[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Ryukishi has contradicted his own text before, in all fairness.

I'm exposing a theory. You're free to disagree but is there a written rule that says I can't consider what Ryukishi said? I'm not saying is red truth, merely that I use it as clue.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The point being made is that if she didn't arrange for the illusion of the message bottles, chances are astronomically high that NO ONE would be able to solve it.

So? Can you prove she wanted to be absolute sure someone would solve it? It's your belief and it's a reasonable theory. Do I have to agree with your idea just because you say so?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The problem here is that Yasu is a liar, and her word can't be trusted at face value whatsoever. And under Author Theory, Yasu-As-Clair was written by either Toya, or someone else who knew significantly less about her than Toya. Either way it's not like we got a direct look at Yasu's mind, ever.

So can you prove she NEVER said the truth? Each time you reply to my theories you go with a statement but I see no red truth you can use to support it so your words are just your theory. It can counter mine but can't deny it

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

No, it's really not. Because the police can be tricked if Yasu bribes the people who handed the message bottles to the police. You're not accounting for the fact that the message bottles weren't picked by the police directly off the beach or anything.

Later on, it was confirmed that a similar message bottle had been recovered from the nearby ocean on the day of the accident by the police in their search for lost articles, and this caused a sensation.

Umineko Ep 4 states that it was the police that found one of the 2 message bottles. And they found it on the day of the accident.
So:
1) at least one message in the bottle had to be ready by the 6th of october.
2) that message wasn't picked up by a fisherman or a random person but by the police that was investigating.

So you want to say the black text is lying? Then how can you prove it? You can make a theory using as a basis that some black text had been a lie but how can you prove this specific bit is a lie?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Toya is the sole writer of the Forgeries. Ikuko is his caretaker.

When was this stated? Ikuko is a writer as well, actually in the beginning she was the writer and Toya merely helped her with ideas and editing. It is possible that Toya decided to write the forgeries alone and it is possible that he decided to write them with her. What's your proof to deny one of the two options?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

You are for some reason assuming that Ange's journey being fictional has any bearing on the Message Bottles whatsoever.

I'm considering theories, not making assumptions. I'm considering that Ange's journey being fictional might have any bearing on the Message Bottles. I stated nowhere it had. Do I have to propose merely 1 single blue truth? Do I have merely to consider 1 option? Can't i consider more?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

They were public knowledge before Toya ever began writing Forgeries; his writings therefore do not determine if there is a conspiracy or not; he can write Ange's tale as if they were legitimate even if they were a hoax because he doesn't know any better.

Is the fact they were public knowledge confirmed by a red truth?
I can't remember there was one confirming it. If it's just black text that confirmed it you're merely choosing to believe it. I'm choosing to consider also the possibility it might be lying. Any problem with this.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Kinzo's Library blew up. The existence of the Witch Hunters without the Message Bottles is impossible, since the message bottles are what cast doubt on the official findings of the police and kicked off the conspiracy wheel in the first place.

"Yes, I will never forget that. It happened in April of 1987. I received a certain strange request from a friend. ......There was a large collection of books, which were the former possessions of a very rich man and were being sold at auction, and it was thought that some of them might have been extremely valuable to the study of archeology and folklore, as well as in an occult sense, so this friend wanted to witness their worth confidentially."
"............'87. Half a year after the crime on Rokkenjima."
"Correct. It was explained that those books had escaped the disaster at Rokkenjima. The owner of the island, Ms. Ushiromiya Eva, had put them up for auction."
...
He was a professor at a certain college, and particularly well-known as an authority on western folklore.
However, among his life works, that was only a convenient exterior.
His true life work was...the study of occultism, western magic, alchemy, everything to do with the occult, as well as demonology.
In short, he was the person in the best position to understand the details of Kinzo's research...
"First, what I learned by appraising the books was that Ms. Ushiromiya Eva had absolutely no education in the study of folklore, and that the original owner of the books, Ushiromiya Kinzo, was certainly one of the top five authorities on demonology in Japan."
April, 1987.
A major city antique shop obtained a large quantity of ancient documents that were thought to have a high historical value.
They came into possession of them after Ushiromiya Eva had had them sold at auction.
At the time, it was thought that Eva would succeed the Ushiromiya family and have all the wealth to herself as the only survivor.
However, at that point, not even half a year had passed since the accident, and despite the extraordinary circumstances, it was not established that the others had been missing long enough to be presumed dead.
Because of that, it was thought that Eva had been in a very tight spot financially, unable even to collect from her family's life insurance.
It seems that she tried to sell everything of value, and even the books kept in the place where she had escaped harm in, Kuwadorian, became a target of this.
And the old books that were later called 'the Ushiromiya Library' were gathered from antique shops by authorities in the field so that they could be appraised...and the authorities were astounded.
"At least speaking from the perspective of occultism, the impact of that discovery on the world was comparable to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.
This is because, contained in 'the Ushiromiya Library', there were many extremely vital documents which, while their existence had been known of for more than one thousand years, had never been found."
The many dreams of the occult, such as those represented by alchemy, always stirred an intense fascination in dilettantes.
It is whispered that many 'magic books' of great historical value, as yet unannounced to the public, might be in the secret possession of the very wealthy lovers of the occult.
It is said that items such as Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks, which are particularly popular among dilettantes, were prime examples of this.
It is said that approximately 5000 pages of the notebooks currently exist, and that over 10,000 have been lost, but some researchers believe that a large part of this lost portion may be monopolized by certain dilettantes and members of the extremely rich.
It is said that because of this, even now, dilettantes who can't help but seek these spare no expense to search around for quietly hoarded away and unannounced notebooks...
There is probably no doubting that Ushiromiya Kinzo was himself one of those dilettantes.
It is unknown what Kinzo went through to obtain those, but there can be no mistake that he abundantly used his vast wealth, buying them off of other rich people with the same hobby as him.
Those books, which were so valuable that dilettantes just couldn't satisfy their desire to hoard them away, were discovered in large numbers at the end of the 20th century, and their release to the public had given the entire world a massive shock...
"Because of this case, the name Rokkenjima became known across the world. And the world also received a shock at the high probability that, due to the accident on Rokkenjima, a large amount of even more valuable books yet to be discovered were lost.
...Because of this, the names of Rokkenjima and the Ushiromiya Library will remain in our memories for all time."
......Our memories.
That 'our' probably meant the occult neck of the woods with the same hobby as Kinzo.
Because of that case, the name of Rokkenjima had taken on a vital meaning in the world of the occult.
There certainly had been a lot of reporting about the accident on Rokkenjima, but it hadn't been something on the international level.
However, this case had run about the world, taking the image of Rokkenjima as a small island in the Izu archipelago, and painting it over as a demonic island with a mixture of riddles, suspicion, mystery and the occult.
In other words, until Kinzo's library was leaked to the public by Eva, Rokkenjima had been nothing more than a nameless island that no one could remember, ......and it definitely hadn't been a witch's island.
However, when knowledge of the Ushiromiya Library spread across the world, Rokkenjima's image immediately took on an occult twist.

