[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

But even so, Battler applied a Red from EP4 (No one would mistake Kinzo by sight) to the world of EP5. Even if it were wrong to do so, Dlanor, Erika, Bern and Lambda all let it pass.

That he could say it at all means that Lambda was willing to accept it. Since "Kinzo is totally freaking dead" was perhaps the entire point of her game, I'm not that surprised she went with this. Could Bern and Erika have challenged this, perhaps? Yes, I suppose so, although Lambda could just as easily have said "Yep, that's still true."

As you said, the only reason it worked is because it was allowed to work. If somebody came in and said "Wait a second, you're depicting George as alive! But back in Banquet, someone said George is dead! SHENANIGANS!" Somebody would probably say "Obviously, he was dead at a point in the previous game, and did not start that game or this game dead; thus, he is still alive in this game." Most of the time that exchange doesn't happen, because it's obvious. Whether Kinzo is dead is much less obvious, because he's never seen by the detective. Bear in mind, that doesn't prove he's dead. It's just that the detective seeing Kinzo alive would make it impossible for him to have been dead from the start of the game.

That's never happened. It doesn't mean it can't. Red does not work like that.

There is the possible argument that since Battler only needed clues at the time, not proof, he could get away with applying Red predictively. Although Battler spoke a further Red that would not be logically certain unless the above mentioned Red was intrinsically predictive when he said "In other words, on this island, all illusions which might lead someone to mistake something for Grandfather, including someone else pretending to be Grandfather, 'most certainly cannot work'."

Battler's argument was pretty stupid to begin with because he was forced to counter an assumption which had never been stated to be the case before. That is, that he was the detective. Prior to the introduction of the notion that he had been the detective, he was never forced to defend the notion that he should be. Indeed, until it was brought up in End, the notion Battler must be the detective was completely unvisited. There's no law that says Battler's piece must be the detective. Beatrice wants Battler as her opponent, but the player does not have to be the detective as long as he's got the detective on his side.

Where I'm going with this is that Battler is basically stating something which is self-evident - that Kinzo is generally assumed to be dead, especially in this game, unless something says otherwise; and that because of this, the detective could not see an illusion of Kinzo being alive - to conclude that he was not the detective. But the fact that he'd seen an illusion of Kinzo should make that obvious. Basically, it's not something he should have to defend.

Bern and Erika are just dicks like that.

As to the predictive nature of that red, I don't deny it. But the point is there are predictive reds which are not true. So it's simply easier to conclude that a predictive red may be true, and Battler's use of it at that time means it was applied to any prior observations of Kinzo up to that time, including the one he had earlier made. In other words, it's phrased predictively, but was utilized retroactively.

[Toku]

Originally Posted by Renall

Except this is no different in any way from Kinzo. Let me show you by showing how you showed yourself and didn't even know it:

Actually it would, provided that "the present moment in the present game" (your own words, mind), Jessica has been dead at the start of all games. Transfer this to Kinzo and you can see that this was true; Kinzo was indeed dead in all games, and there is no contradictory evidence to say otherwise even though there is a lack of definitive affirmative evidence to say he was.

The first Red Text which contradicted "Jessica was dead at the start of all games" was spoken in EP3: Jessica is alive. She was simply alive at the time that this Red was spoken. It's not difficult to understand. And, this Red was spoken before the bomb went off, so of course, she's allowed to have been alive then. However, until this particular Red was spoken, you were free to say Jessica was dead at the start of all games. The thing is, if you said this, you wouldn't be able to later go and say Jessica is alive (within the time frame of Oct. 4 and 5, 1986).

In essence, Jessica's influence on the game board will have then been denied.

In the first six games, Kinzo was dead. In EP7, a bigger cat box was used, which allowed room for him to exist. In EP8, his presence was all an illusion.

Don't believe me? Ok, here's evidence taken straight from EP8:
"It goes without saying... that this is an illusion. You cannot come to Rokkenjima on October 4th, 1986. This whole party we shared was all a magical illusion, created by the Game Master, Battler."

Ange later confirms it:
"As for that Halloween quiz party, that certainly was an illusion. That never happened."

No you can't. First, you have absolutely no basis to say that (because you're wrong).

"There's the red truth which Beato showed during the 4th game!!
No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight!
It's the red truth Beato used to counter my blue truth claim that 'someone disguised themselves as Kinzo' to make it seem as though Grandfather had appeared.
In other words, on this island, all illusions which might lead someone to mistake something for Grandfather, including someone else pretending to be Grandfather, 'most certainly cannot work'."

[EDIT: Sigh, Wanderer beat me to it.]

Second, we already know that non-declarative red statements lack any truth value, yet can still be spoken:

"I'll love you so much, and make you my toy until you turn to ashes " (Turn)

This never happens, at least not literally. She does do some of it later, but Battler is consumed by goats, not burned to ashes, as far as the narrative suggests. And unless you believe this actually happened to Piece-Battler, it never presumably happened at all.

If you want to be picky about this, it's possible to say that she did it at the end of EP4, where she denied him, causing him to BSOD and turn to dust. However, you could also say that she's just declaring her intentions.

"This is my Golden Land... A world where magic that isn't mine certainly cannot exist... [my] magic was not able to revive Sakutarou." (Alliance)

Yet it happened.

Ange may not be able to use her magic there, but she can still bring a replica of the stuffed animal to Maria.

"(various forms of cackling in red)" (Turn)
"<Die the death>! <Sentence to death>!!<Great equalizer is the death>!!" (End)
"Acknowledged." (Dawn)
"Everything is gathered here." (Requiem)

These statements are either meaningless nonsense or meaningless without context not defined in red. The context is always temporally fixed and subject to change. See... well, everything ever, but especially the Logic Error.

The first two don't really matter because there isn't any meaning to them. However, for the second two, can you give me a single time where these Reds were quoted in a way which had a clearly different meaning from the first time they were stated?

