[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Yes he did. The person named Anakin Skywalker was factually living and breathing. The person Obi-Wan knew may have changed drastically, but it's not like he had fucking amnesia or split personalities. Obi-Wan made a statement he knew was NOT FACTUALLY TRUE. He is a liar.

You say that there is no such thing as semi-true and while I would agree with you when talking about factual, empirical reality, I'd totally disagree with you in terms of emotional or psychological matters as this one. A lie is an intetional deception used to deceive others and make them accept the lie as truth. Lying is done with malicious intent, while Obi-Wan merely altered his way of expressing the truth out of personal and philosophical motives.
Darth Vader does not even regard himself as Anakin Skywalker anymore, he is not more or less than Darth Vader. So when Obi-Wan speaks of Anakin as dead, he does not only argue from his perspective but also from that of Darth Vader/the former body of Anakin Skywalker.

The point is that something that can be considered a lie, when looked at without love or compassion, can become the truth if it is accepted as such, at least from a philosophical and ontological point of view.
It is of course a question of wether you believe in an access towards any "observable reality"...and only because mystery/detective fiction is handling the term "Truth", does not mean that it must support the believe in such an access.
This returns us to the solution of An Offering to Nothingness (虚無への供物):

Spoiler:

"The one thing that made this accident into a horrible incident was your, the readers, wish that it may become one!"

Originally Posted by Kealym

What gets me a bit, is that Battler entertained the thought of personality death, theorizing that Jessica's body, but not necessarily Jessica, had killed Nanjo in EP3. And then, never again. It's mostly that not only was it brought up, but Beato clearly was compelled to respond with No actions caused by Jessica's body had any relation to or influence on the murder of Nanjo

The problem is that Ryûkishi had to handle two different aspects here and I think this is one of the moments where he really stumbled because of missing experience in the genre.
Had Battler actually questioned Shannon's or Kanon's existence or the quality of their death too early, Beatrice would have had to avoid it obviously. This could have been so obvious that it had become a reveal too early in the scenario and would have made any mystery-scenario concerning those characters beyond EP2 superfluous.
This on the other hand made Battler appear more incompetent than he actually was, because it was among the most obvious parts of the mystery and it was more confusing than necessary that he did not cover this aspect at all.

The only point where the existence of Shkannon was ever obviously called into question was the battler around the locked room chain in EP3, where Virgilia even tipped Battler off that Beatrice had changed the sentence he directed at her slightly and that it might imply something hidden beyond these words. This was when she changed 6人は全員他殺である (All of the six were murdered [by another person]) into 6人は誰も自殺していない！！ (None of those six commited suicide!!). For me this was enough to at least consider personality death, but it was handled rather awkwardly how this was the only point this aspect was ever hinted at in connection to those two.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

She found them inside old man Kuwabata's futon shop, she didn't make em at all. How they got there is a mystery and I dont think it matters much in the end game.

As for why Beatrice didn't make one herself...she's probably not good a sewing thins?

Beatrice was told by Maria that Sakutarô was one-of-a-kind, the only toy in the world which was like him, a very special present by her mother made only for her. For Beatrice this was true because she had no reason at all to doubt it. It was even true for Maria, though a different quality of truth compared to Beatrice's because she had other lion toys at home. This is what Lambda told Ange as well, "the truth of the future overwrites the truth of the past".

In the end it was "Beatrice's magic" which helped revive Sakutarô because it was the same principle that she created from Virgilia/Kumasawa's idea about temporary reconstruction. Things exist not in the direct connection of body and soul, the body is merely a container that can house many souls and one soul can use different containers. It is something that Kinzô had thought up already when he fantasized about Bice being reborn in her daughter and daughter's daughter.
Ange merely used this magic (as the last Beatrice) to insert Sakutarô's soul into a different container.

Why she did not make one herself can only be theorized about. I think that she actually believed that Sakutarô was so irreplacable that any attempt would rather hurt Maria. She did not seem to include the childish naivety into her picture of Maria (which explains how she seemed to have written her in the fictions) and did not expect her to just accept a new Sakutarô.
An easier solution would be that Maria would know that if Beatrice gave her another Sakutarô it wouldn't be the same Sakutarô that Rosa destroyed. Beatrice is described as having no access to the outside world and thus getting Sakutarô to the island is impossible for her.