Please revise your theory about the existence of the library. The same person who explained us about the existence of the messages also talked about the existence of the library. Or are you going to say he surely lied when he says thing that go against your theory?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

This statement demonstrates that you massively misunderstand what the theory is actually proposing.

This statement demonstrates that you massively misunderstand what I'm doing. I'm not denying your theory, I'm exposing mine. My reasoning is different from yours, I decided to consider different options, therefore I get to a different conclusion.
I'm merely explaining my reasoning. Why do you consider what I'm doing as an aggression to your theory?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The message bottles, in this theory, are being spread to make contact with Battler and deliver a coded message for him. Yasu has no idea what the hell happened to him.

Again it's your theory. Any particular reason why I should believe it as if it was a red truth?

Do you have an absolutely reliable person saying it? Someone that's not Ryukishi or Yasu because, according to you, they lie. An objective narrative supporting this? Why are you trying to force your theory on me as if it was a red truth?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yes, we know that, and the message bottle hoax theory is working from that very same premise. What the hell is your point?

The same you've missed before. I'm exposing a theory. Any problem with that?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Absolutely no one has claimed any of this. The idea is that Yasu herself is perpetuating the hoax. Did you even read the theory?

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't even quote your theory or someone else's, I was reporting mine, analysing all the ideas that could come to my mind. You continue to insist it's an attack to your theory but when I wrote this I didn't have in mind to attack your theory. Mine was a theory I already had in mind before the discussion started and that I typed down merely because I saw people discussing over this topic.
Incidentally my theory disagreed with what you were saying and what you were saying couldn't persuade me to revise it, which is why in the premise I said I was finding hard to accept the idea the messages were written after the incident.

I read all the messages written pretty carefully. I was curious to see if someone could push me to revise my theory. I liked the idea of a conspiracy. Yet no one managed to present a theory that, for me, sounded convincing enough to change my mind.

Maybe it's you who didn't really pay attention to what I wrote.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Whether or not the message bottles were written before or after the incident has no bearing on their surviving as a Yasu's "last will".

Keita thought so. I thought so.
You don't agree and someone else will side with you as well.
Just because some disagree, are you automatically right? Can't you accept there's people with different opinions and that this don't imply they're automatically wrong?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

No, he wouldn't, because Toya wouldn't know any better. To the best of his knowledge Yasu is dead. He'd presumably be deceived as much as any other Witch Hunter until he starts to remember things better.

It's a theory. We don't know how much he remembers and his attitude toward Beatrice hadn't been always firm. Please, try to undestand me. I'm not saying you're surely wrong. I'm merely saying you can't prove it.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

If you're going to argue this, then why did Yasu send them out to begin with? They support Beatrice's existence regardless of when they were deployed.

Ep 8 said 'for fun'. There's plenty of people that send message bottles for fun. Some even tie messages to balloons.
I've also ALREADY said it's possible they were a last will or a request for help.
Again, you weren't reading what I wrote.
If the messages were sent prior to the incident the incident has chances of not happening ergo they would be taken as a prank. Yasu wouldn't know Beatrice was going to die, maybe she didn't even mean for her to 'die' along with her. However she could have changed her mind during the Rokkenjima incident and decide she would survive and Beatrice would die or that both of them would die.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Your argument is very incoherent and inconsistent with itself.

Ep
Personally I didn't see you doing that great arguing with my theories.

You basically:
- decided to consider Ryukishi's words as lies
- decided to consider Yasu as someone who always lies
- decided to consider black text that doesn't match with your theory a lie
- decided I couldn't talk about more than 1 theories
- decided that some things were true without any clue given, be it even black text or other sources, no matter if they went against the black text
- decided I was attacking your theory instead than exposing mine and complained when my words didn't fit with your idea
- decided that whoever thought something different from you was wrong
- completely failed to understand what was my point
- didn't read my message carefully
- accuse me of not having read your theory

Forgive me if I'm not impressed by your argument.

