[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[chounokoe]

Well at least Ryukishi seems to be aiming or what I hoped he would do.
That sounds really intriguing.

To get away from that topic for a short moment, because it popped into my head while continuing to read the manga adaption (because I have just no time to reread the VN right now) and it just won't go away.
Was it ever actually discussed around here, what the "magic to kill mama" is, that Beato agreed to teach Maria after Sakutarô was 'killed'?
It's interesting how Maria seems to know for sure that the door to the Golden Land was to open that night and in the arc where she dies early on, we see Eva escaping death...
I'm not saying Maria commited any murders, but would it be so hard to believe that she pushed a switch? If it was actually her who activated the mechanism, it could explain why 'Yasu' did not act on it.

I agree (before it's even voiced) that it's difficult because it is hard to prove the existence of a destructive mechanism in the first 4 games, that could be activated by a child. And I'm also still missing why Battler's return should push Maria into activating the switch or make somebody unable to prevent Maria from doing so...

Still it's bugging me, because that "magic" stands out between the rest of them which are quite easy to explain...

[Renall]

It's also seemingly out of character for "Beatrice" as we've been led to know her to even teach such "black magic" to Maria. The perception we've been given of the individual behind Beatrice is a person who is something of a prankster, definitely the sort to teach Maria all the good and innocent things Beatrice is credited with showing her, yet strangely absent is a good motive for her to even know about the darker side of magic to be able to instruct Maria in its use.

And even then, we only ever appear to see Maria employ such "magic" in her own imagination. It appears, on a surface-level reading, like Beatrice taught Maria a coping mechanism to deal with stress through indulging her hate. But why would Beatrice know this in the first place...?

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Renall

Well, the ep7 Tea Party was a "mystery-oriented solution" inasmuch as it presented a solution like you might see in a mystery. He was careful not to say the solution. That could mean many things (the truth wasn't as shown, the whole truth wasn't as shown, the truth can't be shown with just a mystery-oriented solution, etc.).

It really wasn't. That would be like seeing a corpse with a gun shot wound and a knife wound then just saying the person was killed by a gun; what about that knife wound? What Bernkastel showed us lacked depth, but I can't say she is completely off.

[TehChron]

Originally Posted by Renall

It's also seemingly out of character for "Beatrice" as we've been led to know her to even teach such "black magic" to Maria. The perception we've been given of the individual behind Beatrice is a person who is something of a prankster, definitely the sort to teach Maria all the good and innocent things Beatrice is credited with showing her, yet strangely absent is a good motive for her to even know about the darker side of magic to be able to instruct Maria in its use.

And even then, we only ever appear to see Maria employ such "magic" in her own imagination. It appears, on a surface-level reading, like Beatrice taught Maria a coping mechanism to deal with stress through indulging her hate. But why would Beatrice know this in the first place...?

She really...really...really hates Gohda and Ranon and whoever else is ticking her off that day.

Someone else mentioned once that maybe the title "Endless" refers to one who can imagine things infinitely, right? Well, maybe that "magic" is simply using one's own imagination to take your anger out on the person you hold the grudge against mentally.

[rogerpepitone]

Rather than _The Burning Court_, this is increasingly reminding me of a scenario described in a different book.

Originally Posted by John Dickson Carr in _The Four False Weapons_

"Suppose you are reading a detective story with an intriguing situation. A corpse (let us say) is found strangled, sitting in a chair by a window, and wearing a domino mask; and all the clocks in the house are found with their faces turned to the wall. You are carefully warned that the blazing clue to the truth is the fact that there is a teaspoon in the victim's pocket, and that, without all these things being just as they were, the crime could never have taken place. ... Now, suppose at the denoument the identity of the killer was revealed -- for the simple reason that his fingerprints matched those on the collar of the strangled man. Would you feel cheated? That's exactly what might happen in life; but would you feel cheated? You know damn well you would. ... He admits the crime. Then he shoots himself. Consequently, you never know the significance of the mask or the reversed clocks, or what deduction you should have drawn from the teaspoon. Page 315, 'The End'. What would you do? You would strangle the author, lynch the publisher, and shoot the bookseller.

[Leafsnail]

Shush, the culprit was clearly Device X.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by TehChron

She really...really...really hates Gohda and Ranon and whoever else is ticking her off that day.

It seems like there's a bit of a gap between "these people piss me off at work" and "I'm going to teach you to imagine your mother being brutally murdered over and over."

Granted, Maria could've extrapolated that on her own from the lesson "imagine something bad happening to the people who anger you." She is a witch without peer.

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

Rather than _The Burning Court_, this is increasingly reminding me of a scenario described in a different book.

Well, it makes sense for Umineko to mirror Carr as they both revolve around locked room murders.

After all, Umineko itself could be seen as an interpretation of what Carr called "the greatest game in the world" or something of the sort.

