[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Piece!Erika seems to know everything Meta!Erika does because she's a meta-gaming little bitch, so I doubt this very highly unless you can cite me an instance where Piece!Erika does not know something that Meta!Erika knows.

Good luck.

Maybe you don't mean to but you sound aggressive. If you want to turn this into an arguing instead than a discussing then I'm not really interested in going on.

If that's not the case:

I provide you evidence that a piece might not know what the player know.
You say that's not enough evidence however the whole of Umineko will not provide you enough evidence for nearly everything.

In some cases we have 'commonly accepted theories' that have a high probably to be true, and that in some cases is so high we take them as truth and don't bother to discuss anymore if it's true or not.

In some other cases we don't get such luxury.

In short we're close to Erika's problem in EP 6. She could check very accurately the 'corpses' but the only way to prove for sure they were death was to kill them.

Since we can't kill them and we can't even prove if our 'autopsy' is accurate or we missed some vitals details there's no way any of us can prove how things work for sure, though we can be sure we've guessed right... or that someone else guessed wrong.

If you're absolutely sure in EP 5 there's a error or a dirty trick nothing can be said that will cause you to waver in your convintion with the present material we've at hands.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Erika never considered Shannon and Kanon being the same person because she didn't expect the truth to be something that jaw-droppingly stupid.

I also find it pretty stupid unless additional info will come up that will justify it so I sort of understand why Erika didn't bother checking if the two of them were the same person.

Also I find Umineko lacks of an important detail for making this believable.
No one mentioned Shannon and Kanon have an awfully similar face despite not even being related to each other... unless Yasu is really serious about this and when she dresses up as Kanon also wear a mask or some accessories that significantly alter her face... (and no one noticed because Yasu is in truth a professional make up artist)

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

She did.

Where? I can't find it. all her theories were smashed by Lambda's red as far as I can remember...

[AuraTwilight]

It's strange how everything else about EP7 seems to go contrary to this TIP. It is literally the only thing I can think of that even implies that I'm wrong about this.

Maybe it's better to say that the doll, Clair, is merely the form Bernkastel gave to Yasu for the sake of the funeral. But when that doll is acting as a vessel, it takes on the personality of the one it's channeling. So Yasu is there in EP7, but speaking to her through Clair is like speaking to her via phone.

I guess that's the same as both admitting that I'm wrong and stating the obvious, though.

The way I saw it was that Clair was like a chatbot. She gives the illusion of sentience but isn't actually so. At best she is channelling the 'ghost' of Yasu's regrets. But either way, there is no spirit to Clair's existence. She's just a part of the show.

I provide you evidence that a piece might not know what the player know.

But I'm asking for Erika, specifically, who follows different rules from other pieces.

You say that's not enough evidence however the whole of Umineko will not provide you enough evidence for nearly everything.

You can find evidence for lots of things in Umineko. I'm asking for evidence, not proof. The two are different.

Also I find Umineko lacks of an important detail for making this believable.
No one mentioned Shannon and Kanon have an awfully similar face despite not even being related to each other... unless Yasu is really serious about this and when she dresses up as Kanon also wear a mask or some accessories that significantly alter her face... (and no one noticed because Yasu is in truth a professional make up artist)

You know, I actually did a similar experiment, and scientists will tell you that the human brain can be deceived in pattern recognition. We can completely fail to recognize a face if it's "framed" differently, so Yasu wearing different wigs and hairstyles can do wonders to keep people from realizing Shannon and Kanon look similarly.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

And I'm saying I'm not seeing anything that suggests why we should think this. Lambdadelta is a Gamemaster more than she is a 'narrator', because in-universe characters do the narrating. She is presenting the story and the information but the structure of the game implies and infact necessitates that other players can influence the actions of their characters.

Given that the information base between player and character should be as close to 1:1 as possible (which should be perfectly achievable in the Meta-World), or else it's like the following D&D scenario:

"My character looks around."
"You see a Gazebo."
"Okay. I interact with it."
"You can't. It's not actually there."
"So, was it an illusion spell?"
"No, you just saw wrong."

LOL I played roleplays and I think if this had happened it would have been rather crazy.

Though a gamemaster would probably have to make up explanations that made more sense like:

"You can't. It's forbidden to get close."

And if you insist in trying to get close regardless have something that would take your attention away from it or that would force you to move away.

Though in a RP we ended up managing to find a solution to open a door we weren't supposed to open at such a early stage cornering the gamemaster.

Originally Posted by Toku

I'm pretty sure we never got anything conclusive on this. Erika came up with theories, but they were at least partially disproven. And then Lambdadelta wove some crazy web of Red.

This is what I remember as well.

Originally Posted by Toku

[As far as the Erika debate goes: I think the question is really very simple. The only thing that needs to be asked here is "if Piece!Erika was supposed to see both of them at the same time in EP5, then did she?"

I think the trick is that:
No person can keep in her field of vision so many people and see them all at the same time.

So Erika technically can never see everyone present in the parlour at the same time.

Of course in real life one can say: okay, I can't see them all at the same time but, if I keep on turning my eyes around I can check the position of everyone in a relatively quick time. In this short time in which I'm not observing Shannon or Kanon would Yasu manage to switch from one to the other and back? Without anyone noticing? What is she, Superman or a trasformist?

I personally wouldn't buy it... but in game 6 is said that the only way for Erika to prove that the 'corpses' were dead for sure was... well, to cut their head.

Since they were merely faking death technically they should have been still breathing, their heart beating, and they should have been able to react to pain.
In short it shouldn't have be so hard to prove they were merely faking.

Now... Erika wanted them dead, all right, but there's still the fact that everyone is secure she couldn't prove they were dead in any other way.

So the trick is a devil proof.

As Piece Erika can't keep everyone under control at the same time we can't deny the possibility that Yasu was speedchanging continuously as stupid as this can sound. So, even if Meta Erika were to look at the scene through Piece Erika's eyes, she couldn't deny that Shannon or Kanon were in the room at the same time because they could have been in two different locations and to gaze at one would force her not to gaze at the other.

The narrative is from Battler so, even if he were to see Shannon and Kanon at the same time it wouldn't be reliable so for Lambda it was possible to work up a trick in which she implied Shannon and Kanon were in the parlour at the same time and Erika could have not noticed that actually when one of them was present the other was absent.

Through the trick is in itself pretty ridicule (Yasu speedchanging her clothes and no one noticing? This would be weird.) it's not more weird that Erika not noticing/checking that Kanon was nowhere in EP 6... or for people not noticing that Shannon and Kanon have the same face... or for people believing that Shannon and Kanon were two separate people.

Personally I don't really like much the Shkannon thing in Umineko... but as it looks like that's what Ryukishi planned and everyone in Rokkenjima swallowed I guess I can't put past him to use a trick like the one I described.

Originally Posted by Toku

But I guess it's true that, even so, this doesn't seem to clear up the fact that Detective's Authority apparently didn't help Erika as it should have here.

My feeling is that the only thing her detective authority was good for was allowing her to impose some of her wishes (she forced Battler to let her check the scene) and stopping her from seeing fantasy scenes.

