2010-08-24, 04:38 | Link #761 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
1. What EXACTLY are Shannon and Kanon and the rest of the clown car to Yasu? There are times when Shannon and Kanon seem to act in a unified way that hints at them being "played" by a single person. Then there are other times where they seem like entities unto themselves. You could probably use the fiction idea to explain this, but it bothers me that there's no real unified way to "read" Yasu. Is she really DID meido? Is she Oscar-worthy actress? I don't know. 2. Along those lines, why did Yasu fall in love with George and Jessica under the guise of Shannon and Kanon? According to EP7, Shannon was [implied to be] created in service of Yasu. (Someone to aspire to) Beatrice was created to explain a phenomenon. (Why do I keep losing all my stuff?) Kanon was created in service of Shannon. (To help her create another universe after her heartache) Notice something about this? They're all created to "help" Yasu in some form or another--even if that form seems to be once removed. So that becomes very odd when you throw romances with other people in the mix. Like, if your persona of "super maid Shannon" is helping you dust extra well, it then seems sort of weird to lead people on when they fall in love with your fictional "super maid Shannon". 3. What's the deal with Shannon and Kanon in the EP7 Tea Party? Unlike quite a few people, I do believe that the Tea Party is the truth about Rokkenjima, because I believe it ties in very strongly with the themes of "fiction" and what that concept means to people, and how when you strip that away, what you're left with is only the ugly, painful things about life and how people act. But moving along from that. When we meet Beatrice in EP7, she's practically a walking corpse already. We see no sign of that with Shannon and Kanon, and that bothers me. Even if we're going for the DID theory, it bothers me. 4. What does Yasu hope to gain from the roulette? EP7 makes it pretty clear what Kinzo is trying to accomplish by pushing people to solve the epitaph. EP7 makes it about as clear as a brick wall as to what Yasu is trying to accomplish by using it as her game of chance. When you think about it, the only clear outcome she'll get out of it is committing suicide when the bomb goes off, or going to jail after being caught if she's actually murdered people--if someone doesn't kill her out of emotion first. There was a chance of Kinzo getting what he wanted because all the epitaph did was reward the person who figured it out. The risk was all on his end. With Yasu, the risk seems about equal on both ends. Damn, if I can figure out why, though. 5. Motive, please? I think you can build a motive from what has been given to you in EP7, the problem is with how much sense it really makes. A motive for Yasu, according to EP7, has to encompass and explain a number of things. One, the scene in the Tea Party when they are upset about their body. Two, the talk about how if Battler had been a year late or a year early, things would have been different. Three, Shannon and Kanon as concepts. Four, the fact that Yasu seemed pretty stable at the end of EP7. Five, why was Yasu planning things so far in advance? Six, what part were the bank cards supposed to play? I'm sure you can think of more. So, with all those problems, maybe you're wondering why I am so firm in the Yasu idea as being the solution. Well, because it explains things that are nearly impossible to explain otherwise. It explains not only Kinzo's ranting, but also why Nanjo would say that he died at peace in EP5. It explains why Shannon has been there for ten years when Natsuhi obviously doesn't view her as a proper playmate for Jessica. It explains the formation of Beatrice and why she loves Battler. It explains Battler's sin in the only way supported by the narrative with actual text to back it up. It explains why some of the servants call themselves furniture, but not others. It explains the challenge letters. It explains Maria's relationship with Beatrice. It explains a good chunk of Genji and Kumasawa's actions. It explains where the meta characters came from and why they're named the way they are. It explains the locked rooms. It explains where the bottle letters came from. It explains the emphasis on mystery novels. It explains the man from nineteen years ago. It explains the cryptic message about the nature of Beatrice in EP6, and why Shannon and Kanon agreed with it. It explains a whole heck of a lot. You can create alternate explanations for most of those, I imagine, but not an explanation that encompasses all of them the way the existence of Yasu does. Therefore I can't help but assume that my problems with Yasu are because I'm not thinking the right way or there's something I missed. I was hoping for someone to challenge me with specific problems so that we could actually have a discussion, instead of a pissing contest about whether or not my ability to think has been compromised for daring to like the message of EP7. Unfortunately, it's not very fun or interesting to argue against myself.