The Acknowledged thing is just what it sounds like: "yes, what you just said is true." Each of the things BATTLER acknowledges are different, but each of those things he has acknowledged will count as different Red Truths.

And obviously, all of the clues were gathered there in EP7. That's what it meant. Has there ever been any implication that it meant something different?

You have absolutely no basis to claim this and anything (including Twilight) could contradict you merely by demonstrating otherwise.

I can only find this amusing, since I was pretty much quoting EP5 with what I said just then. Can you prove that Erika ever saw Kinzo in EP5? She was allowed to use him in her arguments, but only because that rule hadn't been enforced yet. And as soon as it was, her argument fell apart.

I have already explained EP8, by the way. And I've given evidence of my claims with regard to that.

In fact, I'm going to write a forgery right now.

Spoiler for Here We Go!:

Battler and Beatrice play a game with the following plot: Battler went to the family conference in 1986. When he got off the boat, Kinzo was there and hugged him and said "Cool to see you back, bro!" Then some stuff happened and a bunch of people died and it's now 11:49 PM on October 5th and Battler and Kinzo are holed up together in his study.

Beatrice states the following:

Battler is the detective.
Kinzo is alive. He was dead in all games prior to this, but in this game he is definitely a living human!

Oh shit, looks like I just did what you told me I can't possibly do!

Of course, you can make any kind of game board you want here. But if you were on Beatrice's game board, you wouldn't be permitted to do that.

Except that's entirely your interpretation, which is not something that can be textually confirmed. This contradicts your own statement referencing the "red truth is simply true" lines, because apparently the red text does require interpretation. That means it has a context, which means that you're incorrect.

The Red Truth still uses language to establish its meaning. Therefore, the speaker's interpretation of the words is what matters (as evidenced by the fact that Kanon and Shannon can be considered "People"), and the context does sometimes matter. That doesn't mean that it's not "simply the truth."

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Toku

The first Red Text which contradicted "Jessica was dead at the start of all games" was spoken in EP3: Jessica is alive. She was simply alive at the time that this Red was spoken. It's not difficult to understand. And, this Red was spoken before the bomb went off, so of course, she's allowed to have been alive then. However, until this particular Red was spoken, you were free to say Jessica was dead at the start of all games. The thing is, if you said this, you wouldn't be able to later go and say Jessica is alive (within the time frame of Oct. 4 and 5, 1986).

Are you completely dense? That works no differently for Kinzo, save that we must overcome a different type of restriction. And it doesn't matter what influence Kinzo had on prior games. Erika had no influence on prior games (stated in red, even) and she was allowed to influence subsequent ones. Make Kinzo alive, and now he can influence them. This isn't brain surgery.

In the first six games, Kinzo was dead. In EP7, a bigger cat box was used, which allowed room for him to exist. In EP8, his presence was all an illusion.

Kinzo's life or death status wasn't actually confirmed in ep6. It's implied he's dead, but it's not clear and wasn't important to Battler.

Don't believe me? Ok, here's evidence taken straight from EP8:
"It goes without saying... that this is an illusion. You cannot come to Rokkenjima on October 4th, 1986. This whole party we shared was all a magical illusion, created by the Game Master, Battler."

Ange later confirms it:
"As for that Halloween quiz party, that certainly was an illusion. That never happened."

Put a detective in Battler's ep8 game. Who or what does he see? Explain the narrative of what actually happened there.

I'll wait.

"There's the red truth which Beato showed during the 4th game!!
No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight!
It's the red truth Beato used to counter my blue truth claim that 'someone disguised themselves as Kinzo' to make it seem as though Grandfather had appeared.
In other words, on this island, all illusions which might lead someone to mistake something for Grandfather, including someone else pretending to be Grandfather, 'most certainly cannot work'."[EDIT: Sigh, Wanderer beat me to it.]

Irrelevant, as I've already said. Predictive statements are being given retroactive weight; they cannot force something to occur in the future. Battler did not cease to be the detective when he mistook Kinzo by sight; he never was the detective, and he reintroduced the red to confirm it.

The predictive red is only as binding as the Game Master permits.

If you want to be picky about this, it's possible to say that she did it at the end of EP4, where she denied him, causing him to BSOD and turn to dust. However, you could also say that she's just declaring her intentions.

A declaration of intention cannot fix the truth of subsequent actions. Thus, the statement is not predictive at all.

The first two don't really matter because there isn't any meaning to them.

Whoa whoa whoa, what? Just because they're meaningless statements doesn't mean they're not true, according to you. So please, explain to me the truth value of "ihihihihihihi."

And obviously, all of the clues were gathered there in EP7. That's what it meant. Has there ever been any implication that it meant something different?

You need the context to know that. Otherwise, what defines "everything?"

I can only find this amusing, since I was pretty much quoting EP5 with what I said just then. Can you prove that Erika ever saw Kinzo in EP5? She was allowed to use him in her arguments, but only because that rule hadn't been enforced yet. And as soon as it was, her argument fell apart.

This statement is moronic and irrelevant. Erika never sees Kinzo, but is allowed to speculate that he's alive. This should by itself be barred, according to your own flawed logic. But it's not, it's allowed. Why? Because we're somehow permitted to assume, at least in the context of the arguments in ep5, that Kinzo may be alive. The fact that we know he isn't cannot be proved, and Erika is allowed to make use of that because Battler has no declarative evidence to the contrary. Instead, he has to present a corpse (which does not prove Kinzo was already dead, just that the corpse is dead now) and gold it away as Kinzo's.

That does not sound to me like a hard and fast rule. It sounds to me like a general guideline that has been true before, but which Erika is exploiting because there's no easy way to demonstrate it is for any given game.

Of course, you can make any kind of game board you want here. But if you were on Beatrice's game board, you wouldn't be permitted to do that.