Can we now cut this pointless war and resume having fun on making theories and respecting other people's idea?
Or, at least, since neither of us can prove he's right, can we simply agree to disagree?

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Well, the only way it's "real" requires Kakera Theory. So...

I know and I don't like the kakera theory... I'm merely not discounting it because I don't like it.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Yeah well what if all of this stuff is told to us for the purpose of making it difficult to realize Beatrice's nature (or in fact, it's a lie that reflects her true nature and is actually a hint)? Remember, Itouikukuro Reigonamu is a team. If Ikuko is Yasu this all fits together perfectly.

Well, 'making it difficult to realize Beatrice's nature' is a worthy purpose.
I'm questioning the purpose of lying on the nature or even the existence of the two messages in the bottles. I considered both options because yes, I too found weird how they could be accurate on some details and how their existence was confirmed only by:
- some lines at the end of message 1 that stated there was 1 message in the bottle
- Ange's travel (which I can't help but consider a fantasy. Feel free to disagree).

To me, from a writing point of view, making up a story about the messages in the bottles wasn't worth the effort. of course Ryukishi can disagree and decide to use them as misleading hints. I really like the conspiration theory. Here and there i toy with it a bit but I can't find enough clues to make it rise in my eyes to more than the small bombs theory.

It's a cool theory. Maybe if there was another Ep of Umineko planned I might hope it'll get more support. However, since apparently new Umineko Ep aren't planned it doesn't look solid enough to me.

It's a pity, as I said I like it a lot but I merely don't deem safe to bet over it.

Though I'd love it if someone will manage to find up more clues/theories to support it.

[Renall]

Some people really seem to have issues with understanding the difference between testimony and evidence. Most of Umineko is built on this. In fact, a lot of the closed rooms Will talked about in ep7 were built mainly on the confusion of testimony for evidence. If someone tells you a room was locked and many incredible things just happened inside before the room magically became empty, pretty much all you have to go on is that you were told that. Everything about the person telling you what happened and the content of what they said is open for analysis. In a testimony-heavy scenario, most of the case will be circumstantial.

The difference between someone telling Battler a door was locked and Battler testing a door to find that it's locked is like the difference between a dozen eyewitnesses swearing a man shot another man and having the body, the bullet, the gun, and the registration card of the owner. You can positively identify the shooter in either case, but in each case the strategy of the Prosecution and Defense will change greatly.

You can call me (and others) over-doubting, but on the other hand, I've been in court. At least characters in Umineko tell the truth some of the time.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Renall

Some people really seem to have issues with understanding the difference between testimony and evidence. Most of Umineko is built on this. In fact, a lot of the closed rooms Will talked about in ep7 were built mainly on the confusion of testimony for evidence. If someone tells you a room was locked and many incredible things just happened inside before the room magically became empty, pretty much all you have to go on is that you were told that. Everything about the person telling you what happened and the content of what they said is open for analysis. In a testimony-heavy scenario, most of the case will be circumstantial.

The problem with Umineko is that the whole story is basically something that someone else is telling us.
It's hard to prove when something is a lie or a truth.

I get the feeling when the black test is lying, it is lying about a whole scene, not just about a sentence (in Ep 5 the black test constructed a whole scene that started with 'someone knocking' and went on with the sibling wondering who it was, opening the door, finding the letter, discussing about it and so on. Likely they were handed the letter by Shannon... or they found the ring somewhere and decided to pretend Beatrice sent it... either way the whole scene would be a lie)

Originally Posted by Renall

You can call me (and others) over-doubting, but on the other hand, I've been in court. At least characters in Umineko tell the truth some of the time.

I'm rather interested in your point of view. Since I have no experience with court (and even if I had here things likely work differently from where you are) to me it often sounds as following lines of thought I couldn't really guess so you provide me with a completely different observation angle of the same point and make the matter very intriguing.

Though I won't necessarily always agree with you I love to be presented with a new point of view!

[Renall]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I'm rather interested in your point of view. Since I have no experience with court (and even if I had here things likely work differently from where you are) to me it often sounds as following lines of thought I couldn't really guess so you provide me with a completely different observation angle of the same point and make the matter very intriguing.

Though I won't necessarily always agree with you I love to be presented with a new point of view!

Well, it depends what you're asking. Obviously a lot of things in a trial setting are procedural and don't apply to, say, an investigation or a discussion of a story. For example, relevant or valid evidence can be excluded from a trial for various reasons.

All I can tell you for sure is, the prosecutors probably made the right call when they didn't charge Eva with anything. There's cases where the evidence is circumstantial, and then there's cases where there just isn't enough evidence at all.

Interestingly, the message bottles could have been used in Eva's defense, if she could have gotten them introduced anyway. They're not proof as such that she didn't do it, but they could be argued to have relevance as an example of someone else potentially premeditating a crime. It might be enough for reasonable doubt... or whatever the Japanese criminal standard is.

Now, could Nanjo's son sue Eva for Wrongful Death and win? ...probably not, but it'd be easier than convicting her of murder. Actually, I doubt she'd even get charged with murder.

I could go into greater detail if I knew what topic you wanted me to focus on.

[AuraTwilight]

I'm exposing a theory. You're free to disagree but is there a written rule that says I can't consider what Ryukishi said? I'm not saying is red truth, merely that I use it as clue.

