Umineko Episode 5 Full Series Spoilers General

07th Discussion
#77

No, actually, it’s not the same.

I’m all for looking at things from different perspectives, but the thing is, you’re looking at things from a different perspective, then asking questions that never had a reason to be asked under the original perspective.

In fact, you’re bringing up questions to issues you yourself are declaring issues to begin with, when they’re simply not. You’re also demanding proof for things that you yourself are declaring surely must have happened. And even so, people are giving you answers, you’re just declaring them insufficient because of a standard you yourself have set.

You’re declaring Erika being a detective means she was infallable and that her making a mistake can’t be and that her being decieved must be 100% explained. It doesn’t. And you’ve already been given more than enough sufficient reasons as to why and how she simply missed a fact. Hell, even the manga itself offers an explanation as to the reasons for her mistake - she simply thought the other servant was in another room.

“Well, now that we’re all gathered here” only becomes an issue and some sort of mystery if you’re 100% dead-set that Erika had counted all heads and indeed confirmed that all of the people she interacted with were 100% there no doubt, instead of just… using a figure of speech. She wanted to corner Natsuhi. The people she wanted to corner Natsuhi in front of and whose testimonies she needed were there. It’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why she said what she said. There’s no solid contradiction, and it’s not solid proof against anything.

Lambda’s off-hand remarks and tauntings only become more once you twist them to mean more than they actually are - her implying that some of the previous theories clearly means her gameboard has no “nonsense” (and in the end, you’re the one who ended up writing off the ShKanon explanation as nonsense in the first place).

The meaning of the meta narration, the reds and their relationship with Erika’s actions and the reasons behind them only become intertwined with each other only if you tip the scale and demand they be somehow connected or tie into each other more than they actually are.

This discussion isn’t contributing anything because I’m not sure what we’re supposed to tell you. You’re asking these questions as a sort of way to bring ShKanon into question, I guess? Well, by all means - more power to you. But you’re not offering any sort of reasonable alternatives or even getting to your point. Is there a conclusive fact not fitting in with the solution? If there is, you’re not showing it, because your questions are being answered. And even then, you’re merely pointing out minor inconsistencies under rules which you yourself have, again, decided are rules for the narrative. When, again, there’s nothing saying there are.

Obviously, there’s no way to tell exactly what R7 meant by every statement he made, but my conclusion and the conclusion of a lot of other people is entirely logical given how the people who played the game reacted.

You’ve yet to provide any sort of counterargument or conclusive evidence. Tiny bits of narrative don’t actually MEAN anything if they’re not offering any sort of new insight when placed together.

And I’m sorry if I sound agitated in this post but this discussion isn’t going anywhere right now - especially since you’ve ignored the actual points I’ve made in my previous post.

2 Likes
#78

One way or the other, Erika’s introduction and the scene in the parlor honestly make it HARDER to determine the identity of Yasu, as opposed to easier like the episode was meant to. The fact that it takes four fans of Umineko to try and figure out how the hell it makes sense, and we’re still arguing about it, just shows that in full.

#79

Never did I say Erika was infallable, yet my stance is being assumed to be that by your interpretation. All I said was that it was unreasonable if I were to gather 12 people and miscount based on common sense. While this is a standard as you put it, it is one I think would be reasonable to assume for most cases.

Your point as I take is that you believe it to be reasonable to miscount and I do not. Other points weren’t actually pertaining to the scene itself and would be an debate about logical debate, which I did not want to extend into. The problem with miscounting here, is it opens the door to miscounts in every other scene.

#80

You kept bringing up her role as a detective and listed all her abilities and perks. And whenever anyone tried to suggest she simply made a mistake or made a wrong assumption, you’ve kept insisting again and again she MUST have been somehow deceived if her mistake is to be acceptable.

And I’ve brought up time and time again, as have others, that there was certainly enough reason to expect that given the circumstances and her own focus during the investigation, plus there being an actual explanation for it in the manga (regarldess of whether or not you like or accept it) is reason enough.

And to what end?

