[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[eX_ploit]

Hello everyone.
This is my first time here.
I hope you excuse me for not reading 1700 pages of previous discussion here.
I wanted to talk about the solution to the VN's.
Even though this thread is for all media, there is no thread for just VN's, so I'l use this one.
Some background first.
Anything other than 8 episodes of VN's cannot be considered canon.
And in those 8 episodes there exist only 2 reliable sources of information: red truth and detective's perspective.
Questioning those sources is not permitted. And all other sources cannot be fully trusted.

And so, what I wanted to talk about is the so-called official theory, which is Shkanon.
It amuses me how many people actually believed in it, even though it's rejected so many times by red truth and by detective.
I feel like Battler from ep1 tea party. "Everyone believed. Maria is happy."

So, first of all there is this red rule
"It is forbidden for a servant to be the culprit! ...Van Dine's Twenty Rules, Rule #11."
A direct contradiction to Shkanon.
Explainations like "Shannon is the master" don't work because being master doesn't make you "not servant".
There is a lot of red text explaining that there are 5 servants on rokkenjima and each holds one master key.

in ep2 it's stated in red that "Kanon was killed in this room" while Shannon is observed by detective to be alive.
in ep3 it's stated in red that "6 people: Kinzo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, Gohda, and Kumasawa are dead!". 6 people, not 5 people.
And also
"The six people died instantly!"
"None of the six people committed suicide!"
"All of them had wounds resembling gunshot wounds which became fatal!"
Therefore there was someone else who killed them.
And finally, in ep2 detective observes Shannon's dead body with a hole in the head, and after that he observes and talks to someone dressed as Beatrice.

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

So, first of all there is this red rule
"It is forbidden for a servant to be the culprit! ...Van Dine's Twenty Rules, Rule #11."
A direct contradiction to Shkanon.

I wouldn't be so sure about the Van Dine's Rules, because it isn't stated anywhere that Umineko actually follows them, mind you, almost every one of them seems to contradict something in it.

Explainations like "Shannon is the master" don't work because being master doesn't make you "not servant".
There is a lot of red text explaining that there are 5 servants on rokkenjima and each holds one master key.

Except it does. Because she has the rank of the head, and Genji and Kumasawa pretty much obey her, her servant status could be said to be little more than a facade. Also, there is the will left by Kinzo which sort of makes her the owner of the island and everything on it.

Putting that aside, Shannon and Kanon are not the culprits. Shanon and Kanon are servants, Yasu isn't. Yeah, it sucks, but the red totally works that way.

in ep3 it's stated in red that "6 people: Kinzo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, Gohda, and Kumasawa are dead!". 6 people, not 5 people.

But the series does make a point in many places that the meaning of red words can be decided by the one who uses it. So people=personas and everyone wins. Shitty? Perhaps, but it IS how it works.

Therefore there was someone else who killed them.

And that was the one who made them.

And finally, in ep2 detective observes Shannon's dead body with a hole in the head, and after that he observes and talks to someone dressed as Beatrice.

Ryukishi has explicitly described the trick behind that murder in Answer of The Golden Witch, Shannon commited suicide and Battler just couldn't find the weapon because, clearly, Rosa didn't let him look for it.

I can understand the official solution not satisfying you, but it IS canon, and that's that. There may be other ways to work around the story, but I can't really say it is possible to argue that the Shkanon is just a gimmick to trick stupid readers, because frankly, that wouldn't really make any sense.

[AuraTwilight]

Some background first.
Anything other than 8 episodes of VN's cannot be considered canon.
And in those 8 episodes there exist only 2 reliable sources of information: red truth and detective's perspective.
Questioning those sources is not permitted. And all other sources cannot be fully trusted.

We already have issues because Ryukishi published canonical material outside of the main eight episodes, such as Our Confession, and the Red Truth and Detective's Perspective are both logically faulty and fallacious.

And so, what I wanted to talk about is the so-called official theory, which is Shkanon.
It amuses me how many people actually believed in it, even though it's rejected so many times by red truth and by detective.

No it's not. Not once.

So, first of all there is this red rule
"It is forbidden for a servant to be the culprit! ...Van Dine's Twenty Rules, Rule #11."
A direct contradiction to Shkanon.

Here's an example of the above. First of all, there's no red saying that Van Dine's rules even apply to Rokkenjima's gameboard. Technically all that red statesis that yes, this is indeed what Rule 11 says.

It's even more dubious because when Williard uses it he's not on a Rokkenjima gameboard. The narrative is showing him solving a case in a completely different story entirely.