I wouldn't, but Beatrice would. Are you telling me Beatrice can force herself not to do things now? If Beatrice slaps a living Kinzo in her next game, is she Logic Erroring herself? It'd be idiotic to suggest she would. All she has to do is say she changed the premise "for this game."

The Red Truth still uses language to establish its meaning. Therefore, the speaker's interpretation of the words is what matters (as evidenced by the fact that Kanon and Shannon can be considered "People"), and the context does sometimes matter. That doesn't mean that it's not "simply the truth."

The two are mutually exclusive. It can't be "simply" true if it's subject to context that changes its meaning and is open to interpretation. If the red truth were "simply" true, we couldn't say Kanon is dead. But we can... subject to some pretty extreme levels of justification.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

Where I'm going with this is that Battler is basically stating something which is self-evident - that Kinzo is generally assumed to be dead, especially in this game, unless something says otherwise; and that because of this, the detective could not see an illusion of Kinzo being alive - to conclude that he was not the detective. But the fact that he'd seen an illusion of Kinzo should make that obvious. Basically, it's not something he should have to defend.

There's more to this that you're not picking up. I'm not really talking about whether Kinzo was dead. Like I said, that wasn't even a guess because it was stated in Red the beginning of EP5 as well.

I can't quote it conveniently since it's a blue (which aren't listed on that site), but Dlanor argued in blue that even as the detective Battler could have simply mistook something for Kinzo. To counter that Battler applied "No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight!", a Red spoken in EP4, to EP5. It's that particular Red being assumed that I'm trying to discuss. Can Battler be so sure that he could assume no one could dress up as Kinzo and fool someone that he can say so in Red? Especially after it's asserted to be possible in blue?

Originally Posted by Renall

Battler's argument was pretty stupid to begin with because he was forced to counter an assumption which had never been stated to be the case before. That is, that he was the detective. Prior to the introduction of the notion that he had been the detective, he was never forced to defend the notion that he should be. Indeed, until it was brought up in End, the notion Battler must be the detective was completely unvisited. There's no law that says Battler's piece must be the detective. Beatrice wants Battler as her opponent, but the player does not have to be the detective as long as he's got the detective on his side.

I completely agree. I was always annoyed by this "Until now you have been the detective" thing. Dlanor said it with what evidence or authority? And obviously Battler didn't seem to be the detective at the end of Turn.

[Kealym]

I'm impressed how complicated you're making this issue sound. Mind, this is still somewhat speculative, but I think it goes as simply as:

"Yo, I'm an author. Gonna write me a forgery. The theme is Detective-Battler and Sidekick-Kinzo become good friends and try to turn Rosa into something that isn't a child-abusing skank."

"B-but, Kinzo is already dead at the starting time for all games!"

"Well, Kinzo is totally alive in this game I'm writing. It's not like you can stop me or anything, and it's what I wanna do. Y U MAD. Also, Kanon has his own body apart from Shannon, and Rosa decided to bring her boyfriend to the conference, which is awkward for everybody. His name is Randy. He sells propane. No more than 19 people on this island, yo.

I mean, the Prime fandom at large probably wouldn't accept such a game, but it's not like it CANNOT be made.

[Toku]

Originally Posted by Renall

Are you completely dense? That works no differently for Kinzo, save that we must overcome a different type of restriction. And it doesn't matter what influence Kinzo had on prior games. Erika had no influence on prior games (stated in red, even) and she was allowed to influence subsequent ones. Make Kinzo alive, and now he can influence them. This isn't brain surgery.

Kinzo's life or death status wasn't actually confirmed in ep6. It's implied he's dead, but it's not clear and wasn't important to Battler.

Erika may not have had any influence on previous games, but this is irrelevant because her existence in future games hadn't been denied.

Look. I'll go ahead and explain the nature of our argument for you. I am proposing that "Red Truths can and do apply as laws" in an effort to make it not be worthless. You are trying to prove me wrong. However, you have provided no proof and are instead giving me a theory which allows you to disregard my Red Truth. This is completely useless because neither of our theories have been disproven, which allows both of them to exist at the same time.

My goal is not to disprove your theories. Therefore, I don't need to respond to them. You're free to believe whatever you want.

Put a detective in Battler's ep8 game. Who or what does he see? Explain the narrative of what actually happened there.

I'll wait.

Irrelevant. My point was merely that what we saw were illusions. I gave evidence from the text to back up this claim. My point still stands, whether I explain what actually happened or not.

A declaration of intention cannot fix the truth of subsequent actions. Thus, the statement is not predictive at all.

It's a Devil's Proof. There's nothing which states that she never carried this action out.

Whoa whoa whoa, what? Just because they're meaningless statements doesn't mean they're not true, according to you. So please, explain to me the truth value of "ihihihihihihi."

She laughed. The fact that she laughed is Truth. It doesn't matter, but she put it in Red because it put emphasis on it.

This statement is moronic and irrelevant. Erika never sees Kinzo, but is allowed to speculate that he's alive. This should by itself be barred, according to your own flawed logic. But it's not, it's allowed. Why? Because we're somehow permitted to assume, at least in the context of the arguments in ep5, that Kinzo may be alive. The fact that we know he isn't cannot be proved, and Erika is allowed to make use of that because Battler has no declarative evidence to the contrary. Instead, he has to present a corpse (which does not prove Kinzo was already dead, just that the corpse is dead now) and gold it away as Kinzo's.

Of course, there's nothing saying that you can't use a lie in your arguments. However, once someone proves that what you said is a lie, your argument will fall apart.

According to my theory, it's perfectly easy for me to prove that Kinzo is dead. Kinzo is already dead at the starting time for all games! You see the advantage of my theory? It makes things a lot more certain. With your theory, Red Truth is all but useless. So, of course, this doesn't prove anything for you.

