[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[GuestSpeaker]

That's because that game wasn't about solving the epitaph or the mystery, it was about Beatrice's motivations. The point of game 4 was "who do you love" and "remember your sin". As someone once said, it was supposed to be Battler throwing away everything for Yasu (at least in her mind) and running off with the money, just as Kinzo once did. In fact, you could say it foreshadows ep 7 rather nicely.

[Drifloon]

Yeah, they're never even asked to solve the epitaph in EP4.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker

That's because that game wasn't about solving the epitaph or the mystery, it was about Beatrice's motivations. The point of game 4 was "who do you love" and "remember your sin". As someone once said, it was supposed to be Battler throwing away everything for Yasu (at least in her mind) and running off with the money, just as Kinzo once did. In fact, you could say it foreshadows ep 7 rather nicely.

It's sort of a scary point as the ones he should leave behind are the members of his family his wanna be girlfriend murdered.

At least Kinzo could claim they fired at each others and that he had no sympathy for the Italians or the other Japanese soldiers but Battler's situation... well it's VERY different...

[Kiltias]

I just got a question if I may.

Might sound silly but in terms of Umineko what does "people" mean again?

Just that I heard alot of different opinions and I'm a tad confused as to what is right and not.

[AuraTwilight]

Individuals who are alive and not magical. It's also completely arbitrary, so whether Shannon and Kanon count and whether or not their faking death counts as the real thing is completely inconsistent.

[Kiltias]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Individuals who are alive and not magical. It's also completely arbitrary, so whether Shannon and Kanon count and whether or not their faking death counts as the real thing is completely inconsistent.

I'm not talking about faking deaths.
Its about if People = Bodies or Personalities.

Cause I saw someone providing quite the lethal evidence that both won't work for Yasu claiming "Yasu has been disproven.Yasu = Author Deception" in a 12 Hours explanation explaining what "Yasu truly is", and being able to show how the Killer was someone else and how Yasu still fits into it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHMta4YbjSM&feature=plcp
This is the first part = 3 hours in which he disproves it.

I watched it through and well....the guy actually has a point with everything he said.No gaps or anything.
"I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ryukishi is deceiving the readersThe Official Explanaton = A Deception towards the readers."
"I can present a theory that is possible.Plausible.Coherent.Consistent with all Red Statements.Consistant with all circumstantial evidence.accounts for who why and how.Accounts for Yasu.Accounts for Battlers Sin.Is Elegant, meaning as few assumptions as possible,no accmplices without neccessity and evidence and no working around red statements."

[Asuka0NK]

OH GOD! Here we go. We talked about this already a few pages back. I don't know which though. Also his theory has as many holes in it as the ShKanon Theory does. I don't understand why people always have to have the most logical solutions for a mystery novel because from some I've read the solution is usually pretty far-fetched but it still makes sense and everything fits together but we aren't going against it.

Also on KnownNoMore he believes in Reds he want to believe in. I once asked him about a red and of course he worked around it and even about how there was no evidence for Erika ever having a gun when she went back to the mansion. I told him this and he responded to me pretty much how the ShKanon theory goes against Knox's 8th and he never defended his own point. So yes he is an idiot.

[AuraTwilight]

I'm not talking about faking deaths.
Its about if People = Bodies or Personalities.

I know. And I'm saying it means both, depending on which is most beneficial for Ryukishi at the time. He's not consistent about how he defines certain terms in order to protect the Shkanon twist. It's one of the biggest complaints people tend to have with Umineko.

Also KnownNoMore is an idiot, don't listen to him.

[Asuka0NK]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Also KnownNoMore is an idiot, don't listen to him.

You couldn't be anymore blunt or truthful if you tried.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Kiltias

I'm not talking about faking deaths.
Its about if People = Bodies or Personalities.

It's not "or", it's "and"; personhood requires both a personality and a living human body.

Shannon and Kanon switch ownership of Yasu's body, in which case the one switched out "does not exist". Thus, even though they are different people, they always count as one person. They can only count as two people when included in a count of dead people.

Originally Posted by Kiltias

Cause I saw someone providing quite the lethal evidence that both won't work for Yasu claiming "Yasu has been disproven.Yasu = Author Deception" in a 12 Hours explanation explaining what "Yasu truly is", and being able to show how the Killer was someone else and how Yasu still fits into it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHMta4YbjSM&feature=plcp
This is the first part = 3 hours in which he disproves it.

I watched it through and well....the guy actually has a point with everything he said.No gaps or anything.
"I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ryukishi is deceiving the readersThe Official Explanaton = A Deception towards the readers."
"I can present a theory that is possible.Plausible.Coherent.Consistent with all Red Statements.Consistant with all circumstantial evidence.accounts for who why and how.Accounts for Yasu.Accounts for Battlers Sin.Is Elegant, meaning as few assumptions as possible,no accmplices without neccessity and evidence and no working around red statements."