None of my other responses to you have actually been responded to - and the only reason I ever made them was because you were the one who brought the original points up in the first place to justify applying certain things to the story. There’s no real debate or useful discussing coming out of this.

Fine, what does it mean? What does it partain to? What scene can now no longer necessarily work because of it? Or, rather, what alternative does that leave us with? What other interesting solution is born out of it? All it opens is a maybe instead of an actual definitive and none of those other maybes lead to anything useful as far as I can see, especially since that no - there is no solid precedent to suggest Erika making a mistake in one scene means all other possible headcounts are flawed from here on out.

And given the way you’ve structured your arguments up until this point (and what they’ve been, really), I don’t think that you’re attributing this as some sort of mistake by the writer himself or an oversight of some kind - in fact, by the looks of it, you appear to be claiming it’s intentional in some way.

Which is fine.

But then, what I want to know is - what’s your point with all of this? I just want to know what is actually being discussed because all you’ve basically said is “well it’s not good enough for me”. Fine. Really, it is!

But what’s the solution, then? What’s the explanation? What’s the alternative? What’s a SEMBLANCE of one that you propose? Do we dismiss the entirety of ShKanon? Okay, sure - great, but then explain the alternative and the purpose of all these supposed “hints” to something else. Otherwise, we’re not actually discussing anything, we’re wasting time arguing whether or not we think Erika made a mistake or not and the merits of believability. You don’t want to believe it’s believable – perfectly fine, more power to you, but then give us SOMETHING to actually DISCUSS as a RESULT of that question having another answer and what that OTHER ANSWER ACTUALLY IS AND HOW IT AFFECTS THE REST OF THE STORY, rather than going around in circles for the paoyff to be “well iunno maybe maybe not”.

Because, alright, say Erika didn’t make a mistake and wasn’t deceived. Shannon and Kanon must’ve been in the same room. That means the ENTIRETY OF THE STORY is completely different, and that a million questions and potential contradictions are now born because of it, and if you’re going to go that far, then construct an argument as to what the alternative to that story is, otherwise nothing is actually being achieved. No point is actually being made.

And no, I have no real interest in “thinking it over myself” because there’s nothing else there in my mind. And it’s not a result of “refusing to think”, it’s a result of taking the work and everything I’ve seen, and actually seeing that from a narrative, structural and character standpoint, I witnessed a complete story and that there was nothing left to be discussed - especially after the manga. If someone - anyone - wants to insist there was more to it, then it is up to them to provide actual evidence and coherent theory to dispute, so that an actual discussion can happen. Because I’m not interested in vague pieces of text that might suggest there’s more to it, because you can twist basically anything to mean whatever you want with enough push – I want to be shown what that alternative, “hidden” explanation is, then, or at least a base theory for what it is.

And again, I really do apologize if the tone of this post comes off as more annoyed than it should, because I am desperately trying to understand what you’re trying to get at, and it feels like I’m being given nothing to actually work with here in return.

2 Likes
#81

Its fine to use the manga as evidence, but please provide the citation as I combed vol 5 ch 24 and that just shows kanon and shannon in the background of the same room as Erika without mentioning one or the other was not present.

I gave an incomplete and potentially wrong theory in my earliest responses before your replies. One of the dead was playing either Shannon or Kanon from the beginning and everyone was working to keep Erika in the dark about this. This theory of course can be disproven if no valid candidates are found after close inspection.

A cheap alternative is that just as Erika was added to the island, Lambda added her own extra as the total human count never excluded the possibility in EP5, but this would not be a proper mystery solution.

#82

Baelzaron… I think this whole discussion is pointless unless you have found something really interesting by claiming that this situation is a mystery left on purpose with a valid answer there are enough clues to think of. If that’s the case, then let’s accept this is a mystery and let’s think of an answer. But if it is not, those who believe it is a mystery and those who think it is not one will keep on arguing endlessly like you are doing already, because it seems there will always be some room left to claim it is not one, an opinion I would originally support.