I wouldn't, but Beatrice would. Are you telling me Beatrice can force herself not to do things now? If Beatrice slaps a living Kinzo in her next game, is she Logic Erroring herself? It'd be idiotic to suggest she would. All she has to do is say she changed the premise "for this game."

Of course not. On the Fantasy side of the story, she can slap a living Kinzo all she wants.

The two are mutually exclusive. It can't be "simply" true if it's subject to context that changes its meaning and is open to interpretation. If the red truth were "simply" true, we couldn't say Kanon is dead. But we can... subject to some pretty extreme levels of justification.

It creates uncertainty for us, because we can't exactly prove what the speaker's interpretation of the words were. However, thinking like that will only make you run around in circles. Usually, the interpretations of the words are straightforward. It's usually only when it comes to things like ShKanon that it becomes weird.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

There's more to this that you're not picking up. I'm not really talking about whether Kinzo was dead. Like I said, that wasn't even a guess because it was stated in Red the beginning of EP5 as well.

I can't quote it conveniently since it's a blue (which aren't listed on that site), but Dlanor argued in blue that even as the detective Battler could have simply mistook something for Kinzo. To counter that Battler applied "No person would mistake Ushiromiya Kinzo by sight!", a Red spoken in EP4, to EP5. It's that particular Red being assumed that I'm trying to discuss. Can Battler be so sure that he could assume no one could dress up as Kinzo and fool someone that he can say so in Red? Especially after it's asserted to be possible in blue?

He says it and can get away with it. Then later he tries to say Natsuhi isn't the culprit because he knows that's also true in red, and he can't.

Why?

Because End was not very well written, is the answer I'm going with. A lot of the drama was entirely contrived, such as the point we both agree on:

I completely agree. I was always annoyed by this "Until now you have been the detective" thing. Dlanor said it with what evidence or authority? And obviously Battler didn't seem to be the detective at the end of Turn.

It exists because Ryukishi wants to set up a conflict between Erika and Battler centered around Natsuhi's guilt and the possibility of Kinzo's existence. To do this, he forces Battler to defend a bunch of things he's never had to defend before in a manner he's never had to defend them before.

Inherently, I understand what the idea of this was. Erika's point is that, although Kinzo is believed to be dead from the start, this is yet another thing wrapped up in the catbox. We can't actually demonstrate that Kinzo has been dead from the start. All we have to go on is the assurance of the Game Master, and the Game Master is permitted to alter certain things about the setup of the game, even to some extent leading up to the game itself (Our Confessions suggests Beatrice can make plans involving a few days' prior contingency; this should be impossible if the only conditions allowed are those starting October 4, 1986).

Thus, if we can't prove that Kinzo is dead, we can reach a valid speculation about the text based on what the text actually shows us. In other words, we know Kinzo's death is being covered up... but if you go strictly by the narrative that, say, Piece-Erika has access to, you have nothing that actually demonstrates this knowledge. Thus, Piece-Erika would argue, you're playing unfairly and violating Knox's rules.

Now, ep5 itself does not convey this point very well, instead mining drama from a trumped-up "trial" (that isn't a trial) of the wrong Beatrice and Battler being forced to do a bunch of dumb crap he shouldn't have to do. But I get what Ryukishi wanted to do with his own assumptions.

Given this, I have to conclude that he always meant to play with the "revelation" that Kinzo is already dead. We're only ever told that Beatrice/Yasu has the necessary foreknowledge to assert this. But the fact of the matter is, that knowledge is completely lost in her catbox, so far as we know. In fact, there's no way to be sure that Clair's narrative or the whole Epitaph solution part of ep7 is accessible to anyone but us, the audience, and possibly people like Will or Bern. Even if they are the truth, and Yasu's true thoughts, who exactly knows about them and where did they find it out? We're not sure.

Thus, if Kinzo probably was dead, but we can never know it, his condition is actually identical to Erika's. Erika probably was not there that weekend. But can we know it? No, absolutely not. That knowledge was destroyed and unless a survivor says something more about it, it's a complete cipher. If it's unknown, a Game Master can make use of it one way or another.

Kinzo being dead was important to Beatrice. That doesn't mean it's impossible to portray him as alive. Battler does this in ep8. Granted, his story is facially absurd, that's clearly his intention; however, the only actually impossible part of it is Ange's attendance. We cannot know Kinzo's behavior on those days, if he was alive at all, nor can we know that he was alive at all.

Originally Posted by Kealym

I'm impressed how complicated you're making this issue sound. Mind, this is still somewhat speculative, but I think it goes as simply as:

"Yo, I'm an author. Gonna write me a forgery. The theme is Detective-Battler and Sidekick-Kinzo become good friends and try to turn Rosa into something that isn't a child-abusing skank."

"B-but, Kinzo is already dead at the starting time for all games!"

"Well, Kinzo is totally alive in this game I'm writing. It's not like you can stop me or anything, and it's what I wanna do. Y U MAD. Also, Kanon has his own body apart from Shannon, and Rosa decided to bring her boyfriend to the conference, which is awkward for everybody. His name is Randy. He sells propane. No more than 19 people on this island, yo.

I mean, the Prime fandom at large probably wouldn't accept such a game, but it's not like it CANNOT be made.

Of course it can be, and you're entirely right as to exactly how a GM (whether Beatrice or not, and do mind that Chiru's games were not GM'd by Beatrice) could handle this.

But I'm not the one trying to make this complicated, man.

[AuraTwilight]

Originally Posted by Toku

And according to you, a corpse does not actually exist. Therefore, it's violating the 7th rule.

I said the corpse is Metaphorical. Since almost the entirety of EP7 is in the Meta-World (see swirly purpleness), this is valid, ne?

...Unfortunately, Clair's death scene, which is clearly Fantasy side, was told from Lion's perspective, not Will's.