I'm just saying that at this point Ryukishi's word means absolutely nothing to me, personally.

So? Can you prove she wanted to be absolute sure someone would solve it? It's your belief and it's a reasonable theory. Do I have to agree with your idea just because you say so?

Beatrice wanted someone to understand the information she spread out, ideally Battler. This isn't something where she would be emotionally content with a 0. Shit, this is the whole reason Clair exists. She's like a ghost representing Yasu's lingering regrets.

So can you prove she NEVER said the truth? Each time you reply to my theories you go with a statement but I see no red truth you can use to support it so your words are just your theory. It can counter mine but can't deny it

I've never claimed that Yasu never spoke the truth. I'm only pointing out that "Yasu said so, so it's true" isn't valid. Stop being overdefensive and whiny.

Umineko Ep 4 states that it was the police that found one of the 2 message bottles. And they found it on the day of the accident.
So:
1) at least one message in the bottle had to be ready by the 6th of october.
2) that message wasn't picked up by a fisherman or a random person but by the police that was investigating.

So you want to say the black text is lying? Then how can you prove it? You can make a theory using as a basis that some black text had been a lie but how can you prove this specific bit is a lie?

Read the theory in question. The police finding the message bottle and then publishing it makes no sense. It's fucking evidence in a crime.

I'm considering theories, not making assumptions. I'm considering that Ange's journey being fictional might have any bearing on the Message Bottles. I stated nowhere it had. Do I have to propose merely 1 single blue truth? Do I have merely to consider 1 option? Can't i consider more?

Stop throwing a fit, god fucking dammit. I'm not personally insulting you or anything, don't act like you're on trial. I'm pointing out that Ange's journey has absolutely no bearing on the message bottles' authenticity. It can't POSSIBLY do so, since events in the future do not effect events in the past.

Is the fact they were public knowledge confirmed by a red truth?
I can't remember there was one confirming it. If it's just black text that confirmed it you're merely choosing to believe it. I'm choosing to consider also the possibility it might be lying. Any problem with this.

Witch Hunters exist. Therefore it is public knowledge.

This statement demonstrates that you massively misunderstand what I'm doing. I'm not denying your theory, I'm exposing mine. My reasoning is different from yours, I decided to consider different options, therefore I get to a different conclusion.
I'm merely explaining my reasoning. Why do you consider what I'm doing as an aggression to your theory?

You specifically phrased your ideas as being "Why you don't agree with the message bottles being hoaxes", meaning it is a rebuttal to the earlier idea, but you get key points of the theory wrong, such as positing the message bottles hoax being perpetuated by Toya. Which no one has considered at all and is thus an absolute strawman, thus it has no reason being brought up whatsoever.

Again it's your theory. Any particular reason why I should believe it as if it was a red truth?

Do you have an absolutely reliable person saying it? Someone that's not Ryukishi or Yasu because, according to you, they lie. An objective narrative supporting this? Why are you trying to force your theory on me as if it was a red truth?

I'm not. I'm pointing out perceived misunderstandings in a theory. I don't mind you disagreeing with it and shooting it down, but for god's sake, get it right first.

Keita thought so. I thought so.
You don't agree and someone else will side with you as well.
Just because some disagree, are you automatically right? Can't you accept there's people with different opinions and that this don't imply they're automatically wrong?

You really need to stop this. I never claimed that I was objectively fucking right. Can you stop acting like you're a ten year old being accused of scribbling on the walls so we can have a fucking mature conversation? Otherwise I don't feel like responding to your points.

It's a theory. We don't know how much he remembers and his attitude toward Beatrice hadn't been always firm. Please, try to undestand me. I'm not saying you're surely wrong. I'm merely saying you can't prove it.

I can prove Toya doesn't know better than you can prove he did know.

Again, you weren't reading what I wrote.

You need to quit being a condescending ass and take into account that English isn't your first language and neither is mine.

You basically:
- decided to consider Ryukishi's words as lies
- decided to consider Yasu as someone who always lies
- decided to consider black text that doesn't match with your theory a lie
- decided I couldn't talk about more than 1 theories
- decided that some things were true without any clue given, be it even black text or other sources, no matter if they went against the black text
- decided I was attacking your theory instead than exposing mine and complained when my words didn't fit with your idea
- decided that whoever thought something different from you was wrong
- completely failed to understand what was my point
- didn't read my message carefully
- accuse me of not having read your theory

All these things are entirely wrong, except for perhaps the third-from-bottom because I'm not a mindreader. Everything else is completely wrong, and demonstrates that you misunderstood my rebuttal.

And for the record, the Yasu Hoax theory isn't "mine", i'm just advocating it. I'm not so personally invested in it that I feel like you're a personal enemy for denying it. Apparently it doesn't go both ways because you took literally no time at all to get aggressive and

Anyway, your points are all completely useless because not even the red is reliable because Ryukishi fucked that up too. Basically all the text is worthless and a reader can ignore whatever they want, including Ryukishi's text because he's completely incompetent. My general rule of thumb is to consider everything reliable unless it contradicts common sense and logic, makes more thematic sense, or it doesn't fit the character's personality.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I'm just saying that at this point Ryukishi's word means absolutely nothing to me, personally.

I cut your message because countering each point would be pointless.

