. That's because Umineko is a riddle.

To be really fair tho, if Umineko was fairplay we'd have found the answer forever ago. I think that the truth in umineko is really presented as a lover trying to hint they're in love with the other but be too shy/unconfident to say it. We need a ridiculous ammount of observation skills and faith in a specific theory based on it to be able to reach any answer.

No? Fair play has to deal with whether or not the answer was obtainable through clues provided in earlier text. You can formulate an answer all you would like, but that does not make it right. You are taking the multiple truths thing a little too seriously and that still does not disqualify fair play. Lastly, let me get this part straight, you are saying a fair play mystery must eliminate all other possibilities? There is only one qualification for fair play, clues must be provided in the earlier text.
Let's say for example now, I went through the book thinking that the clues point to Kanon being the culprit. I cannot just state that is true since a single answer isn't given. The mystery is not over yet.

[UsagiTenpura]

The six people were already dead by the time they were discovered!
If they weren't really discovered cause they weren't corpse it doesn't seem to mean much to me.
Anyway there's no point in continuing this, as always you decided your opinion is a fact. It's not like I believe any of this but it's just that way, no matter how you are certain something isn't the truth, it doesn't mean it's not the truth.

Edit: No I'm saying fair play stories aren't riddles. They don't rule out every other possibilities, because they don't have to. As Renal said at one point it's very likely that once the final truth of arc 8 is out another equally valid interpretation can also coexist.

[crazysjd89]

There's also another thing to consider in the whole fair mystery debate. And that is that Ryukishi also has his own disadvantages.

In the average mystery, it is normally only one book in length, and people don't normally get near the end, and stop reading it for months to debate about the solution.

Ryukishi on the other hand, puts out his novels in parts, alternating between 8 and 4 months, where people online can freely discuss them (This is why there are so many well known theories.) From Episode 1 to Episode 8 is a period of 4 years for a bunch of people to work together making theories.

Normally a mystery writer is only challenging one person, the current reader. Ryukishi on the other hand, is pretty much challenging every reader all at once.

To use Will's example: It may be that we are fighting a knight equipped only with a bone, but there are hundreds of us.


EDIT: V Sorry, I didn't see that. Although I still don't think it balances out, and still think it's a fair mystery even if you read it all the way through. Just something for both sides of the argument to think about.

[UsagiTenpura]

That's something I said before, it's not fair play because it wouldn't be fair for him otherwise.
The detective doesn't normally get to have "retries".
It balances out sorta. At least that's the theory.

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

The six people were already dead by the time they were discovered!
If they weren't really discovered cause they weren't corpse it doesn't seem to mean much to me.
Anyway there's no point in continuing this, as always you decided your opinion is a fact. It's not like I believe any of this but it's just that way, no matter how you are certain something isn't the truth, it doesn't mean it's not the truth.

You are overthinking and branding certain facts as "semantic" issues, despite there isn't anything to doubt about that.
Notice that the intent and the context of the red text is definite and obvious in this case. The word "discover" has no underlying definition and is pretty much a straightforward word (and I think the japanese term isn't any special either). Plus, Beato never said "when the six corpses were discovered" but stated "six PEOPLE". Therefore, their living and dead status weren't taken as a subject. "dead" was attributed to the said 6 at the given timing, hence when they were discovered. The sentence does not mean "the corpses were discovered", but "6 people = dead [when] discovered".

To doubt such kind of red just make the whole red system worthless and useless. Then what, can we start doubting whereas "I'm not you" Beato's red, because a personality of the same person isn't considered as "you" then? Likewise, we can then declare that Erika, Battler and Kanon are the same person in Episode 6?

This is a ridiculous nitpicking. I do not present my opinion as a fact here: I present a factual red text. Whereas red text like Kanon's death in Episode 2 can be dodgy, this one is unlikely. Branding the "that's your opinion only" just make any discussion moot and trivial, since then I can simply present any theory involving alien and disregard Umineko red, because of abuse of semantic.

[Gohan78]

The six people were already dead by the time they were discovered!

The problem is that the same argument can be constructed to absolve Kyrie and Rudolph from the first two games, yet Bernkastel told us that they are the culprits in the "one and only truth".
After Ep.7 solving Episodes 1, 2 and 4 becomes a mere intellectual exercise, just as solving the closed room murders proved to be unimportant to the plot.

[Klashikari]

There is a major difference: Bernkastel never claimed these 2 are the culprits for all games (unless I've missed that point in Episode 7). She merely claims that Kyrie and Rudolf were the ones behind the murders in that kakera, and her red text isn't even complete.
Meanwhile, Erika claimed that Natsuhi was the culprit and even promised Bern that she would construct a truth that would be suitable for every game, which is impossible.

The whole deal just proves a possibility of "specific murderer(s) for a given game" with the culprit (read: mastermind) being consistent to a certain degree.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by Gohan78

The problem is that the same argument can be constructed to absolve Kyrie and Rudolph from the first two games, yet Bernkastel told us that they are the culprits in the "one and only truth".