I posted a rant about KnownNoMore recently on seacats. Here's it copy-pasted.

Spoiler:

KnownNoMore's problem is that he is an intellectual coward who cannot face the prospect of non-absolute knowability. He hides behind a series of assumptions in order to create a situation where he can "solve" Umineko. If he couldn't solve it, he'd just add assumptions until he could.

One such assumption is that the games exist independently of the meta-world. He can't accept how there's a lack of objective information he can get from Ange's and the meta-narrative, which he seems to think is a liscense to dismiss anything from them as "not evidence". However, the games must have some relevance to each other, so what we get is KnownNoMore's interpretation that it's all in Battler's mind as he lies dying after Rosa killed everyone else, which is complete nonsense, supported in no way by anything. In fairness, KNM acknowledges that it's unsupported, but that's no excuse for trading the richly developed meta-fictional explanation, lacking in objective verification as it may be, for a completely ad-hoc explanation. So why does he? Because the ad-hoc explanation is compatible with his other assumptions and the meta-fictional explanation is not.

As far as I'm concerned, going against the meta-fictional explanation is unthinkable. The meta-narrative would have no relevance otherwise. And as such the fictional events depicted on the island do not need to conform to Umineko's reality in any way. If they do, it's because that's how the author (Yasu, Ikuko, or whoever) intended it.

However, contrary to this, KnownNoMore seems to think that the various games from each episode represent some kind of actual Umineko reality, but not THE actual Umineko reality. He calls the false games "counter-factuals" as if using the term explains how they are relevant to Umineko's true reality and why they can provide us with objective information about Umineko's true reality. It's an empty concept because there is no objective way to know what "facts" in each "counter-factual" are the ones "counter" to Umineko's reality, although KnownNoMore seems to think that the counter-facts are usually just the how-dunnit. This is entirely an assumption. To demonstrate how silly this line of assuming gets, KnownNoMore actually thinks Erika, her personality and all, exists as a real person in Umineko's real world. Erika is as fictional as characters can get (she's a blatant Mary Sue for chrissake!).

Then there is the red truth. KnownNoMore arbitrarily applies red to Umineko's reality itself, even though red is clearly introduced as a mechanic to be applied to "playing games". There is a clear difference in meta-level. If I spoke to you in red, could I dictate reality itself? Of course not, I have no authority over the truth of reality. But if I spoke in red about a fictional reality that I myself created (much like what is practiced here on seacats)? Then we'd have a different story, because I am the "gamemaster" of that fictional reality. Thus, red would be best looked at as a mechanism for "creating" a fictional reality rather than simply revealing it.

So what does all this have to do with RosaTrice? Everything. The point is that there is no reason to assume, as KnownNoMore does, that the games provide any objective information about what's inside the cat box. The games are fiction, and what happens in them may or may not tell us something about the author's world. That even includes red truth as well.

So, yeah, if you assume what KnownNoMore assumes, his answer is good. Brilliant, in fact. If I were creating a team of people to solve fictional mysteries, KnownNoMore would be my first pick: He came up with a lot of very good solutions I never would have (and some ridiculous ones, too), and I respect that. But, it's all built on a landslide of assumptions to mold Umineko into a perfect world for his own way of thinking. Then he comes out like an ass saying "I'm right and ShKanon is hopelessly wrong". Not very open-minded.

[Drifloon]

KnownNoMore is just hilarious. While the Shkanontrice solution is hinted all over the series, his explanation just takes a few small scenes out of context and blows them out of all proportion. Heck, his motive for Nanjo as an accomplice is based on a single line in EP3, a line that doesn't even remotely imply what he turns it into!

His solutions for the mysteries are also just based on poking gaps in the red and finding something that wasn't denied, not finding a solution that fits the themes of the story. So according to him, if Battler had just happened to suggest a particular trick in any of the twilights, Beatrice wouldn't have been able to answer? Please. Battler reached the answer by rereading the whole tale, fantasy scenes and 1998 scenes and all, not just looking at the words in red. That's Erika's approach, which was shown repeatedly to be wrong.

[Asuka0NK]

Don't forget he disregards everything Ryukishi says.
Ryukishi "Shannon commited the murders of the 2nd Game 4-6 Twilights"

KnownNoMore "This is a lie said by Ryukishi to try and fool his readers into believing a false truth that he constructed just to lead the reader into being confused on the path to the truth. Through my skills I was able to look past his trick and find the truth the he had hidden between the lines"

[Jan-Poo]

You know, while I share your opinion on this guy and his theory, in the end if you are among the people who thinks it's not wrong to keep a story filled with mysteries like Umineko open to any kind of interpretation without writing a clear solution, you can't really complain that people like him pops up and give their own messed up interpretation.