Which means in the parlour scene she couldn't see Kanon and Shannon at the same time but couldn't see first one and then the other at short distance of time. As the same might be applied to all the characters in the parlour (for example Natsuhi and Eva might have never been close enough she could observe them at the same time) I think even if piece Erika didn't see Kanon and Shannon at teh same time she didn't find it relevant.

Originally Posted by Swigun

That's strange.
She claims to read Agatha Christie (in the Battler-owned-Erika scene) but it seems she didn't read all of her novels, since there's one that use pretty much the same trick.

Well it's the same "detective" that trust the family doctor in a mystery novel, maybe I'm not so surprised...

Hum... I remember two novels of Agatha Christie using a similar trick but not exactly the same... would you mind to refresh my memory?

[Toku]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I think the trick is that:
No person can keep in her field of vision so many people and see them all at the same time.

So Erika technically can never see everyone present in the parlour at the same time.

Of course in real life one can say: okay, I can't see them all at the same time but, if I keep on turning my eyes around I can check the position of everyone in a relatively quick time. In this short time in which I'm not observing Shannon or Kanon would Yasu manage to switch from one to the other and back? Without anyone noticing? What is she, Superman or a trasformist?

I personally wouldn't buy it... but in game 6 is said that the only way for Erika to prove that the 'corpses' were dead for sure was... well, to cut their head.

Since they were merely faking death technically they should have been still breathing, their heart beating, and they should have been able to react to pain.
In short it shouldn't have be so hard to prove they were merely faking.

Now... Erika wanted them dead, all right, but there's still the fact that everyone is secure she couldn't prove they were dead in any other way.

So the trick is a devil proof.

As Piece Erika can't keep everyone under control at the same time we can't deny the possibility that Yasu was speedchanging continuously as stupid as this can sound. So, even if Meta Erika were to look at the scene through Piece Erika's eyes, she couldn't deny that Shannon or Kanon were in the room at the same time because they could have been in two different locations and to gaze at one would force her not to gaze at the other.

The narrative is from Battler so, even if he were to see Shannon and Kanon at the same time it wouldn't be reliable so for Lambda it was possible to work up a trick in which she implied Shannon and Kanon were in the parlour at the same time and Erika could have not noticed that actually when one of them was present the other was absent.

Hmmm. I just think that there should be no need to resort to the most ridiculous explanations when a less ridiculous one is available. Now, granted, it's still somewhat ridiculous if LD put a physical body for Kanon in EP5, but there's no way it could be as ridiculous as speedchanging!Yasu... I mean, it may be a devil's proof, but even so, it would take many miracles, one after another, to pull this off, and a lot of skill too. We are given no clues which could lead us to believe that Yasu is that good at continuously switching. Sure, she can switch at will, but this is something totally different...

Aside from the perception theory you gave, and the additional body theory I brought up, the only other theories seem to involve meta-world stuff, which I just really don't like. It should be irrelevant in this case, anyway, because what we're looking at is why Meta-Erika didn't notice the lack of Kanon, not why we didn't notice. What we saw was from Battler's perspective, but what Meta-Erika saw through her piece's eyes should have been different and much more accurate.

Through the trick is in itself pretty ridicule (Yasu speedchanging her clothes and no one noticing? This would be weird.) it's not more weird that Erika not noticing/checking that Kanon was nowhere in EP 6... or for people not noticing that Shannon and Kanon have the same face... or for people believing that Shannon and Kanon were two separate people.

1. Erika didn't have Detective's Authority in EP6. Therefore it's not only possible, but very easy to feed her false information. Piece!Battler in EP1-4 saw all kinds of crazy stuff that shouldn't have been possible, so it only makes sense that Piece!Erika in EP6 could too. Not only that, but BATTLER was able to skillfully dodge the issue of saying in Red that Kanon was in the cousins' room because Erika told him to say "everyone else."
2. Aura seems to have found a theory for the same face thing, in her post right before yours.
3. I think the best theory for this is probably that Yasu was bribing people to play along and treat Kanon as a different person.

Personally I don't really like much the Shkannon thing in Umineko... but as it looks like that's what Ryukishi planned and everyone in Rokkenjima swallowed I guess I can't put past him to use a trick like the one I described.

Yeah, it's a really odd trick and I didn't like it at all when I first read about it. Even so, what I disliked most about it was the whole "they're all different personalities in the same body" theory. But really, they seem to be more like masks (or characters in stories she wrote) than anything else.

Plus, you can easily use wonderful Reds like all people can only use their own names and still get this past the radar easily, because Yasu owns all of these names. Things like this make me think it's just really witty.

After all, if you can come up with a possible theory for something that seems completely impossible, then you have a much higher chance of winning (if you're on the witch side). And I really just love logic games like that. Reading Umineko has given me the insatiable desire to trap people in crazy, impossible-looking closed rooms, and dare them to find a way out, and cackle at them from the shadows (in an RP setting, that is. or something of that sort anyway).

[AuraTwilight]

RandomAvatarFan is on a distinguished road

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight (paraphrased) View Post
You are incompetent
:P

But... but... secret tunnels can explain *everything*. And with that I begin to get sucked into the anti-mystery. I mean even in Higurashi, we couldn't trust what the narrator was showing us. Why should we trust what Battler sees? What does "These secret tunnels do not count as revealed unless Battler, our detective character, observes them." mean? Piece!Battler always had a limited view of the events of 1986, and Meta!Battler observes everything from the MetaWorld, regardless of if it's fantasy or real. And are you now saying that everything Ange sees in 1998 is a lie, because she is not our one detective? That actually would explain the strange cast list at the end...

The only reliable viewpoint is Piece!Battler because nothing he observes is a lie, being the Detective character. This does technically mean that Ange isn't reliable,but that was obvious since she pretends to talk to demons. That doesn't necessarily mean everything in her story was a lie, though. It's not a one-or-the-other binary switch.

Oh, and the sixth person was Nanjo. Who is still suspicious alongside the Servants OWB. My feelings is that in the fantasy scene of EP3, 1st twilight, as far as the three of the OWB, they were pretty much prepared and expected to die. I know that's where you learn that you really can't trust everything, even emotions, but you have to trust *something*.

Right, I'm just saying that you're jumping the gun a little, here. Even if we trust some of the information in fantasy scenes, it's probably metaphorical and symbolic more than anything else.

Also, Beatrice's red All the victims of the first game are guaranteed.
Yes, everyone died at the end, but could it be referring at the end? You could say that the red isn't possible until it is true. For instance Beatrice can't confirm anyone's death until afterwards, right? Did she confirm any of EP1's deaths happened the way they appeared? Someone may have died after it was believed he or she was already dead, and since Beatrice's red declaration wasn't made until after the game was over, everyone in the first game *was* already dead by the time Beato made that declaration. The only time it was confirmed that anyone was alive was during Nanjo's murder in EP3 and right before the end of EP4.Kinzo, Krauss, Natushi, Hideyoshi, George, Rudolf, Kyrie, Rosa, Nanjo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, and Kumasawa was dead at the beginning of every game. It's some sort of delusion going on in Battler's mind. There is not enough information to prove otherwise.

