AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Retired M-Z > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-12-03, 03:47   Link #33541
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Remember, I'm arguing that to the pieces on the board, the notion of actual mystery rules do not exist in any sense. Piece-Battler has no special investigative or deductive powers;
Well, that is my understanding now, I would say, Yes and No to that.
The notion of mystery rules applying to their situation does not necessarily exist to them (at least the clearly human pieces), but I'd still say it is Piece-Battler to whom the detective-clause is tied. If it wasn't then there shouldn't be any problem in Meta-Battler observing scenes that Piece-Battler is not a part of and still see only the truth. I'd rather argue that PB's perspective serves as a filter on a scene that makes it less likely to use obvious deceptions in that scene, since if he were to observe something crucial, he'd be likely to report it to us, the reader.

I'm not saying that this rules out the possibility of some of them being alive, but at least some are clearly corpses in the context of said game.
Quote:
What I'm saying is, what if they aren't as a matter of fact? It's a bunch of actors putting on a play. A bunch of puppets putting on a show. Isn't that, ultimately, the only way Beatrice's magic can work? Isn't it the only way she can keep her promises? She did promise she'd return even the lives she took if she were to be defeated. Plus it adds a certain element of anti-mystery to things, wouldn't you say?
Definitely, but this now extends into the discussion how we regard the different layers of the game. I completely agree with you that the overarching pieces put on a show depending on the role they are assigned to, BUT the promise of Beatrice is also something that exists in the context of her narrative.
What it definitely is is a strong hint that Beatrice's game was supposed to be a "staged murder series" that was to be uncovered as soon as Battler solved her riddle. Also the EP8 manga clearly hints that this was Beato's intent from the very beginning and the interpretation of the message bottles being a murder plot was only stuck to it later.

In that sense, if Beato's game was ever put into motion on the island without any tragedy happening, and was then observed by the witches while using Red Truth, then
the Red Truth about them being dead would be figurative for all of the real people, since it is applied to their fictive persona.

BUT, as Beato said about EP8, "This story is a farce. If everything up till now had been the truth, then no tragedy would have ever occurred..."
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 05:39   Link #33542
Leafsnail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
I think it's possible that at least some of the murders are real in episode 3 due to the latter half of the game being messier (the first twilight is fake though,which is why the servant vessels still get to wander around). Then in episode 4 everything goes completely off the rails. So episodes three and four represent attempts to divine what went so wrong.

Actually, maybe Beatrice's reds only apply to her own part im the mystery. In other words, we have it backwards - Beatrice confirming a death proves it was part of the mystery night rather than real. That's why she couldn't really say much about Alliance at all.
Leafsnail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 09:39   Link #33543
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
At the very least I think you can make the case for zero deaths in Legend and Turn regardless of your opinion on anything else. Legend obviously has no red whatsoever and Turn never once says anyone other than Kanon was "killed" or is "dead." There is a mention of Jessica's "corpse," but we already know from later that word is subject to wordplay. Granted, Lambda brings up some more information about ep1/ep2 in ep4 and those do reference killing and murder, but again, you can make the dual arguments that (1) Lambda isn't Beato, and (2) Lambda is referring to the intended script and not necessarily to "real" murders.

Looking strictly at Legend and Turn, however, the only person Beatrice really says outright was killed is Kanon... and Kanon is just a character even within the context of the board, and that's what she wanted Battler to notice, apparently. Battler is the one who basically insinuates all of those murders are real.

I think it'd also make a certain degree of sense of the process of game creation itself. You have a "Fragment" which is a sequence of events, and you then dress it up to create a full Forgery. The Fragment might be a tragedy, it might be a harmless game, but in either case you create a witch's fantasy from it that makes it seem more sinister than it may actually be. The red is part of that creation, and the only thing that matters is that it not contradict either itself or the reality of the board. The Logic Error was essentially Erika's attempt to make the "script" of ep6 not match up with the physical reality by creating a scenario in which Battler physically couldn't exit his room despite the "script" saying he had done so.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 13:32   Link #33544
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenLand View Post
I wouldn't mind making a game of it, but I think that having to follow the Rosatrice theory as stated by jTiKey or KnM is too restrictive to be properly fun making up theories for (ie: with George and Nanjo as mandatory accomplices and nobody else, and Rosa's motive being insanity and a resurrection ceremony, and so on). If Rosatrice were defined as just any Rosa-culprit gameboard then that would be a bit easier. But I suppose that's not the point, you're wanting an orderly discussion of the particular Rosatrice theory which has been put forward. That might not be so bad. I could stick to arguing against the theories by checking them against Knox, Dine, and what's humanly possible.
Yes, we'll go nowhere if we keep on arguing over red, Knox and Dine and instead I think it could be interesting to discuss over the thing and try it from another perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenLand View Post
Speaking of games, it might be fun to look through the twilights of the games under the assumption that identity/role death might apply to anyone and everyone and see if it makes any difference.
I agree! This also could be fun!
Although I think we've to work the rules for this game well or we'll end up going into chaos as there's a lot to discuss.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 16:11   Link #33545
jTiKey
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Question.