[battle22]

Originally Posted by haguruma

Why she did not make one herself can only be theorized about. I think that she actually believed that Sakutarô was so irreplacable that any attempt would rather hurt Maria. She did not seem to include the childish naivety into her picture of Maria (which explains how she seemed to have written her in the fictions) and did not expect her to just accept a new Sakutarô.
An easier solution would be that Maria would know that if Beatrice gave her another Sakutarô it wouldn't be the same Sakutarô that Rosa destroyed. Beatrice is described as having no access to the outside world and thus getting Sakutarô to the island is impossible for her.

got it thank's.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by haguruma

You say that there is no such thing as semi-true and while I would agree with you when talking about factual, empirical reality, I'd totally disagree with you in terms of emotional or psychological matters as this one. A lie is an intetional deception used to deceive others and make them accept the lie as truth. Lying is done with malicious intent, while Obi-Wan merely altered his way of expressing the truth out of personal and philosophical motives.
Darth Vader does not even regard himself as Anakin Skywalker anymore, he is not more or less than Darth Vader. So when Obi-Wan speaks of Anakin as dead, he does not only argue from his perspective but also from that of Darth Vader/the former body of Anakin Skywalker.

The point is that something that can be considered a lie, when looked at without love or compassion, can become the truth if it is accepted as such, at least from a philosophical and ontological point of view.

Your native tongue must have a very different conception of a lie, because as an English speaker I don't understand what you're driving at at all.

As I understand it, a lie is a statement that is factually false, and known to be factually false by the speaker. If it's false but the speaker doesn't know that, it's a mistake or they were themselves lied to or something, but are not lying themselves. Intent is irrelevant to the definition of a lie, just as it is irrelevant to the definition of misleading someone (though the definition I've been using here necessitates deliberate knowledge that the wrong conclusion will be drawn, accidental misleading is possible). Only knowledge. If a person knows a statement to be untrue, relating it as truth is a lie. That lie may or may not be justified by some reasoning as to why the lie is preferable to the truth, but the fact that it is a lie is unchanged.

The notion that a lie must be malicious is absurd. When a doctor tells a grieving family that their elderly mother died in her sleep, when in truth she was awake and in agonizing pain for several hours, your argument is either that he is not lying (which is obviously false) or that he's telling them this out of malice (when this example intentionally was set up to make his motive exactly the opposite).

You're bending over backwards to justify Ryukishi's already-stretching definition of fairness, honesty, and truth, all of which I find despicable when he could just own up to cheating. No rational person can conclude anything other than that when Beatrice was equivocating two people - one a human being who had physically died and the other a mere fictional character who temporarily left the story - with full awareness that her opponent was not aware of this distinction and had no clear and obvious way to be aware of this distinction, and was further under the impression that red text somehow was a higher and firmer level of truth (and thus, less subject to semantic manipulation, or so he'd been led to think), she was misleading him.

You can quibble over whether such a "half-truth" is a lie, but she wasn't being honest. Oh sure, you can say "the statement Kumasawa is dead [as a biological corpse] is factually true, and the statement Kanon is dead [as a fictional character in the story] is factually true," but the lie is in the contextualization that she knew Battler would fail to distinguish. And, again, even if Battler was everything she expected him to be as an opponent, he wouldn't necessarily understand this. He has no reason to from their mutual background (short of knowing Yasu is just one person and that she's mysteriously absent from her own stories, but honestly Piece-Battler should've already known that too). Indeed, even if he was ultra-competent and figured it all out, it would be in spite of Beatrice's attempts to mislead him, not because of them.

And finally, re Star Wars: Obi-Wan lied. Flat-out lied. He said Darth Vader "betrayed and murdered your father." That absolutely wasn't true. Anakin Skywalker betrayed others and became Darth Vader, which was the end of his life as Anakin, at best. The formulation of the sentence is clearly designed to make Luke believe that Darth Vader was a distinct individual who was a fallen pupil of Kenobi's who murdered Anakin Skywalker. Luke would never draw from that conclusion what Obi-Wan really knew. Plus, I'd say it's impossible to "betray and murder" yourself, but then this is an Umineko thread.