The Burning Court is probably what influenced Umineko the most, though I think that The Hollow Man and its speeches about locked rooms had some influence as well.

Which reminds me, am I the only one who thinks that the red text is somewhat like the way certain clues are handled in Ellery Queen novels?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

The Burning Court is probably what influenced Umineko the most, though I think that The Hollow Man and its speeches about locked rooms had some influence as well.

Which reminds me, am I the only one who thinks that the red text is somewhat like the way certain clues are handled in Ellery Queen novels?

Sticking to the Carr tangent, wasn't it The Nine Wrong Answers where he did a lot of convention-discussion and wrong-answer-analysis in footnotes?

I can easily see the colored text being like that. Imagine for instance that you found a manuscript entitled Turn of the Golden Witch which contained, in part, text written in red ink, and a footnote instruction that you should treat all text in red as true. Such a classic mystery could easily exist (and I'm sure plenty in that basic vein do exist).

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by TehChron

Someone else mentioned once that maybe the title "Endless" refers to one who can imagine things infinitely, right? Well, maybe that "magic" is simply using one's own imagination to take your anger out on the person you hold the grudge against mentally.

And then Yasu was Patrick Bateman.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Renall

Sticking to the Carr tangent, wasn't it The Nine Wrong Answers where he did a lot of convention-discussion and wrong-answer-analysis in footnotes?

I can easily see the colored text being like that. Imagine for instance that you found a manuscript entitled Turn of the Golden Witch which contained, in part, text written in red ink, and a footnote instruction that you should treat all text in red as true. Such a classic mystery could easily exist (and I'm sure plenty in that basic vein do exist).

I've never read any Carr before, but I just started reading The Crooked Hinge, and right away I came across a bit of "X is not the culprit and Y evidence is genuine" meta-discussion that may as well have been red text. Is this is something he does a lot?

By the way, if any mention of red truth had been in the original manuscripts, it's odd that we were never shown anyone approaching them as mystery fiction. It ought to scream "solve this if you can" to anybody, so that even an occult maniac would realize that it wasn't a direct account of the incident. So that's probably a good indicator that there was no meta narrative in the bottle stories.

[rogerpepitone]

I don't remember _The Crooked Hinge_ that well, but Carr had used red text equivalent as early as _It Walks By Night_. (At one early point, detective Bencolin says something about how the doors were watched and the window was impassible and ..., yet somehow the killer has decapitated a victim in there. It is then followed by the narrator mentioning "And as later events were to prove, Bencolin spoke the absolute truth.".)

_The Nine Wrong Answers_ had the footnote gimmick, but it was largely in response to typical mystery quick answers: "No, there wasn't a conspiracy to have Bill Dawson overhear this conversation. It was a coincidence." "No, character ____ did not commit suicide."

_The Reader is Warned_ had a footnote gimmick similar to _The Nine Wrong Answers_.

_The Three Coffins_ aka _The Hollow Man_ has a device similar to the red text; early on it mentions that several witnesses are being absolutely sincere in their testimony, describing things exactly as they saw it. It also has the famous "Locked Room Lecture", which discussed conventions of locked-room mysteries.

[Used Can]

Don't forget about those Psi-Fi detective novels with characters with abilities such as mind-reading who can obtain some amount of information which the narrative makes obvious is pretty much true.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

By the way, if any mention of red truth had been in the original manuscripts, it's odd that we were never shown anyone approaching them as mystery fiction. It ought to scream "solve this if you can" to anybody, so that even an occult maniac would realize that it wasn't a direct account of the incident. So that's probably a good indicator that there was no meta narrative in the bottle stories.

Yet Legend lacks those elements and apparently nobody treated it as mystery fiction either, even though that's practically all it could be. No fantasy, no overt magic, paced and structured exactly like a murder mystery, narrated by a person not claimed to be the author... and you're telling me the Rokkenjima Witch Hunt never thought to examine them as works of fiction, then realize what was going on there?

Originally Posted by Used Can

Don't forget about those Psi-Fi detective novels with characters with abilities such as mind-reading who can obtain some amount of information which the narrative makes obvious is pretty much true.

Something I always liked about Asimov's robot detective stories were that many of these sci-fi elements did exist, but other than the Laws of Robotics, nothing was taken as given and none of Bailey's deductions derived from anything but his own reasoning.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Renall

Yet Legend lacks those elements and apparently nobody treated it as mystery fiction either, even though that's practically all it could be. No fantasy, no overt magic, paced and structured exactly like a murder mystery, narrated by a person not claimed to be the author... and you're telling me the Rokkenjima Witch Hunt never thought to examine them as works of fiction, then realize what was going on there?