why "name" = "pesonality"?
If name is changed, personality won't.

Last edited by jTiKey; 2013-12-03 at 16:55.
jTiKey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 16:58   Link #33546
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
That question is hard to answer, can you clarify on what you mean?

I'll attempt to answer based on what you think you're saying. Basically, Umineko has a running theme on how people are defined by behaviors, where people can essentially be actors who adopt a new 'personality' purely by behavior. Yasu doesn't actually have multiple personality syndrome, she's just a dedicated actress. Yasu-acting-as-cute-maid is "Shannon", Yasu-acting-as-solemn-gardener is "Kanon", and so forth. Maria-pretending-to-be-toy-lion is "Sakutarou", even.

Therefore, Yasu has multiple names available to her, and can define one of her characters as 'dead' simply by never adopting that persona ever again.

You might think it's stupid. Most people here wouldn't disagree with you on that. But it seems to be the author's intent beyond any reasonable doubt.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 17:01   Link #33547
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTiKey View Post
Question.

what "name" = "pesonality"?
If name is changed, personality won't.
Not personalities, personas. They're different social identities, like the way Jessica is called by her nickname Jessie at school and behaves a certain way there, while she's called Jessica at home and behaves entirely differently. Or for another example, the way Maria sees her mother as "Mama" when Rosa's being pleasant and loving versus "the Black Witch" when she's being horrible and violent. Yasu's just gone further and deliberately presented herself as separate people, so her personas are more distinct.

Yasu was fairly taken with Maria's worldview that "different behavior = different person", which I think was probably a large factor in why she decided to treat Shannon and Kanon the way she did with the red truth in her writing.

ED: Whoops, ninja'd by AuraTwilight.
__________________
"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 17:24   Link #33548
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
Therefore, Yasu has multiple names available to her, and can define one of her characters as 'dead' simply by never adopting that persona ever again.
I don't know that that's even explicitly a requirement given that Kanon totally gets readopted in ep3 (and arguably so does Shannon, at that).

It's easier to think of it as a role. If I play Hamlet in a production of the play, then at the end of the play (SPOILER ALERT) I-as-Hamlet "die." But I-as-the-actor-playing-Hamlet am not dead, and at the start of the next night's performance I-as-Hamlet am alive again because the play is being put on a second time. Beatrice seems to be able to refer to Shannon and Kanon as if they are Hamlet.

The problem, such as it is, is when she's referring to Kanon's death as if he's Hamlet to somebody else's death as if they're the actual actor, like saying "after Hamlet died, Horatio died onstage" to refer to Horatio's actor dropping dead of a heart attack after Hamlet's stage death. My latest series of brainfarts was basically trying to reconcile that in a manner that provides the least stupid outcome.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 19:19   Link #33549
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
This may sound far fetched, but this whole "role/name"-"body" thing is reminding me of a certain thing in programming.

It is "call by referrence". That means:
You have an Object, let us say in Umineko's case the bodies. Then you have variables, which would be the names and roles in Umineko. It is possible that multiple variables refer to the same body. So Shannon, Kanon and Beatrice are variables that refer to "the body of the child from 19 years ago".

You can then "kill" the variables without affecting the Object, i.e. the body, in any way, by setting a variable to "null":

Code:
Kanon = null;
This would "kill" the variable Kanon, but not affect "the body of the child from 19 years ago", which is still accessible by the variables Shannon and Yasu.

Then later on you can "revive" Kanon, by making it a variable "the body of the child from 19 years ago" again, by referencing to another reference, like Shannon or Yasu:

Code:
Kanon = Shannon;
or
Code:
Kanon = Yasu;
So as long as some kind of variable exists, not only names/roles can always be revived again, but new names/roles can be created as well. Going by this, a body can exist as long as at least 1 variable refers to it (in the programming language JAVA at least). This is interesting if you think about Beatrice saying how she can multiply something as long as it is higher than zero.