[rogerpepitone]

Originally Posted by haguruma

The only point where the existence of Shkannon was ever obviously called into question was the battler around the locked room chain in EP3, where Virgilia even tipped Battler off that Beatrice had changed the sentence he directed at her slightly and that it might imply something hidden beyond these words. This was when she changed 6人は全員他殺である (All of the six were murdered [by another person]) into 6人は誰も自殺していない！！ (None of those six commited suicide!!). For me this was enough to at least consider personality death, but it was handled rather awkwardly how this was the only point this aspect was ever hinted at in connection to those two.

Or it could be that she couldn't say that because Kinzo died of natural causes.

[AuraTwilight]

And, again, even if Battler was everything she expected him to be as an opponent, he wouldn't necessarily understand this. He has no reason to from their mutual background (short of knowing Yasu is just one person and that she's mysteriously absent from her own stories, but honestly Piece-Battler should've already known that too).

I just want to point out that Battler doesn't know Yasu, he knows Shannon. He says as much himself. "Shannon was my first crush! Ihihi!"

This, of course, stems from the fact that Shannon was always Yasu's servant name, and she only externalized her servant self as an imaginary friend in her head. It's not like "Yasu" was running around and then she suddenly changed her name.

Which means it is even HARDER for Battler to see through this deception. He's known Shannon since they were six years old. He's met Kanon for the first time this year and has no reason to suspect anything about the kid, but he's known Shannon since before she was doing her Shkanon bullshit.

He's not coming into this with the same frame of reference we are. His conceptions of the people around him are not blank slates formed by the story like with us. This deception is deliberately stacked against his emotions in order to preclude and prevent his noticing the trick.

On a meta-level this can be excused; it's OUR job to solve the mystery, not Battler; he's pretty much the Watson even if Ryukishi calls him the 'Detective'. But in-universe, it means Beatrice cannot be excused with thinking he would see through it, because she knows he can't. She's given him absolutely zero reason to suspect anything is at all not right about Shannon and Kanon being human beings because every time the subject has come up, there's been magic and superpowers fucking everywhere.

There is absolutely no justifying it. This use of the red is the worst kind of twist, existing only to fool and mess with the reader and does nothing to enhance the story. Defending it is delusion.

[Renall]

I'm actually going by the assumption that the "Shannon" Battler knew and the "Shannon" in the stories is a different character, so to speak. The actual, real-life Battler would've expected a different person than the Battler who shows up and re-meets her in the stories. The fact that they had a much closer relationship prior to his departure suggests to me that he would find her appearance and demeanor as presented in the stories very unusual. I also seriously doubt she acted that way on R-Prime.

Of course, Meta-Battler and Touya are not necessarily going to know this (especially if Touya totally forgot that part, thanks to lolamnesia). But the point is, if you're trying to get Battler to remember the Shannon he bonded with over mystery novels and such, presenting another "Shannon" who is physically and mentally distinct isn't going to help somebody who doesn't know the difference, and it sure as hell doesn't help the reader, who has no real reason to believe her personality "ought to be" any different.

[AuraTwilight]

I'm actually going by the assumption that the "Shannon" Battler knew and the "Shannon" in the stories is a different character, so to speak. The actual, real-life Battler would've expected a different person than the Battler who shows up and re-meets her in the stories. The fact that they had a much closer relationship prior to his departure suggests to me that he would find her appearance and demeanor as presented in the stories very unusual. I also seriously doubt she acted that way on R-Prime.

He's also been gone for over half a decade. He's completely missed her going through puberty and everything.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

He's also been gone for over half a decade. He's completely missed her going through puberty and everything.

She's not going to completely alter her personality, and if she looked anything like we probably suspect she looks, Battler would probably be more confused than surprised. But again, this is fictional Battler, who apparently doesn't know jack shit even though he should.

Though honestly if Yasu's real appearance was closer to Kanon's than to Shannon's you'd think his first train of thought would be less something like Shkanon and more some thought along the lines of "Shannon's switched places with another servant and is pretending to be somebody named Kanon to see if I can pick up on this person being different after so long." Which is a neat enough idea, but also irrelevant, so naught comes of him never considering that.

