The culprit's identity (Umineko spoilers)

Nah, you don’t have to use proof or anything if you don’t want to because it’s a highly interpretable topic, and I feel like we’ll reach a point where we will be talking in circles! (Besides that’s a lot of work!! If you want to do it, I encourage but pls do not feel like you have to :((( )

Now that you’ve given more clarity as to what you mean by the state of Clair, I understand why you’ve reached that conclusion. It’s personally not my interpretation, but I get the argument and I like it. It’s well thought out. .

My reasons for claiming Sayo doesn’t have a fixed morality is because, in the story, there are points of conflict between her personas regarding murder, manipulation, and death. Society tells Sayo murder is bad, but Sayo tries to warp society around her goals by re-writing reality through “magic”. Shannon and Beatrice are heavily invested in the fantasy of reverting everything to zero and taking it to the Golden Land. Kanon is invested in the reality that murder is bad.

Having morality doesn’t necessarily mean your actions are good. Having strong morality just means you stick to a code of values. I argue that Sayo doesn’t have a strong sense of morality because she argues with herself constantly about what the right decisions are. She’s inconsistent.

Sayo spends a really, really long time establishing lore to create her Golden Land ideology. Beatrice’s background was used to disguise the ugliness of Sayo’s reality. It was a coping mechanism, but it extended beyond that when she tried to use it to justify murder. Sayo tries to create her own standard of ethics where erasing Rokkenjima’s sins becomes an almost religious conviction.

Yet, she can’t commit to that because she knows it’s fake, and she knows the Golden Land is just a land of the dead, and she knows its a code she established to serve as an excuse-- Even so, she wants desperately to make herself believe.

Kanon versus Shannon is a magical interpretation of Sayo fighting between her own made up morals and the morals society gave her.

This is my reasoning.


-Shrugs- I don’t even recognize any of the three as being “personalities” in the typical definition of the term. I’m not entirely certain my vision has much place in this conversation, but for my two cents alone…

Anyone at times has inner conflicts. Sometimes it’s more complicated than just weighting in two options as well, and that’s where it gets messy.

The fantasy story of Umineko exists in order to, primarily, depict the inner conflicts of Yasu as the interactions between various beings, independently of whatever prime reality are or aren’t attached to them.

The mystery side exists primarily in order to lead us to understand that these three beings are a single one. Then we can begin to understand the “true identity” of the writer through the interactions depicted between the three. The fact that Shkanontrice is the key of Umineko is not the key of the murder mysteries as much as it is the key to understanding the heart of the author.

The prime reality behind this situation is for the most part unknown and of no consequences on the matter. What we’re shown there is a writer pouring her heart into a fiction but “hiding” it as the interactions between three people. I suppose a very simple form of this kind of logic is the typical “angel vs devil consciousness arguing with each other when a moral dilemma arises” but in this case this isn’t very related to morality at least not directly and it’s a far more complex matter. In any case, I doubt anyone would consider that viewing the inner debate of the “angel vs devil consciousness” as we’ve seen in various story is telling of a psychiatric disorder or the existences of various personalities wether they are merely roleplayed or not.

Obviously this is merely my own opinion on the matter.

I believe especially considering the heavy Jungian tone of most 07th stuff that a better key to understand these three would be to read up on the jungian archetypes, specically the Anima (Shannon), the Animus (Kanon) and the Shadow (Beatrice).


For these reasons, this isn’t the type of topic that can be conclusive as this was meant to be ~100% subjective (whether it was fully intentional by Ryukishi or not is somewhat unclear to me). However it can be interesting to build a framework for reasoning:

  • Using EP4 as the key, we are given the idea that truth is the subjective interpretation of presented facts

  • We are shown major decision points in Yasu’s life and the immediate reaction, but everything before and after is left in the dark

  • Therefore, how we interpret Yasu’s response and extrapolate it into the unknown period determines what we will believe to be his personality

IE. Yasu finds out that she’s infertile. Appears angry and calls himself furniture. I could possibly extrapolate:

  1. Yasu is optimistic and realistic. Eventually accepts her problem and expects a rocky future without kids, but will live with it. Becomes Shannon

  2. Yasu is pessimistic and realistic. Gives up the possibility of love and family, but not life. Remains unhappy and cynical. Becomes Kanon

  3. Yasu is innocent and idealistic. Ignores this, befriends Maria and works on magic instead. Becomes the Good WItch Beatrice

  4. Yasu is spiteful and manipulative. Digs deeper, holds grudges, lives for revenge. Becomes the Baby Boy from 19y ago or Evil Beatrice

  5. Yasu is escapist. Gives in to fate, loses all hope, creates personas and lets his original fade away. Becomes Clair


This is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone tie Beatrice specifically to the man of 19 years!! Interesting comparison.