[Game] Umineko no Naku Koro ni Chiru - Ep. 6 Dawn of the golden witch

[Jan-Poo]

Beatrice never used the name "Beatrice" in any of her red texts (except the ones referring to the Beatrice of 1967). You can use "I" when you talk about your piece but you cannot rename your piece as you see fit.

Also you really must be the metaversion of that piece. Beatrice uses "I" for her piece self in the board, Battler uses "I" for his piece self in the board. It wouldn't be fair if they could use "I" for someone who is completely unrelated to their self.

[LyricalAura]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Beatrice never used the name "Beatrice" in any of her red texts (except the ones referring to the Beatrice of 1967). You can use "I" when you talk about your piece but you cannot rename your piece as you see fit.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the piece controlled by Meta Erika isn't named Erika. If Meta Erika says I killed five people, you're saying that it wouldn't be allowed for Bern to refer to that statement later by saying that Erika killed five people? How does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Also you really must be the metaversion of that piece. Beatrice uses "I" for her piece self in the board, Battler uses "I" for his piece self in the board. It wouldn't be fair if they could use "I" for someone who is completely unrelated to their self.

Well, Beatrice certainly never did something like that. But we were clearly warned that Lambda and Bern had done things on the board that Beatrice wouldn't. And as I said before, while it's misleading from a logical perspective, it's also a semantic pattern in common usage with game players.

EDIT: Beatrice didn't do something like that, provided that her piece is legitimately named Beatrice. Does "pretending to be Beatrice" really count for that purpose? I think that only works if there really is a split personality of someone with that name, or if Kinzo said "from now on your name is Beatrice" or something. Otherwise you'd get garbage like "John was pretending to be Fred when he killed Mary, so Fred killed Mary."

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by LyricalAura

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the piece controlled by Meta Erika isn't named Erika. If Meta Erika says I killed five people, you're saying that it wouldn't be allowed for Bern to refer to that statement later by saying that Erika killed five people? How does that make sense?

That cannot work. Bern is not entitled to say "I solved the riddle with the help of Erika" even if she is the one who controlled Battler piece then, at the same time Lambda cannot say "I jumped out of the window" even she was the one controlling Battler piece.

That is because regardless of you controlling a piece a piece is still itself, it has still its own personality which is proven by the fact that you can't make a piece act against its own will.


anyway I have another to thing to present to you. You have previously affirmed that the word "人数" refers to the number of humans regardless of their dead/alive status. In that case:


つまり、今、この客間にいる人数が、在島者全ての人数、ってことになるわね。

According to your interpretation this red text suggests that at a certain point in time all humans regardless of their dead/alive status are inside the parlour. Which means that Kinzo's body and Erika's body should be in there as well.
How do you explain that?

[Smeckledorf]

Well red, in a way, contradicts the notion of controlling a piece anyways, or the use of the meta world for that matter.
No life forms other than humans have any connection to this game.
Absolutely no factors other than humans participate in this game board.
So if a witch can control a piece, Bern could go psycho crazy and force murders. But that red shouldn't allow witches to control pieces on the board. There must be some sort of rules on what a "piece controller" could do and not do.

[Renall]

Beato never committed murder for the sake of pleasure.

How do we interpret this?

1) Harsh Realism: There is no Beatrice, therefore she didn't commit murder for the sake of pleasure because she cannot commit murder in the first place.

2) Alias Theory: Someone pretending to be Beatrice and claiming her name never committed murder for the sake of pleasure.

3) Title Theory: "Beatrice" is whoever was replaced by the Beato piece and killed people. This person never committed murder for the sake of pleasure. It need not necessarily be that person all the time, but it can only be that person at a given time.

4) Ridiculous Unrealism: Anyone and everyone could be Beatrice at any time as long as the Game Master says so.

I think we're somewhere in the 2-3 range. Beato can speak in red about actions taken on the gameboard by her piece. If we accept that there is no piece-Beatrice who isn't already someone on the island - which I think is reasonable at this point - then when Beato says "I" she is referring to another piece who cannot be her (Meta-Beatrice).