Also, Umineko breaks most of Van Dine's rules anyway, like how there mustn't be a love story.

in ep2 it's stated in red that "Kanon was killed in this room" while Shannon is observed by detective to be alive.
in ep3 it's stated in red that "6 people: Kinzo, Genji, Shannon, Kanon, Gohda, and Kumasawa are dead!". 6 people, not 5 people.
And also
"The six people died instantly!"
"None of the six people committed suicide!"
"All of them had wounds resembling gunshot wounds which became fatal!"
Therefore there was someone else who killed them.
And finally, in ep2 detective observes Shannon's dead body with a hole in the head, and after that he observes and talks to someone dressed as Beatrice.

Incorrect, for a multitude of reasons. Beatrice demonstrates that death and persons means something different when it comes to Shannon and Kanon. For instance, Sakutarou can die in the red, but can also be revived under the red.

Also, Even if Erika joins us, there are only 17 humans.

17 minus Erika is 16. The original person count is 18, reduced to 17 because if Kinzo's confirmed death. Therefore, one of the remaining 17 people must be fake. Shkanon explains this perfectly.

Also, Kanon is an existence, in EP6, that is capable of locking himself into a room and magically ceasing to exist without being killed, according to the red truth.

Shkanon is objectively, demonstratably true. It is the answer Ryukishi intended in his work, and episodes 6 and 7 only work and make sense if it is true.

Another clear indication is when Williard tries to use his authority to speak to Shannon and Kanon at the same time, Shannon nearly breaks down and Bern warns that he NEARLY CAUSED A LOGIC ERROR.

Logic Errors are when you attempt to cause something that is impossible. It is impossible to speak to Shannon and Kanon at the same time.

[eX_ploit]

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

I wouldn't be so sure about the Van Dine's Rules, because it isn't stated anywhere that Umineko actually follows them, mind you, almost every one of them seems to contradict something in it.

Except this one is stated in red, unlike most other.

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

Putting that aside, Shannon and Kanon are not the culprits. Shanon and Kanon are servants, Yasu isn't. Yeah, it sucks, but the red totally works that way.

Yasu cannot be the culprit unless yasu is someone of the characters mentioned early.
If yasu is not shannon, then he can't be culprit because he was't mentioned.
If yasu is shannon, then he can't be culprit because servants cannot be culprits.

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

But the series does make a point in many places that the meaning of red words can be decided by the one who uses it. So people=personas and everyone wins. Shitty? Perhaps, but it IS how it works.

Can you pinpoint to those exact places where meaning of red words can be decided by the one who uses it?
And even then, persons=personas doesn't solve anything, there is still a body that does things, and that body is a servant, so it can't also be a culprit.

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

And that was the one who made them.

What do you mean by that?

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

Ryukishi has explicitly described the trick behind that murder in Answer of The Golden Witch, Shannon commited suicide and Battler just couldn't find the weapon because, clearly, Rosa didn't let him look for it.

You misunderstood my point. I'm not talking about closed room there.
I'm talking that Shannon is dead there, so she can't be the one who is dressed as Beatrice later in that episode.

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

I can understand the official solution not satisfying you, but it IS canon, and that's that. There may be other ways to work around the story, but I can't really say it is possible to argue that the Shkanon is just a gimmick to trick stupid readers, because frankly, that wouldn't really make any sense.

Just because author has confirmed it doesn't mean that it's real.
After all he didn't speak in red, did he?
And considering how this is a game about deception, and importance of thinking with your own head, it's only natural for author to lie about it.

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

Except this one is stated in red, unlike most other.

In an ENTIRELY different context, as Aura has already mentioned.

Yasu cannot be the culprit unless yasu is someone of the characters mentioned early.
If yasu is not shannon, then he can't be culprit because he was't mentioned.
If yasu is shannon, then he can't be culprit because servants cannot be culprits.

Yasu is Shanon, but also isn't Shanon, this is the kind of argument the story is making.

And still, we can't take the servants cannot be culrpits to heart because it was mentioned in an entirely different story and nothing ever suggested that it must correspond to Umineko. I can say if you chant Wingardium Levioza you can make stuff leviate but if Battler tried to do it, obviously nothing would happen.

Can you pinpoint to those exact places where meaning of red words can be decided by the one who uses it?

I'm too lazy to skim through the huge-ass script atm, but off the top of my head, I can specifically point to the definition argument Erika and Battler have shortly before the Logic Error, Battler asking wether the 'people' reffers to bodies in the EP4 Tea Party (which I think Erika asks as well) and the literally endless paragraphs EP6 spends with Featherine and Ange discussing the concept of death (which EP2 adresses too)

And even then, persons=personas doesn't solve anything, there is still a body that does things, and that body is a servant, so it can't also be a culprit.

No it isn't, it is the head, and owns everything on the island, and servants can be culrpits in Umineko.

What do you mean by that?

I mean that, (always following Umineko's logic) and to use the example Aura stated above, Maria is the one who made Sakutarou and she can kill him as well. Because she is the one 'playing the part of Sakutarou' if she decides he is dead, then he dies. And she kills him. The same thing applies to Yasu for Shanon and Kanon.