Evidently the fact English isn't our first language and we come from different cultures stop us from understanding each other because, from my point of view, you're the one who's throwing a fit, acting like a 10 years old, feeling like you're on trial and being overdefensive and whiny, insulting me declaring me an ass and using vulgar slang that's not exactly the best basis to have a mature conversation.

Plus you insist in saying I wrote a rebuttal to the earlier idea when I already told you my intention was different.

Considering all this I can't see the basis for having a mature conversation with you so I'm more than happy to cut this discussion.

[AuraTwilight]

Plus you insist in saying I wrote a rebuttal to the earlier idea when I already told you my intention was different.

It was a rebuttal in-as-much as it was your reasoning for finding the Hoax idea not a very convincing idea, regardless of the fact that you were putting other ideas on the table as well.

I swear like a sailor just because I can, it doesn't have anything to do with my emotions or my personal views of a person. I didn't cop an attitude until you started flaming me back, but if you did that because of a misunderstanding, then I apologize for that.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I swear like a sailor just because I can, it doesn't have anything to do with my emotions or my personal views of a person. I didn't cop an attitude until you started flaming me back, but if you did that because of a misunderstanding, then I apologize for that.

If I misunderstood you or I didn't explain my intentions well in my first message I apologize as well.

I didn't mean at all to flame you so sorry if I expressed my point of view poorly. I just translated your replies as if you wanted to force your ideas on me but I guess that wasn't the case.

Let's restart from square 1, okay?

[Wanderer]

Yasu survived and was in contact and cooperation with Eva. Yasu wrote her stories post-incident and Eva helped facilitate their distribution.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Read the theory in question. The police finding the message bottle and then publishing it makes no sense. It's fucking evidence in a crime.

Accident. The police did not classify it as a crime. But, it still doesn't make sense to publish it. Especially well after the fact; if they were to publish it, the bottle-story should be interesting enough to be publish-worthy right away, given all of the bizarre circumstances.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

You specifically phrased your ideas as being "Why you don't agree with the message bottles being hoaxes", meaning it is a rebuttal to the earlier idea, but you get key points of the theory wrong, such as positing the message bottles hoax being perpetuated by Toya. Which no one has considered at all and is thus an absolute strawman, thus it has no reason being brought up whatsoever.

Actually, I am considering this, kind of. Read below.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I get the feeling when the black test is lying, it is lying about a whole scene, not just about a sentence (in Ep 5 the black test constructed a whole scene that started with 'someone knocking' and went on with the sibling wondering who it was, opening the door, finding the letter, discussing about it and so on. Likely they were handed the letter by Shannon... or they found the ring somewhere and decided to pretend Beatrice sent it... either way the whole scene would be a lie)

Well, there are tons of one-liner lies in Umineko spoken directly by the characters, although often they are accompanied with a false scene to match them.

Anyway what's your point?

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Well, 'making it difficult to realize Beatrice's nature' is a worthy purpose.
I'm questioning the purpose of lying on the nature or even the existence of the two messages in the bottles. I considered both options because yes, I too found weird how they could be accurate on some details and how their existence was confirmed only by:
- some lines at the end of message 1 that stated there was 1 message in the bottle
- Ange's travel (which I can't help but consider a fantasy. Feel free to disagree).

No one questions the existence of the message-bottles, only their supposed origin. I don't understand why you even brought it up; there wouldn't even be a story without them.

And I really don't think there's much reason to doubt that episode 4 1998 is fiction of some kind for two main reasons, which I have stated before:

• Most of the events depicted in it are mutually exclusive with what we know is the "True End".
• Ange/ANGE complains to 18^8/Featherine about having been killed in one of her stories.

As you have demonstrated, meta is really useless as a story-telling device here, so the only other non-fiction option is Kakera. I have expressed my views about this before, that Kakera is a fair way to look at Umineko, but that there is also a (single) "real" world solution. Thus to fit that solution in any meaningful way, episode 4 1998 must be written fiction.

Once you come at it from this angle, you can try to gain insight as to the state of the "real" world by asking who wrote it and why.

As for "who", I think it's clearly Touya&Ikuko, especially since Ange/ANGE remarked about 18^8/Featherine killing her. Let's go on to the "why".

I don't think it was all just Touya&Ikuko throwing out wild guesses as some form of answer-searching or just for fun: Showing us such nonsense would, as you say, have little narrative value. Thus, it means there's communication going on with the readers in the "real" world (well, with at least one reader).

Let us consider the parts of Ange's ep 4 story that contain "new" information for readers in the "real" world, namely Maria's diary and the PIN number letters: Regardless of whether their fictional depiction accurately matches "reality", one major effect that these parts have is reinforcing the idea of the message bottles being written pre-incident. Another is that they made Beatrice appear fickle and mysterious. These were probably intended effects. However, Ange's observation about the writings being a "massive undertaking" makes the idea that the messages were written pre-incident a lot more extraordinary and enigmatic.

So, the real question is: Why do Touya&Ikuko write in such a way as to reinforce Beatrice's mysteriousness? Is it because they are revealing information or ideas they have about Beatrice through their fiction? Or, are they using fiction to "reveal" misinformation?

And (this seems to be becoming something of a catch phrase for me)...
It makes sense if Ikuko=Yasu.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Yasu survived and was in contact and cooperation with Eva. Yasu wrote her stories post-incident and Eva helped facilitate their distribution.

Thoughts?

I considered it. It's another idea I liked and that's possible but for which I couldn't find solid evidence apart from the fact that Yasu's stories might have helped Eva to cover up for the real culprit.