Well, just think about Legend. We have murders and not enough clues to derive a solution. Even if you have a pretty good guess of a whodunnit and a howdunnit, the whydunnit is not there. No one could solve the case as a mystery and we somehow have a detailed account of what went on. How did we get such a story? I think that is when the fantasy approach started.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Smeckledorf

Well, just think about Legend. We have murders and not enough clues to derive a solution. Even if you have a pretty good guess of a whodunnit and a howdunnit, the whydunnit is not there. No one could solve the case as a mystery and we somehow have a detailed account of what went on. How did we get such a story? I think that is when the fantasy approach started.

Yeah, but a lot of Golden Age stories wouldn't have much of a whydunnit had the detective not outlined it and/or the culprit confessed to motive. Many were puzzles more than character studies, so the specific psychology of the murderer was only important to such an extent as it explained why some clue was the way it was.

Viewed in that light, Legend is technically solvable. Whether or not that answer is right, or even if it's "the truth of Rokkenjima," it still fits the criteria for a mystery story.

It could be the basis in "historical fact" that threw the Witch Hunters off. Still...

[Will Wright]

Originally Posted by rogerpepitone

I don't remember _The Crooked Hinge_ that well, but Carr had used red text equivalent as early as _It Walks By Night_. (At one early point, detective Bencolin says something about how the doors were watched and the window was impassible and ..., yet somehow the killer has decapitated a victim in there. It is then followed by the narrator mentioning "And as later events were to prove, Bencolin spoke the absolute truth.".)

_The Nine Wrong Answers_ had the footnote gimmick, but it was largely in response to typical mystery quick answers: "No, there wasn't a conspiracy to have Bill Dawson overhear this conversation. It was a coincidence." "No, character ____ did not commit suicide."

_The Reader is Warned_ had a footnote gimmick similar to _The Nine Wrong Answers_.

_The Three Coffins_ aka _The Hollow Man_ has a device similar to the red text; early on it mentions that several witnesses are being absolutely sincere in their testimony, describing things exactly as they saw it. It also has the famous "Locked Room Lecture", which discussed conventions of locked-room mysteries.

I re-read the Crooked Hinge just the other day, and yeah Carr does it a lot to be honest. A couple other novels jump to memory about the "absolute evidence" narrative style, I think The Men Who Explained Miracles had a similar gimmick but it's been some time since I read it, so I'm not sure.

Yeah, but a lot of Golden Age stories wouldn't have much of a whydunnit had the detective not outlined it and/or the culprit confessed to motive. Many were puzzles more than character studies, so the specific psychology of the murderer was only important to such an extent as it explained why some clue was the way it was.

Viewed in that light, Legend is technically solvable. Whether or not that answer is right, or even if it's "the truth of Rokkenjima," it still fits the criteria for a mystery story.

It could be the basis in "historical fact" that threw the Witch Hunters off. Still...

I wouldn't say so. In most mystery novels, the novel either had a puzzle that was so strong it served as chains to bind the culprit once broken with unshakable evidence, or had the whudunit discussed in detail as well.

For example, Carr was a fan of the unshakable evidence, while Christie preferred to focus on the motive.

Carr was the master of locked rooms, but Christie was the master of misdirection. She pushed her solutions towards the limits of the genre, and tried to lure the reader into a false sense of security.

Spoiler for A few Christie novels:

Orient Express famously made Raymond Chandler say "she cheated this can';t be solved!"

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd...That one doesn't even need to be commented on.

Crooked House was also an example of misdirection, as analyzing the problem with pure logic gets you the answer easily, but is almost impossible for one to take it into consideration.

So...Umineko doesn't satisfy the mystery rules because it can't provide the certainty other novels provide. It's fine to provide uncertainty if it provides enough information on the why, but otherwise, it must have certainty as to the who and the how. Umineko does none of it.

Also, would it be okay for me to post the locked room lecture here so we can discuss it? I have an ebook of The Three Coffins and I think it would be interesting to relate Carr to Ryuukishi, as, let's be frank, Ryuukishi is basically Carr on serious drugs.

[Renall]

I don't see why not. It's mentioned enough and there's always spoiler boxes.

[rogerpepitone]

I posted an abbreviated version of the Locked Room Lecture a while back.
http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...42#post2797842

I don't think Ryu is anywhere near Carr as far as locked rooms go; too many of the mysteries is Umineko are based on the absence of duplicate keys. (On the other hand, this is likely deliberate; as Wright mentioned, solving one Carr-quality mystery would likely tie down a good deal of Umineko.)

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Will Wright

So...Umineko doesn't satisfy the mystery rules because it can't provide the certainty other novels provide. It's fine to provide uncertainty if it provides enough information on the why, but otherwise, it must have certainty as to the who and the how. Umineko does none of it.

If someone ripped out the last ten pages of a mystery novel, and in those ten pages was all the denouement we expect out of a mystery resolution, does that render the work incompatible with the rules? For all we know, that's exactly what happened in End. And is there a significant difference between a book which happens to have those pages ripped out and a book that just didn't have them?