I would say it's Meta, not Fantasy. :P

Even so, I can explain EP7 by saying that it follows different rules. Don't worry, I have evidence of this. It was said by Will himself:

"Lion is a piece placed by Bernkastel. She also said that she'd moved into a larger cat box to place that piece.
......On top of that, it seems this world isn't a proper world, but one made out of several different Fragments sewn together."

In short, Beatrice's Red Truth regarding Kinzo only applies to her smaller cat box, in which it was spoken. In this larger cat box, there is room for Kinzo to exist.

I have more evidence of this conclusion, of course.

"After all, right when I entered the chapel, I spotted Kinzo.
Since Shannon has worked for 10 years, this is the stage of Beato's game, 1986.
In that case, Kinzo shouldn't exist.
However, he definitely was here a few minutes ago."

Will acknowledges that, ordinarily, Beatrice's Red Truth would destroy Kinzo. This implies that, if Bern hadn't moved to a bigger cat box, there would be no room for Kinzo to exist.

Acceptable, but can't we say that EP8's gameboard follows different rules too?

Just for an obviously untrue hypothetical, but just to make a point here, Say for instance that Kinzo was never dead, and it was just a conceit of Beatrice's gameboard, and Battler's EP8 Gameboard is actually closer to the truth than other Games.

Now, don't waste time arguing that, it's just demonstrative. I don't believe it.

Don't believe me? Ok, here's evidence taken straight from EP8:
"It goes without saying... that this is an illusion. You cannot come to Rokkenjima on October 4th, 1986. This whole party we shared was all a magical illusion, created by the Game Master, Battler."

Ange later confirms it:
"As for that Halloween quiz party, that certainly was an illusion. That never happened."

And Eva never died on Rokkenjima, but detective characters witness it all the fucking time in every game except the third.

Because the Games are fictional. EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS AN ILLUSION, but the players use suspension of disbelief so that the game can occur and the 'truth' of that particular game can be discovered. But Ange is having an emotional fit and refusing to play along.

By the way I just want to point something out.

Kinzo is already dead at the starting time for all games!

If we actually use the power of SYNTAXXXXX, there isn't anything in this statement that makes it predictive. "All Games" COULD refer to FUTURE games, yea, but she also uses "Already", and she doesn't specifically define "All Games" as "All Possible Games" or anything similiar. "Already" is a past-tense term, so this red can be easily read as "All games so far" And you have absolutely nothing that demonstrates that your interpretation is superior to anyone else's.

After all, after EP4 we have two games where Kinzo is dead (maybe) and two games where he is explicitly shown to still be living.

And Beatrice wasn't in charge of any of them. I'm sorry Toku, but you're wrong. You are taking your position and working BACKWARDS from it, instead of using the text to reach a conclusion regardless of your personal preference for that conclusion. This is bad logic in every part of the academic world.

[Toku]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

I said the corpse is Metaphorical. Since almost the entirety of EP7 is in the Meta-World (see swirly purpleness), this is valid, ne?

I would say it's Meta, not Fantasy. :P

I don't really mind, so sure.

Acceptable, but can't we say that EP8's gameboard follows different rules too?

Just for an obviously untrue hypothetical, but just to make a point here, Say for instance that Kinzo was never dead, and it was just a conceit of Beatrice's gameboard, and Battler's EP8 Gameboard is actually closer to the truth than other Games.

Now, don't waste time arguing that, it's just demonstrative. I don't believe it.

I suppose. There didn't seem to have been any implication that EP8's game board followed different rules, but it's possible.

And Eva never died on Rokkenjima, but detective characters witness it all the fucking time in every game except the third.

Because the Games are fictional. EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS AN ILLUSION, but the players use suspension of disbelief so that the game can occur and the 'truth' of that particular game can be discovered. But Ange is having an emotional fit and refusing to play along.

...Well, of course they're fiction. However, even in the world of a work of fiction, there are things which really did happen and things which are lies. I personally believe that if we throw this away, Umineko will start getting a lot harder to figure out than it already is.

I think I finally understand the basis for your theory about EP8. The presence of the goats really do work well with Battler's "you just forgot and were influenced by the opinions of others in the future." That's interesting.

Though, in the end, I think we both agree that EP8 isn't the Truth or anything like that, so it kind of amounts to the same thing. Battler wants Ange to believe that she had a kind family, so he lies to her.

By the way I just want to point something out.

Kinzo is already dead at the starting time for all games!

If we actually use the power of SYNTAXXXXX, there isn't anything in this statement that makes it predictive. "All Games" COULD refer to FUTURE games, yea, but she also uses "Already", and she doesn't specifically define "All Games" as "All Possible Games" or anything similiar. "Already" is a past-tense term, so this red can be easily read as "All games so far" And you have absolutely nothing that demonstrates that your interpretation is superior to anyone else's.

After all, after EP4 we have two games where Kinzo is dead (maybe) and two games where he is explicitly shown to still be living.

That makes it more confusing, but yes, it could be like that.

And Beatrice wasn't in charge of any of them. I'm sorry Toku, but you're wrong. You are taking your position and working BACKWARDS from it, instead of using the text to reach a conclusion regardless of your personal preference for that conclusion. This is bad logic in every part of the academic world.

Yes, I was working backwards from it. I don't think that necessarily makes it wrong though. I already understand quite well that most of my theories probably contain at least some falsehood. But plenty of them probably contain at least some truth too. And getting into debates here is fun.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

He says it and can get away with it. Then later he tries to say Natsuhi isn't the culprit because he knows that's also true in red, and he can't.

Why?

Because End was not very well written, is the answer I'm going with. A lot of the drama was entirely contrived, such as the point we both agree on:

There's a difference though. The thing about Battler being the detective is a Meta-World issue, and Dlanor used cross-game evidence (as unsubstantiated as it was) to say Battler was the EP5 detective. It's not the same kind of simple, in-game fact as Natsuhi being the culprit in EP5.