__________________
|
|
2010-08-24, 04:43 | Link #762 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
Dine included that rule in order to make the "fair play" genre...Play fair. That was what he thought detective fiction should be all about. Fairness. Does it apply to Umineko? Possibly. The jury is still out on whether it's fair or not, but Ryuukishi certainly seems to think it is. So that he would have included such rule is no surprise. You could twist it around and say that because Battler knows his sin and we don't, he has a better chance of solving it than we do. But that is really nitpicking. Quote:
Which makes sense. Dine put it there so that writers could screw with the reader, so long as they were also screwing with the detective. Which is exactly what Ryuukishi is doing. Quote:
Dine wrote this rule so that the mystery would take priority over love. By that, I mean that he wrote the rule so that no love sub-plot could be introduced while having no impact in the mystery. So long as love was a motive, or merely had something to do with it, Dine was perfectly okay with it. His own novels demonstrate as much. I am aware that is open for debate. Quote:
I think it can best be explained by the car analogy a teacher of mine was fond of using. "It is one thing for a skilled driver to bend a few rules and speed during a yellow light, it is another for a beginner or unskilled driver to do the same." She used to refer to essay writing like that. It is the same here. That said, nothing in Umineko contradicts it. I am going off topic. Quote:
Grey territory here. Quote:
Van Dine set up this rule so that 1)A novel had a clear protagonist, who showed it was a mystery novel 2)That the reader was allowed to rest easy knowing that he had to read through the entire novel to get the answer. There a few minor other reasons he made that rule, but that's better left to be debated in a detective forum(...which unfortunately doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge) than here. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It was already said in red, so no point for me to even keep saying anything about it. Quote:
Umineko can have used it without a problem. Quote:
One interesting thing to note here is that it's the rule that best describes Van Dine's attitude towards the genre. "To be sure, the murderer in a detective novel should be given a sporting chance" The murderer represents the author, and in Umineko terms, the witch side. He believes it to be an intellectual game that both sides should play equally. " but it is going too far to grant him a secret society to fall back on. No high-class, self-respecting murderer would want such odds." Here what he means is "no writer would want to win his duel against the reader like this." Considering Ryuukishi's similar flamboyance, I think he follows this rule, as he wouldn't have his ego damage by it. But that's up for debate. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Which is not tolerated by today's standards. But above all, Umineko's characterization is necessary for solving the mystery. Van Dine allows for characterization to be used as a clue. So it's possible. Quote:
Quote:
I am an atheist, but I am literally praying that this isn't broken because of the very reason Dine states. Quote:
I will leave my "Van Dine's tsundere attitude towards certain rules" rant for later. Also I'm fairly sure I'm the first person to ever describe Van Dine as a tsundere. Quote:
Ryuukishi broke 20, but it doesn't mean anything even as far as my super conservative viewpoint is concerned. Now, I apologize for this gigantic post. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
2010-08-24, 04:59 | Link #763 | ||
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
As has been previously argued, if you have a bomb, there is no reason to kill anyone manually at all, luring everybody into a room that cannot be unlocked from inside, of which a number exist on the island, is far more than sufficient if you can pull a crater 1km in diameter and 10m deep.
__________________
|
||
2010-08-24, 05:00 | Link #764 | |
Mystery buff
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
|
Quote:
This also would mean that unless this rule is broken Shkanon can't exist without being a deception to Battler in the first four arcs. Which lacks in motive as well.
__________________
|
|
2010-08-24, 05:01 | Link #765 | |||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
|
Quote:
...Hell Umineko might be Shkanontrice's way of trying to kill everyone in the island because Kinzo set the bomb to go off anyway so she wants to make sure they all die and meet in the "golden land" which she is convinced exists. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's a terrible theory that I hate myself for even thinking of it, but it's valid. Death or jail are the expected outcomes for any murderer. What we have to see is the third option. It could even be greed. She/He/Screwit,IT could have expected to meet resistance from the family about the gold. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It explains a whole heck of a lot. You can create alternate explanations for most of those, I imagine, but not an explanation that encompasses all of them the way the existence of Yasu does. Therefore I can't help but assume that my problems with Yasu are because I'm not thinking the right way or there's something I missed. [/QUOTE] |
|||||||||||
2010-08-24, 05:05 | Link #767 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
|
Quote:
Quote:
This rule means that the reader is only allowed to be deceived if the detective is also deceived. Battler was tricked by Shkanon, so were also allowed to be tricked. |
||
2010-08-24, 05:22 | Link #768 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
I could probably go on for quite a while if I were less sleepy.
__________________
|
|
2010-08-24, 05:26 | Link #770 |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
The only real complaint I have with the Yasu presentation is that it's a bit too... convenient. I'm not saying that it's wrong but we don't really know that it's right either. His/her existence gives a very complete explanation for the issues at hand, solves much of locked rooms and mysteries by way of multiple identities, gives a lot of credence to individual suspicions and the like.