I don't know however how Eva would feel in regard to Yasu.
She didn't seem to have gotten a good impression of her in Ep 7 tea Party, though it can be a distorsion or a lie or she could have revised her opinion.

Eva post Rokkenjima is presented as very bitter and almost cruel but that's Ange's point of view so I don't think it's completely reliable.

Even if I tend to think for Eva it would be more convenient to accuse Yasu of being the culprit... I assumed also that some circumstances in Rokkenjima Prime might have caused Eva to decide to cooperate with her.

Maybe she could have learnt the truth on her and felt pity for her or due to assorted circumstances the two could have stuck an alliance against the true culprit.

In my absolutely fave theory, Battler got shot byt he true culprit so, once the culprit die, Yasu decided to risk leaving the island even though the sea wasn't calm yet to get him to a doctor (if Battler was unconscious it can explain how he calmly traveled on a boat and if Yasu had to try and save him it can explain why she dismissed the idea of suicide) while Eva decided to stay.

At first she had no idea if the two survived and, anyway covered up for them thinking this could spare them from troubles.

Later Yasu might have contacted her.

However I can't check details on Ep 8 so, even if I could find some clues to support my idea, it's an extremely weak theory. I guess at the moment everyone can blow it up rather easily and, since I can't check the details I can't really defend it, just keep it 'on hold' -_-

I'm anxiously waiting for the day we'll have the rest of the translation of Ep 8 to see if it can work, if it needs some revision or if it'll be mercilessly shot down completely... -_-

Any suggestion on how I could work it better will be loved.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Well, there are tons of one-liner lies in Umineko spoken directly by the characters, although often they are accompanied with a false scene to match them.
Anyway what's your point?

I'm trying to find if there's a way to discover when a scene is reliable... or when surely it's not. It's a theory I'm still checking though.
I'm not referring to when a character says a lie but when narrative does it. Can it be the warning than the following scene is a lie as well?

But I still have to check all the scenes in which the text lies so if you know of one that can shoot down this theory please tell me. You'll spare me from a long research.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

No one questions the existence of the message-bottles, only their supposed origin. I don't understand why you even brought it up; there wouldn't even be a story without them.

And I really don't think there's much reason to doubt that episode 4 1998 is fiction of some kind for two main reasons, which I have stated before:

I already said I wanted to consider all the theories, even the ones with which I don't agree, like the one that Ange's story is real.
Feel free to consider me weird.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Once you come at it from this angle, you can try to gain insight as to the state of the "real" world by asking who wrote it and why.

As for "who", I think it's clearly Touya&Ikuko, especially since Ange/ANGE remarked about 18^8/Featherine killing her. Let's go on to the "why".

I don't think it was all just Touya&Ikuko throwing out wild guesses as some form of answer-searching or just for fun: Showing us such nonsense would, as you say, have little narrative value. Thus, it means there's communication going on with the readers in the "real" world (well, with at least one reader).

Let us consider the parts of Ange's ep 4 story that contain "new" information for readers in the "real" world, namely Maria's diary and the PIN number letters: Regardless of whether their fictional depiction accurately matches "reality", one major effect that these parts have is reinforcing the idea of the message bottles being written pre-incident. Another is that they made Beatrice appear fickle and mysterious. These were probably intended effects. However, Ange's observation about the writings being a "massive undertaking" makes the idea that the messages were written pre-incident a lot more extraordinary and enigmatic.

On this I agree on nearly everything.
The only thing I tend to believe differently from you is that I assume Ange's story exists only in Toya's mind and not in the Alliance Toya and Ikuko wrote. Though, now that you make me think at it, I don't know how much the story he wrote with Ikuko might have influenced his thoughts... so yes, Ikuko's idea might have intruded in Toya's subconscious, causing him to unconsciously build misinformation.

Damn, this is complicate but it might work. Since it looks like Toya isn't really wandering around and it was ikuko who was using the pc it's possible he gets the info on the Rokkenjima case from Ikuko and doesn't check them, possibly because he has mixed feelings about remembering his past (I'm not sure about him not checking the info though... he must have read the message bottles at least... does Ep 8 say something about Toya searching for info on the Rokkenjima incident by himself or first hand?).

He likely never saw when the messages were sent, nor he talked with the police or a witch hunter expert.

So, all Ikuko had to do was to tell him the message bottles were sent at X time and found at X time and he would believe it, then he would end up constructing a scene in which Ootsuki tells Ange that the message bottles were sent prior to the incident. To him it's truth because he believes in Ikuko. The result however is we're misinformed.

It can work.

I'll need to study it better though.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

And (this seems to be becoming something of a catch phrase for me)...
It makes sense if Ikuko=Yasu.

LOL you know on this I agree with you...

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Renall

Now, could Nanjo's son sue Eva for Wrongful Death and win? ...probably not, but it'd be easier than convicting her of murder. Actually, I doubt she'd even get charged with murder.

Wrongful death would be that she could have done something to save him but didn't?

If you don't mind I've a lot of questions about the legal aspects of Umineko but it's okay if you can't reply to them all since they regard Japan law.

Let's start with a question I had from early in the beginning.

The game of the epitaph.