So applying this to EP3, the child from 19 years ago has 3 variables: Shannon, Kanon and Beatrice. Shannon and Kanon are "dead", but Beatrice was never declared in red to be dead, so the child from 19 years ago could have commited the murder of Nanjo, even though 2 of its variables are "dead".

See, jTiKey, wasn't so hard, right?
__________________
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 19:59   Link #33550
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
Not personalities, personas. They're different social identities, like the way Jessica is called by her nickname Jessie at school and behaves a certain way there, while she's called Jessica at home and behaves entirely differently. Or for another example, the way Maria sees her mother as "Mama" when Rosa's being pleasant and loving versus "the Black Witch" when she's being horrible and violent. Yasu's just gone further and deliberately presented herself as separate people, so her personas are more distinct.

Yasu was fairly taken with Maria's worldview that "different behavior = different person", which I think was probably a large factor in why she decided to treat Shannon and Kanon the way she did with the red truth in her writing.

ED: Whoops, ninja'd by AuraTwilight.
Yes, or in Will's words:

Quote:
"So, when Bernkastel asks us who killed Beatrice, she means who killed the kind person who pretended to be Beatrice?"
"That's close, but not quite. It's not the one who pretended. We're talking about two different people. ......In Maria's eyes, just like how her mother and the black witch are different people, Beatrice and the person who played that part are also different people."
It's just like Mariage Sorciere.
That was where one person would be the creator, and the other person would acknowledge those creations, thereby nurturing the illusion.
The Golden Witch Beatrice was also created by one person, and then nurtured when Maria acknowledged her.
"You mean, even if you kill the acted character, that doesn't mean you've killed the kind person who was playing the part?"
"Even if Beatrice's vessel is lost, that isn't the same as Beatrice being killed. ......It's easier to understand if we use a telephone as an example. Let's say I call you on the phone. From my perspective during the call, the phone is you, in the sense that it is what I talk to."
"But what if I break the phone?"
"......I see. If you kill the phone, you won't be able to talk to me, but that doesn't mean you've killed me."
"We know Maria once offered to let Beatrice possess her, early on in their relationship. That clearly shows that Beatrice did not look like the portrait at that time."
"So, if the person acting the part and the witch character they play are different people, ......we're talking about killing just the witch character itself. ......Is that even possible?"
"Only the actor can kill the character. In other words, the person who killed Beatrice is the person who played the part of Beatrice."
"You mean that the person who played witches with Maria-chan is the culprit Bernkastel's talking about?"
Shannon and Kanon's cases are apparently similar as Shannon and Kanon are viewed merely as roles and not as... let's call it, their body's true persona/character/whatever.
Although it might seem weird they're considered just roles, during work there are cases of people feeling required to 'play a part' and acting in a certain way even if that's not how they would normally behave.
As the... let's call it original vessel of Shannon and Kanon, didn't have friends at first and was even required by Natsuhi to act in a certain way with Jessica and likely with George and Battler, even if later on she managed to develop a relation with them, it's possible she felt as if she always had to put up a front and act in a certain way, as if she had to continue playing a role.
And when she discovered the truth about herself but decided to continue being Shannon, this become even more marked.
She was litterally playing servant when she could have been family head (Or so she was lead to believe. Actually I'm not sure her claim would have had any legal holding...).

And trust me, the fairness of all this applied to the game has been discussed many, many times, as not everyone here liked this solution although it makes logical sense.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 20:29   Link #33551
Leafsnail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
You know, I think this "fantasy scenes represent people setting up the mystery" is a really, really good theory. Suddenly loads of scenes that previously just seemed like weirdly misleading white noise now have a lot of meaning. I'll try and state the basic premises of this theory. What I'm saying applies to the first four games, the other games basically twist this premise in order to reveal the truth.

1. Yasu was planning a murder mystery night. The first two episodes are some plans Yasu had for how it was going to go. The first two games can be solved purely in terms of Yasu's intended mystery.

2. All of meta-Beatrice's red truths refer to the mystery she set up. That is, if a character died in Yasu's story, she can declare them to be dead. There is no personality death, instead there is "script death".

3. However, people who die according to Yasu's script are not actually dead. They can go "backstage" and help Yasu to create her mystery.

4. The fantasy scenes effectively give us a glimpse behind the scenes of the mystery. It may be hidden under a layer of metaphor, but every fantasy scene contains information as to what is really happening on the island.