Of course it's interesting that the Decalogue was applied to a Meta-World issue at all. The Meta-World can have Mystery laws applied to it?

Although... there really was good reason to think Battler's viewpoint was uniquely reliable in EPs 1-4, and then changing that premise in EP5 while also actually providing clues for it does make for a good development. Using the Decalogue as a context to bring this up is where it gets misleading. Rule of Cool, I guess.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

There's a difference though. The thing about Battler being the detective is a Meta-World issue, and Dlanor used cross-game evidence (as unsubstantiated as it was) to say Battler was the EP5 detective. It's not the same kind of simple, in-game fact as Natsuhi being the culprit in EP5.

Nobody can substantiate the fact that Natsuhi wasn't the culprit either, though. Virgilia told Battler she wasn't. That's it. That we know it's true doesn't prove it. Ancient researchers knew the sun would rise every morning, but without some of astronomy they couldn't demonstrate how they knew it. Mathematicians knew x^a + y^a = z^a wasn't true for any value of 3 or greater, but no one could explain why that was the case for almost 400 years (and even though there is now an explanation, good luck understanding it without knowing a hell of a lot of math).

Battler is in the same position. He just sort of knows that his piece had a kind of specialness to it in previous episodes. He didn't know why, he couldn't consciously utilize it very well, Beatrice never brought it up, and he certainly can't prove what does or doesn't make him whatever it is. He also can't prove the things he argues based on unsolicited red; it's true, what else needs to be said? To change the rules up on him with sudden left-field definitions and then force him to deny something he never claimed in the first place is just a very strange way of forcing conflict.

If the idea of End was to cast some light on the difference between working from what the author has actually written versus understanding what the author specifically intended, it wasn't very well-developed. The real heart of the Battler/Erika battle is that Battler knows what Beatrice meant, while Erika believes you can stand by any valid answer based on what is actually present in the text. We can see this come up again with Will, who is giving Clair the answers to the mysteries that she actually wants to hear. Are there other solutions? In some cases, yes. Are they the intended ones? Probably not.

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Although... there really was good reason to think Battler's viewpoint was uniquely reliable in EPs 1-4, and then changing that premise in EP5 while also actually providing clues for it does make for a good development. Using the Decalogue as a context to bring this up is where it gets misleading. Rule of Cool, I guess.

It was implicit. We knew Battler was reliable because we never saw anything unreliable from his POV and Meta-Battler seemed to trust everything that his piece physically saw. Whether that was rational is another matter, but for ep1-4 it appeared to hold true. However, there were no rules for that, nor was Battler expected to justify why that was so. To suddenly force him to defend himself when he isn't even in the same role anymore was quite odd.

However, we should have guessed well in advance of this that Battler was unreliable in ep5 due to the very incident Battler later brings up. On the other hand, the mere fact that Battler is not a detective (a role which was never even defined in ep1-4 in the first place) doesn't mean we should just automatically consider him unreliable. After all, Natsuhi is never a "reliable perspective" and her first-person segments in ep5 have no particularly good reason to be unreliable. It's a case of knee-jerk reactions that I think lead people astray in later scenes. No one actually took that scene in ep5 to suggest that Battler had really believed he'd physically seen Kinzo there, surely? That scene was obviously meant to be a metaphor. A perspective that is tempered with metaphor is not itself unreliable if Battler maintains no reason to be deceptive.

[AuraTwilight]

I suppose. There didn't seem to have been any implication that EP8's game board followed different rules, but it's possible.

Ange is there. The premise has been radically altered already.

Though, in the end, I think we both agree that EP8 isn't the Truth or anything like that, so it kind of amounts to the same thing. Battler wants Ange to believe that she had a kind family, so he lies to her.

What if Battler wasn't lying, and Ange's family really was like that when not worrying about money problems or trying to cover up tragic events like a death in the family? What if Kinzo genuinely loved his grandchildren, who hadn't wronged him like the siblings?

Battler's point was that Ange is letting the tragedy overshadow their entire lives. He's kinda right.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

Nobody can substantiate the fact that Natsuhi wasn't the culprit either, though. Virgilia told Battler she wasn't. That's it. That we know it's true doesn't prove it. Ancient researchers knew the sun would rise every morning, but without some of astronomy they couldn't demonstrate how they knew it. Mathematicians knew x^a + y^a = z^a wasn't true for any value of 3 or greater, but no one could explain why that was the case for almost 400 years (and even though there is now an explanation, good luck understanding it without knowing a hell of a lot of math).

Battler is in the same position. He just sort of knows that his piece had a kind of specialness to it in previous episodes. He didn't know why, he couldn't consciously utilize it very well, Beatrice never brought it up, and he certainly can't prove what does or doesn't make him whatever it is. He also can't prove the things he argues based on unsolicited red; it's true, what else needs to be said? To change the rules up on him with sudden left-field definitions and then force him to deny something he never claimed in the first place is just a very strange way of forcing conflict.

If the idea of End was to cast some light on the difference between working from what the author has actually written versus understanding what the author specifically intended, it wasn't very well-developed. The real heart of the Battler/Erika battle is that Battler knows what Beatrice meant, while Erika believes you can stand by any valid answer based on what is actually present in the text. We can see this come up again with Will, who is giving Clair the answers to the mysteries that she actually wants to hear. Are there other solutions? In some cases, yes. Are they the intended ones? Probably not.It was implicit. We knew Battler was reliable because we never saw anything unreliable from his POV and Meta-Battler seemed to trust everything that his piece physically saw. Whether that was rational is another matter, but for ep1-4 it appeared to hold true. However, there were no rules for that, nor was Battler expected to justify why that was so. To suddenly force him to defend himself when he isn't even in the same role anymore was quite odd.