You misunderstood my point. I'm not talking about closed room there.
I'm talking that Shannon is dead there, so she can't be the one who is dressed as Beatrice later in that episode.

True as that may be, there is no guarantee Battler actually met anyone. Beatrice in that scene could symbolize a lot of other things. Heck, he even sees Kinzo. But he is also dead. Does this mean Kinzo's death is a red herring too?

Just because author has confirmed it doesn't mean that it's real.
After all he didn't speak in red, did he?

This is ridiculous. You know, to use Harry Potter again, this is sort of like J.K. Rowling saying "Dumbledore's gay" and readers arguing "Hey, you didn't say that in red! You may be the author but why should we take your word for it?" "Uh... because I'm the damn author bitches I can do whatever the hell I want, deal with it."

He said so, and he is the one who made the stuff, so it's final. Yeah, he could lie, but let's assume he has some dignity.

And considering how this is a game about deception, and importance of thinking with your own head, it's only natural for author to lie about it.

And what would be his motivation for writing pointless bullshit (meaning EP6 and Ep7) for two entire years? I've heard of trolls but this one would take the cake.

[eX_ploit]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Incorrect, for a multitude of reasons. Beatrice demonstrates that death and persons means something different when it comes to Shannon and Kanon. For instance, Sakutarou can die in the red, but can also be revived under the red.

Nothing of the sort.
magic was not able to revive Sakutarou
It's the only thing stated about Sakutarou in red.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Also, Kanon is an existence, in EP6, that is capable of locking himself into a room and magically ceasing to exist without being killed, according to the red truth.

Also wrong.
Kanon does not exist in the guest room. .........Of course, this includes all parts of the closet, the bedroom, and the bathroom.
Just means that he is dead.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Another clear indication is when Williard tries to use his authority to speak to Shannon and Kanon at the same time, Shannon nearly breaks down and Bern warns that he NEARLY CAUSED A LOGIC ERROR.

Logic Errors are when you attempt to cause something that is impossible. It is impossible to speak to Shannon and Kanon at the same time.

And yet, that's exactly what Erika did in ep5.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

Hello everyone.
This is my first time here.
I hope you excuse me for not reading 1700 pages of previous discussion here.
I wanted to talk about the solution to the VN's.
Even though this thread is for all media, there is no thread for just VN's, so I'l use this one.
Some background first.
Anything other than 8 episodes of VN's cannot be considered canon.
And in those 8 episodes there exist only 2 reliable sources of information: red truth and detective's perspective.
Questioning those sources is not permitted. And all other sources cannot be fully trusted.

Sorry but... who decided this?
Surely not Ryukishi as he handed out answers in other sources namely interviews, Our confession and the manga which he declared he would use to hand out answers.

I think it's perfectly fair to dislike the official solution. I think it's perfectly fair to try and create a solution that's more to your liking. But trying to impose your headcanon to the fandom in place of the official canon Ryukishi kept on insisting on and on and on and on is pretty pointless.

The points you tried to attack have been discussed extensively even by Ryukishi himself so it's not even like we've to make up an explanation. There's already an official one.

If Ryukishi lied and lied and lied and lied... then how can you be sure he was honest with the red truth? You end up looking like you're believing only in what's convenient for you to form your theory and ignoring everything else like Erika did in Ep 5.

So sorry, but your attack to the official theory came out completely ineffective to me.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Renall

What's the part that made her violent? Like psychotically violent and aggressive? She's not just venting frustation here, she's having episodes of massive anger that causes her to do things she claims she doesn't want to do after the fact. We know she didn't have it well. Neither did a lot of people in the story, and most of them don't explode in outbursts that are apparently so noticeable that social workers ended up getting involved. Natsuhi gets extremely angry too (and hasn't exactly been without abandonment and self-image issues herself), but she doesn't get violent. She doesn't strike Jessica or Eva.

You're giving her backstory way too much credit on this. I simply do not agree that you can trace a line from the neglect and abandonment she suffered and conclude that she's the sort of person who would fly of the handle and beat her child to that extent. She practically goes into a fugue; even Maria can notice this, hence the "two Mamas." It kind of skirts dangerously close to "she's a violent abuser because she just is, or because the plot demands it." We know why she's stressed, we know why she might snap when she's being annoyed by her child, but the scale and extent of the abuse just seems so out of sorts. If it were something like "Rosa has had moments where she's hit Maria and immediately realized her mistake, and Maria spins this wildly out of proportion in the retelling" it might be easier to swallow, but I'm not sure we're meant to question the reliability of the sources on that. Although admittedly it's possible to argue given the two characters who establish the severity of it.