5. Episodes 3 and 4 start similarly, but are derailed. Real murders begin to occur, throwing everything into chaos and making it so that the mystery Yasu wrote and the unfolding situation "behind the scenes" can no longer be treated as two distinct stories.

I think that the fantasy scenes make a lot more sense when interpreted in this way. I don't really have time to completely "solve" the fantasy scenes of episodes 3 and 4, but I can provide some general interpretations that I think work well:
- The stakes represent the parents, when they're willingly playing along with Yasu's plan. They're around in episode 2 because all the parents are "dead" and thus available to help. If a stake is shown killing someone, that means they convinced the person to join the mystery night (if necessary) and also helped them with their makeup.
- Virgilia and Ronove represent Kumasawa and Genji respectively. The fact that they kept appearing in episode 3 in spite of their vessels being dead was previously perplexing, but under this interpretation it makes perfect sense.
- All of the Goats are any miscellaneous additional helpers Yasu picks up. They're probably usually Gohda
- The Chiesters are a bit different. They do not represent anyone in particular - they are a mask that hides the actual culprit's identity. A kill by a Chiester is an actual, real murder on the backstage level. Note that Beatrice herself never uses the Chiesters. It's possible that Eva-Beatrice also has this property.
- Yasu plays the parts of both Shannon and Kanon, who are separate people in her stories. Shannon and Kanon are the main clues Battler has towards working out the real truth behind the mystery night. Neither personality death nor Shkannon are required to solve the first two episodes on the "Yasu's mystery" level. I think that Shannon is the main culprit in Yasu's mystery, with Kanon trying to stop her.

With this framework, I'll now briefly look at some "solutions" to fantasy scenes. Properly solving episodes 3 and 4 would probably take a lot of time since their fantasy scenes are pretty complex.

Episode 2: Most of this is fairly easy. Yasu's plan goes basically perfectly, which is why none of Beatrice's minions meet any real resistance. The backstage story of episode 2 is mostly just the "dead" parents setting up crimescenes.

The one thing that requires some explanation is the testimony stating that Kanon is alive. I think the "Yasu's mystery" solution was that Shannon coerced people into testifying that Kanon was the culprit (Kanon actually died with Jessica, but had to disappear in order to prevent a "logic error"). Backstage, however, Yasu really did appear to those people dressed as Kanon - that's what the fantasy scene is telling us.

Episode 3: I can't really run through a full solution, but my general thoughts:
- The first twilight represents an argument between the people planning the mystery. In the end Yasu is forced to agree to have both of her characters killed off right at the start.
- Eva decides she can do better than Yasu, and starts messing with her script and trying to create her own story. She starts making threats with actual guns, and from there things escalate into actual murders.
- I'm still kindof fuzzy on the later parts. Under my "Chiesters = real murders" theory, the people who are actually killed are Rudolf, Kyrie, Krauss, Natsuhi, George and Shannon (Yasu?). If we include Eva-Beatrice then Rosa, Maria, Hideyoshi and Nanjo are also dead for real. It's possible that Eva accidentally shot someone and thus violence broke out, or that she killed people out of revenge for the deaths of her son and husband. I could probably solve this if I could remember the exact content of the fantasy scenes
- In any case, Eva-Beatrice creates her final riddle by selectively making red truths that apply to the mystery level and the real-world level, thus making it appear that everyone else is dead. However, on the "backstage" level most of the first twilight victims are still alive, and able to kill Nanjo. The motive would be a suspicion that he's been working with the real killer to cover up the fact that murders are actually happening.
Leafsnail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 21:15   Link #33552
Cao Ni Ma
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Funny thing about the persona not necessarily personality thing has been there since EP1. When Maria went into the creepy child persona the rest of the cousins discuss the issue and come to that conclusion.
Cao Ni Ma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-03, 23:35   Link #33553
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsnail View Post
You know, I think this "fantasy scenes represent people setting up the mystery" is a really, really good theory. Suddenly loads of scenes that previously just seemed like weirdly misleading white noise now have a lot of meaning.
It's an interesting concept, but I think it is something that is only applicable to EP1-2 and 6, since the other games are not actually in the hands of somebody who knows what it is about. But I wouldn't be surprised if the story that is to be found only in a very slim chance could also be the "mystery game/I never planned actual murders" aspect.

Interpreting the Chiesters as murder in itself is a little farfetched I'd say, especially since we already know what they are, they are the Winchester guns themselves.
But that actually leads me to something. What is the reason behind Beatrice herself actually never summoning the Chiesters?
Well, if we take it literally it simply means that the person who is Beatrice does not use the guns, at least not as a killing device. Them being summoned by Eva-Beato in EP3 is I think a fairly important part in comparison to the stakes.