This is kind of a silly argument. The games all take place on the same timeframe, so they are "perpendicular" to each other. Moreover, Whenver Beatrice talks about stuff outside of the current Gameboard, she gives proper context.

Nothing Battler observes is a delusion. His viewpoint in EP1-4 is 100% reliable until the end of each game: Midnight of the second day. As the Detective, he cannot witness illusions and delusions, and everything he experiences is trustworthy.

[Toku]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Nothing Battler observes is a delusion. His viewpoint in EP1-4 is 100% reliable until the end of each game: Midnight of the second day. As the Detective, he cannot witness illusions and delusions, and everything he experiences is trustworthy.

I'm pretty sure I remember various scenes that he shouldn't have been able to see if this is true. It's been too long since I've read EP1-4 though so I just can't give specific examples. That's why I want to ask here, if anyone remembers anything like that? Weren't there times he saw golden butterflies, for example? And he saw Beatrice in EP4. And, while my memory is lacking here, wasn't there a time when he told Maria that Beatrice should show herself, and she showed up right behind him? I'm not sure if he actually saw her then though...

I just want to confirm whether or not there was anything questionable about his perspective here, but it would take forever for me to go through the text again, so...

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Toku

Hmmm. I just think that there should be no need to resort to the most ridiculous explanations when a less ridiculous one is available. Now, granted, it's still somewhat ridiculous if LD put a physical body for Kanon in EP5, but there's no way it could be as ridiculous as speedchanging!Yasu... I mean, it may be a devil's proof, but even so, it would take many miracles, one after another, to pull this off, and a lot of skill too. We are given no clues which could lead us to believe that Yasu is that good at continuously switching. Sure, she can switch at will, but this is something totally different...

Well, I don't really mean that Yasu was speedchanging for real. I guess I explained myself poorly

The point is: since piece!Erika couldn't keep everyone under control at the same time and, if she tried to keep them under control as much as humanly possible she would have looked ridicule (in EP 5 Erika is trying to fit in... if she had kept looking around she would have looked suspicious) Erika never bothered trying to force the issue of not witnessing Shannon and Kanon at the same time in Ep 5 nor noticed it... because most likely they weren't the only ones whom she couldn't see at the same time.

However I think Shannon changed into Kanon at least once (meaning she left and turned dressed up as Kanon) or twice so that piece!Erika could see everyone in the parlour although not everyone at the same time.

And this is for what I think the trick was.

However if Erika was trying to force the issue and saying her piece was costantly looking around Lambda could have switched to something similar. Carefully moving the pieces so that Yasu would have time to change herself before coming again into Erika's vision.
Note that the time seems short because we think that Erika is purposely targetting Shannon and Kanon but it gets longer if Erika has no idea this might be the trick being played and that the one she should check are Shannon and Kanon.
Also she had no plans to consider a servant as the culprit so maybe, after seeing one and then the other, she kept looking at what the adults and cousins were doing and not at what Kanon and Shannon were doing.

Originally Posted by Toku

Aside from the perception theory you gave, and the additional body theory I brought up, the only other theories seem to involve meta-world stuff, which I just really don't like. It should be irrelevant in this case, anyway, because what we're looking at is why Meta-Erika didn't notice the lack of Kanon, not why we didn't notice. What we saw was from Battler's perspective, but what Meta-Erika saw through her piece's eyes should have been different and much more accurate.

Well, I don't think piece!Battler either managed to see everyone at the same time

This is how Battler 'saw' the scene through his piece's eyes.

'I' glanced around at the humans in the parlor.
The guest, Furudo Erika. And behind her, Kumasawa-san and Shannon-chan. Off to the side was Genji-san.
Krauss oji-san and Natsuhi oba-san were welcoming the guest.
Gohda-san immediately started showing off, and Kanon-kun was being unsociable, wearing his usual blank expression.
There was Dad and Kyrie-san. Eva oba-san and Hideyoshi oji-san. Rosa oba-san and Maria. And, Doctor Nanjo.
Then, on either side of me, were George-aniki and Jessica...

First thing is that as George and Jessica are on either side of him to look at George he likely couldn't see Jessica and viceversa so we've a hint that he too couldn't see everyone at the same time.
Second hint is that Shannon is behind Erika... so it's likely she wasn't in Erika's field of vision at the moment as Erika is facing the cousins to greet them. The same goes for Kumasawa and possibly Genji (who might have moved out of Erika's field of vision after he introduced the cousins to Erika).

So in the moment in which EVERYONE was in the parlour at least two, maybe three people were out of Erika's field of vision.
We've no info about piece!Erika turning to look behind her so as to check if Shannon and Kumasawa were really there. We only know she was acting dignified (which I guess means no keeping on looking around).
By the time she finished speaking with the cousins and she could turn and check if Shannon was really there Lambda might have said that Shannon and Kumasawa left. Meanwhile Kanon might have left as well and showed up short later as Shannon.

Same trick as when Battler saw Kinzo and Erika was turned.

Her reliable perspective would have allowed her to see that yes, Battler was really in front of her with the two cousins, and remember what she saw once this person were to enter in her field of vision but not that Shannon wasn't behind her anymore...

Originally Posted by Toku

1. Erika didn't have Detective's Authority in EP6. Therefore it's not only possible, but very easy to feed her false information. Piece!Battler in EP1-4 saw all kinds of crazy stuff that shouldn't have been possible, so it only makes sense that Piece!Erika in EP6 could too. Not only that, but BATTLER was able to skillfully dodge the issue of saying in Red that Kanon was in the cousins' room because Erika told him to say "everyone else."

Hum... no, piece!Battler never saw crazy stuff... unless it was around midnight of the last day (in short by that time the bomb should explode and he was dead). The only exception might be Ep 2 where it seems he met Beato short before midnight though it's possible he was completely drunk and therefore his reliable point of view was messed up by alchool.

Originally Posted by Toku

3. I think the best theory for this is probably that Yasu was bribing people to play along and treat Kanon as a different person.

Well, the siblings all know Kanon. This means that in all the games everyone apart from Battler knows Shannon and Kanon are the same person... which would mean Jessica doesn't love Kanon and want him to become her boyfriend or she wouldn't encourage Shannon to date George at the same time.

Another problem is Kanon must have been witnessed by more than just the people on Rokkenjima that day or the police could easily discover his non-existence.
Just saying he went to Jessica's school wouldn't be enough because it would be possible to construct a theory saying that Jessica invited to school someone who didn't work on Rokkenjima. In short the other servants of the Ushiromiya who werent' in service that day should have seen Kanon and be able to confirm he was working for the Ushiromiya by at least around 2 years (or, at least prior than Gohda was hired).

Also technically we're told Kanon had birth before Yasu discovered the gold so she couldn't bribe people into believing in Kanon.

In an old theory of mine I assumed Natsuhi, Krauss, Kumasawa and Genji knew Shannon and Kanon were the same person and were using Kanon to make the siblings and the other servants believe that Kinzo was still alive using Kanon as a witnesser that Kinzo... was eating in his room for example.