I would therefore propose that anything Meta-Erika says about what "I" did can be similarly scrutinized.

SEE ALSO:

Beatrice

• That which was inside the envelope I entrusted Maria with, was definitely the key to the chapel.
• The letter that I handed over to Maria and the one Rosa opened are the same thing.
• Ushiromiya Battler. I will now... kill you. And right now, there is no one other than you on this island. The only one alive on this island is you. Nothing outside the island can interfere. You are all alone on this island. And of course, I am not you. Yet I am here, now, and will kill you.

Erika

• At that time, I immediately closed the door and reset the chain lock, sealing the room.
• I declare that using the duct tape seals, the chain lock has been restored to its former utility. And, by means of that, I locked it at the moment I came in, making this guest room a closed room again from the inside.
• All five of the people I killed... were perfectly alive until the exact moment I killed them.
• The game ended when I entered the guest room, so I never unset the chain lock after I set it. Therefore, someone following me out of the room after I left doesn't work. Also, I set the chain lock at the same time I entered the room. It is impossible for someone to have left the room in the few seconds between when I entered and when I set the chain.
• The only chance Battler had to escape was after I broke the seal. Limiting it further, he had no chance to escape except during the period when I was in the bathroom.

P.S.

• In short, this 18th person X does not exist!!
• Nice to meet you, hello! I am Furudo Erika, a detective!! I may be an uninvited guest, but please welcome me!! I am the visitor, the eighteenth human on Rokkenjima!!

tl;dr Erika is the Piece-Beato of Chiru, her "magic scenes" are just silly detective tricks trumped up into fantastic logic traps.

[Smeckledorf]

Originally Posted by Renall

• In short, this 18th person X does not exist!!
• Nice to meet you, hello! I am Furudo Erika, a detective!! I may be an uninvited guest, but please welcome me!! I am the visitor, the eighteenth human on Rokkenjima!!

tl;dr Erika is the Piece-Beato of Chiru, her "magic scenes" are just silly detective tricks trumped up into fantastic logic traps.

I think the 18th person x only refers to the person Battler was trying to use as the culprit. The word 'this' means that Beato was referring to something specifically.

[Goldsmith]

[Definition check. That "three people" refers to the number of bodies, correct? That means three bodies went in and out, right?] Of course. Three people, that is, three bodies, went in and out of the room. Only you and Kanon entered, and only Battler left. I already stated with the red truth that all names refer only to the actual people. Therefore, the names "Erika", "Battler", and "Kanon" refer only to the actual people.

[Amegashita]

Originally Posted by Renall

Beato never committed murder for the sake of pleasure.

Beatrice

• That which was inside the envelope I entrusted Maria with, was definitely the key to the chapel.
• The letter that I handed over to Maria and the one Rosa opened are the same thing.
• Ushiromiya Battler. I will now... kill you. And right now, there is no one other than you on this island. The only one alive on this island is you. Nothing outside the island can interfere. You are all alone on this island. And of course, I am not you. Yet I am here, now, and will kill you.

Theory:

Beatrice is allowed to speak text in red with "I" because Beatrice isn't a simply piece on the game board. If you reference it to chess she's not the king, she's the player, the mind that moves the pieces as she see's fit. Beatrice is simply a spirit, an immortal legend that is retold until the end of Rokenjiima and all who have an association to that island.

Beato never committed murder for the sake of pleasure. This is true because she isn't "technically" the murderer. She's the spirit that shows the murders to us, and to Battler because, as we all know, she want to show him something. Beatrice simply leads the murderer to reveal their intention and commit the murders that they so graciously planned for however long they felt necessary.

As episode 6 revealed, Beatrice is just a spirit. She doesn't exist as an actual person, but as a legend.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Renall

Beato never committed murder for the sake of pleasure.

How do we interpret this?

1) Harsh Realism: There is no Beatrice, therefore she didn't commit murder for the sake of pleasure because she cannot commit murder in the first place.