The stakes, from the very beginning, are described as being almost impossible to use as an actual weapon and also within fantasy scenes they are often comparably incompetent, having to rely on sneak-attacks to actually do damage.
The Chiesters are described as unstoppable and killing with almost 100% certainty.

We know from the EP8 manga that Natsuhi's gun in EP1 was loaded with blanks, likely the same was the case for Rosa in EP2, AND considering that Eva's gun did in fact only blind Jessica, isn't it possible to assume that her's was filled with blanks as well?
So yes, in a way the Chiesters are the intent to kill, but it also points to the owner of their vessel, the Winch(i)esters.

I agree that EP3 is a wild hot mess, but it's not impossible to at least get an idea of what might have went down. We can clearly solve all Episodes with Shkannontrice, and I think that is intent and likely because the stories are mimicking the framework of Yasu's original narrative, but they also hint towards the game being highjacked in between.

What for example I wonder about individual EP3 interpretations.
Was Yasu actually doing the killings and was simply equally hollowed out in Battler's interpretation as Lambda's EP5, or was somebody (Eva) actually murdering those people and Yasu desperately tried to keep up her game.
Eva would have no reason to continue using the stakes, like Eva-Beato said, she is not interested in the ritual (the game to reach Battler).
haguruma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-04, 10:09   Link #33554
Leafsnail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Yeah, how much Tohya actually knew when he wrote episodes 3 and 4 is an open question. He certainly seemed to be aware of Kinzo and Shkannon-the-culprit. I think the fantasy scenes in them imply that he's aware of the fake mystery game aspect though, since he basically has "dead" people running around and doing things in them.

The vessels of the WinChiesters are clearly the guns, but I think they may also represent an escalation to lethal force more generally. They're shown as responsible for the deaths of Krauss and Natsuhi in episode 3, afterall.

My general interpretation of the Chiester summoning sequence/episode 3:
Kyrie and Rudolf refused to play along with the game any further (shown by killing their respective fantasy characters) so Eva threatened them with a gun to continue. This could be because Eva had been entrusted with the role that Natsuhi and Rosa fulfilled successfully in previous episodes - Yasu would pay her if she made the murder mystery night run smoothly. Anyway, something goes badly wrong and the two of them end up dead, along with Hideyoshi who they may have been holding as a hostage. Eva sticks stakes in them because she wants to trick people into thinking the mystery game is still running smoothly.

Her motive for killing Krauss and Natsuhi isn't obvious, but it may be that she suspected them of killing George or having a hand in her husband's death. I'm also not 100% clear on Nanjo - it could be that the mystery game culprit still wasn't aware murders were happening, or it could be any piece of furniture wiping him out in retaliation for not warning them that actual murders were happening.

For episode 4 I'd largely stick to my previous interpretation - Kyrie (it doesn't have to be her, but I think it fits best motive-wise considering the question of Battler's maternity is raised in this episode) began murdering people after the first twilight, and was able to wipe out almost everyone. Yasu stops her, but is horrified by the carnage all over the island. She tries to make it look like a witch following the ritual, rather than Battler's true mother, was responsible before killing herself. A more detailed reading would be possible if I could remember what actually happened in the ep4 fantasy scenes.

I know it's possible that Yasu did all the murders in both episodes 3 and 4, but it just doesn't seem to fit. The "ritual" seems way more sloppy and chaotic in both of them, compared to the tightly controlled first two episodes.
Leafsnail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-04, 18:06   Link #33555
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
The use of the Chiesters might also mean Tohya's memory is starting to remember more and more things.
If we take the meta as a battle having place in his fantasy only by EP 2 he might have 'personified' the stakes but when he started EP 3 he might have either solved EP 1&2 and realized it wasn't the stakes who killed people or even better remembered the Winchiesters were involved and that it wasn't Yasu who used them but the adults. While in EP 1 & 2 the adults are suspicious but not overly so in EP 3 Eva even shot Battler and in EP 4 Kinzo was apparently the culprit. And they both used the Chiesters.

So is this a hint of the fact that in truth it wasn't Yasu the one who used winchiesters in Prime, although technically they're the weapons she often uses to kill in the forgery?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsnail View Post
For episode 4 I'd largely stick to my previous interpretation - Kyrie (it doesn't have to be her, but I think it fits best motive-wise considering the question of Battler's maternity is raised in this episode) began murdering people after the first twilight, and was able to wipe out almost everyone. Yasu stops her, but is horrified by the carnage all over the island. She tries to make it look like a witch following the ritual, rather than Battler's true mother, was responsible before killing herself. A more detailed reading would be possible if I could remember what actually happened in the ep4 fantasy scenes.