This would allow them to have Kinzo almost always 'under control', without forcing Shannon or Genji or Kumasawa to neglect their own duties to serve a dead Kinzo.

Kanon had birth as immaginary creature before Yasu discovered the gold, but gained 'an existence in the real world' only after Kinzo died.

Originally Posted by Toku

Yeah, it's a really odd trick and I didn't like it at all when I first read about it. Even so, what I disliked most about it was the whole "they're all different personalities in the same body" theory. But really, they seem to be more like masks (or characters in stories she wrote) than anything else.

Plus, you can easily use wonderful Reds like all people can only use their own names and still get this past the radar easily, because Yasu owns all of these names. Things like this make me think it's just really witty.

After all, if you can come up with a possible theory for something that seems completely impossible, then you have a much higher chance of winning (if you're on the witch side). And I really just love logic games like that. Reading Umineko has given me the insatiable desire to trap people in crazy, impossible-looking closed rooms, and dare them to find a way out, and cackle at them from the shadows (in an RP setting, that is. or something of that sort anyway).

*nods* I really dislike it. It's one of those things I find hard to believe but that I'm forced to swallow because that's part of the truth.

It reminds me of a old logic game 'how can you place a horse in a fridge in three actions?'. Although the solution is 'logic' it would never work in the real world unless you go and say when you say friedge or horse you aren't meaning the first thing that would come to everyone's mind.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

But I'm asking for Erika, specifically, who follows different rules from other pieces.

We don't know if Erika follows rules that are different from the ones of piece!Battler in this regard.
The only rule we're given is that the detective should not witness magic scenes (or better that his perspective must be reliable so no magic scenes can be witnessed). Battler was the detective for Ep 1-4 so at best there can be a difference between piece!Erika and Ep5piece!Battler.
(actually I'd like it very much if there was a guide book for the rules pieces has to follow)

Or are you speaking of something else?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

You can find evidence for lots of things in Umineko. I'm asking for evidence, not proof. The two are different.

I gave you evidence that a piece can't be aware of the meta at all the time... which can work as circumstancial evidence that the same might apply to piece!Erika in that situation. There's no direct evidence though... but direct evidence generally work as a proof if my understanding of English is correct (I expect Renall to set me straight on this if I made a mistake... :P) so again, we've no proofs of this.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

You know, I actually did a similar experiment, and scientists will tell you that the human brain can be deceived in pattern recognition. We can completely fail to recognize a face if it's "framed" differently, so Yasu wearing different wigs and hairstyles can do wonders to keep people from realizing Shannon and Kanon look similarly.

I know about such experiments. For me it works perfectly well when we talk of people not recognizing that Shannon and Beato are the same person (similarities between Shannon and the Beato in the painting, the meeting in EP 7 and it's possible Yasu bought her accomplices dressed up as Beato). The problem I have with this is that Kanon refers to Shannon as neesan 'big sister' but Shannon feels the need to point out they aren't related. And there's also this bit:

"That kid we met earlier, Kanon-kun, is her little brother."
"...He's not exactly my little brother... Still, he loves me like a big sister. ...He didn't cause you any trouble, did he?"

As soon as Jessica says he is her little brother Battler should have automatically thought to Kanon and see the resemblance and point out:
"Oh, so you two aren't related? How odd, he looks so much like you."

The same works for Erika as she has a great visual memory and should notice the oddity of the two of them looking so similar and not being related. She might miss it in the paint because maybe it's not perfectly accurate but real faces can't lie.

Though again it's possible that Erika do not pay attention to servants.

[AuraTwilight]

I'm pretty sure I remember various scenes that he shouldn't have been able to see if this is true. It's been too long since I've read EP1-4 though so I just can't give specific examples. That's why I want to ask here, if anyone remembers anything like that? Weren't there times he saw golden butterflies, for example? And he saw Beatrice in EP4. And, while my memory is lacking here, wasn't there a time when he told Maria that Beatrice should show herself, and she showed up right behind him? I'm not sure if he actually saw her then though...

The golden butterflies were after the end of the game: Midnight of the Second Day.

The instance where he asked Maria to present Beatrice and she appeared behind him was in the Tea-Party of the First episode, which was a Meta-World event.

Beatrice in EP4 could have been someone in a costume, and in fact probably was, since we know SOMEONE is pretending to be here.

Battler's perspective is objective and reliable as a Detective. This is not refutable.

[AuraTwilight]

We don't know if Erika follows rules that are different from the ones of piece!Battler in this regard.

Yes, we do, because Piece!Erika is fully aware of the Meta-World and uses out-of-Game knowledge constantly. No other character on Rokkenjima can do this outside of a Fantasy scene.

The only rule we're given is that the detective should not witness magic scenes (or better that his perspective must be reliable so no magic scenes can be witnessed). Battler was the detective for Ep 1-4 so at best there can be a difference between piece!Erika and Ep5piece!Battler.
(actually I'd like it very much if there was a guide book for the rules pieces has to follow)

Or are you speaking of something else?

Erika also has superhuman senses and other abilities that Battler was not afforded, such as the ability to invoke Red Truth on the Gameboard in order to control the actions of other Pieces.

I gave you evidence that a piece can't be aware of the meta at all the time... which can work as circumstancial evidence that the same might apply to piece!Erika in that situation. There's no direct evidence though... but direct evidence generally work as a proof if my understanding of English is correct (I expect Renall to set me straight on this if I made a mistake... :P) so again, we've no proofs of this.

Evidence and Proof are different concepts. Proof is absolute and certain; Evidence just strongly suggests it. (An example of evidence would be something like finding a tattered piece of someone's clothing covered in blood. Evidence that something bad happened to them but not PROOF).

As soon as Jessica says he is her little brother Battler should have automatically thought to Kanon and see the resemblance and point out:
"Oh, so you two aren't related? How odd, he looks so much like you."

Yea, and no one comments on Jessica being blonde, either. The appearances of the characters don't actually matter and effectively do not exist within the narrative unless it becomes important. Hell, Ryukishi has even said in an interview that characters don't drip wet when they come in from the rain because it "Wasn't important."

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I've already explained this.

No you haven't. You're earlier explanation only addresses how there could be distortion in a story without a Reader, which neither addresses the idea that "having no Reader"="absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text", nor does it address why they were all saying that a Reader can add distortion to a story.

Originally Posted by Renall

Except what you're saying is that, for just this one scene, for absolutely no reason

No, you're assuming that I'm saying that. I suggest that this "Interpretation Theory" is in the background affecting things throughout the story. It was just used more insidiously than usual in EP5 when we have a different Player and Game Master.

Originally Posted by Renall

, when we've always previously seen the interplay between the creative forces, we are suddenly treated to the aftereffects of such an interaction which we did not see, which has produced a result which is both intentionally misleading to the reader and seemingly contradictory to the individual advanced as a player,

RK07 himself admits to using dirty tricks. Do you really think that RK07 wouldn't do something like this?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yes, we do, because Piece!Erika is fully aware of the Meta-World and uses out-of-Game knowledge constantly. No other character on Rokkenjima can do this outside of a Fantasy scene.