2) Alias Theory: Someone pretending to be Beatrice and claiming her name never committed murder for the sake of pleasure.

3) Title Theory: "Beatrice" is whoever was replaced by the Beato piece and killed people. This person never committed murder for the sake of pleasure. It need not necessarily be that person all the time, but it can only be that person at a given time.

4) Ridiculous Unrealism: Anyone and everyone could be Beatrice at any time as long as the Game Master says so.

I think we're somewhere in the 2-3 range. Beato can speak in red about actions taken on the gameboard by her piece. If we accept that there is no piece-Beatrice who isn't already someone on the island - which I think is reasonable at this point - then when Beato says "I" she is referring to another piece who cannot be her (Meta-Beatrice).

Renall you must have something against the simple solutions. To me the most probable are:

1) Beato killed people for a sake that is different than pleasure (duh)
2) Beato didn't kill anyone

I would therefore propose that anything Meta-Erika says about what "I" did can be similarly scrutinized.

SEE ALSO:

Beatrice

• That which was inside the envelope I entrusted Maria with, was definitely the key to the chapel.
• The letter that I handed over to Maria and the one Rosa opened are the same thing.
• Ushiromiya Battler. I will now... kill you. And right now, there is no one other than you on this island. The only one alive on this island is you. Nothing outside the island can interfere. You are all alone on this island. And of course, I am not you. Yet I am here, now, and will kill you.

Erika

• At that time, I immediately closed the door and reset the chain lock, sealing the room.
• I declare that using the duct tape seals, the chain lock has been restored to its former utility. And, by means of that, I locked it at the moment I came in, making this guest room a closed room again from the inside.
• All five of the people I killed... were perfectly alive until the exact moment I killed them.
• The game ended when I entered the guest room, so I never unset the chain lock after I set it. Therefore, someone following me out of the room after I left doesn't work. Also, I set the chain lock at the same time I entered the room. It is impossible for someone to have left the room in the few seconds between when I entered and when I set the chain.
• The only chance Battler had to escape was after I broke the seal. Limiting it further, he had no chance to escape except during the period when I was in the bathroom.

P.S.

• In short, this 18th person X does not exist!!
• Nice to meet you, hello! I am Furudo Erika, a detective!! I may be an uninvited guest, but please welcome me!! I am the visitor, the eighteenth human on Rokkenjima!!

tl;dr Erika is the Piece-Beato of Chiru, her "magic scenes" are just silly detective tricks trumped up into fantastic logic traps.

That isn't the same thing at all.

"Beatrice" exists in Rokkenjima, she's Maria's master and friend, she's the one who wrote the message in the bottles, she's the one who made the bank account and sent the letters, she's the one who appeared in front of Battler in EP4 and in front of the adults in EP2. She is the vessel of the Beatrice in the metaworld. She is the one and the same with the Meta-Beatrice as well as Meta-Battler is one and the same with his piece self. That is why Meta-Beatrice can say "I" whenever she herself in the game do something as a piece.

If you claim that Erika Furudo is a dead body in the island then she can only use "I" referring to her dead body. Unless you claim there is some kind of special rule for her, but it has never been done for anyone else, we have absolutely no valid comparison.

[Raiza Sunozaki]

Or how about this? Beatrice, or to fit better with my view on magic, the person who is represented by Beatrice in the meta-world, never killed anybody. Beatrice does not exist as a seperate entity from the 17 people on the island, and instead exists as a seperate personality of one of them. However, this person with the seperate personality "Beatrice the Endless Witch" is not the culprit, and the true culprit is hiding behind the Illusion of the Witch, pretending to be The Golden Witch Beatrice.

[Koi]

Nice to meet you, hello! I am Furudo Erika, a detective!! I may be an uninvited guest, but please welcome me!! I am the visitor, the eighteenth human on Rokkenjima!!
[We're very sorry, but] even if we welcome you, the number of people is seventeen.