Personally while I'm inclined to believe in his/her existence on the island as a person not wholly DEFINED by the board and the accepted truths in previous games, I'm not so much inclined to think that the entire mystery centers on him/her and Battler. I STILL think s/he's primarily involved but not to such an extent that all the fault is directly attributable to him/her and the Battler relationship. It's a bit too straightforward and I have this sneaking suspicion that there's something skewed or missed out in Yasu's presentation. Remember that Bern doesn't give two shits so much for the whole picture as it is just getting down to the truth of everything, and based on this premise and personality, I'm inclined to think that Bern's presentation misses something that would clinch something due to it's attempt to be straight to the matter at hand. Which is why I think that the very direct manner in which Bern presented the board here, while it reveals a lot, misses a lot too in the process. The more subtle contents might be lost due to the very nature of how Bern is simply trying to get everything presented straight and plain. I STILL think there's a piece missing that would clinch everything for the Yasu theory, assuming it IS true, but it we have yet to see it. I may have seen something in Ep7 to suggest this missing piece and I'm hoping to either come upon it again or disregard it when I finish the summaries. I might be able to put some up later if I have time.
__________________
|
2010-08-24, 05:30 | Link #771 |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
...oh, forgot a good reason.
Quantum suicide. Same reason Kinzo is described having the bomb in the first place. You don't know who the culprit is, but you're very sure one exists. If no murders happen, you will disarm it, if murders will happen, honour of the family will be saved. Unfortunately, someone sends the message bottles.
__________________
|
2010-08-24, 06:02 | Link #773 | |
Back off, I'm a scientist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
|
Quote:
You know a culprit exists. You don't know who it is. You believe you're completely powerless to stop it due to overestimating the culprit, or because you think you're not trustworthy with your story, or for some other reason, and you are sure none except the culprit will be left alive. You are not completely sure of your findings of the culprit's very existence though, even though you are sure of your conclusions following if the culprit exists. So you set the bomb. If nobody dies, that will be it, you will come and disarm it. If anyone at all dies, you think you can't stop it, so you leave the bomb on, secure in knowing that they will be avenged and the culprit will get justice -- after all, the culprit will kill everyone, or so you think. Unfortunately you're wrong, some people beside the culprit do survive, and you end up committing manslaughter.
__________________
|
|
2010-08-24, 08:43 | Link #776 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
|
I just think of something that looks a bit obvious now.
Clair's truth is in a book right ? A book...what if it's in fact a book written by Hachijo Toya ? As AuAu is the witch of THEATREGOING...all this theatre thing make more sense if you link it with AuAu. AuAu for Umineko Final Boss yeah. (well, if AuAu is behind EP7, then if EP8 make a truth that doesn't match EP7 the opponent will be AuAu) |
2010-08-24, 09:18 | Link #777 | |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Ep1 First Twilight: Someone is alive among the corpses. This is a fine enough solution. But how do they get out? Ideas like First Twilight Fakery are thrown about, but I'm not sold. An accomplice fixes this easily, but who has the opportunity? Ep1 Second Twilight: If we posit the whole Yasu = Kanon = Shannon thing, this is actually a harder closed room to solve, as Kanon is reported outside the room (whereas if Shannon is separate and alive, she can be inside the room until it's broken). The solution, a lie about the chain status, works but is unsatisfying as it means this wasn't a locked room at all. It also implicates Genji, or else we have to explain how Genji was hoodwinked too. Ep2 Closed Room: This actually comes closest to a classical closed room in that both Battler and Will seem to believe that it was locked by someone inside who later died. A contention is whether everyone inside - notably Shannon - is dead, which some people think is unambiguous but others apparently don't. It isn't, in my mind, necessary that Shannon/George/Gohda have anyone in their group remain alive. Technically, no culprit needed to create it either (Gohda is dying, locks door, the end), though it implies the fear of a culprit outside the room if so. I doubt a dying anybody would lock a room just to throw a mystery story cliche at the survivors. Ep3 First Twilight: The "solution" to this is just absurd. It works, but is needlessly theatrical and quite ridiculous. It's also a bit unfair, as Battler is merely told about all the bodies and never actually has a chance to go see any of them. Well, they could've said Kanon was trampled to death by the Hidden Elephant of Rokkenjima for all it would've mattered if we're just getting his death reported to us. The difference between that and other episodes is Beatrice doesn't bother going out of her way to make assurances regardless like in 2 and 4. Ep4 Kyrie: The solution accorded by Yasu would be "Shannon and Kanon persona-died and Yasu had all the time in the universe to kill and stake Kyrie." That's no locked room, that's just... a room the killer locked behind themselves. It also throws up a huge question mark about Kyrie's behavior, as she just told Battler a story in which Kanon and Shannon died before she did, and as far as Kyrie seems to know, she's one of the last people still alive. But a Yasu theory basically necessitates Kyrie knowing at this point, because she cannot have seen Kanon and Shannon together (no matter how good an actor, she can't play two people at once). If Yasu is the murderer hunting her down, it's bizarre to protect her if there's a risk she might go kill Battler too. The whole "believe" speech seems to be Kyrie trying to give Battler the impression that he will take away from Rokkenjima as a survivor. This means Kyrie believes that Battler will not just be immediately thereafter killed by the culprit, as otherwise telling him anything but "watch your back" is going to be futile. Telling him both personas belonging to the culprit which he is aware of are dead is all but guaranteed to get him killed off. So Kyrie, at least, thinks Battler is going to be alive at the end. Yet she is also willingly complicit in this Yasu thing. The two don't square up if Yasu is the culprit. Obviously, if she isn't, it works fine, although we'd have to explain some reason why Kyrie would consent to being killed and/or staked (perhaps if she was dying anyway, or if she was the killer and asked to tell Battler the gentle lie before Yasu/Shannon killed her for her crimes). Kyrie's death is one that requires someone else still be alive after she is dead. Therefore, Kyrie has to believe that whoever is still alive after she dies won't hurt Battler. It also suggests she does not know about the bomb, as giving him the survivor's burden and not telling him to get the heck outta the blast radius is once again a futile gesture.