Here we've laws that makes impossible for Yasu inherit Kinzo's whole fortune. A huge part would necessarily go to the siblings (and to Kinzo's wife if she were to still be alive) regardless of Kinzo's wishes.
Also claiming ownership of Kinzo's whole fortune by solving the epitaph while Kinzo was still alive would be tricky as well because for such a gift or premium to be legal, Yasu should pay taxes on it and face a legal procedure taht would transfer the ownership of Kinzo's whole fortune from Kinzo to her. Also the cousins could claim Kinzo was old and this had caused him to grow insane and that this was the reason why he handed it.

In short the siblings' fear that someone could inherit Kinzo's whole fortune would be silly in my country.

Do you know if it would be reasonable in the Umineko world?

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I'm trying to find if there's a way to discover when a scene is reliable... or when surely it's not. It's a theory I'm still checking though.
I'm not referring to when a character says a lie but when narrative does it. Can it be the warning than the following scene is a lie as well?

I would go as far to say that there are no scenes with hidden lies in Umineko. Each scene in which a lie takes place is obviously marked sooner or later as just that.
Each locked room for example was explained from the very beginning as something that the witch constructed to fight Battler, therefore every method was given to us to fight those depictions as long as they did not conflict any solid facts that we were told.
Even the often quoted knock and letter scene in EP5 was obviously marked as a scene constructed to trap the audience and was even discussed so far as to leave as the only reasonable explanation, that there was no knock in the first place.

Of course lies are an integral part of the story. But it is two things to expose the lies in sequences that were properly marked and to charge scenes with lies that were never marked as actually conflicting in the first place.
For example I could go and doubt wether all those characters were on the island in the first place, as only Maria's jaw was found. This would of course be a valid theory as I could state lines that prove that no signs of any presence beside Maria and Eva was found. But there is no instance in the narrative that actually instigates any doubt in wether those characters were on the island.

I find it fascinating how many theories can be constructed from the basic set of information that Ryûkishi gave us, but it is a question wether we want to solve our Umineko or Ryûkishi's Umineko.
AT for example, when saying that he decided not to trust Ryûkishi anymore, is basically trying to solve his Umineko as Ryûkishi's Umineko is no longer a standard for him. Therefore some people here have different goals than others I'd say.

Or Renall for example argues from a standpoint of realism and legal facts. The question is wether this is a layer that was included in the narrative from the start or if it is augmenting personal preferences with aspects of Ryûkishi's narrative.
There is nothing wrong with doing this, but some people seem to get seriously annoyed when there isn't really a shared goal to reach.
And sometimes it stresses me as well to see how these several approaches towards different kinds of solutions run parallel to each other, but are of course doomed to never really fuse into one because of their inherent differences.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Do you know if it would be reasonable in the Umineko world?

I would argue that legal bearings have no influence and power in the world of Umineko. In case of modern criminology being advanced enough to circumvent problems that occured in the Rokkenjima investigation he placed the events in 1986 on a secluded island that was technically still in the state of an estate in the 1930's.
Concerning legal facts he could not just place the scenario in a setting where legal matters did not exist, so I think they are in a similar realm as the rain as they don't really matter to the case.
Most likely Ryûkishi is not that knowledgable about Japanese law in such an indepth manner as that he could construct a whole narrative about it. As far as he mentioned he is approaching it from a similar point as many mystery authors which is "it doesn't matter". He himself said that Umineko is ot Shakai-ha, which would be the genre concerned which social problems, scandals and a morally rotten system of politics and laws.
There are of course court mysteries which deal with those problems in some parts. But I would argue that many of them are still more classical mystery than correct judicial thriller...like for example Carr's Judas Window.

For example, even though the Court of Illusions is a central part of EP5's narrative, I'd argue that judicial facts have no influence on Umineko's story at all. It's just a setting that is used and could as well have been any other, just that a court is most fitting to judge a criminal.

[AuraTwilight]

AT for example, when saying that he decided not to trust Ryûkishi anymore, is basically trying to solve his Umineko as Ryûkishi's Umineko is no longer a standard for him. Therefore some people here have different goals than others I'd say.

In fairness, there's nothing left TO solve of Ryukishi's Umineko. The questions he didn't answer are ones he don't think are important, so there's literally no answer for them.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

In fairness, there's nothing left TO solve of Ryukishi's Umineko. The questions he didn't answer are ones he don't think are important, so there's literally no answer for them.

Judging from the interview with Keiya, he evidently disagrees with you.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Wrongful death would be that she could have done something to save him but didn't?

Not exactly. More like a claim that she was somehow responsible for his death. You'd have to prove it was more likely than not that she did something. Being the sole survivor of a massive explosion might well be suggestive, though it may still not meet the standard.

Let's start with a question I had from early in the beginning.

The game of the epitaph.

Here we've laws that makes impossible for Yasu inherit Kinzo's whole fortune. A huge part would necessarily go to the siblings (and to Kinzo's wife if she were to still be alive) regardless of Kinzo's wishes.
Also claiming ownership of Kinzo's whole fortune by solving the epitaph while Kinzo was still alive would be tricky as well because for such a gift or premium to be legal, Yasu should pay taxes on it and face a legal procedure taht would transfer the ownership of Kinzo's whole fortune from Kinzo to her. Also the cousins could claim Kinzo was old and this had caused him to grow insane and that this was the reason why he handed it.

In short the siblings' fear that someone could inherit Kinzo's whole fortune would be silly in my country.

Do you know if it would be reasonable in the Umineko world?

You can generally attach all sorts of conditions to your will (at least in America), but there's really no way that Yasu would've walked out of that situation with all of Kinzo's money.