So... Is it okay if I presume that Erika is the 18th person that comes to the island, but somehow someone died right after she comes? So... when the game start, the number is 17?

[ameskitty]

Originally Posted by Koi

So... Is it okay if I presume that Erika is the 18th person that comes to the island, but somehow someone died right after she comes? So... when the game start, the number is 17?

Yup, and that's one of the most prevalent non-Shkanon theories about what could have happened. The words Erika and Beatrice used for humans/people were technically slightly different, too.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Renall you must have something against the simple solutions. To me the most probable are:

1) Beato killed people for a sake that is different than pleasure (duh)
2) Beato didn't kill anyone

You will note both of those are encompassed by the suggestions I made.

That isn't the same thing at all.

"Beatrice" exists in Rokkenjima, she's Maria's master and friend, she's the one who wrote the message in the bottles, she's the one who made the bank account and sent the letters, she's the one who appeared in front of Battler in EP4 and in front of the adults in EP2. She is the vessel of the Beatrice in the metaworld. She is the one and the same with the Meta-Beatrice as well as Meta-Battler is one and the same with his piece self. That is why Meta-Beatrice can say "I" whenever she herself in the game do something as a piece.

If you claim that Erika Furudo is a dead body in the island then she can only use "I" referring to her dead body. Unless you claim there is some kind of special rule for her, but it has never been done for anyone else, we have absolutely no valid comparison.

Meta-Beatrice isn't the "human" Beatrice any more than Meta-Battler is the same as Piece-Battler. Similar origin, similar thought processes, but a completely different inclination and path.

There is a Beatrice depicted on the island. This Beatrice does things that a human could do. There is also a Beatrice who kills people with stakes who turn into demonic little girls and bunny rabbits with golden bows. You can't pretend that Beatrice doesn't exist. She does, and in the first four games, Beatrice was clearly attempting to make Battler believe they were the same person. Now, we know there was no magic, and we aren't sure "Beatrice" was the culprit, but it's our theories that separated the Piece-Beato (the dress) and the "human" Beatrice (the suit). Beatrice herself only distinguished the two in ep4, after the confrontation with Battler.

If Meta-Beatrice says "she" did something, she clearly means to refer both to the human Beatrice and to the magic scene piece. If she doesn't distinguish them from each other in ep2, she's clearly claiming to be acting as both.

Well, she's claiming to have killed people (as dress-Beatrice). We know there's no magical witch Beatrice killing people. So either:

1) Suit-Beato is the killer, and by extension "Beatrice" (Shannon or whoever you believe to be her).
OR
2) Beatrice's self-statements when talking about her magic scene killings refer to the actions of the actual culprit, whoever they may be.

If we accept this is true, there is absolutely no reason this cannot apply to other characters as well. The core of your objection is that Meta-Erika should only be able to refer to her own actions as concerns her physical piece because she is also a human. You are assuming the conclusion. If Meta-Erika is the only existence - that is, there never was a living human Erika Furudo (or at least never was on the island) - then inserting herself into the narrative is identical to Beatrice doing it in the first four episodes. And if you don't think "Beatrice" is the sole killer, you have to accept that a fake piece can be a magic scene standin for a real person (or else you have to argue magic scenes are not even worth examining at all).

If all of those things are true - and I am not claiming they are, just suggesting the possibility - the only conclusion one can reach is that a nonexistent Erika is being inserted as an alias for another person. That person does not "claim" Erika's name; he or she probably does not know who Erika Furudo is, just like how the real culprit of some ep2 killing - if he/she was not "Beatrice" - wasn't pretending to be Beatrice the Golden Witch. It was assigned to them by the director of the narrative, the Game Master. The names "Beatrice" or "Erika" become much more fluid by this premise, if it is true.

