[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[battle22]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

She's probably met Kinzo before. But Beatrice told her that Kinzo knows magic, and Maria judges people by behavior instead of appearances, so if Yasu acts like Kinzo and claims to be him, she'll think that Kinzo is using magic to possess Shannon's body, then say "Uu, Grandpa gave it to me!"

But when the hell does she ever say she got it from Kinzo, anyway?



Vague wordplay isn't the same as completely redefining a term. Battler has no penis. Oh by the way I defined 'penis' as 'rooster' because both terms can be called a cock. HURP THAT VAGUE WORDPLAY RIGHT?



That's not what I said. I said the information needed to understand why Shannon and Kanon were special only comes until after the solution is given. It's a twist that exists only to justify itself.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm one of the few people who likes and accepts Shkanon. My problem isn't with them. It's the fact that they're used to break the game and destroy our ability to trust a single damn thing.

Goddamn how can you not see the problem here? The Red Truth was treated as different from white text but it's exactly the same; the same word tricks are used in both.

In ep4 rosa say's that maria got the umbrella from kinzo

[MainCharacter]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Vague wordplay isn't the same as completely redefining a term.

A term wasn't redefined, it was interpreted subjectively. You can't physically kill someone that doesn't physically exist anyway. I don't consider "Kanon" to be a real physical person in the slightest and I don't think that Yasu was running around in a bunch of different costumes.

I don't believe so much that "Shannon=Kanon=Beatrice=Yasu" so much as I do "Yasu created all these 'people' and thus they are a part of her heart, but they do not "equal" her." ... I'm not saying that they are personalities either, but more combination of characters she created and metaphors for her heart. They aren't real people so of course the physical human definition of "die" does not apply to them.

Kanon can die within a story and at it can be stated in the red that "Kanon is dead" and thus that point "Kanon no longer exists" is true, but "Kanon no longer exists" does not equal "Yasu no longer exists".

That's not what I said. I said the information needed to understand why Shannon and Kanon were special only comes until after the solution is given. It's a twist that exists only to justify itself.

It's possible to reach the conclusion yourself and know that it is possible with all the evidence and hints given, but of course we won't know the specifics of how it's possible until we learn about Yasu. People were already solving the mysteries of 1-4 and especially the solution to the Logic Error in 6 with "Shannon=Kanon" long before we ever learned about Yasu. All of those solutions would require that "Kanon is dead" does not equal "Shannon is dead", so it's the same exact thing. People have been fine with this for awhile now so I don't understand why it's suddenly a problem. The entire point of Shkanon theory existing relied on the understanding that one can "die" without them both being physically dead. It's why the theory fit so well.

So if we can understand that this works, especially with all the hints Episode 4 gave us, long before we discover WHY it works, I don't see the problem.

Goddamn how can you not see the problem here? The Red Truth was treated as different from white text but it's exactly the same; the same word tricks are used in both.

Red Truth is still different from white text in that it can be used to win if they can't counter it. Red Truth stopped being considered "what actually happened" long before Yasu became an issue. All of Episodes 5 and 6 especially use it in a completely different role than it was in, say, Episode 2. But that doesn't mean it changed what it can do in context of the game's world. We just understood it's limitations and how to twist it to our own goals better.

And you can keep throwing ridiculous examples all you want. The problem with your examples is that they aren't true. I wouldn't be able to say "I have a penis" when I don't. However, if I had created a character in the game that represented male emotions inside me or something and called it Larry. I could then say "Larry has a penis", because Larry as a character does have a penis, even if he isn't real and represents something else in the context of the real world. But because Larry has a penis doesn't mean that I have a penis. Just like Kanon can be dead without Yasu actually being dead because Kanon represents something and isn't a real physical person.

[AuraTwilight]

A term wasn't redefined, it was interpreted subjectively.

I didn't kill him, I intended to push him over. It wasn't my fault he fell on those knives I laid out. On purpose. He should've not fallen.

You can't physically kill someone that doesn't physically exist anyway.

Exactly, so why and how are they dead in any meaningful sense?

I don't consider "Kanon" to be a real physical person in the slightest and I don't think that Yasu was running around in a bunch of different costumes.

Maybe not in Rokkenjima Prime, but she was in the Games.

I don't believe so much that "Shannon=Kanon=Beatrice=Yasu" so much as I do "Yasu created all these 'people' and thus they are a part of her heart, but they do not "equal" her." ... I'm not saying that they are personalities either, but more combination of characters she created and metaphors for her heart. They aren't real people so of course the physical human definition of "die" does not apply to them.

Even still, they live in her body.

If Shannon or Kanon cease existing but Yasu is alive, a different term should be used since she can recreate them whenever she wants (and does). Either use a different word than "dead", or fuck with Battler with a Red like Indeed, for a brief moment, George managed to bring Shannon back to life!

That would've been kind of cool, actually.