The main issue is really the personality thing. If he knew her at all when they were 12, it would seem really weird for her to have gone all Stepford Wife demure on him all of a sudden. Again though, Piece-Battler sees nothing wrong with this and the only Battlers who'd remember R-Prime conveniently forgot.

But I don't see how we're supposed to get that.

[cronnoponno]

Didn't Battler make a comment that Shannon was actually really playful with the cousins when they were younger? Well, yeah obvious is obvious but Battler seemed to say that Jessica and Shannon would often overpower Battler in some form of playful wrestling all the time because he was ''much smaller'' at the time, you can tell Jessica hasn't changed completely because she still tried to tackle Battler...

[haguruma]

Considering how opinions on Shkannon diverge so hardly in this thread I'd like to explain my theory once again and I'd like to see where exactly some people, especially those who keep on insisting on the unfairness of Shkannon in regards to their life and death announcements, see this unfairness.
I will start out wth explaining how I understood the ground rules of the games and then how they were executed and thus how the hints worked for me when I read Umineko. This is not implying that this has to work for every reader and does not mean either that I think that it was a successful idea of Ryûkishi, it is merely my observation of the concept „Umineko“.

Ground rules:
Every game is a world constructed by an author based on the possibilities of the model reality. Everything has to happen in accordance to and within the limits of the rolemodel taken, but as long as it is possible (not even necessarily probable) it can happen within the fictions.
There are 17+ characters on the gameboard. Additional characters can be added but only in accordance to real possibilities (like creating alter-egos, not having them influence the plot, making them take over actions of other characters who could have acted the same)
Shannon, Kanon and Beatrice are such examples
each of those characters exist as a corporeal pieces on the gameboard (this includes not only Shkannon, but also non-human characters like Ronove or Virgilia)
a piece can experience death on the gameboard

Set-Up:
Each game is created with the idea that Shannon and Kanon exist as corporeal characters. Beatrice exists as well but she has no body of matter, she is a character with a quality similar to Ronove, Virgilia or the goats. Thus when Shannon or Kanon die, they actually die on the gameboard. They are (within the plot) actuall humans who can die.

Goal:
I think this is what is misunderstood most often. The goal is not to find out that Shannon and Kanon have not really died, they did die in the plot. The solution that is cosidered a goal here, is to find out how it is possible for them to be returned to life by magic if there is no magic. In each magic-based problem within the story the solution lies in sucking out the magic of this scene and regrouping it so that it makes sense. One possibilty is to act like Battler in EP3 and say „This never happened at all!“, but I don't think that is the solution. In that instance an argument between Beatrice (Yasu) and Virgilia (Kumasawa) likely happened, the solution is to remove the magical elements and find a solution that can explain why the character who is Beatrice and Kumasawa would be having a quarrel about giving up certain powers or returning to a former self. The same thing applies to the Shkannon situations.

Example:
Let's take a look at Kanon's death in EP2. What exactly happened there?
The character Kanon died within the plot when he was pierced through the chest in Jessica's room on the 2nd twilight. Now the question is, how was he able to return twice within the narrative?
How is Kanon described when he returns? He has become furniture of the witch, he is no longer the same „human“ Kanon, but a non-corporeal entity on the same level as the stakes (shown by him having red eyes or reverting to golden butterflies). Thus Kanon does not return to life! The character Kanon on the gameboard is dead, so the question at hand is, how is it possible to return him to another scene without magic.
The solution is rather simple. Somehow Beatrice seems to have access to the souls of Shannon and Kanon, as they are the only characters revived on the gameboard beside Kinzô. Now how is that possible if we don't believe in a witch who can work magic to revive somebody.

I think people are making it too easy for themselves by merely declaring something a „magic scene“ and therefore dismissable. There are valuable hints in those scenes, which make it that much easier to understand the core of the plot.
Several other instances like that happened along the way. Like why was Beatrice's presence necessary in EP3's revival of Shannon when it was George's magic which ripped her from Hades? Why did Beatrice need to revive Kanon to save Jessica? Why not Krauss or Natsuhi? Or even instances not related to Shkannon, like how Kyrie's gun shot Hideyoshi if there was no Eva-Beatrice who made it float up to his back.