There's also the death of Beatrice II to consider. I got the impression that the fact that she blames herself for her death contributes a great deal to her emotional instability, and that although the abuse and neglect she knew during childhood would have damaged her no matter what, she would've fared much better had she never encountered Beatrice II (to the point where she might've turned out to merely be moody, rather than an emotional abuser prone to berserk rages). Personally, Rosa's behavior makes a lot of sense to me. If you grow up in a toxic, anger-filled environment where you presumably don't receive much love and are subjected to constant stress, and then proceed to accidentally lead someone to their death when you're only in your early teens at best... I dunno, the pieces all come together pretty well for me. Rosa feels realistic to me in that I've known people that have grown up in similar environments to turn out much the same as her - not child abusers or anything, but that have poor emotional control and easily fly off the handle when stressed.

[eX_ploit]

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

I'm too lazy to skim through the huge-ass script atm, but off the top of my head, I can specifically point to the definition argument Erika and Battler have shortly before the Logic Error, Battler asking wether the 'people' reffers to bodies in the EP4 Tea Party (which I think Erika asks as well)

And the answer was yes.

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

and the literally endless paragraphs EP6 spends with Featherine and Ange discussing the concept of death (which EP2 adresses too)

Featherine and Ange's discussion has nothing to do with detective or with red truth

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

I mean that, (always following Umineko's logic) and to use the example Aura stated above, Maria is the one who made Sakutarou and she can kill him as well. Because she is the one 'playing the part of Sakutarou' if she decides he is dead, then he dies. And she kills him. The same thing applies to Yasu for Shanon and Kanon.

This again has nothing to do with red truth or detective. It's never stated in red that Sakutarou is alive, or that he was alive at some point.

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

True as that may be, there is no guarantee Battler actually met anyone. Beatrice in that scene could symbolize a lot of other things. Heck, he even sees Kinzo. But he is also dead. Does this mean Kinzo's death is a red herring too?

He didn't actually see an alive Kinzo there.
"Kinzo" in that scene sits still in sofa, his back turned to Battler.

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

This is ridiculous. You know, to use Harry Potter again, this is sort of like J.K. Rowling saying "Dumbledore's gay" and readers arguing "Hey, you didn't say that in red! You may be the author but why should we take your word for it?" "Uh... because I'm the damn author bitches I can do whatever the hell I want, deal with it."

He said so, and he is the one who made the stuff, so it's final. Yeah, he could lie, but let's assume he has some dignity.

Assuming that he has some dignity is the exact reason why he would lie.

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

And what would be his motivation for writing pointless bullshit (meaning EP6 and Ep7) for two entire years? I've heard of trolls but this one would take the cake.

Ep6 isn't pointless lol.
Ep7isn't too, just the yasu's perspective, which is told in a witches theatre.

[eX_ploit]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

Sorry but... who decided this?
Surely not Ryukishi as he handed out answers in other sources namely interviews, Our confession and the manga which he declared he would use to hand out answers.

I think it's perfectly fair to dislike the official solution. I think it's perfectly fair to try and create a solution that's more to your liking. But trying to impose your headcanon to the fandom in place of the official canon Ryukishi kept on insisting on and on and on and on is pretty pointless.

The points you tried to attack have been discussed extensively even by Ryukishi himself so it's not even like we've to make up an explanation. There's already an official one.

If Ryukishi lied and lied and lied and lied... then how can you be sure he was honest with the red truth? You end up looking like you're believing only in what's convenient for you to form your theory and ignoring everything else like Erika did in Ep 5.

So sorry, but your attack to the official theory came out completely ineffective to me.

Sorry, this cannot be proved or disproved. therefore I can't prove anything to you if you don't accept these premises.
I can only discuss this with people who like me think that this mystery is actually solvable, and not a pile of bullshit.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

Sorry, this cannot be proved or disproved. therefore I can't prove anything to you if you don't accept these premises.

The problem is that your argument is based on a premise to which you seem to give it the value of an official statement (or a red truth if you prefer) when it actually is not.

If you want to discuss alternate solutions I think you can find plenty of people here interested in what if, but if you want to state your premise is the right one then you've to give proof of this.

Otherwise the discussion is flawed at its very basis.

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

I can only discuss this with people who like me think that this mystery is actually solvable, and not a pile of bullshit.

I suggest you to change your wording because:

A) the canon solution makes the mistery solvable. You might not like it but this doesn't stop it from being a solution.

B) I apprecciate if you weren't to assume I (or anyone else for the matter) think this is a pile of bull**** just because I consider canon what the author states as canon.

C) It makes you look like you're saying "I can discuss this only with people who agree with me" and I hope that's not your intention? Because it would be pretty rude, really.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note, in case you don't know, making double posts is something that should be avoided on this forum. So when you've to reply to more than one message you've to copypaste everything in a single message instead than posting two messages. It can be uncomfortable in the beginning but with time one gets used to it.

[Captain Bluebeard]

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

And the answer was yes.

Yeah, in Battler and Erika's argument. Beato never actually admits to this. And even if she did, it is enough to place your thinking in that direction. There is lot of themes that are meant to guide you there, and if it wasn't a thing at all, I don't think anyone would ever think of something as ridiculous as 'the number of bodies'.