It's possible to reach the conclusion yourself and know that it is possible with all the evidence and hints given, but of course we won't know the specifics of how it's possible until we learn about Yasu. People were already solving the mysteries of 1-4 and especially the solution to the Logic Error in 6 with "Shannon=Kanon" long before we ever learned about Yasu. All of those solutions would require that "Kanon is dead" does not equal "Shannon is dead", so it's the same exact thing. People have been fine with this for awhile now so I don't understand why it's suddenly a problem. The entire point of Shkanon theory existing relied on the understanding that one can "die" without them both being physically dead. It's why the theory fit so well.

So if we can understand that this works, especially with all the hints Episode 4 gave us, long before we discover WHY it works, I don't see the problem.

You're not understanding a single thing I'm saying. Shkanon is something that requires itself to solve itself. It's a tautological mystery that is only justified until after you already figure out what Shkanon is. In a proper mystery, it typically goes the other way around.

Red Truth is still different from white text in that it can be used to win if they can't counter it. Red Truth stopped being considered "what actually happened" long before Yasu became an issue. All of Episodes 5 and 6 especially use it in a completely different role than it was in, say, Episode 2. But that doesn't mean it changed what it can do in context of the game's world. We just understood it's limitations and how to twist it to our own goals better.

Red Truth was still supposed to be true in the context of it's own Game, like alternate reality theory. And justifying Red Truth being different because "it can be used to win if it can't be countered" completely ignores what i'm saying. I'm saying that in purpose of content, Red and White are equivalent. There is no MEANINGFUL difference because I can lie as much as I want in the Red so long as I apply subjective interpretations...

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE WHITE TEXT FANTASY SCENES DO.

The only difference is red truth doesn't come with pretty fucking visuals.

And you can keep throwing ridiculous examples all you want. The problem with your examples is that they aren't true. I wouldn't be able to say "I have a penis" when I don't. However, if I had created a character in the game that represented male emotions inside me or something and called it Larry. I could then say "Larry has a penis", because Larry as a character does have a penis, even if he isn't real and represents something else in the context of the real world. But because Larry has a penis doesn't mean that I have a penis. Just like Kanon can be dead without Yasu actually being dead because Kanon represents something and isn't a real physical person.

Ah, but let's take a woman that does have an..e-penis. The internet slang term for having a big ego on the internet. Sandy has a penis. Penis means "e-penis." You should've known that. LOL HERP.

It doesn't matter if we're redefining "Larry" or "penis" in your example. The fact of the matter is that the red truth you're making isn't factually true within it's own context. It's subjective bullshit.

[goldendust]

Is this about Beatrice's statement in red that she said Kannon/Shannon were dead?

Generally I took it as a statement that Beatrice did not back up with more red truth to clarify. For example in EP2


When Jessica's corpse was discovered, only Battler, George, Maria, Rosa, Genji, Gohda, Shannon, Kumasawa, and Nanjo were in Jessica's room


Seems like a contradiction. Or at the very least that "Jessica's body" doesn't have a presence in a room. If we went with that assumption that a body doesn't count.

Or in more stretched out conclusion. That corpse was a fake and Jessica's corpse was discovered somewhere else. That these two events happened at the same time.

However the next red truth clarified it.

Jessica is also included

Basically defined what "being in the room" means.


A single Red truth without clear elaboration with more red truth can be twisted into different meanings.

How does this apply to "Kannon/Shannon are dead". Beatrice never elaborated the definition of "dead". For example

Shannon is dead


Dead in the sense that that one is removed from the game board,
this applies to all pieces.

Which isn't a stretch in game analogies in my experience. You know when playing a game, your character gets "killed" in simulation. You say "that character is dead" even though it has no biological functions to qualify it as living in the first place.

That when Shannon/Kannon are dead, they do not qualify as active game pieces anymore. That counts for every other character on the game board in Umineko.



Regardless the Red Truth isn't absolute, IMO they are just to be taken as hints to confirm or deny theories.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Maybe not in Rokkenjima Prime, but she was in the Games.

No, she's not.
As I understood the games, and I think that is highly supported by the text, Yasu doesn't exist in the Games. There is no Yasu, there is Shannon, Kanon and Beatrice...they are Yasu split up into 3 different acting persona. They only act in accordance to each other never in a way which would negate any of the three...Beatrice can only act either in the same room as Shannon and Kanon or they have to be not tracebly occupied in that moment. But that does not mean that there was actually an actor behind those roles who switched costumes.
The Games ARE magic, that's what they are about! The games conceived by Yasu leave no possibility for Beatrice not to exist because it was her intention to make her exist...she split herself into three to live out all 3 pathes that were open to her but she could only do that in her fictions.