I know it's possible that Yasu did all the murders in both episodes 3 and 4, but it just doesn't seem to fit. The "ritual" seems way more sloppy and chaotic in both of them, compared to the tightly controlled first two episodes.
I remember in the past a Kyrietrice theory had been considered for Ep 3 and 4 also.
As in Ep 3 the epitaph had apparently been solved Beato should have stopped killing instead murders went on.
It was speculated that Rosa, instead than keeping silent, tattled things out to Rudolf or Kyrie, who caught their chance to kill her and then Hideyoshi... I can't remember it perfectly though...
In Ep 4, due to the game structure in which we don't know what's going on as we don't have a reliable observer... well everyone could be the culprit so Kyrie was a choice as good as the others...
Damn, my memory is fuzzy on the details but I remember theorizing to be done... someone else remembers things better?
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-04, 23:53   Link #33556
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
What's interesting about Kyrie in ep3 is that we have, for the first and quite possibly the last time in the entire series, red text specifically discounting a particular mental state. That is, we're told that Kyrie would not think and behave in a particular fashion. We're told why she wouldn't do something, then shown she did it anyway.

Kind of an interesting segment in general, especially because it's a trick that nobody else would attempt to use.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-05, 02:44   Link #33557
ALPHA-Beatrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Reading over this last page has truly been interesting, if I may ask one question, how many pages compass this latest theory? Last page? I want to read the theory from the beginning in order to get a full grasp of it.

I owe it to my master, Lady Lambadelta-sama in order to truly be a Great Witch
ALPHA-Beatrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-05, 09:30   Link #33558
Leafsnail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
I think it starts at Renall's #33524, although he says it contradicts Our Confession which I haven't actually read.
Leafsnail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-05, 11:02   Link #33559
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Well it contradicts it inasmuch as Our Confession implies the board killer is engaging in the fakery with specific intent to commit real murder. However, it's questionable whether that's Yasu-as-author-of-message-bottles or Beatrice-the-meta-creator, since it sort of implies a continuity of creatorship from ep1-4 which isn't technically true.

My argument is basically that the message bottle stories - assuming they are Legend and Turn - could be entirely deathless despite red suggesting otherwise, if red is interepreted in line with how we're told "death" works (that is, that "dead" kills the "character" and says nothing specifically about the actual human body). Using this argument only one definition for "dead" needs to exist. It can mean the person actually died, it just doesn't have to, and it suggests that the game is molded around how the mystery "should" turn out and not necessarily that every board Fragment actually contains a mystery in its sequence of "real" events (at least, an actual murder mystery with actual murders).
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-05, 17:20   Link #33560
ALPHA-Beatrice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Well it contradicts it inasmuch as Our Confession implies the board killer is engaging in the fakery with specific intent to commit real murder. However, it's questionable whether that's Yasu-as-author-of-message-bottles or Beatrice-the-meta-creator, since it sort of implies a continuity of creatorship from ep1-4 which isn't technically true.

My argument is basically that the message bottle stories - assuming they are Legend and Turn - could be entirely deathless despite red suggesting otherwise, if red is interepreted in line with how we're told "death" works (that is, that "dead" kills the "character" and says nothing specifically about the actual human body). Using this argument only one definition for "dead" needs to exist. It can mean the person actually died, it just doesn't have to, and it suggests that the game is molded around how the mystery "should" turn out and not necessarily that every board Fragment actually contains a mystery in its sequence of "real" events (at least, an actual murder mystery with actual murders).
Using a story or an essay as an example, it could be that Legend and Turn were rough draft copies of what Yasu-the-Author actually intended. And that the other two games Beatrice weaved were the actual mysteries for Battler to solve.

What's interesting is if we remember in the 3rd game, Eva and Rosa confronted each other in Kuwadorian. (Which we're also shown by Bernkastel in its more gruesome form in the 7th game).

If the 3rd/4th games resemble a clue as to what really happened, can we take this as evidence that at least in the way Ryukishi wrote it, Eva/Rosa's confrontation really did happen in Prime?

The only question is, do we have evidence outside of Bernkastel's testimony for a Kyrie Culprit theory?
ALPHA-Beatrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:54.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We use Silk.