__________________
|
|
2010-08-24, 10:07 | Link #778 | |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
Quote:
The Second Twilight is iffy. Genji being an accomplice is made more relevant by Ep7 on the assumption that he is pro-Yasu, which makes the possibility that the lock on the room where Eva and Hideyoshi are killed fairly possible. Ep2 Closed Room in Natsuhi's room is problematic because again going by a Yasu killer theory and the assumption that the psycho Kanon is really ShKanon, it makes no sense for the other servants to stick by Shannon after fighting off psycho Kanon. Realistically speaking this is one of those room where I cannot pin it on a Yasu personality as the killer, UNLESS psycho Kanon is someone else. This for me is probably one of the most difficult rooms to assign blame on Yasu. Ep3 First Twilight is arguably THE hardest puzzle to solve without a multiple identity theory, which is why I mentioned why I dislike Yasu as purely the culprit because it makes the solution to this mystery far too easy to solve, almost like a dead giveaway. Even if it were, I've argued before that whoever the killer is this is one HUGE Xanatos Gambit for one person to execute perfectly in placing everyone right in the correct places and shifting blame away from anyone inside the rooms. Ep4's Kyrie murder, as you have said, makes sense again assuming Yasu has no intentions of hurting Battler in the first place. This could exist regardless of whether or not Kyrie would reveal the "truth" to Battler assuming again Yasu never intended for Battler to get hurt in the first place. This also "solves" the bigger problem here that Kanon supposedly died but the tunnel was closed and sealed and thus death cannot be confirmed. Kyrie is NOT necessarily an accomplice because it MAY be possible that she had learned of the "truth" of Yasu and, quite possibly, knows about Yasu's plan for Battler, and perhaps understands that Battler will not get out of the island but at least probably stay alive. It would follow that she has no reason to put any more stress on Battler because she has accepted the eventuality of what is to transpire for him. Now here's the thing with Yasu: Yasu's intentions, assuming s/he wants Battler alive, doesn't necessarily mean that Battler HAS to get out of the island alive. At this point it's already highly possible that his/her mind is already very warped and twisted. The Golden Land events of Episode 2 suggests the possibility that Yasu-Beatrice wants Battler alive with her on her Golden Land: the remains of the island post-catastrophe. Considering that Battler's status is is more or less unknown at the end of the first 4 games, there is a likelihood that he is the only intended survivor of the catastrophe, and that Yasu intended to keep him alive by some means.
__________________
|
|
2010-08-24, 10:21 | Link #779 |
BUY MY BOOK!!!
Join Date: May 2009
|
The problem is the breakdown in Kyrie's knowledge and intentions, whether she thinks Battler is in danger, whether he actually is, and how she feels she should react to that.
For instance: Kyrie and Yasu are chilling in the room where she dies. She's dying because of whatever reason (she was shot by the killer whom she and Yasu killed, she was the killer and is repentant, Yasu is the killer but only for certain people, whatever). Yasu makes an assurance to Kyrie that she has no intention of harming Battler. Let's say Kyrie believes it. Kyrie calls, tells Battler the story, and asks what will happen next. Yasu says she'll go get Battler and they'll leave for Kuwadorian or something. Kyrie then either expires or allows Yasu to kill her. Yasu stakes the body and leaves. However, after confronting Battler last night, Yasu gets depressed and decides to kill herself as Shannon at the well. She won't kill Battler, but she can't bring it upon herself to survive. Of course there's still the problem of who killed Maria. I see no reason Maria couldn't be entrusted to Battler's care, nor why "Beatrice" would harm a founding member of her alliance. It may be an uncharacteristically merciful death, but it's still death.
__________________
|
2010-08-24, 10:35 | Link #780 |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
AFAIK it wasn't even ever shown that Maria's dead in Ep4, unless I read the end scroll wrong. The only thing I have to go by is the assumption that above all things, Yasu wants Battler alive. The pact with Maria in the Mariage Socier could be relegated to the subjugate Beatrice persona and, in reality, poses no real importance to Yasu, so s/he doesn't consider Maria to be important enough to be left alive.
__________________
|
|
|