I think it was in the newest interview with Ôta where they said that for her the whole world crumbled when George decided to propose to her...it was a terrible moment because it forced her to decide (remember that George announced it to her some months before the conference)...she knew that October 4th or 5th would be the day when Beatrice and Kanon were to "die" if she did not act.
She couldn't live that fantasy any longer where she could experience all that love at once...and if George turned out to be a horrible person she would have lost ALL the love.

[cronnoponno]

All this talk about shitty reds makes me think:

''Maybe what I said about the knock in EP 5 really wasn't as farfetched because of it's ignorance to the red text''

[Renall]

Originally Posted by MainCharacter

And we were giving plenty of hints that the "death" of Shannon and Kanon were not as simple as they were. Specifically, once you realize the events we are seeing are more metaphorical than psychically happening, it should be relatively easy to put it together. Did you think Zombie Kanon was a red herring? I mean, people were figuring out this stuff pretty much around Episode 5, weren't they? Obviously it wasn't impossible.

No one is talking about death. They're talking about being dead.

Yes, there is a difference. A pretty significant one. Even if we accept that Kanon can "die" despite not physically existing, he can't be "dead." Dead is a state belonging to a corpse, which Kanon doesn't have. Kanon simply stops existing, or goes dormant, or is "narratively dead" to Yasu's mind, but these things are not the same as "being dead" by any definition that can be reached by a sensible logic. I can believe that you are dead if I saw you appear to die, but you can refute that pretty easily by walking in the door and telling me otherwise.

And if you're going to turn around and say "well the state he enters when he stops existing is equivalent to being dead," you're basically admitting he isn't actually dead, because he can reappear solely on Yasu's whim. In other words, he isn't dead, because dead things can't just arbitrarily come back to life.

The unfairness here is in the notion that a fake character can die (which may or may not be true, but for the sake of argument we'll allow it) and then subsequently be counted as "being dead." But being dead has a lot of expected traits to it, particularly since it generally refers to a biological construct (and especially so in context).

Now, to preempt an obvious argument: Yes, you could say that "this bill is dead in Congress" and then subsequently revive and pass the bill into law. In this context you might very well say "the bill died and then came back to life." But if that's the case, our lack of context again comes back and bites us in the ass: Since we have no distinction between Shannon is dead and Genji is dead and George is dead, we're left to assume the same definition of dead must apply. So now all arguments that rely on the red are complete hogwash. Why should I assume Beatrice is the only one non-biologically dying? I have textual evidence that at the very least Jessica and Maria can do it too. Why not everybody? And this is the slippery slope to Kinzotrice, which is absurd. It's up to you (and to Ryukishi) if you want to accept this insane logic has merit over a much simpler conclusion that words ought to use their ordinary meanings unless clearly stated otherwise.

If Beatrice were to use her own terms and say that Kanon was, say, "removed from the board," then putting him back on the board would not be on the same level of trickery because Beatrice never established that wasn't possible. We would know only that the terms she uses to refer to "pieces" and her "board" might mean this or that. But she says "dead." And she has no right to do so.

Originally Posted by MainCharacter

It's possible to reach the conclusion yourself and know that it is possible with all the evidence and hints given, but of course we won't know the specifics of how it's possible until we learn about Yasu. People were already solving the mysteries of 1-4 and especially the solution to the Logic Error in 6 with "Shannon=Kanon" long before we ever learned about Yasu.

No, actually, we were only solving the latter, because Shkanon doesn't solve anything else.

Originally Posted by cronnoponno

Maybe what I said about the knock in EP 5 really wasn't as farfetched because of it's ignorance to the red text

It might as well be, is the thing. The dishonesty there, however, is focused on two things Lambda says (and the context may be different in Japanese, I'm not sure): "this letter" and "the knock." The main problem with the red is that it creates an apparent admission that a letter and a knock actually exist. It's akin to saying the mysterious assassin who was sent to the island to kill the family didn't enter the house through any door. You can argue that this statement is true because there never was any such person. But the statement creates the impression that such a person exists and that the statement exclusively applies to them, which is dishonest. To instead say if a mysterious assassin is on this island, he did not enter the mansion through any door is not dishonest because it creates a conditional statement which applies universally but may not actually apply to anyone who actually exists. Of course, phrasing it this way makes it more obvious what the trick is. But that's the trick the author has to contend with. Lying to the reader with intent to mislead and confuse them just means you're not good enough at what you do to slip something past the reader's notice.

So I have no problem with Lamdba's statements if every instance of "the knock" or "the letter" were revised to "a knock" or "a letter." To use examples from the actual text:

Neither Krauss nor Natsuhi nor Genji knocked!

This statement is fine. It doesn't imply a knock actually happened.

Among all those inside the mansion at 24:00, not a single person placed that letter in the corridor.

This statement is fine unless the letter did not exist. If one didn't, saying "a letter" works.

Let it be known that in addition to Krauss, Natsuhi, and Genji, none of those in the dining hall made the knock. In this sense, 'knock' includes all direct, indirect, intentional, unintentional, and coincidental events that could create a knocking sound.