She certainly seems to have meta-oriented goals, but that's not absolute proof that she has access to out-of-Game knowledge.

I think that it's possible that everything about Erika, including her super human skills and her ridiculous meta-oriented behavior, is guided by the fact that she's the piece of "The Witch of Miracles", not by any kind of special access to meta-knowledge.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The way I saw it was that Clair was like a chatbot. She gives the illusion of sentience but isn't actually so. At best she is channelling the 'ghost' of Yasu's regrets. But either way, there is no spirit to Clair's existence. She's just a part of the show.

Just because she's a "tool" doesn't mean the fact that she's the Reader is irrelevant. Which tool you use to complete a job will affect the process, and possibly even the result, of the job.

[Kylon99]

By the way, I was looking into the idea that Yasu has no concept of self-identity and I found an interesting article:

Abstract here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8337306
Full article here: http://www.ijpsy.com/volumen4/num3/9...f-sense-EN.pdf

I was less interested in the treatments it described and more about the types of changes after a brain injury. Circa 1993, and I'm sure we've made much more progress in the last 19 years, but I think most of the descriptions of brain injuries are still true.

While it doesn't exactly address Yasu's condition, it *does* address Tooya's condition, including the part about feeling that after the brain injury they are a totally different person, basically coming from realizing changes in behavior and viewing the changes in a negative manner. It could be that Tooya was no longer the outgoing friendly Battler and it's not George that was just jealous of this, but Tooya specifically brought it up because he felt this change too.

And also the "fear of psychological annihilation" (from the paper) which Tooya experienced, although his was a fear of his former self re-emerging and overwriting his current self (which he had learned to deal with eventually.)


And then, there is THIS chessboard analogy which I'm sure is just a coincidence... right?

Spoiler for Flip over the chessboard!:

Another example is the “chessboard” metaphor, in which the therapist guides
the client to view herself as a limitless chessboard, which holds both black and white
pieces (Hayes et al., 1999; Hayes & Wilson, 1994). The pieces are said to represent
thoughts and emotions, both those that are positively valued (one team of pieces) and
those that are negatively valued (the other team). The client is guided to verbally
understand that if she identifies with one or other of the teams (i.e., if she identifies
with her conceptualized self) it becomes necessary to fight the other team, in order to
win the game. Identification with one team automatically brings the client into a battle
with herself that is impossible to win. However, identification with the board (self as
context) both avoids this conflict and leads to increased self-knowledge. To the board,
it matters not which team is winning. The board holds and knows all the pieces equally,
whatever their nature. Freed from engaging in unnecessary, pointless conflict, the board
is free to move in any chosen direction (e.g., toward valued life goals), carrying all the
pieces with it.

Yeah... gotta be a coincidence. Yeah... >_>


I'm pretty sure Ryukishi would have researched brain disorders for Tooya at the least. But I'm wondering how much of what Yasu suffered was ironically exactly what Tooya suffered. Tooya didn't go around insisting he was several different people, however. Unless... hmmm... Maybe Ikuko was a figment of Tooya's imagination? Although I don't think the house, servant and money was a figment of his imagination though...

Anyways, it's a good read you want to know a bit more about Tooya's brain injuries.

Any thoughts?

[Kylon99]

Argh, sorry for the double post. My brain started working and now I can't sleep, so I need to get this written down.


It makes more and more sense that Yasu has severe problems with self-identity in that she most likely has no actual self identity. Basically that, yes, her Shkannontrice identities are masks or personas and they are not fully formed people, but instead, if you remove that mask you'd actually find nothing underneath. Several things keep me thinking like this:

1. Obviously the Shkannontrice act. Why is it that this her cry to Battler? Umineko's theme isn't her saying, "Hey, Battler, the real one you love is Yasu." The fact that she juggles these personas is something she desperately wanted to say to Battler. This is not how someone (normal ) who has a real identity would act; they would be eager to discard the mask and let that person know the real them. Or of course they would normally hide them; but then she wouldn't have written Umineko to be something where Battler can discover the truth. But the main thing is that Yasu didn't give out hints, like... ever... about who or what she *truly* was; I'm thinking that there was no truly *anything* to speak of. She kept putting these personas in front; that was what she kept trying to clue him on.

2. What LyricalAura said about furniture makes the most sense to me now. Furniture are people whose lives and actions are scripted by others. Shkannon both fall under this and so does Genji to a degree. Certainly Yasu was able to manipulate Genji to do her bidding with minimal effort and probably he did whatever Kinzo told him to as well. Beatrice seems to pretend that she's not furniture though, and we see evidence that she is much more action oriented than Shannon, although she admits to being furniture once in awhile, IIRC. She acts, but is limited in her actions too, perhaps?

This brings me to the red flashing scene in EP7 where Yasu screams at GenSawaJo at how it's as if she's nothing but 'furniture.' I can understand that not having a self identity means not having a willpower to act *for* the self. Until, of course she learned to place these desires into Beatrice and Shannon; her way of dealing with it. But dealing with the original injury did not belong to any of her personas; it belonged to her 'self', which must have felt like she realized that she really died back then and existed as a shell now.

What this means to me is that it would explain why this scene was merely a flash, a counterpoint to the beautiful loving scene chapters before; if you have no self identity you can't say, "It would have been better if you left *me* to die." The 'me' shouldn't make sense to someone who has no self identity, but the sentiment was there. So I'm wondering if the flash scenes were things she wanted to say but couldn't. And if that sentiment was bottled up without expression after 15 or so years... well, that can certainly explain enough self-deprecating rage to kill everyone. Or at least Gensawajo. It can also explain why something minor like Battler's promise would seem like some kind of massive hope to her.

3. This is why other characters in the episodes, like Jessica in EP2 keep talking about having different personalities. Over and over again. It wouldn't make sense to think that the entire cast suffered from DID; instead it makes sense if this was a major re-occuring theme and Yasu was speaking through them in EP1 and 2. And that maybe she's noting and studying that other people have this ability to wear different personas as well. Jessica, Rosa, Maria from her direct EP1-2 writings have all been shown to have 'multiple personalities,' but of course, they're merely the personas that they wear. Eva too in EP3 and later with her Eva-Beatrice personality. I see this as Yasu using this to help identify herself with the others; to feel out the different personas other people wear. Maybe it's that she doesn't know how to connect with the inner self of other people because she has no experience with hers, but she can connect with people's outer selves.

Also, didn't Hideyoshi mention some stuff off-hand about some historical figure that also had this same theme? Did anyone else mention stuff off-hand? A re-play-through with this thought in mind might be very enlightening.

Evidence ends here. Now here are some consequences and further thoughts if this is true... IF it's true, please bear in mind. 8)


First thought that comes to mind: That Bernkastel named her Yasu and called her the one responsible for the other personalities. If you think about this carefully, it seems to me to be an insult by Bern. "Hey, you're just pretending to have this disability. I will call you Yasu and give you an identity to make people believe that you're stupid and/or crazy." You guys know about how I've never really felt too strongly that Yasu is a 'real' name since it coincides so much with the "Hanin ha Yasu" meme. I think this makes sense if this is Bernkastel's way of crushing the truth; by pretending that someone has an identity when they don't. Which makes this one of her greatest final moves; Yasu's actions make no sense if there was a healthy individual behind them and yet if we just say she's 'psycho' that doesn't provide a satisfying answer. This is something we still haven't surmounted even now.