Now there is often the complaint that if Shannon and Kanon existed as seperate beings in the fictions it doesn't make sense on what people call Rokkenjima-Prime. I say it doesn't matter. Maybe she changed into those costumes, maybe Shannon and Kanon really were just roles she played in her head. What matters is the riddle behind why someone would insert those characters in the fiction in such a way and what that tells us about the author.

[Renall]

I don't think I could have told you any more clearly where the "unfairness" exists, personally. Though I want to stress it's mostly the authorial unfairness that cheeses me. I can accept that a character may cheat; although, under the particular circumstances, I think it wrecks the story for the character to have cheated. What bothers me is that Ryukishi himself cheated. The sole rationale behind what he did was to obfuscate something everyone was already well aware of by ep2, but that most people thought was stupid (and indeed, it still is stupid). No other reason. Battler still could've missed the blindingly obvious, but he wanted to make sure to confuse the readers as well.

He cheated because he wasn't smart enough to get away with it through subtlety, against even the most dull reader. Even a moron could pick up on Shannon and Kanon never appearing before Battler at once. We got that, everyone acknowledged the fact that it could mean something. Nobody in the history of reading was blindsided by this concept. In no small part because he already did it before, but it's not like you needed that to see it.

Those people who found it distasteful were hoping either that he would:

• Justify his obvious twist in a manner that would not be moronic; or
• Prove expectations wrong by ensuring the obvious twist wasn't the actual twist (and those who focused too strongly on the obvious would somehow miss the trick right under their noses).

He attempted to do #1 (certainly no effort was made at #2). Some people feel he actually succeeded and are content. Good for them, but they acknowledge that the idea itself wasn't some brilliant maneuver. Others, such as myself, think he failed, to varying degrees ("I'm disappointed, but enjoyed the ride" to "This guy is a hack"). I think our disappointment is justifiable.

It's like the old horror movie cliche of the monster in the closet. Everyone knows there's gonna be a monster in there. But at the same time, it's become cliche that the closet will open and it will be empty, because that elevates the tension, drops it, then suddenly ramps it up when the monster appears behind the person who opened it. If it's done well, it's still scary, even though we knew it was going to happen. But both masters and hacks will try to twist that around and do something else entirely. How successful they are still pretty much depends on execution. The good director tends to do it right, the bad director doesn't.

Those who have studied the work have varying opinions on how good a "director" we're dealing with, and that is influencing our take on the old monster-isn't-in-the-closet-but-suddenly-behind-you trick. There are many who think "Saw it coming, still jumped, still a good scare," but equally many who think "Awww, I knew that was gonna happen, come on."

[AuraTwilight]

By the way, to address the "Shannon and Kanon reviving", thing, he's never had any indication that they actually defied death in any meaningful way. It happened in Game 3, but they died again before anyone could confirm it, and VIRGILIA told him that if there's no evidence for an event, it's no better than an illusion. It's the same line of thought he's actually EXPECTED to use for flashy superpower fights and demons and witches coming out of every orifice and he's expected to do some special consideration for a couple people coming back to life for 30 second?

Because that happened with Rosa and Maria too. Like, a lot.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

You're bending over backwards to justify Ryukishi's already-stretching definition of fairness, honesty, and truth, all of which I find despicable when he could just own up to cheating. No rational person can conclude anything other than that when Beatrice was equivocating two people - one a human being who had physically died and the other a mere fictional character who temporarily left the story - with full awareness that her opponent was not aware of this distinction and had no clear and obvious way to be aware of this distinction, and was further under the impression that red text somehow was a higher and firmer level of truth (and thus, less subject to semantic manipulation, or so he'd been led to think).

I think Battler (or us readers) understanding this is the "miracle" that Beatrice was hoping for.

[Uberzaki]

One of my ideas is that the red text could be considered cheating. If the author is giving you all these hints, then it is in their interest to mislead you with these hints just like the watson does; a real mystery fan would simply read the forgery (just white text, supposedly) and try to solve the mystery that way.

When you start treating the several parts of the text as simply fake and don't try to understand why these scenes are being shown; the red test will become something which will hinder you.

On the other hand, the red text is shown to hurt the gamemaster if they should create a logic error, so it may actually have some sort of significance.

gah...

[haguruma]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

It happened in Game 3, but they died again before anyone could confirm it, and VIRGILIA told him that if there's no evidence for an event, it's no better than an illusion.