This statement is improper, but a mere swapping of "the knock" to "a knock" fixes it.

Note that at no point during this little escapade does Lambdadelta use any unusual definitions for words. So it isn't necessary to redefine a word to create the mistaken assumption that something happened that didn't. This was clearly Ryukishi's intent with this part so I'm willing to buy that instances of definitives may be translation errors (and if in the original text, minor mistakes he probably didn't intend).

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I would say that you're making an absolutely meaningless statement, because your couch was never "alive" in the first place. It's not an organism, or even ANIMATE like, say, a car. It's a fucking couch. It has no meaningful way of altering states. You could say it's BROKEN, but BROKEN and DEAD are not equivalent terms at all. It doesn't matter how you define Shannon or Kanon because if you're going to define them as non-human entities you need to redefine how Alive and Dead apply to them. There's no getting around it.

Beatrice lied with the Red. Sorry.

Sure, in an objective and literal context it makes for a meaningless statement. Which is actually fine, because it means that when Beatrice says Kanon is dead she objectively and literally means exactly nothing. Which means no lies and no logic error.

Indeed, in real life people often refer to a broken car, cel phone, washing machine, computer or whatnot as "dead". This is particularly true if the appliance no longer turns on when it's supposed to, so certainly for non-electric objects the term "dead" is less commonly used (but still used sometimes; and in the case of certain objects, such as pens, still used fairly frequently). In any case, it's clear that ShKanon are not your typical "inanimate" furniture, and as such, applying words like "alive" and "dead" to them makes about as much sense as applying the same words to a car or appliance.

To look at it in another angle, say you are playing WoW or some other RPG. Your character dies and you make the statement that my character is dead. If someone accused your statement of being false because your character is not a real organism, it would not be in any seriousness but merely as an exercise in semantic humor. Then your priest friend comes along and resurrects you and you go on your merry way, once dead, but now alive again.

And RK07 clearly defined Kanon and Shannon as something other than human. There were so, so, so many hints for this, and once you understand and accept it, then even without an explicit redefinition of the term dead it's only a short logical step to infer that dead can mean something else when applied to them, just as "dead" means something else when applied to a refrigerator.

Originally Posted by MainCharacter

People have been fine with this for awhile now so I don't understand why it's suddenly a problem.

It's not sudden. Some people have been complaining about it on and off for the whole several months I've been active on this forum.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

And RK07 clearly defined Kanon and Shannon as something other than human. There were so, so, so many hints for this, and once you understand and accept it, then even without an explicit redefinition of the term dead it's only a short logical step to infer that dead can mean something else when applied to them, just as "dead" means something else when applied to a refrigerator.

Beatrice didn't, though. Also:

Genji is called furniture too.

Genji is dead.

Your move.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

Of course, phrasing it this way makes it more obvious what the trick is. But that's the trick the author has to contend with. Lying to the reader with intent to mislead and confuse them just means you're not good enough at what you do to slip something past the reader's notice.

I'm really anxious for the interview to get translated. Maybe I'll pick some Japanese quotes and offer some translated parts, but I don't want to interfere if LyricalAura is already doing the work.
The question is if a mystery HAS to follow those rules. Of course you can be a hardcore reader and say "Yes, it's an authors obligation to follow the rules", but the problem is that the genre wouldn't advance when done this way. And then there were none and An Offering to Nothingness, both highly similar in structure and style to Umineko, were harshly criticized for "not being mystery" when they were released and now they are cosidered groundbraking rolemodels for genre writers. I'm not saying that Umineko is definitely such a rolemodel (though Ôta definitely is), but it is in a similar situation that it cattered to a very narrow audience of both liberal and well-read mystery fans...while obviously, because of Higurashi's fame alone, being read by many people more.

The necessary tools for doubting Shannon's and Kanon's existence were there from the very beginning and the trick is THAT everybody in the stories is a fictional construct.
I'll say it again (of course this is my theory) Kanon and Shannon are as fictional as Beatrice, but all 3 exist in the stories instead of Yasu. They die like normal people, but because they are part of a "collective-existence" they can revive as long as one part is alive. They're basically like a hydra, you cut a head off, but it can revive.
They really DO die in the stories, the trick is figuring out how they can come back or leave no corpse. It's the same like Beatrice can say that Ushiromiya Eva died in EP1, 2 and 3...of course Eva did not really die, she died in the story and because she existed solely as one figure on the gameboard she couldn't revive.

Originally Posted by Renall

Beatrice didn't, though. Also:

Genji is called furniture too.

Genji is dead.

Your move.

No, Beatrice didn't...though it was implied. For example when discussing the locked room chain in EP3 or Kanon's death from EP1 in the final battle in EP4. She stumbled when it came to these moments, which makes it clear that she is hiding something. Ronove even went so far as stopping her when she was about to say something about it in EP3.