Featherine and Ange's discussion has nothing to do with detective or with red truth

But it has to do with the solution of the story. The themes they are discussing are supposed to be vital pieces of information and even indirect answers, elsewhere that scene would have no point at all.

This again has nothing to do with red truth or detective. It's never stated in red that Sakutarou is alive, or that he was alive at some point.

Okay, there are tons of things that have nothing to do with either the red or the detective, so why not discard them completely? Because that way a great portion of Umineko goes to hell and there is no darn way to solve anything.

Umineko is generally constructed in a way that answers and hints, and even certain parts of the narrative are given metaphorically and using long allegories. If we accept that Shkanon is a red herring, then all of the series' thematic coherrence breaks down.

Except, of course, if you're willing to argue that Ryukishi has been intentionally planting seeds of this illusion in very deep and almost subconsious narrative aspects since EP1, which doesn't really qualify for much more than a conspiracy theory.

He didn't actually see an alive Kinzo there.
"Kinzo" in that scene sits still in sofa, his back turned to Battler.

I'm pretty sure he talked to him and Kinzo replied.

FYI, He also saw golden butterflies.

Assuming that he has some dignity is the exact reason why he would lie.

Shamelessly lying to your audience and trying to mislead them and trick them with canon material is one thing, but when on top of that you openly lie in interviews, well... that's really not what I'd call mature and it certainly wouldn't be to his honor.

Because okay, let's agree that it's a game about tricking and misleading. However, the narrative never openly lies. It uses shitty semantics and uses annoying 'legit' cheats with the red, but it never states untrue stuff clearly.

Ep6 isn't pointless lol.
Ep7isn't too, just the yasu's perspective, which is told in a witches theatre.

I can't really see what you're getting at with this.

[eX_ploit]

Originally Posted by jjblue1

I suggest you to change your wording because:

Yeah, I shouldn't have said the bullshit part.

Originally Posted by jjblue1

A) the canon solution makes the mistery solvable. You might not like it but this doesn't stop it from being a solution.

Ok. The premise here is that this mystery is solvable. And by "this mystery" I mean the VN's.
My points above about red truth and detective's perspective being reliable are simply expansion of that premise, because you can't say that it's solvable if you have no reliable information.
And this canon solution which you support cannot exist without violating these sources, therefore making this mystery unsolvable.
And if you argue that there is a third reliable source, which is authors words, that still doesn't remove this violation, in this case the 3 sources just contradict each other.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Also, Even if Erika joins us, there are only 17 humans.

This one one is tough for me, but shkanon doesn't solve it either.

here are the exact words

Hi, pleased to meet you! I am Furudo Erika, the detective!! I may be an uninvited guest, but please, welcome me!!
I am the visitor, the 18th human on Rokkenjima!!
......Sorry, but... Even if you do join us- There are 17 people.

Erika's statement that she is the 18th human implies that there are at least 17 other humans, while shkanon implies 16 humans.

[AuraTwilight]

Nothing of the sort.
magic was not able to revive Sakutarou
It's the only thing stated about Sakutarou in red.

Sakutarou is still given in person-hood by that single red. He is something that can die and revive. Is he a person? The Red treats him as one.

Also wrong.
Kanon does not exist in the guest room. .........Of course, this includes all parts of the closet, the bedroom, and the bathroom.
Just means that he is dead.

And yet, Erika did not kill him. And before you suggest it, I hope you're not relying on something ridiculous like 'Kanon committed suicide'. Beatrice pretty much never allows that.

And yet, that's exactly what Erika did in ep5.

No she doesn't.

This one one is tough for me, but shkanon doesn't solve it either.

here are the exact words

Hi, pleased to meet you! I am Furudo Erika, the detective!! I may be an uninvited guest, but please, welcome me!!
I am the visitor, the 18th human on Rokkenjima!!
......Sorry, but... Even if you do join us- There are 17 people.

Erika's statement that she is the 18th human implies that there are at least 17 other humans, while shkanon implies 16 humans.

You're incorrect. Erika describes herself at the 18th human, but Battler and Beatrice stat that even if she joins them, there are only 17 humans. She then ceases to be conceptually denied, to the point that if you execute her in the TIPS, she completely ceases to exist and the prose describes that she never wound up on Rokkenjima at all.

Erika was never the 18th human because it's impossible. It's a title, not an objective count. X + Erika = 17.

If there are 17 humans BEFORE Erika, then why the "Sorry, but, even if you do join us-"?

You can't just ignore pieces of the text to make your idea work. Ryukishi has himself stated that if you only listen to the red truth and the detective's authority, Umineko is not solvable. He wrote all of these scenes and passages for a reason. Even if they are fantasy, they are trying to deliver a THEMATIC truth, even if it's not a FACTUAL one.