Well, but wasn't that part of a mislead as well? At least Battler's reaction was.
Virgilia only told him that the witches will try to explain things with magic and he should try explaining it with reason. She likened it to the ancient rain-making ceremonies which are explainable by mystic forces and by scientific reasoning alike, it merely depends on your background and your point of view.
It was Battler who interpreted this as meaning everything magical is a dismissable illusion. Somehow many people believed this because it came from Battler, but I don't think this approach leads anywhere, because it makes almost 70% of Umineko dismissable.

Originally Posted by Renall

Those people who found it distasteful were hoping either that he would:

Justify his obvious twist in a manner that would not be moronic; or
Prove expectations wrong by ensuring the obvious twist wasn't the actual twist (and those who focused too strongly on the obvious would somehow miss the trick right under their noses).

He attempted to do #1 (certainly no effort was made at #2).

Well I actually think he did both. #1 was the solution that Yasu wanted us to draw, it's probably also the culprit-solution to EP1 and 2. But if you actually only follow this line of reasoning you miss that it probably isn't the sole solution. I still think there is a truth beyond that and I think you can actually reach it...I'm trying to construct a well formulated culprit theory right now. I hope I can throw that in the mix today or tommorrow.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by haguruma

It was Battler who interpreted this as meaning everything magical is a dismissable illusion. Somehow many people believed this because it came from Battler, but I don't think this approach leads anywhere, because it makes almost 70% of Umineko dismissable.

Indeed. You should never completely trust an RK07 protagonist's conclusions, even if they seem reasonable. To borrow a word from Sherringford, RK07 does not like using a "conductor" character to help tell the reader how the world works.

[AuraTwilight]

Well, but wasn't that part of a mislead as well? At least Battler's reaction was.
Virgilia only told him that the witches will try to explain things with magic and he should try explaining it with reason. She likened it to the ancient rain-making ceremonies which are explainable by mystic forces and by scientific reasoning alike, it merely depends on your background and your point of view.
It was Battler who interpreted this as meaning everything magical is a dismissable illusion. Somehow many people believed this because it came from Battler, but I don't think this approach leads anywhere, because it makes almost 70% of Umineko dismissable.

I would agree that it's not the best approach, but it's something Virgilia plainly said in black and white, allowing Battler to cope with the whole towers of destruction and golem-deities and everything. There's a difference between the imagery of an action and the symbolism it represents, but Virgilia didn't mention that because doing so is something we were meant to figure out ourselves.

[Wanderer]

"Everything I speak in red is the truth."

Now, how did Umineko define "truth"?

[Kylon99]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Indeed. You should never completely trust an RK07 protagonist's [Battler] conclusions, even if they seem reasonable. To borrow a word from Sherringford, RK07 does not like using a "conductor" character to help tell the reader how the world works.

This! 8)

This is why I started thinking around episode 5 or 6 that Battler or any detective that failed to solve the actual mystery is no longer working for the readers but for the culprit. Because his incorrect theories obsfucate what actually happened.

If you look at Umineko, the only real detective who succeeded was Will. All the other 'detectives' caused problems for us.

Spoiler for Meitantei no Okite EP2 spoilers:

I was watching Higashino Keigo's comedy spoof on a detective series, Meitantei no Okite, episode 2, where what actually happened was someone fell off a roof accidently. But because the detective was involved and would cry (yes, literally cry) if he didn't get enough 'screen time,' the others just let him go through the process. He ended up concluding the victim was stabbed by a frozen knife made of blood; which when melted, erased all evidence of its existence. Brilliant, and yet stupid, at the same time.

And he ended up concluding that the only person there who worked at the blood bank could be the culprit. Luckily police chief made a deal with the 'culprit' to just pretend the detective caught him and at the end they'll just ignore the charges. 8)

Now in EP2, they actually presented the solution; that the man fell and when his bones cracked, they pierced the skin. There are other episodes where the detective presents a wrong solution and the solution is never presented! But I wonder if Higashino actually had a solution in mind...

Anyways, what the detective did was totally ruin your perceptions. 8)

[AuraTwilight]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

"Everything I speak in red is the truth."

Now, how did Umineko define "truth"?

If it doesn't equate to "Things that are true", then it's a lie. So, you tell me.