Genji being called furniture IS strange, the question is how to deal with it.
Either he is because he is similar to Kanon and Shannon or he is simply the root of this very term. Maybe he is the "model servant" that is written about in mystery stories and Yasu used it to hide her own complex problem more cleverly in her stories.

[Renall]

We have no choice but to conclude that Genji can evade death with the red, per the logic that is being advanced as Ryukishi's apparent intention.

Of course, the question is whether he does so. I think you'd be fair to believe that it's very improbable that he would... buuuuuuuuuuut, if you take that position, you're also forced to take the position that you can never really know if Shannon/Kanon/Beatrice might also be biologically dead in, say, ep3. And in the end, the possibility that, for example, Kinzo is alive in the stories (having "died to the world" and resigned to hiding out in Kuwadorian as the Sorcerer Goldsmith).

Any attempt to get around this is weaseling. At best you can say "yeah, all of those things could be true, but I believe it only is true of this instance." I would probably be inclined to agree with you insofar as Ryukishi clearly intended that. However, you'd have to at least concede to me that it's pretty shaky and weak at best, and at worst, a clear sign of writing that didn't properly consider the logical consequences of its trickery and accidentally tripped itself up.

[AuraTwilight]

No, she's not.
As I understood the games, and I think that is highly supported by the text, Yasu doesn't exist in the Games.

Can you demonstrate this? No? It's just your theory? Then it's not sufficient as a rebuttal.

And RK07 clearly defined Kanon and Shannon as something other than human.

"Kyrie: What are you guys?
Kanon: We're...
Shannon: Human. ^_^"

That's from EP4. CLEARLY DEFINED, you say?

Indeed, in real life people often refer to a broken car, cel phone, washing machine, computer or whatnot as "dead". This is particularly true if the appliance no longer turns on when it's supposed to, so certainly for non-electric objects the term "dead" is less commonly used (but still used sometimes; and in the case of certain objects, such as pens, still used fairly frequently). In any case, it's clear that ShKanon are not your typical "inanimate" furniture, and as such, applying words like "alive" and "dead" to them makes about as much sense as applying the same words to a car or appliance.

That's not comparable; in all those instances of appliances being 'dead', it's a turn of phrase we know we're not supposed to take at face value, as opposed to A FUCKING MAGICAL RED TRUTH THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 100% RELIABLE AND TRUE AND THUS HAS NO FUCKING RIGHT TO BE METAPHORICAL AND MISLEADING.

The question is if a mystery HAS to follow those rules. Of course you can be a hardcore reader and say "Yes, it's an authors obligation to follow the rules", but the problem is that the genre wouldn't advance when done this way. And then there were none and An Offering to Nothingness, both highly similar in structure and style to Umineko, were harshly criticized for "not being mystery" when they were released and now they are cosidered groundbraking rolemodels for genre writers. I'm not saying that Umineko is definitely such a rolemodel (though Ôta definitely is), but it is in a similar situation that it cattered to a very narrow audience of both liberal and well-read mystery fans...while obviously, because of Higurashi's fame alone, being read by many people more.

However, despite their criticisms, "And Then There Were None" was still 'fairplay' because it didn't act in a way to deliberately deceive the reader. Umineko is not comparable to those novels for many reasons.

It has nothing to do with 'mystery rules', it's about being fucking honest and intellectually fair.

The necessary tools for doubting Shannon's and Kanon's existence were there from the very beginning and the trick is THAT everybody in the stories is a fictional construct.
I'll say it again (of course this is my theory) Kanon and Shannon are as fictional as Beatrice, but all 3 exist in the stories instead of Yasu. They die like normal people, but because they are part of a "collective-existence" they can revive as long as one part is alive. They're basically like a hydra, you cut a head off, but it can revive.
They really DO die in the stories, the trick is figuring out how they can come back or leave no corpse. It's the same like Beatrice can say that Ushiromiya Eva died in EP1, 2 and 3...of course Eva did not really die, she died in the story and because she existed solely as one figure on the gameboard she couldn't revive.

So, magic.

So, not a mystery.

So, not honest or fair

So, fucking useless for trying to decipher anything.

Do you really want to pursue this line of argument further? Either it's a mystery or it's not. But don't let Ryukishi make his own game of wizard chess and tell me it's checkers.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

Beatrice didn't, though. Also:

Genji is called furniture too.

Genji is dead.

Your move.

Yeah I don't like that Genji was called furniture too. As you have already said, even if all the same rules applied to Genji there's still no lies or logic errors, but I kind of agree with you here.

But even aside from the whole "furniture" thing, there are other signs that Kanon and Shannon are special. Namely, they are the only "human" characters that have magical powers without an alternate magical identity (the other pseudo-exceptions being Kinzo/Goldsmith, who's a similar existence to them anyway, and Maria/MARIA).