My points above about red truth and detective's perspective being reliable are simply expansion of that premise, because you can't say that it's solvable if you have no reliable information.
And this canon solution which you support cannot exist without violating these sources, therefore making this mystery unsolvable.

This ignores the point that Beatrice uses figurative speech in the Red Truth multiple times, and it's not always literal.

You are all alone on this island. And of course, I am not you. Yet I am here, now, and will kill you.

Spoken by Beatrice at the end of EP4. Battler is all alone, and yet she is here, and will kill him. There is no LITERAL way for this to be true, but it can be figuratively true.


.........My entire family...never came home from Rokkenjima that day...!!

Spoken by Ange earlier in the episode. This isn't LITERALLY true, because Eva is her family. But it speaks of an EMOTIONAL truth.

Due to your sin, a great many humans on this island die.
No one escapes, all die.

Again, earlier in the episode. This isn't factually true because Eva and an amnesiac Battler both survive the incident. But it speaks of a figurative truth in that Battler's sin creates an all-consuming tragedy.

The sin I am now demanding that you remember is not between Ushiromiya Battler and Beatrice.

THIS, RIGHT HERE, pretty much destroys your argument. A person is claiming to be Beatrice, and this human being existed 6 years ago, and interacted with Battler in some way that it harms them emotionally and causes them to create the tragedy due to Battler. Beatrice says in red that the sin is not against herself, but she is still personally hurt by it, because she's not just Beatrice, she's also the human being taking on Beatrice's name.

if the red can consider Beatrice and her human identity different people under the red, it can do so with ANY set of identities, because otherwise it won't be internally consistent with itself. If an 'identity' can be born under the red, then they can die under the red when the human ceases using that entity forever. This is logically sound, and it is consistent and solvable, because Beatrice made a red truth that has no literal answer unless you think Beatrice is being played by a literal 6 year old.

Ange caused the Rokkenjima tragedy. Your move.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

Ok. The premise here is that this mystery is solvable. And by "this mystery" I mean the VN's.
My points above about red truth and detective's perspective being reliable are simply expansion of that premise, because you can't say that it's solvable if you have no reliable information.
And this canon solution which you support cannot exist without violating these sources, therefore making this mystery unsolvable.
And if you argue that there is a third reliable source, which is authors words, that still doesn't remove this violation, in this case the 3 sources just contradict each other.

It's a fact that we've a number X of sources (the VN, the manga, the interviews, the tips, Our Confession, the twitters and... I can't remember what else so forgive me if I don't give you an exact number).

You argue only 1 of those sources should be considered and from this source you claim we can rely only on 2 parts of it (red truth and detective's perspective) because everything else conflict with your interpretation of the parts you deem reliable.
At least that's how it sounds.

The problem is that what you consider 'conflicting' actually offers the official interpretation to how to use red truth and detective's perspective and answer to all the complains you make to the ShKanon's theory so that nothing conflicts.

As of now the manga is giving very clear, very step to step solutions and explanations point after point, confirming the interviews, the hints the tips gave and what else.

It discussed the red truth. It discussed how could Shannon and Kanon be both present when Erika was said to be around. It gave a much more complete retelling of Shannon's life prior and past solving the epitaph. It explained how certain tricks could be performed. It devoted a part to tell us which weapons were used and how. It tells us what's in Eva's diary.

In short it smoothed out many points that were doubtful even for ShKanon's supporters.

There are still some parts that are missing but Ep 7 & 8 manga version are still ongoing so hopefully we'll get an answer even on what's missing.

Anyway this creates a problem. When you offer your interpretation on how things work, you end up clashing not against a theory or an interpretation from a fan, but against the explanation of the author about how that thing didn't create a conflict for this, this and this reason.

So you end up to be the one violating the sources with your interpretation on how to take red truth, detective's authority and so on.

If you still want to force an alternate version (I love to hear alternate versions) I would recommend trying to attack points that hadn't been explained in details yet by Ryukishi. You might have more luck with them.

Otherwise there's basically no game.

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

Ok. The premise here is that this mystery is solvable. And by "this mystery" I mean the VN's.
My points above about red truth and detective's perspective being reliable are simply expansion of that premise, because you can't say that it's solvable if you have no reliable information.

The problem with your idea is that Ryukishi himself has stated in interviews that the editing process made Umineko into something different compared to what he initially intended, that there were scenes that were reduced to being almost incomprehensible (which he only noticed after release), and he added a lot of information in the manga, which he announced in interviews.

Umineko is a media-mix project!
It is impossible to simply take elements out of consideration by the factor alone that several TIPs were only accessible as bonus-content for early buyers or through semi-official solution-books (the ones written by KEIYA).

Ryukishi himself stated that the opening scene of EP7 is part of an earlier draft that would have seen Will compete against characters that didn't make it into the story before even entering the Rokkenjima narrative...which was cut for length.
Ryukishi stated during an interview right after the VN had concluded that he had already discussed plans with the manga-ka to include additional information in the manga.