While I pretty much agree with everything you say here, the difference that I am trying to underscore is that "whether Battler is the 'detective' or not" is entirely a matter of Piece-Battler's Meta-World function, whereas "whether Natsuhi is the culprit or not" is merely a matter of fact on the Game Board.

And I find it weird that the Decalogue is applied to whether or not Battler is the 'detective', a matter not relevant to what actually happened on the Game Board in any way. It means that the Meta-World itself is a Mystery story... Hm, well, I guess that's not so bad.

Originally Posted by Renall

However, we should have guessed well in advance of this that Battler was unreliable in ep5 due to the very incident Battler later brings up. On the other hand, the mere fact that Battler is not a detective (a role which was never even defined in ep1-4 in the first place) doesn't mean we should just automatically consider him unreliable. After all, Natsuhi is never a "reliable perspective" and her first-person segments in ep5 have no particularly good reason to be unreliable. It's a case of knee-jerk reactions that I think lead people astray in later scenes. No one actually took that scene in ep5 to suggest that Battler had really believed he'd physically seen Kinzo there, surely? That scene was obviously meant to be a metaphor. A perspective that is tempered with metaphor is not itself unreliable if Battler maintains no reason to be deceptive.

Sure, we certainly shouldn't just assume everything Battler does in EP5 is a lie, and it's pretty easy to imagine Battler was knowingly projecting Kinzo in his mind as a spiritual moment or whatever with no intent to deceive the reader, but we also know there are at least some things that are outright lies. I don't think there's any way out of Battler's "discovery of the crime" in the morning of Oct. 5th being a lie.

But I also do think that Battler's vision of Kinzo was a complete lie because he already knew his way to the gold. It really felt that way when I reread it recently, especially since Erika, Miss Super-Smart-Super-Senses, didn't notice the turned statue and was mildly surprised that Battler was competent enough that he did.

As for why Battler's Piece would lie, he wasn't the one playing his piece. Do you have something against a meta-motive from Lambda for lying to the Meta-World?

[immblueversion]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Battler's point was that Ange is letting the tragedy overshadow their entire lives. He's kinda right.

The significance seems to be that Battler and Ange are both right: the desire and ability to know the truth is a right, as Ange said, but people shouldn't forsake everything else because of the truth, as Battler said.

It's funny, and kind, of sad how several people (especially on 4chan) demonized Battler as a troll who tried to keep the truth from Ange at all costs before actually getting to read EP8. I think that's one huge source of the misplaced hate we who have been around since the final game's release have seen.

[AuraTwilight]

While I pretty much agree with everything you say here, the difference that I am trying to underscore is that "whether Battler is the 'detective' or not" is entirely a matter of Piece-Battler's Meta-World function, whereas "whether Natsuhi is the culprit or not" is merely a matter of fact on the Game Board.

Detectives exist on the Gameboard, though, so this is a false contrast, in my opinion. Only the actual Pieces seem to get any neato Detective powers.

And I find it weird that the Decalogue is applied to whether or not Battler is the 'detective', a matter not relevant to what actually happened on the Game Board in any way. It means that the Meta-World itself is a Mystery story... Hm, well, I guess that's not so bad.

Or Dlanor is cheating.

Which she's done other times.

[jjblue1]

About the detective being able to lie...

I think EP 5 made pretty clear the detective can't lie on clues. Though it's possible the detective can lie on things that don't constitute clues (for example Battler comments on Kumasawa looking younger... when probably he's only being corteous and he rants about not being scared of boats... however captain Kuwabata in EP 4 said he always was, even with the previous boat, not just with the new one).
I don't know if this apply on Umineko too because it wasn't used by Battler or Erika as far as I can remember but it might be possible for the detective to lie on clues if the audience knows he's lying.

In short if we could for example hear Battler say to Jessica 'I'm going to tell aunt Eva you're dead because I suspect her and I want to see her reaction about this' he would lie to Eva but the audience wouldn't be lied about Jessica's life or dead status.

The best explanation for Battler seeing magic in EP 2 as far as I'm involved is that he was intoxicated. It's possible he could see them because he had refused his status as detective but I don't really like this explanation.

However in EP 1 visual novel Battler didn't shot at any butterflies before midnight. He did it in the anime though. However in teh visual novel it looks like he might have seen Beato but this can be explain with Yasuda wearing Beato's dress. After all Yasuda was there shooting at Natsuhi...

About Van Dine's rules

Differently from Knox's Rules Van Dine's aren't included in the tips.
Ergo they can't be used as clues because they're not presented, which can be taken as a hint most of them won't work on Beato's gameboard.

In EP 8 we're told that the red truth is a truth we agree upon.
Beato don't use it for things she knows Battler wouldn't agree, we're told Battler accepted that the red truth was supposed to be truth without the need of a proof (ergo he implicitly agreed about the usage of red truth).
In Ep 4 Beato at first seemed willing to accept the blue truths Battler used... though we know some of them were wrong and in EP 5 Lambda accepted Erika's solution althought it was obviously wrong.

My feeling is that Knox's rules could be used because the GM agreed to let them be used by the player... while all the Van Dine's rules might not have had the same privilege.

We know that Beato's corpse can't possibly exist as the body she's tied at is alive in EP 7 (Shannon and Kanon are shown moving around and Lion looks alive as well) plus tragedy hasn't striken on Rokkenjima yet so when Will tries using the rule about the corpse she uses devil's proof.

On that gameboard however there's no something that might be called Beato's 'corpse' yet. On the other gameboards Yasuda might have died (if you don't believe she became Ikuko) but we've no hints or clues about her corpse being found so it can very well not exist.

I guess her using devil's proof was a hint that Van Dine's won't work, though at the same time she dind't want to openly tell this to Will.