Originally Posted by haguruma

The question is if a mystery HAS to follow those rules. Of course you can be a hardcore reader and say "Yes, it's an authors obligation to follow the rules", but the problem is that the genre wouldn't advance when done this way. And then there were none and An Offering to Nothingness, both highly similar in structure and style to Umineko, were harshly criticized for "not being mystery" when they were released and now they are cosidered groundbraking rolemodels for genre writers. I'm not saying that Umineko is definitely such a rolemodel (though Ôta definitely is), but it is in a similar situation that it cattered to a very narrow audience of both liberal and well-read mystery fans...while obviously, because of Higurashi's fame alone, being read by many people more.

This is more or less my viewpoint on it. Umineko is (at least in part) meant to be a different way to view the Mystery genre. Simply dismissing it as "not Mystery" because it deviates from Mystery conventions of this is kind of off point. Of course, you don't have to like it, or think it is a useful, needed, or effective reexamination, but a reexamination it is nonetheless.

Originally Posted by haguruma

I'll say it again (of course this is my theory) Kanon and Shannon are as fictional as Beatrice, but all 3 exist in the stories instead of Yasu. They die like normal people, but because they are part of a "collective-existence" they can revive as long as one part is alive. They're basically like a hydra, you cut a head off, but it can revive.

To expand on this, I think that, in a sense, Shannon became a real person when Yasu decided to be a witch; Yasu really lived and experienced as Shannon at that point, so Shannon went from a "play" identity to her actual identity as a human. She added Kanon as another fictional identity later, as a coping mechanism for dealing with her crush on Battler. But as a favor for Jessica (or something), she played her boyfriend once at school and started to develop romantic feelings for her; and as a result Kanon somehow became a little bit viable as an actual identity.

Originally Posted by haguruma

I think it was in the newest interview with Ôta where they said that for her the whole world crumbled when George decided to propose to her...it was a terrible moment because it forced her to decide (remember that George announced it to her some months before the conference)...she knew that October 4th or 5th would be the day when Beatrice and Kanon were to "die" if she did not act.
She couldn't live that fantasy any longer where she could experience all that love at once...and if George turned out to be a horrible person she would have lost ALL the love.

And then this, of course. As the love duel clearly shows, Yasu can only have a single human identity and of course marriage really dictates that there can be no others. It explains why in 1986 there's this sudden reactionary push by Yasu's (in fact, it may be best to call her Shannon at this point) two subordinate identities of Kanon and Beatrice.

It's hard to guess how much Yasu "played" Kanon's identity. She may have never even played as him once besides at Jessica's school, which would explain why Natsuhi and Krauss never had a problem with it. This would mean that any relationships people had with Kanon were fabricated within the fiction, but that's not really a stretch by any means. Shannon, because she had complex relationships with multiple people over many years, probably had a more than fictional existence on the island.

One really interesting thing, though, is when Touya recovers Battler's memories, it shows us the character images for everyone on the island, including both Shannon and Kanon.

[AuraTwilight]

they are the only "human" characters that have magical powers without an alternate magical identity

George and Jessica.

This is more or less my viewpoint on it. Umineko is (at least in part) meant to be a different way to view the Mystery genre. Simply dismissing it as "not Mystery" because it deviates from Mystery conventions of this is kind of off point. Of course, you don't have to like it, or think it is a useful, needed, or effective reexamination, but a reexamination it is nonetheless.

You're right, in a way. It's not a mystery, but it is a story ABOUT a mystery.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

"Kyrie: What are you guys?
Kanon: We're...
Shannon: Human. ^_^"

That's from EP4. CLEARLY DEFINED, you say?

Sure, but why did Kanon hesitate? I think it's more like "clearly ambiguous" as to whether they are human or not, which is certainly a good reason to at least suspect that they are not normal humans.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

That's not comparable; in all those instances of appliances being 'dead', it's a turn of phrase we know we're not supposed to take at face value, as opposed to A FUCKING MAGICAL RED TRUTH THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE 100% RELIABLE AND TRUE AND THUS HAS NO FUCKING RIGHT TO BE METAPHORICAL AND MISLEADING.

Lots of metaphors here:

With my power, any kind of closed room can be created or destroyed[!!]
I'll make you my favorite furniture
I'll love you so much, and make you my toy until you turn to ashes

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

George and Jessica.

In episode 4 they were exaggerated human powers. In episode 6 they were a combination of exaggerated human powers and borrowed magical powers. But point taken; I wasn't thinking about these parts.

[jjblue1]

Hum... I'm dealing with an unpleasant cold so, I wouldn't bet on my ability to explain myself correctly anyway I've been trying to look at Umineko through a different point from the one I used before which is:

the Episodes are games, therefore the characters aren't real people but pieces with different characteristics. In this specifical case Shannon and Kanon in some conditions has the characteristic of being able to be put off the gameboard and then on again according to their player's will (basically killing and reliving them).