That may be so, but even if we assume those were the events in the real Rokkenjima, things do not necessarily play out the same way the games. I mean, Eva survives in the real Rokkenjima, yet she dies in 3 out of 4 games, and rather early to boot.

[chounokoe]

Rudolph and Kyrie are murdering people! -> Bern says it's 'the truth ...'
The author of the bottle letter killed Rudolph and Kyrie on the first twilight. -> Despite Rudolph and Kyrie dead, the killing in Episode 1 and 2 (bottle letters) continues. -> There is a murderer and a culprit in Episode 1 and 2.

Rudolph and Kyrie = murderers BUT Rudolph and Kyrie =/= culprit

That would be a logical equation, based on what we saw so far. So Rudolph and Kyrie can become murderers, and maybe they even did, but they are not necessary for the murders to occur in the first place.

It's like you can bake a lemon cake with actuall lemon slices, lemon juice or artficial lemon flavor. In the end you got a lemon cake. Somebody with an allergy would react different to it, maybe even the taste would be slighty different, but it is lemon cake.

We still should not forget that (as far as we know) every account we've seen so far is an artificial recreation of the Rokkenjima incident. Be it written before or after the tragedy.

[Gohan78]

At first I thought that the events of Episode 1 were the true reality, while all other episodes were fiction created by the Game Master as a challenge to the human side. But now it appears that the Truth was something similar (but not identical) to episode 3, where only Eva survived, while everything else (including Ep.1) is a forgery. Am I mistaken?

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Gohan78

At first I thought that the events of Episode 1 were the true reality, while all other episodes were fiction created by the Game Master as a challenge to the human side. But now it appears that the Truth was something similar (but not identical) to episode 3, where only Eva survived, while everything else (including Ep.1) is a forgery. Am I mistaken?

It's not really forgery when you count in what we learned during Chiru so far.
Everything from Banquet on is said to be a series of novels, fictionalizing the events on Rokkenjima, written by Hachijo Toya (who is still pretty suspicious). That does not mean that they are any closer to the truth, not even Episode 3, but she had the information that Eva survived to center her novels around it.

The bottle letters, as said by Ange and the Witch Hunters in Episode 4, were probably sent before the typhoon even reached Rokkenjima, because otherwise they would not have found the first one so fast. Meaning they had to be written before approximately 18:00 of the 4th.

That means that Episode 1 and 2 would have been written with inside knowledge by someone who was on the island (and by signature comparison was probably Maria's Beatrice and the one sending the letters including the cash cards), but they were written before the incident, meaning they were only an IDEA of what would probably happen.
Episode 3 and 4 were written ater the incident, meaning they had the results ready, like Eva surviving, becoming the family head, everybody else dead, only Maria's jawbone found. But they were probably written by an outsider, so the person lacked knowledge of what was actually behind the murders.

[Renall]

Also, we have no idea what ep7 is. There's no way to know for sure whether Requiem is itself a new forgery, an entirely fictionally independent episode, whether the book at the "funeral" is meant to be Requiem, or what. The Featherine/Bernkastel relationship at the end of ep6 and ep7 does not imply Tohya's existence or interference or authorship at all.

Of course, if ep1-6 are fictions existing in the universe of some kind of Prime World, it's very plausible ep7 is too, but I don't think it's been said.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by chounokoe

The bottle letters, as said by Ange and the Witch Hunters in Episode 4, were probably sent before the typhoon even reached Rokkenjima, because otherwise they would not have found the first one so fast. Meaning they had to be written before approximately 18:00 of the 4th.

This makes me wonder how lengthy the story in these letters were. Tohya's stories were books. So, they were probably rather lengthy. Of course, the amount of pages you can fit in a bottle are limited. However, depending on how much was written in these letters, it'd make you wonder how long did the author spend on them, because Battler's presence in the island is one of the causes of this incident, and I'm sure they didn't know he'd be in the conference until perhaps 1 or 2 weeks prior that date.

[MeoTwister5]

Just wanted to chime in and say that due to exams these two weeks, probably no summaries from me for the next two weeks or so.

[chounokoe]

Originally Posted by Used Can

This makes me wonder how lengthy the story in these letters were. Tohya's stories were books. So, they were probably rather lengthy. Of course, the amount of pages you can fit in a bottle are limited. However, depending on how much was written in these letters, it'd make you wonder how long did the author spend on them, because Battler's presence in the island is one of the causes of this incident, and I'm sure they didn't know he'd be in the conference until perhaps 1 or 2 weeks prior that date.

If Ryukishi does not only boast and if we can really take the manga as a measurment for such visual things, then the letters in the bottle were a whole batch of paper...from view I would say between 30 and 40 pages, as more would be rather hard to fit into a bottle...
But you can fit some stuff on about 40 pages and at least give a general outline of the events, so that whoever is reading it to us can fill in the blanks (in Episode 1 till 4 that narrator for us could be supposed to be Beatrice).

And Jessica was informed by about 24 hours notice, which can imply anything, but I suppose Natsuhi would have known only some hours earlier. I would say his presence on the island could have been known about 48 hours befor his arrival.