Another thought: If this is actually true, then she should have suffered the loss of her abilities (as per the brain article I posted in the last message) when she was .. what was it, 1 or 2 years old? Not old enough to detect the changes in abilities or personality for sure. So she grew up happy to be herself, not knowing any better. Or she may have assumed everyone else was like her; or perhaps she realized she was somewhat 'special' (uhhh.. in a good way. 8) ) Then Gensawajo break the news to her, "No, you're actually disabled, you have no ability in places where EVERYONE does." On some level, she probably wouldn't know how to respond, but there must be some part which suddenly realizes that she's not 'good special' anymore, but 'speshul' instead. This realization should have been a huge trauma. This could explain the change from Happy Glowy Beatrice to bitter, derisive and self-deprecating (to the other personalities) Beatrice at the time of her inheritance of the gold.

One problem: Battler. How the @#$! would he, "And then I knew?" I don't imagine that he goes around reading brain injury papers from 1993 in 1986. And I don't imagine Shannon would have told him something like that and he would forget it. That'd be pretty loser-ish, Battler. 8) The only thing I can think of is that, is there's a detective novel, or similar novel where the villain has the same problem? I've noticed that ever since Psycho in 1960 (and probably even earlier), the field of brain injuries or psychological disorders was a gold mine for creating villains. Was there a story, especially a detective story where the antagonist, or at least any character suffered the same problem? If there was, then this would probably be the strongest clue of them all. It means that Battler would be able to put 2-and-2 together immediately just by recalling one story he and Shannon shared, rather than somehow figuring out on the spot all the dropped clues from several episodes.


Anyways, lots of ideas to digest here. I think this does gives us another view of Umineko itself.

By the way, Renall, if you like this theory, can you give it a catchy name like you did last time? :3

[Renall]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Well, I don't really mean that Yasu was speedchanging for real. I guess I explained myself poorly

The point is: since piece!Erika couldn't keep everyone under control at the same time and, if she tried to keep them under control as much as humanly possible she would have looked ridicule (in EP 5 Erika is trying to fit in... if she had kept looking around she would have looked suspicious) Erika never bothered trying to force the issue of not witnessing Shannon and Kanon at the same time in Ep 5 nor noticed it... because most likely they weren't the only ones whom she couldn't see at the same time.

However I think Shannon changed into Kanon at least once (meaning she left and turned dressed up as Kanon) or twice so that piece!Erika could see everyone in the parlour although not everyone at the same time.

The problem with that is that while it's as plausible as things could really get for how Erika could believe that she might have seen Shannon and Kanon around at roughly the same times, there's several kludges you've made or facts you've forgotten that make it difficult. Notably:

• That's not how Battler describes the scene while narrating it. He basically describes everybody walking into the room and then the scene pauses for confirmation. There's no time for a costume swap, and moreover...
• ...Lambda's confirmation is basically an instantaneous thing. So even if Shannon/Kanon were swapping off to periodically create the impression they're both milling about, at the exact moment of the confirmation only one of them could be in the room. Now if Erika simply forgot that it's one thing, however...
• ...Erika has a photographic memory. She would therefore never actually be fooled by the swapping, at least in the sense that she would believe she had ever seen Shannon and Kanon together. She might assume she just wasn't looking at one or the other, but it starts to get suspicious when she never sees them together, and can perfectly remember that this is the case. Worse, if Erika was observing one of them at the moment of the confirmation, and if Meta-Erika has any access to what her piece should have seen in that scene, she'd immediately know Shkanon was true because she's looking at Kanon and being told everyone on the island is in the parlor, which precludes Shannon being anywhere else. The only other conclusion she could reach is "Shannon must be out of my sight. Again." Which would make her pretty dense and only serve to underscore the detail that she's never seen both of them at once.

Even if Erika's too dumb to figure out Shkanon, surely the detail that she's never seen them in the same place means something to her, given that she has perfect recall. Battler didn't, and could have easily overlooked or forgotten the detail (notably, the time period between meeting Shannon and Kanon in ep1 is brief enough that Battler's memory could've made him think he'd seen them both within seconds of each other; Erika would not make that mistake).

Originally Posted by Wanderer

RK07 himself admits to using dirty tricks. Do you really think that RK07 wouldn't do something like this?

What evidence do you have that he did in this case?

None, save one exchange that only means what you want it to mean if you already think it means that. You also still haven't resolved any of the actual issues with that scene, so I'd continue to classify your theory as useless as I have no idea what exactly anyone is supposed to do with this claim.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

What evidence do you have that he did in this case?

• The terminology. "Player", "Game Master", "Game Board" typically indicates a two-way process between the Player and Game Master with the Game Board as a medium. It's very often likened to chess, which is indisputably a two-way process. If the what happens on the Game Board is not a two-way process then RK07 is using deceptive terminology for apparently no reason.
• The basic narrative in EP6 just screams a 2-way process. First there's the whole idea that the Game Master can, and sometimes needs to, change the narrative in the middle of the Game, which makes no sense in a 1-way process as there's nothing for the Game Master to react to. Second, Meta-Erika can't trap BATTER in a logic error unless either: BATTLER unilaterally determines the narrative, in which case he's just fucking around by himself and Meta-Erika is pointless, or Meta-Erika can influence the narrative and it's a 2-way process.
• Battler's narrated thought projection throughout EPs 1-4. Piece-Battler would make assumptions as to what certain people were thinking, which would be narrated. If someone other than Meta-Battler wrote those assumptions into Piece-Battler's mind, shouldn't Meta-Battler find it presumptuous? Wouldn't they get it wrong sometimes and Meta-Battler would go "wait, I wouldn't think that". That never happened in EPs 1-4. It did happen in EP 5 when Meta-Battler found Piece-Battler to seem smarter than he should be, but that was in EP 5 when Meta-Battler wasn't playing.

Originally Posted by Renall

None, save one exchange that only means what you want it to mean if you already think it means that. You also still haven't resolved any of the actual issues with that scene, so I'd continue to classify your theory as useless as I have no idea what exactly anyone is supposed to do with this claim.

If you're talking about the discussion about "Readers" in EP 8, I simply cannot see it meaning something else than "a Reader can distort a game", since that's what they say practically word for word, several times.

If you accuse me of interpreting it only the way that I want to, then you better give me some kind of alternative possible interpretation that I am failing to see. Else you're just being an antagonistic jerk without reason to back it up.

[AuraTwilight]

No you haven't. You're earlier explanation only addresses how there could be distortion in a story without a Reader, which neither addresses the idea that "having no Reader"="absolutely no falsehoods contained in the narrated text", nor does it address why they were all saying that a Reader can add distortion to a story.

A Reader can add a distortion to their story with how they choose to pay attention to details, such as character voices or sound effects or even personal opinions that can cause an audience or the Reader's own mind to be misdirected.