Umineko might even become to be completely misinterpreted by the majority of its readers, supposing it isn't already, but Ryuukishi won't have any reason to complain about that, it's just what he himself created with his own hands. And if you think he did it right, you won't have any either.


People like Knownomore exist everywhere, you'll always find some guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and interprets a story in ways that completely defy the most simple and straightforward interpretation. And people like him are usually not just content with their finding, they need to proselityze, probably because replacing a truth with their own is their main objective and they seek consensus, which in turn create more proselityzing people looking for consensus. In my personal view, they are comparable to cancer, no offense. There's been a lot of them revolving around "Final Fantasy VII", "Final Fantasy VIII" and even more about "Evangelion". It's usually wherever the story isn't clear enough that these people flocks to. Just like bacteria multiply wherever the immunitary defenses are weak.
A story that is willingly leaving holes and wide margin of interpretations is inviting cancer and rot to fest upon itself. That's only to be expected.

[Thunder Book]

I really hope you're not trying to suggest ambiguity is always a bad thing for stories or art in general to use.

In the case of something like Umineko's mysteries that were clearly set up as a puzzle for us to solve though, I find myself in agreement that the lack of a clearly defined answer in the narrative itself is dissatisfying.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

~~~

But unlike the other stories you mentioned, Umineko's metafictional format actively addresses this topic through the use of a certain character as a parody of this kind of behavior. The ironic part is that KnownNoMore is himself too busy being an "intellectual rapist" to even realize that Umineko is making fun of him right in front of his face.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Thunder Book

I really hope you're not trying to suggest ambiguity is always a bad thing for stories or art in general to use.

In the case of something like Umineko's mysteries that were clearly set up as a puzzle for us to solve though, I find myself in agreement that the lack of a clearly defined answer in the narrative itself is dissatisfying.

I didn't explain it clearly, but that's what I meant. It's a different case when there's a story where there isn't any claim of a right or wrong interpretation, for example: "2001 space odyssey" or "yume nikki".

But when there's a clear assumption that a right interpretation must exist, then the kind of people I mentioned before can make their claim of "knowing the truth" more substantial because a truth must necessarily exist (and they claim it's theirs), whereas in a situation of apparent ambiguity, that is when the author himself explicitly or implicitly tells us that you can see whatever you wants in his work or part of it, it'd just be anothet theory/interpretation and not a "truth" that simply doesn't exist.


Evangelion and the Final Fantasy I mentioned are stories that have a clear canon, they just happened to have a few not well addressed plot points that were promptly exploited. The first decidedly more than the others, and Final Fantasy VII fixed many of its own with the sequels.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

But unlike the other stories you mentioned, Umineko's metafictional format actively addresses this topic through the use of a certain character as a parody of this kind of behavior. The ironic part is that KnownNoMore is himself too busy being an "intellectual rapist" to even realize that Umineko is making fun of him right in front of his face.

The aforementioned works did not willingly left some parts unaddressed, (well maybe evangelion did a bit...) they try to explain everything and some questions were answered later in sequels or in the "ultimania omega". In some cases I would even agree with the authors if they'd say "I didn't even think I needed to specify this point as it seems obvious enough", but never underestimate the "revisionists".

In the case of Umineko it's a specific will of the author to let matters unanswered, and yet he tells us that a truth exists and we need to find it, except there's absolutely no way to check if a theory is true or not and it all depends on interpretations.

You see, for example now you say that Umineko is telling us that the kind of behavior of wanting to find a truth at all costs and push it into others is what the story is stelling us that is wrong.
But alas that's yet again nothing but your own interpretation. In the end Ryuukishi si giving us mixed inputs about everything, even that.
Because if you really had to take the way of "love" and "magic" such as the "magic" choice at the end of Umineko, you're told that you shouldn't even bother looking for the truth, that the truth is meaningless, and that it's just better to think that everyone was a good person.

The only choice where you actually state the truth, and the obvious truth is that Beatrice used a trick and not magic, is the path of the witch of truth, that is Erika.
This would mean that if you want to find the truth no matter what, then Erika's path is the "right" path, and it's only "wrong" from the perspective of one who prefers to believe in magic and witches.

Let's not forget that there are people that interpreted the goats scene of EP8 as Ryuukishi making fun of the whole readers. If you ask Knownomore he'd probably tell you that Ryuukishi is not making of him, or that it's just yet another of his dirty tactics to discourage us from finding the truth, or whatever...

[Asuka0NK]