I guess it's in Ryukishi's right to make pieces with special characteristics and add them to his game.

However the problem is Umineko asks me to guess Shannon and Kanon have this special characteristic without directly telling me directly because part of the game is supposed to be guessing the rules of the game itself just by watching it.

Now, as usual, let's link Umineko to a chess game.

We're asked to learn to play chess (Umineko) without knowing the rules apart that we've to capure the king (guess the culprit), just by watching a person who knows them (Beatrice) playing against a person who doesn't know them (Battler).

There are rules we can clearly guess and learn correctly just by watching, for example the basic of how the pieces move and how they can capture another piece.

But can we really understand correctly special moves like en passant, pawn promotion or castling correctly just by watching 4 games? (Umineko is supposed to become solvable after game 4)

Likely, if we see them, we'll understand they're special moves but we'll also likely see too few of it to understand them correctly.

For example, the player has used a castling with the king and the right rock. Can it be done with the left rock also? Can it be done at any moment? Can it be done while the rock and the king are in different places? Can it be done with the king and another piece that's not the rock?

It's unlikely one will manage to guess it just by seeing castling being used once so the best he can do is to say: "When I have that exact condition I can use castling. Maybe it can be used in other conditions but I don't know them and I can't try to use it just to see if the experienced player will stop me and tell me I'm using it incorrectly since i'm not the player, merely one who watch the game and is supposed to learn playing chess by watching it. So all I can say I've successfully learnt is: 'in that condition I can use castling with those pieces' (in that condition character X can be revived). Saying I can use castling in any other condition will merely be me attempting to guess the truth".

Back to Umineko we see that Sakutaro died and then was revived. The 7 sisters had a similar fate in Ep 4. Can this be a hint to figure that Shannon and Kanon can do the same?
As far as I'm concerned this is a way to weak hint. Sakutaro and the sisters are pieces that are apparently completely different from Kanon and Shannon so I wouldn't try to make a 'castling' with them just because Sakutaro can and, if I were, I would have no confidence it would be a regular move.
If we were in the trial of Ep 5 it would be like saying Natsuhi is innocent without having concrete evidence to back it up.
Natsuhi was innocent but, in the beginning, Battler couldn't prove it so his red truth had no value. Actually, if Virgilia hadn't confirmed it to him, it wouldn't even have been a red truth.

Due to this I don't deem good enough/definitive enough the hints we got about Shannon and Kanon being capable of resurrection from death declared with red.

We couldn't figure it out with certain so it was more a guessing game than real learning of the rules.

Now... how all this figure in the world of mystery?

There are mysteries that can care less about readers guessing who was the culprit and, if the reader does anyway, it's more due to luck or intuition than deduction.
The problem I have with Umineko is that it lead me to believe I could have a fair chance to solve it by deduction opposed as to guess its solution by intuition or even luck.

Of course I could have been misleaded. It doesn't help me to feel less disappointed.
Mystery genre can head toward the direction Umineko is taking with no problems. However, for my personal taste that direction isn't a good one.

...

Not that my opinion really accounts to much...

[AuraTwilight]

Sure, but why did Kanon hesitate? I think it's more like "clearly ambiguous" as to whether they are human or not, which is certainly a good reason to at least suspect that they are not normal humans.

It's a subject of debate.

Which directly contradicts your statement of clear definitions. Infact, if anything the series leans toward the decision that they are human "because they feel love."

Lots of metaphors here:

With my power, any kind of closed room can be created or destroyed[!!]
I'll make you my favorite furniture
I'll love you so much, and make you my toy until you turn to ashes

She literally has the power to make any closed room since she has the Gamemaster.

She literally intends to make him her favorite furniture (the term 'furniture' having a unique definition here does not make it a metaphor, and the term having an alternate definition is a clearly defined plot point).

She loves him so much she'll toy with him and kill him. Pretty fucking obvious here.

In episode 4 they were exaggerated human powers. In episode 6 they were a combination of exaggerated human powers and borrowed magical powers. But point taken; I wasn't thinking about these parts.

Both times they are literally described as having INHERENT magical abilities.

If we want to get technical, Beatrice's magical narrative has the assumption that Kinzo's wizard status put magical blood in ALL his descendants through blood connections. If we are to believe the Witch's story, Ushiromiyas are inherently magical somehow, or something.

[Used Can]

You know, I've kept on thinking about the whole deal about Battler spending years on the high seas. What if Yasu abducted him? What if he didn't spend all that time on the sea but that was a deliberate lie. Also, do we really have to believe Battler wrote all of the stories? Or, if he did, are we sure that what he wrote are actually his memories? And if the purpose of writing those stories were indeed an idea to help Battler with his memories, could it have been that rather than making him remember them the idea was to actually remodel them?