[Jan-Poo]

@Renall

1) A witch Beatrice does not exist in Rokkenjima as far as what concerns red text. Claiming otherwise is being completely anti-mystery and at this point I don't even consider that possibility. There is only one possible Beatrice in the gameboard and she's human by all means. The other Beatrice only exist as fake existence, as meta existence or other personalities, but those can't have any effect on the game whatsoever. Absolutely no factor other than humans has anything to do with this game There is absolutely no way for Beatrice to use red talking about a non existent witch who performed magic. When she uses "I" in red she refers to the only physical human existent person from which her metaself originates

2) If you followed my discussion with LyricalAura before you would have noticed that it is impossible that Erika does not physically exist on Rokkenjima. LyricalAura therefore affirmed that Erika exists on Rokkenjima but she's dead. Allow me for once to say this in red: Erika Furudo is a real person which really existed in 1986, the TIPS confirmed that. A meta-existence that can use "I" for anyone that isn't the real world self does not have any precedent in this story.

[Tyabann]

Guys? I'd just like to say that both the Erika Ball theory and the Shkannon theory have major holes that neither side should be able to ignore.

I think that, instead of going back and forth like this, we should be trying to find a third possibility, one without holes or contradictions.

Just my two cents.

[Jan-Poo]

That would probably be a very good idea if you are one that hates the Shkannon theory.

I actually believe that the shkannon theory must be true, and the shkannon theory has been part of my speculations since a long while (though I've always been "agnostic" on this matter until EP6)

But if your purpose is to find an alternative truth to the shkannon theory then you have no reason to stick with the "Erika doesn't exist" theory.

[Renall]

I'm not supporting Erika Ball. That's actually completely separate and independent from Erika Doesn't Exist. In fact it's about as unrelated as Shkanon and Shannontrice, except I haven't actually bothered to think about an Erika Ball variant where Erika does exist because it seemed so silly. It's possible, of course, if dishonest, but we were told to expect that.

[Koi]

Shkanon theory screams GAY, and so I don't like it. Not that I don't like gay...
Shanon is Beato is already going around since epi 1, and it's quite logical too... But, now that Battler likes Beato, if it's the truth it would be disappointing.

How can Erika be the killer if the detective is forbidden to be the killer by the way?
[Request: I am not the rescuer.] Of course not! [You're the detective, aren't you? Relax, I'll respect that!]

Not in red, but Beato acknowledge her as one

[Jan-Poo]

But well Renall just to say we tried, if we'd have to assume that Shannon and Kanon exist as different persons and Erika also exists as a person, what kind of possibilities would you see?

I can think of...

1) Another two persons are actually one person

However this would mean questioning the objective perspective of Battler in Ep 1-4 which has been somehow confirmed by Dlanor. Also there doesn't seem any hint

2) Battler doesn't exist

You could apply the same logic of the Erika doesn't exist theory here. Battler is just taking the perspective of one of the people in Rokkenjima. Kinda wacky if you ask me... well it is as wacky as the "Erika doesn't exist" theory. However Erika in Ep5 should have noticed that Battler doesn't exist since she had a full detective authority. And yet how could she not notice that she herself doesn't exist? And in case you claim that she knows, then why is that she claims to be the 18th person?

3) There are actually 18 people including Erika and Beatrice and Battler used some sort of loophole to state they are 17.

This would explain why Erika could say she's the 18th persons, but it doesn't make sense with the following red. And a killer sentence at the end of a game that turns out to be just a sham is just plain lame.


I can't really see many other options...

How can Erika be the killer if the detective is forbidden to be the killer by the way?

She is not the detective in EP6. The real question would be: how can the piece of the human side be allowed to not be the detective?

[ameskitty]

"Erika doesn't exist" and even "Erika exists as an alternate personality of a constant, single person" are two alternatives to the Erika ball theory that are a lot easier to grasp, if a little less all-encompassing. (The latter's a lot easier to work with for a lot of the reasons Jan-Poo's been mentioning). So let's see how else we can work off those.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

Guys? I'd just like to say that both the Erika Ball theory and the Shkannon theory have major holes that neither side should be able to ignore.

I think that, instead of going back and forth like this, we should be trying to find a third possibility, one without holes or contradictions.

Just my two cents.

Agreed times a million.