First of all, the gold is not legally possible to pass down to anyone. Kinzo doesn't legally own it, because it shouldn't even exist, and if it did exist, it probably belongs to the Italian or German or Japanese or American government. So the epitaph providing the gold is obviously a non-estate transaction. Naturally, if anyone else knew about the stuff they'd tell the cops outright. Mostly out of spite. So nobody gets the gold unless it's kept absolutely secret.

The rest is trickier. I'd consider there to be three major components to Kinzo's estate:

• His personal and real property (his books, personal finances, the mansions and island, other homes he owns, etc.).
• Controlling stake in his trusts and companies, assuming none are publically-traded (and then he'd still probably have shares).
• Headship of his family.

Kinzo has a right to dispose of his property before his death, but this would be subject to transactions (especially for ownership of homes and Rokkenjima). So he probably wouldn't actually make whoever solves the epitaph the immediate owner of all his stuff. Instead, it'd be willed to them. They'd pay whatever taxes are applicable on it.

Control of his companies is trickier. It's pretty much legal to transfer your ownership stake or set up a trust or something. However, Kinzo would ideally need to do this before he dies (as in the Lion scenario, where the property is probably in a trust to Lion with Krauss as its conservator until Lion's majority). This would also need to be a registered, licensed transaction.

Headship is easy, I assume. Unless Japan has specific family laws about being a family head, it's just a privately-assigned title within the family. Kinzo can designate anybody he wants the head of his family.

Really, there's no way that Kinzo can get away with any of this. He can't "unofficially" transfer everything to anyone because it won't have legal weight over his will (and I assume he has an ordinary will, or did at one point or other). He can't edit his will unless he has a specific person in mind. So "the guy who solves the epitaph" probably wouldn't stand up in court (it's impossible to prove you solved it first anyway). But you could say "Yasu solved the epitaph, so in my will I now leave everything to Yasu."

That will would be valid, but there's no way Krauss and his siblings will let that stand. They'll sue, and probably argue that Kinzo wasn't in his right mind toward the end of his life. Reclusiveness, crying constantly over a "witch," occult fascination... if I'm the Ushiromiya Group's lawyers, I'm liking those odds. If the will gets thrown out, they'd probably revert to an earlier will (probably a standard will leaving everything to his wife and/or surviving children and grandchildren). If all his wills are invalid, or he never had any others, then Japanese intestate law would hold. I don't know how that works but my guess is everything he owns would be split among his children in a contentious legal battle over individual assets.

Oh, and Yasu would theoretically get a stake in the estate as Kinzo's fifth child... if she can prove it. Good luck with that. I suppose a DNA test would prove Kinzo's paternity (or not) though...

Did Ryukishi think of any of this? Probably not beyond "there is no way the siblings would accept that, unless paid off immediately."

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

However I can't check details on Ep 8 so, even if I could find some clues to support my idea, it's an extremely weak theory. I guess at the moment everyone can blow it up rather easily and, since I can't check the details I can't really defend it, just keep it 'on hold' -_-

Episode 8 is pretty bad for it. In it Battler and Beatrice leave the island the morning of October 6. I'm not sure exactly what happened after that, because a little bit out to sea Beatrice disappears off the boat and then there's a special credit-roll-like dialogue between Battler and Beatrice... and with my Japanese I couldn't read it fast enough to follow it... it's the one nagging part I couldn't get.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I'm trying to find if there's a way to discover when a scene is reliable... or when surely it's not. It's a theory I'm still checking though.
I'm not referring to when a character says a lie but when narrative does it. Can it be the warning than the following scene is a lie as well?

But I still have to check all the scenes in which the text lies so if you know of one that can shoot down this theory please tell me. You'll spare me from a long research.

I don't get this. What are you hoping to find?

Originally Posted by jjblue1

The only thing I tend to believe differently from you is that I assume Ange's story exists only in Toya's mind and not in the Alliance Toya and Ikuko wrote.

Problem: What's the narrative value in this?

Also, I wasn't saying it was necessarily part of Alliance (at least not this time around).

Originally Posted by jjblue1

does Ep 8 say something about Toya searching for info on the Rokkenjima incident by himself or first hand?

Well, except for the epilogue in the distant future, the Touya/Ikuko story ends right as Touya's memory is triggered by Ikuko mentioning what she read on the internet, so who knows.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

LOL you know on this I agree with you...

Well, to be honest my biggest doubt about Ikuko=Yasu isn't something anyone else even mentioned: It's that Ikuko, who hides her age, was very pleasantly surprised during their first conversation when she misinterpreted Touya's muttering of "18" to be a guess at her age. If she's Yasu, she shouldn't be that much older than 18.

[LyricalAura]

@Renall:

It was my (possibly incorrect) understanding that in the 80's, Japan had an obscenely high inheritance tax, so it was fairly routine to for families to dodge it by transferring their wealth through something like a family head system instead of a will.

[AuraTwilight]

Judging from the interview with Keiya, he evidently disagrees with you.

He also disagrees that George is really suspicious and creepy. WELP.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

@Renall:

It was my (possibly incorrect) understanding that in the 80's, Japan had an obscenely high inheritance tax, so it was fairly routine to for families to dodge it by transferring their wealth through something like a family head system instead of a will.

If that's true, probably everything is owned by Kinzo's businesses and trusts. In that case, "headship" would just be synonymous with "the person who becomes the chief officer of my businesses."

However, unless Japan had different trust laws, that transfer would more or less have to happen when Kinzo was alive.