The "No Reader = No Falsehoods" thing is complete bullshit if only on the grounds that Bern's Game totally has falsehoods.

She certainly seems to have meta-oriented goals, but that's not absolute proof that she has access to out-of-Game knowledge.

In EP6 she talks to Battler directly referencing EP5 and the Meta-World. "Wow, even here, you're a good intellectual match for me." "What are you talking about?"

In EP5 she shouts for Bernkastel's forgiveness before being stricken down into her seat like a puppet.

Just because she's a "tool" doesn't mean the fact that she's the Reader is irrelevant. Which tool you use to complete a job will affect the process, and possibly even the result, of the job.

Tools-Who-Are-Not-Persons do not have a subjective viewpoint with which to corrupt and distort the telling of a story.

The terminology. "Player", "Game Master", "Game Board" typically indicates a two-way process between the Player and Game Master with the Game Board as a medium. It's very often likened to chess, which is indisputably a two-way process. If the what happens on the Game Board is not a two-way process then RK07 is using deceptive terminology for apparently no reason.

False Argument, because there's already interactivity in the way of Battler or Erika or whoever controlling their Piece and being able to interact with the environment and characters. This does not lead us, in any way, to "The gameboard's imagery is directly misrepresented by the player's misconceptions."

The basic narrative in EP6 just screams a 2-way process. First there's the whole idea that the Game Master can, and sometimes needs to, change the narrative in the middle of the Game, which makes no sense in a 1-way process as there's nothing for the Game Master to react to. Second, Meta-Erika can't trap BATTER in a logic error unless either: BATTLER unilaterally determines the narrative, in which case he's just fucking around by himself and Meta-Erika is pointless, or Meta-Erika can influence the narrative and it's a 2-way process.

See above.

Battler's narrated thought projection throughout EPs 1-4. Piece-Battler would make assumptions as to what certain people were thinking, which would be narrated. If someone other than Meta-Battler wrote those assumptions into Piece-Battler's mind, shouldn't Meta-Battler find it presumptuous? Wouldn't they get it wrong sometimes and Meta-Battler would go "wait, I wouldn't think that". That never happened in EPs 1-4. It did happen in EP 5 when Meta-Battler found Piece-Battler to seem smarter than he should be, but that was in EP 5 when Meta-Battler wasn't playing.

Battler is really good at reading the thoughts, moods, and attitudes of everyone else because he knows them personally. It's not that the narration is following his thought processes so much as he's just getting really spot on. Alternatively, if these thought narrations are being given in accordance to what Battler thinks, it's worth noting that seeing the mental viewpoints of other characters technically constitutes a Fantasy Scene, and is completely out of the purview of Piece!Battler, making it a far cry of incompatibility and incomparability with Erika's misdirected perceptions of the Parlor scene.

If you're talking about the discussion about "Readers" in EP 8, I simply cannot see it meaning something else than "a Reader can distort a game", since that's what they say practically word for word, several times.

And you are choosing to interpret "distort" in a very specific, unsupported, and personally preferred way that isn't even metaphorically analogous to how readers work in every other medium of life and fiction, which is a direct contrast to how you argue the usage of terms such as Piece, Player, Gameboard, and the like.

Your argument is special pleading one way or another because you're using different forms of reasoning at different parts of the theory that are only superficially separate from each other, and your shuffling of semantics doesn't get around the fundamental problems and criticisms being raised against your theory.

If you accuse me of interpreting it only the way that I want to, then you better give me some kind of alternative possible interpretation that I am failing to see. Else you're just being an antagonistic jerk without reason to back it up.

Totes did that, see above.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

• The terminology. "Player", "Game Master", "Game Board" typically indicates a two-way process between the Player and Game Master with the Game Board as a medium. It's very often likened to chess, which is indisputably a two-way process. If the what happens on the Game Board is not a two-way process then RK07 is using deceptive terminology for apparently no reason.
• The basic narrative in EP6 just screams a 2-way process. First there's the whole idea that the Game Master can, and sometimes needs to, change the narrative in the middle of the Game, which makes no sense in a 1-way process as there's nothing for the Game Master to react to. Second, Meta-Erika can't trap BATTER in a logic error unless either: BATTLER unilaterally determines the narrative, in which case he's just fucking around by himself and Meta-Erika is pointless, or Meta-Erika can influence the narrative and it's a 2-way process.
• Battler's narrated thought projection throughout EPs 1-4. Piece-Battler would make assumptions as to what certain people were thinking, which would be narrated. If someone other than Meta-Battler wrote those assumptions into Piece-Battler's mind, shouldn't Meta-Battler find it presumptuous? Wouldn't they get it wrong sometimes and Meta-Battler would go "wait, I wouldn't think that". That never happened in EPs 1-4. It did happen in EP 5 when Meta-Battler found Piece-Battler to seem smarter than he should be, but that was in EP 5 when Meta-Battler wasn't playing.

Okay, except... none of that has anything to do with your theory. Your theory is about Readers, which don't exist in the "game" scenarios. There is no indication that the "distortions" applied by a Reader, even if able to misrepresent the very character of the story to an individual who has supernatural confirmation abilities and a perspective present in the actual story - please stop dodging that, it's getting aggravating, address it - apply in any way to the Game Master/Player dynamic. In fact, one thing we do know is that, while Beatrice often showed Battler fantastical things in her stories, she never once did so while Battler's piece was present and Battler was still actively engaged in playing against her. That suggests to me that she can't because of some property of the player's piece, be it their "reliable perspective" or "detective authority" or whatever. It's a mechanism to make the game fair for the player. Battler had it. Erika has it. And Erika actually has more fair play mechanics than Battler ever got, at least in ep5. As you said, Battler's behavior was different from when he was a player. That suggests the player can't be easily messed with.

If Erika was playing, and Erika was in the parlor, Erika's perspective ought to mean something (i.e. she cannot have seen Shannon and Kanon both unless, as Kealym suggests, there actually were two of them; and if she did see two of them when there weren't two, it needs to be explained). You just handwave this and ignore it. Stop that.

That's the entire crux of the problem with that scene, and your tangent hasn't done much of anything to approach it. We are aware of what Erika ought to have seen, and we don't actually need to have seen the original playthrough to know that. We know what the narration says Erika should have seen, and we know that Erika and Meta-Erika are in some sense connected (although we don't know how or to what extent). We also know how Meta-Erika acts, and from this there is certain information we can infer (e.g. she thinks Shannon and Kanon are different persons). What she should know and what she does know don't add up.

Saying "she assumed they were separate so it was depicted that they are even though her piece would not have seen that" is something which has never happened during a game. Battler made a lot of false assumptions in ep1-4, but they didn't suddenly become true because he did so. We know this because we have independent confirmation.