If you cannot except these premises then you are welcome to do so, but it will never be a canon solution. It's as much as we have to accept the existence of the prequel trilogy of Star Wars as canon...no matter how bad it is.

[Valkama]

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

Featherine and Ange's discussion has nothing to do with detective or with red truth

I don't understand the idea of just scrapping all information that doesn't conform to your theory.(Although people in the real world do it all the time) Why would the author write huge blocks of text just for it to be reduced to mere filler. It has no comedic value, it doesn't develop any of the characters and it doesn't deepen our understanding of them either. It's pretty much them discussing how to define a word and if that is meaningless then what was the point of spending hours writing it?

[eX_ploit]

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

Yeah, in Battler and Erika's argument. Beato never actually admits to this. And even if she did, it is enough to place your thinking in that direction. There is lot of themes that are meant to guide you there, and if it wasn't a thing at all, I don't think anyone would ever think of something as ridiculous as 'the number of bodies'.



But it has to do with the solution of the story. The themes they are discussing are supposed to be vital pieces of information and even indirect answers, elsewhere that scene would have no point at all.



Okay, there are tons of things that have nothing to do with either the red or the detective, so why not discard them completely? Because that way a great portion of Umineko goes to hell and there is no darn way to solve anything.

Umineko is generally constructed in a way that answers and hints, and even certain parts of the narrative are given metaphorically and using long allegories. If we accept that Shkanon is a red herring, then all of the series' thematic coherrence breaks down.

Except, of course, if you're willing to argue that Ryukishi has been intentionally planting seeds of this illusion in very deep and almost subconsious narrative aspects since EP1, which doesn't really qualify for much more than a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy or not, all those themes you are talking about are just themes, they cannot be used as proofs. And if those themes contradict the actual proofs, then what value do they have?

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

I'm pretty sure he talked to him and Kinzo replied.

He only spoke a couple of sentences without actually turning to Battler.
Battler wasn't on the island for 6 years, so he doesn't recall Kinzo's voice perfectly.
And whoever the culprit is he has a good skill in changing his voice.

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

FYI, He also saw golden butterflies.

Golden butterflies are not magic.
Butterflies have all kinds of crazy colors.
For example http://andyserrano.deviantart.com/ar...rfly-110471340

Originally Posted by Captain Bluebeard

Shamelessly lying to your audience and trying to mislead them and trick them with canon material is one thing, but when on top of that you openly lie in interviews, well... that's really not what I'd call mature and it certainly wouldn't be to his honor.

Because okay, let's agree that it's a game about tricking and misleading. However, the narrative never openly lies. It uses shitty semantics and uses annoying 'legit' cheats with the red, but it never states untrue stuff clearly.

Narrative mentions simultaneous interaction of Shannon and Kanon with people other than Battler a lot.
Narrative obviously lies a lot in fantasy scenes.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Sakutarou is still given in person-hood by that single red. He is something that can die and revive. Is he a person? The Red treats him as one.

That red just states what it states.
Magic couldn't revive sakutarou because magic doesn't work. Or because Sakutarou isn't something that can be revived.
Pulling some other meaning from that sentence is a stretch.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

And yet, Erika did not kill him. And before you suggest it, I hope you're not relying on something ridiculous like 'Kanon committed suicide'. Beatrice pretty much never allows that.

Isn't shkanon actually based on suicide at some moments?
But I of course would not use that, because it doesn't make any sense.

Why are you sure that Erika didn't kill him?
After all we already know that she has a gun, and that she already killed all others who pretended to be dead.
So after she figures out that the only place where Battler can hide is the closet, she fires her gun through the closets door and kills Kanon who is hiding there.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

No she doesn't.

At least she observes them both, when she gathers everyone in one room to greet them.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

You are all alone on this island. And of course, I am not you. Yet I am here, now, and will kill you.

Spoken by Beatrice at the end of EP4. Battler is all alone, and yet she is here, and will kill him. There is no LITERAL way for this to be true, but it can be figuratively true.

Being alone only counts alive people. If "I" in this sentence means the bomb than it makes sense.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

.........My entire family...never came home from Rokkenjima that day...!!

Spoken by Ange earlier in the episode. This isn't LITERALLY true, because Eva is her family. But it speaks of an EMOTIONAL truth.

No contradiction here.
This is stated in ep4, not ep3 where Eva is alive.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Due to your sin, a great many humans on this island die.
No one escapes, all die.

Again, earlier in the episode. This isn't factually true because Eva and an amnesiac Battler both survive the incident. But it speaks of a figurative truth in that Battler's sin creates an all-consuming tragedy.

"great many humans" doesn't equal "all humans"
and "no one escapes, all die" just refers to those "great many humans"

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The sin I am now demanding that you remember is not between Ushiromiya Battler and Beatrice.