About Kinzo's status

Personally I think that Kinzo could be alive in EP 7 due to the bigger catbox in which the game was inserted.
Though I also think that the life or death status and everything else is always due to an agreement/decision between the player and the gamemaster.
Generally the status of Kinzo is always kept the same because the game is suposed to mirror the situation of Rokkenjima Prime.
Changing the status of Kinzo, allowing Lion to exist or Ange to go there you clearly create a game that can't possibly fit in Beato's catbox.

I think Beato was interested in Battler solving her catbox so it's unlikely she would have presented him with a bigger catbox like Bern does.
Kinzo being dead was probably one of the things she wanted Battler to figure out... if she were to change Kinzo's status however this truth would be become 'optionable'.

Originally Posted by Toku

...Wow. At first, I was thinking that this was a baseless theory, but you provided a bit of convincing evidence. I'm not sure I agree with this, but I find it all the more interesting now.

^_________^
Sadly it's mostly a speculation theory because there isn't much info on what had happened in those two days on Rokkenjima Prime.
I remember writing an outline of what might have happened based on the little evidence we have and recurring themes in the games but the real details are hard to pin down and I fear my speculations might be influenced by my beliefs over the characters... -_-

Originally Posted by Toku

After all, if Battler was the chessmaster behind the faked First Twilight of EP5, possibly among other things, this could play a big part in explaining how EP5 was supposed to be a hint to Meta!Battler.

I kind of like the idea of Chessmaster!Battler anyway. It's like the original Meta!Battler, except without the incompetence.

Well, for sure Battler was an accomplice... though I've been wondering if it could be he planned it and his plan went twisted/adapted by the following events.
Of course it's also possible it was Yasuda who came up with it and suggested it to the adults as a way to force Natsuhi to reveal Kinzo was dead.

She must have been in as well as it's unlikely Battler planned the phonecalls... while the cousins' faking being dead might be explained as a joke (they probably weren't supposed to play dead for long) the calls Natsuhi receives are definitely planning to hurt her, not just to scare her a little and reveal a inner knowledge of her past that looks unlikely Battler might have had.

Though in EP 5 and 6 Battler plays an active role in the whole murder game and in Ep 5 he also realy tries to solve the epitaph so I wondered if this can be considered a reflection of his stance in Rokkenjima Prime.
Ep 8 claiming that there might have been the habit of making a halloween party also seemed to be a hint in how he might have thought to play a mystery prank to the others.

... but again most of what had happened in R Prime is closed in the catbox... -_-

Originally Posted by Bluemail

About Battler and Yasu both holding a mystery game, maybe EP8 having two Game Masters making things complicated is also a hint towards this?

It might be, thanks for pointing it out! Though in order to reconstruct what had happened on Prime I fear we'll need more evidence...

*sighs* I so wish Ryukishi would tell us... but maybe he wants to leave it in the dark...

[Renall]

Why would Yasu need a complicated plan to make Natsuhi admit Kinzo is dead? She already knows. She probably was involved heavily in the coverup. Genji will back her up.

All she has to do is go "Madam Natsuhi paid us to hide it, but I can't anymore! Master Kinzo is dead!" while Genji nods knowingly and Nanjo cracks under the pressure. This seems much simpler than an elaborate plan to make Natsuhi admit to it.

[jjblue1]

Originally Posted by Renall

Why would Yasu need a complicated plan to make Natsuhi admit Kinzo is dead? She already knows. She probably was involved heavily in the coverup. Genji will back her up.

All she has to do is go "Madam Natsuhi paid us to hide it, but I can't anymore! Master Kinzo is dead!" while Genji nods knowingly and Nanjo cracks under the pressure. This seems much simpler than an elaborate plan to make Natsuhi admit to it.

I don't think Yasuda's goal was to make Natsuhi admit it but it's likely the siblings' goal and it's very likely Yasuda is the one who handed Battler the ring (unless you're going to say it's a fake) and who started the phonecalls (because EP 5 implied it's rather difficult someone might have told about the baby to one of the siblings... although not impossible).

Though I don't really know at what Yasuda is aiming in EP 5. If Battler solved the epitaph she should have stopped. If the solution was handed to him... it's possible she's still trying to involve him in a mystery game planning to kill the cousins after they faked death.

Anyway this leaves us with '3' possible masterminds for the 'let's play dead' plan:
- one of the siblings, though neither of them seems to have shown interest about mystery... but they might have been inspired by the epitaph and by having a girl claiming to be a detective around
- Battler, who has interests in mystery and might have started planning it as a halloween prank/game/whatever and might have been forced to revise it due to external pressure
- Yasuda, who wants to have her mystery game with Battler and is manipulating events to get her goal.

Or do you have other possible explanations?

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

Why would Yasu need a complicated plan to make Natsuhi admit Kinzo is dead? She already knows. She probably was involved heavily in the coverup. Genji will back her up.

All she has to do is go "Madam Natsuhi paid us to hide it, but I can't anymore! Master Kinzo is dead!" while Genji nods knowingly and Nanjo cracks under the pressure. This seems much simpler than an elaborate plan to make Natsuhi admit to it.

EP5 has a more vengeful version of Yasu, who wants to make Natsuhi suffer as much as possible. Or something.

[Used Can]

Personally, I think Yasu's behaviour in EP5 could be explained through Meta, considering Lambda was was the Game Master. After all, we've already seen in some TIPs the story can play out in almost any way as long as the GM wants it.

All the same, Natsuhi did show a similar irritability in EP1 and she also got some letter by the end of that episode which made her go and face Beatrice. So, I guess there's the possibility she may have been blackmailed in both stories.

I think it could be interesting if she was indeed being blackmailed as well in EP1, because that'd really make us wonder about Yasu's motives even further, considering that using the deal with the baby from 19 years ago deal is pretty much a way to mind torture Natsuhi, and I don't think that's a pretty blatant act of revenge.