For example, Battler assumes the chapel is locked in ep2. He never actually confirms that it isn't. By your reasoning, the chapel became locked as a result, or would have actually been locked on a replay of the same events to an observer of the game. Except Will says the answer is "it wasn't locked" (in so many words). And Our Confessions makes clear that Beatrice has intended solutions to each of her tricks. So even though Battler can interact in some way and she can improvise in some way, she can't make the chapel suddenly be locked if the whole trick was "make a big show of giving the key to Maria, then don't actually lock the chapel door." The chapel door will never be locked, Shannon's body will never be in the ep1 shed, and if the adults posted a guard at every room they checked in ep3's First Twilight Kanon would never be found in the chapel. The only difference is whether Battler actually confirms it by being present through his piece and doing something.

If the "trick" of ep5's parlor scene was "Shannon and Kanon swap out a couple times to give Erika the impression that both are in the room," or "Kanon was never actually in Erika's line of sight," we should have seen that. Instead, we get Battler's perspective description and Lambda's instantaneous assurance. These are things Erika ought to have noticed, but she apparently didn't. That is what we must adequately address, if we even can.

If you accuse me of interpreting it only the way that I want to, then you better give me some kind of alternative possible interpretation that I am failing to see. Else you're just being an antagonistic jerk without reason to back it up.

I don't need an explanation of my own to tell you that your idea is malformed and improperly supported. That's a self-evident observation. If I were to propose a theory of my own, it wouldn't suddenly mean that one of us is right. We could both be wrong. So there's really no point to confusing the subject with a new argument when we haven't properly disposed of the current one.

[Toku]

Originally Posted by Kylon99

stuff

I, uh... Just want to say that this is pretty amazing. I can't really process and understand all of it, let alone all of the implications of it, but it seems to be at least somewhat grounded in canon, especially because of things like:

(EP7)
"Ah, where is this place?! And who am I?!"
"Then let me ask! Where do you want it to be? Who do you want to be?!"
"Any place, so long as it will wrap itself around me gently! Anyone, so long as I am treated kindly!"
"Yes, for us...!"
"For us...!"
""Where and who we are hardly matters!!""

And it allows an interesting parallel between Tohya and Yasu, and between the injuries the two suffered. Not only that, but it seems to imply even more strongly that BATTLER's logic error is a parallel for the Battler between suffering brain damage and the epilogue, when Beatrice finally reached him. Well, it's also a parallel for how Yasu felt during those 6 years though, of course.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

A Reader can add a distortion to their story with how they choose to pay attention to details, such as character voices or sound effects or even personal opinions that can cause an audience or the Reader's own mind to be misdirected.

And you are choosing to interpret "distort" in a very specific, unsupported, and personally preferred way that isn't even metaphorically analogous to how readers work in every other medium of life and fiction, which is a direct contrast to how you argue the usage of terms such as Piece, Player, Gameboard, and the like.

Uhhhh, I'm pretty sure this kind of thing was never even implied. Actually, isn't it said all the time that a GM can play with the presentation of the story however they please, and that therefore white text is all but useless? Wait, do you really think that, for example, Beato vs. Virgilia is a result of how Beato paid attention to details or her personal opinions which caused someone to misinterpret it? Because, that's practically impossible.

On a game board, the GM is the Reader. As a result of their Reading, the Fantasy side of the story is established. If the GM doesn't function as a Reader, then you will only see the Mystery side, like in Our Confessions.

EDIT: Well, of course, the GM can also have someone else Read for them, though.

The "No Reader = No Falsehoods" thing is complete bullshit if only on the grounds that Bern's Game totally has falsehoods.

Only in purple text. And that's the characters lying, not the narration or anything like that.

False Argument, because there's already interactivity in the way of Battler or Erika or whoever controlling their Piece and being able to interact with the environment and characters. This does not lead us, in any way, to "The gameboard's imagery is directly misrepresented by the player's misconceptions."

...Wait a bit. What's the point of this whole argument? The question is why Erika didn't have a clue about the "ShKannon" thing in EP6 when she needed it to solve Beato's puzzle, even though she should have only been able to see one of them at a time in the EP5 parlor scene. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we saw.

What we saw is Lambda Reading the scene to us from a non-detective perspective. Thus, any amount of illusions could have been added.

EDIT: Nevermind. I think I get it now. Meta-Erika is seeing what we see? I don't see any basis for believing that at all...

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Toku

What we saw is Lambda Reading the scene to us from a non-detective perspective. Thus, any amount of illusions could have been added.

That doesn't make any sense. There's no reason for her to do that, and the mere occurrence of that happening should have been a giant red flag to Bernkastel (and possibly to Erika). It would not have been of any benefit to Battler, and more critically, to her. It would also suggest that it wasn't narrated like that to begin with. Who did narrate it then? How was it different? If we never even get a hint of that, there's nothing remotely fair or useful about writing it that way.

There's also no evidence for your interpretation. How do you know she didn't just hit the rewind button on the game board? Oh, because there's no evidence the game board has a rewind button? Exactly.

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Toku

And it allows an interesting parallel between Tohya and Yasu, and between the injuries the two suffered. Not only that, but it seems to imply even more strongly that BATTLER's logic error is a parallel for the Battler between suffering brain damage and the epilogue, when Beatrice finally reached him. Well, it's also a parallel for how Yasu felt during those 6 years though, of course.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's kind of ironic, I thought at first, that Ryukishi would put Battler through something similar to Yasu, if indeed Yasu had the same sort of psychological problems. Albeit a change in identity, vs. a loss of identity. Then I started thinking, what if this wasn't just irony, but an actual hint? One of the last hints at the very end of Umineko...

By the way, can you clarify on what you mean by the logic error being a parallel? Like Battler's mind/self being trapped away and Battler's outer self being a non-entity yet another representation of this same theme?

[Toku]

Originally Posted by Renall

That doesn't make any sense. There's no reason for her to do that, and the mere occurrence of that happening should have been a giant red flag to Bernkastel (and possibly to Erika). It would not have been of any benefit to Battler, and more critically, to her. It would also suggest that it wasn't narrated like that to begin with. Who did narrate it then? How was it different? If we never even get a hint of that, there's nothing remotely fair or useful about writing it that way.

There's also no evidence for your interpretation. How do you know she didn't just hit the rewind button on the game board? Oh, because there's no evidence the game board has a rewind button? Exactly.

I'm afraid that neither of us seem to be able to understand the other right now. I'm saying that the GM can embellish the story however they please, which has several metric tons of evidence. The Fantasy side of the stories = fabricated processes which lead to the same results. For example, I cited Beato vs. Virgilia as evidence. And that's just the most obvious case of it. That's why I say, as long as it's not from the perspective of a detective Piece, the Reader can do whatever.

Whether the GM does the Reading or someone else does though, I don't think it matters...

The only times that we didn't have a Reader, as far as I can tell, are in Bern's puzzle and in Our Confessions. Shouldn't it be obvious that every other game board we see has a Reader?

I'm pretty sure Lambda should be the Reader for EP5, I mean, it has to be either her or Bern doing it. And it looks like it's Lambda. Therefore, shouldn't it follow that Lambda is also Reading the parlor scene, which is part of EP5? And she has more than enough authority to distort the scene however she pleases, as long as it leads to the same results.

However, the detective, who sees things through the eyes of their Piece, should be able to see what's really happening.

Which means that the Reader argument shouldn't have much place in this particular discussion.