THIS, RIGHT HERE, pretty much destroys your argument. A person is claiming to be Beatrice, and this human being existed 6 years ago, and interacted with Battler in some way that it harms them emotionally and causes them to create the tragedy due to Battler. Beatrice says in red that the sin is not against herself, but she is still personally hurt by it, because she's not just Beatrice, she's also the human being taking on Beatrice's name.

if the red can consider Beatrice and her human identity different people under the red, it can do so with ANY set of identities, because otherwise it won't be internally consistent with itself. If an 'identity' can be born under the red, then they can die under the red when the human ceases using that entity forever. This is logically sound, and it is consistent and solvable, because Beatrice made a red truth that has no literal answer unless you think Beatrice is being played by a literal 6 year old.

Ange caused the Rokkenjima tragedy. Your move.

Lol, thank you for reminding me about that red, but despite what you think this red doesn't destroy my point, it strengthens it.
The contradiction here is only created if you already assume that Beatrice is Shannon.
But what if it's someone else?
For example if you assume that Beatrice is Jessica, that red truth makes sense.
Battler's sin was against Shannon, not against Jessica, therefore "The sin I am now demanding that you remember is not between Ushiromiya Battler and Beatrice."
Jessica is one of Shannons only friends, so it's only natural that Shannon told Jessica all about it. And Jessica is known to be jealous to other people's relationships.

[Dr. Casey]

Theory: Umineko was actually written during the 1920s and 1930s by Kinzo to help bring color to those long, boring days after he became the Family Head. It was also used as a self-therapy of sorts, a warning to himself in the spirit of "A Christmas Carol" as to how broken his family might become if he didn't become a more loving father. Once he finished writing Twilight of the Golden Witch the winter of 1936, he turned over a new leaf and became one of the kindest fathers the world has ever known. The Ushiromiyas grew up to become a very loving and harmonious family, and still enjoy family conferences that are filled with warmth and laughter up to this very day, though they're tragically devoid of Kinzo since he peacefully passed away in his sleep from old age back in 1994. Gohda is the current Family Head and will hopefully guide the Ushiromiya family for many moons to come.

And so after all these years, the mystery of Umineko has finally been solved.

Originally Posted by haguruma

The problem with your idea is that Ryukishi himself has stated in interviews that the editing process made Umineko into something different compared to what he initially intended, that there were scenes that were reduced to being almost incomprehensible (which he only noticed after release), and he added a lot of information in the manga, which he announced in interviews.

Ryukishi himself stated that the opening scene of EP7 is part of an earlier draft that would have seen Will compete against characters that didn't make it into the story before even entering the Rokkenjima narrative...which was cut for length.
Ryukishi stated during an interview right after the VN had concluded that he had already discussed plans with the manga-ka to include additional information in the manga.

This is interesting. I knew that Ronove was inserted into episode three because episode two was considered so difficult, but otherwise I wasn't aware that things went off the rails so much.

[GoldenLand]

Originally Posted by eX_ploit

Golden butterflies are not magic.
Butterflies have all kinds of crazy colors.

In Umineko, there are no golden butterflies.

Here's part of Keiya's interview with Ryukishi, Answer to the Golden Witch:

K That was really interesting right now. From the beginning of the depiction of magical events within the story, there were many scenes were golden butterflies appeared in front of the people. Latching on to Rosa’s back, Genji throwing a knife at one, I always thought that this was to show when something illusionary is depicted, but what would you say?

R It’s almost that meaning. To just come out and say it, there are no golden butterflies. When somebody starts seeing them, he is starting to go insane. But for example the scene where it latches on to Rosa’s back is pretty meaningful, because she can’t see it. That is why I think that the golden butterflies were a pretty simple to understand identifier. Maybe it was the influence from Higurashi back the, but there was also the theory that "on Rokkenjima there might be a special species of golden butterflies who give of a dust that causes illusions" *laugh*.

Correct me if I'm wrong, eX_ploit, but it looks as if your position is that the scene in ep 2 with Genji, Kinzo, Beatrice, Battler and the golden butterflies is not a fantasy scene, and that "Kinzo" was really the culprit disguising his or her voice.

Even if we disregard what Ryukishi has said about there being no butterflies, the description of the butterflies in that scene is simply not natural.

It was, .........somehow, ......a swarm of butterflies, shining gold.
The golden butterflies that were completely filling the inside of the study poured out all at once.......
" Wha-............, ......What is, .............this......................"
It was almost like golden leaf confetti.
The interior of Grandfather's study was filled with a golden glow....

If we take the red from Alliance as valid, we know that No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight. and No matter what the disguise, they would not mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo! . Battler's narration in that scene says that "And, ...... there was a sofa like a reception chair in front of the study desk, .........where I could see Grandfather's back."

But even if we disregard that too, can you explain...
- who was the person in that scene who pretended to be Kinzo?
- who was Beatrice in that scene?