Say, what if the murders in Rokkenjima actually took place, and the whole thing was so brutal it actually left deep mental scars on Battler that he lost his memories for a long time? "Yasu" had a way out so she escaped with him. She made him keep a low profile in order to avoid investigation, especially after she learned Eva had survived. If she indeed inherited the Ushiromiya's wealth (whether the gold actually existed or not, I don't know), perhaps she bribed some few key people in order to secure her position. I think it's also possible she was colluding with Okonogi and the Sumaderas in order to keep Ange at bay.

This makes me wonder if the whole "Game of the Witch" was actually done in purpose to break Battler. Say, what if she indeed presented herself to the family as the actual family head as appointed by Kinzo, perhaps with even legal papers unknown to them. So, "Yasu" proposed them joining her in this game and that she'd give them the money they required and maybe even more. However, this was also a plot since she planned to actually having them killed. I believe she probably had Rudolph and Kyrie as close accomplices. So, while the others played them, Rudolph and Kyrie killed them. Why would they cooperate? I think there could be several explanations. One could be they were actually that kind of people, and they had a hand on Asumu's death. Another could the things happened as we saw them and when Rudolph told Kyrie the truth, she lost it, threatened him to harm Battler and Rudolph follow the plan to protect his son. Of course, neither of them had any idea of the bomb. So, they died on October 6.

I think this would be an interesting twist on the "without love it cannot be seen," because "love" in this case is a foreign aspect to the actual events and it allows Battler to see a new truth. Love allows you see Beatrice and Beatrice as we know is an illusion that someone wanted to see. So, in this case, "Yasu" is making Battler see the illusion he wanted to see in addition to an illusion she wanted him to regard as true. Ange also ended up accepting this illusion. Of course, whether it was because of the stories alone or whether "Yasu" had a higher reach on this (like, say, having Amakusa and other people around her giving her ideas).

I think it'd make sense why Tōya would have tried to kill himself after getting back some of Battler's memories. It'd also be somehow fitting with Battler meeting Beatrice again at the end of the story - in a rather twisted way.

I believe this is not what R07 intended us to think, but I like it this way better.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Used Can

You know, I've kept on thinking about the whole deal about Battler spending years on the high seas. What if Yasu abducted him?

Well, there are hints that he thought Beatrice wanted to "trap him" in Ep 2 and 3... (and technically he's also trapped into a marriage/closed room by Erika in Ep 6) but they can also be metaphorical representations of his condition as someone who'd like to get the Rokkenjima incident past himself and can't, resulting in him being trapped in that situation.

If he really was kidnapped this would imply Yasu had ill wills toward him and the means to keep him caged.

I generally go for a slightly different idea.
He escaped with Yasu and hid with her for a while, maybe because he too ended up committing a murder, maybe by mistake, or maybe because Eva shot him believing him to be the murderer and he knew he couldn't prove her he was innocent so showing up would only lead him to go to the jail.
Yasu takes the identity of Ikuko and uses the money she has hidden somewhere.
However, after a while, Battler began to feel trapped or wanted to see Ange or whatever so he left the house they were staying and ends up in a incident. Yasu is fast to track him back but, due to the incident, he lost his memory.

She hids him back in their house, doesn't tell him the truth about who he is and have him cured secretly. He becomes Toya and he's happier until his memories about being Battler returns.

Also I've been thinking about something. Either Battler didn't spent years in the sea litterally or he wasn't have been 18 when Ikuko found him.
Though I think someone suggested an alternative translation to that sentence so I wait for the definitive version of the translation before drawing conclusions.

Originally Posted by Used Can

Say, what if she indeed presented herself to the family as the actual family head as appointed by Kinzo, perhaps with even legal papers unknown to them.

There are hints yasu might have introduced herself as the heir to Kinzo in the games so it's possible this is what happened in Rokkenjima Prime.

Originally Posted by Used Can

However, this was also a plot since she planned to actually having them killed.

If I've to think Yasu planned to kill them for real I've to think Yasu was insane... which isn't an idea I like much but this might be just me. I generally favour the idea she wanted them to play a mystery game, not really to kill people.
I might be wrong though.

[Used Can]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

If I've to think Yasu planned to kill them for real I've to think Yasu was insane...

Not really... with the exception of Maria, Yasu had reasons to hate every single person in that family, even Jessica and George to some extent.

If you think about it, this way, she was actually able to hold the reins of her own fate. Furthermore, in my way of viewing things, Yasu actually looks brilliant since she turned this murder case into something like Sir Franklin's lost expedition. Not only that, but the most beautiful part is that'd she'd have created 3 fictional people not only for Battler's sake, but these fictional people are the ones who get all the blame. They're the perfect escape goats, since she's managed to make everyone believe they actually existed - even Beatrice, not necessarily as a witch, but as the infamous 19th person.