I don't get why people think the Goats scene in Ep 8 as making fun of the reader. I thought it was more of telling of how you must have love. Solving a mystery without love is meaningless. You can have love but still solve the mystery. This is how Willard solved the entire mystery. You can't solve the mystery with love alone or you will be blinded by the illusion of the witch. You also can't solve the mystery with logic alone or you will think it is ridiculous and will tear apart the meaning. A mystery like Umineko can only be solved with love and logic together because if not you can't solve it.

[Jan-Poo]

Frankly I think that the claim that "you need love to solve this" is a bit pretentious and it's been abused by speculators to support completely opposite theories.
In the end it doesn't seem that "having love" is helping understanding umineko any better, at best is helping in appreciating it, but I think there's the problem, never addressed in umineko, that maybe not everyone and everything is deserving of love.

I can solve a riddle even if I think it's stupid, trivial and ridiculous. Actually if you have "love" and you start by the assumption that it can't be ridiculous, then that might just prevent you from accepting an obvious answer.

I know this was often the case with Umineko, especially with shkanon. How many times I've heard that shkanon can't be true because it would destroy their favorite couple worship? Or because shkanon doesn't make any sense, it's narratively bad, and therefore cannot be true? Or because shkanon requires to imagine a stupid trick in the red truths of EP3 therefore it can't be true?

You can interpret "love" however you want in the end. That doesn't really help.

And if you consider that Umineko is probably about stories where a whole family gets slaughtered because a girl couldn't find a better way to solve her love troubles, then rather than thinking that "ai ga nakereba mienai" it's probably wiser to say "ai ga nakereba yokatta".

[Kealym]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

The only choice where you actually state the truth, and the obvious truth is that Beatrice used a trick and not magic, is the path of the witch of truth, that is Erika.
This would mean that if you want to find the truth no matter what, then Erika's path is the "right" path, and it's only "wrong" from the perspective of one who prefers to believe in magic and witches.

Well, "Trick" was my personal choice, because I agree more with Erika than with BATTLER by the end of the story. But it's pretty hard to stomach, 'cause "I care about the truth and not being lied to" is somehow equated with "I have completely given up on regarding perspectives other than my own, and will start shooting people in the face at the slightest imagined provocation. Because other people ALWAYS lie about EVERYTHING in order to try to shoot ME in the face."

So, yknow, you pick the 'Magic' ending because it actually reaches some kind of believable resolution that doesn't involve ghosts cheering people into a life murderous misanthropy.

Originally Posted by Asuka0NK

I don't get why people think the Goats scene in Ep 8 as making fun of the reader. I thought it was more of telling of how you must have love.

I agree that Ryu probably wasn't openly mocking the readers. But you have to be able to see how it can be read that way, right? The goats ARE a readership approaching the story in one way or another, literally being told "this isn't FOR you!" and being described as a monstrous horde attempting to tear apart the cast we've come to (presumably) care about and send them to hell. And while their tone was rather dick-ish, none of the goats arguments, that we got to SEE, were at all unreasonable based on the narratives they had been prodived. And as has already been pointed discussed in the past, due to the information they'd have because for them, the Ushiromiya's were REAL people who had died, the goats are also pretty dumb.

You know a line I found really really interesting, in EP8? During the Golden Land battle, when it came to how the relatives were fighting the goats, too, it was something like "If a goat supports fantasy, they can use their guns to destroy them. If a goat supports mystery, they can use their guns in a much more obvious way." And it seemed to imply that (since all the fighting was with/about proposing and denying theories, of course), the human pieces were all willing to claim themselves a murderer to deny a theory, if necessary, or something.

Man, he should totally have edited Godha and Kumasawa with sprites for having guns, that would've been, just, keen.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I can solve a riddle even if I think it's stupid, trivial and ridiculous. Actually if you have "love" and you start by the assumption that it can't be ridiculous, then that might just prevent you from accepting an obvious answer.

This turns out to have been my problem exactly. I just couldn't believe that the solution would be stupid. Guess I got shown.

Originally Posted by Asuka0NK

A mystery like Umineko can only be solved with love and logic together because if not you can't solve it.

Except you can't solve it even with love and logic. There has to be a solution for it to be solvable. You cannot solve Umineko. I cannot solve Umineko. Umineko, at present, is unsolvable and has no solution.

If "love and logic together" could solve the story, one could use them to reach a conclusion which must be true, something that logic alone cannot do at present. However, no amount or type of "love" is capable of doing this. We can guess, and we can speculate, but we can't solve, whether we have "love" or not.

If anything, all an excess of "love" does is make every culprit completely unsatisfying. Now, that might be the point, but we have no way of proving it. Likewise, the ultimate unknowability of any solution may also be the point, but if it is, there are other problems in that message.