My point is, given your insinstence, I think you have found something and want to guide others towards it. Unfortunately, since you chose this approach, discussion between the two parties cannot start as long as there is debate over whether this is a mystery or not in the first place. Since it seems there is no absolute proof to settle this, we have to choose depending on what we want to believe. And if we already feel the story is complete without raising this question, why should decide to believe it is a mystery and work towards finding an answer?

If you want us to reach the theory you have found, if you want us to think over this situation as a mystery, I fear you have to give some kind of confirmation the answer it leads to is worth it. So, since you have already given what you think is a possible answer, my ultimate question is: did someone who was playing dead play the role of either Shannon or Kanon in order to deceive Erika? If it the case, are there enough clues pointing towards the person doing so? And, would this new theory bring something interesting to the story? Since you seem to have no other theory (except the cheap alternative), the answer should be yes.

I believe you should be able to give out that much if you want the discussion to start. And I hope you will do so if you have understood what a certain discussion between certain characters in this very episode was about.

Unfortunately, I am not sure I will have enough time to engage in this discussion myself, but I hope it will finally resolve this dead end for the others.

3 Likes
#83

Alright, then lets shift gears to show why the how dunnit is important with an obvious mystery first. This time I’ll even give full details. The first twilight in the cousins room here’s a rough recap.

Battler discovers the bodies of George, Jessica, Maria and Rosa in the cousins room in the morning.
Eva and Hideyoshi cry over George.
Nanjo “confirms” the death and Battler covers the George’s corpse with Battler’s clean blanket.
Alleged cause of death was a very deep cut across the neck to the bone, large blood stains are found on the bed.
Rudolf tells Kyrie to cover all the corpses with blankets.
Magic circle was found on the wall inside.
Erika arrives in the hall and stares inside. Relatives try to block her entry
Erika “Mysteries in which a suspect who tries to interfere with the investigation turns out to be the culprit are third rate”
Erika[color=red]“Detective’s authority…The detective has the right to inspect all crime scenes”[/color]
Erika claims she won’t look at the corpses and begins questioning everyone in the room: Nanjo, Battler, Eva, Hideyoshi, Rudolf, Kyrie
Scene ends.

The other parts of relavance:
After inspecting Krauss’ room Natushi, Gohda, Eva,Rudolf, Battler and Erika (If others were there they did not speak nor were they acknowledged) discover that corpses have disappeared from the cousins room.
??? Scene: [color=red]Named corpses were never moved after death[/color] (Abridged)

#84

With the scene laid out I’ll put some non exhaustive examples of how dunnit (culprit may not refer to murder, ie culprit of a prank):

  1. Everyone there was involved, they all lied to Erika (under the assumption the detective’s authority can’t force the culprits to speak the truth) and Erika did not examine the corpses.
  2. Above, except Erika did look at the corpses and was fooled because of movie makeup, fake corpses or an illusionist trick
  3. Some of the people were culprits and lied to Erika, and some didn’t hence they witnessed the corpses and were fooled
  4. The victims weren’t culprits but were unconscious and not dead

The point about the how dunnit is the implications:

If the solution is used were they all lie to Erika, then automatically everyone involved has to be a culprit. However that means a motive has to be assigned to all these people and a time when they met and conspired for this scene.
If only some lie, then the innocent must have witnessed and been fooled by the corpses.
The preparation time and materials for making a corpse realistic enough to fool someone is much longer then the time to just lie to Erika.
If someone somehow can create a valid theory of the victims being actual victims, then explaining the disappearance requires more detail.

This particular mystery allows for the simplest solution, but my point is that each how dunnit has implications that have to link together with all the other mysteries in the game. All culprits will need a motive and all plans will need preparation. Waving off a mystery as accident reduces the implications one can gather to piece together the entire thing.

#85

Another question: Pieces aren’t allowed to act out of character, but does this count for Kinzo’s “ghost” as well? Or is that exempt due to being in Natsuhi’s head?

#86

That depends on your interpretation of Bernkastel’s mocking statement
[color=red]“Natsuhi. When did Kinzo ever say it was okay for you to engrave the One-winged Eagle into your heart? Those were just the words of the Kinzo from your delusions, weren’t they? …You know, the real Kinzo… Not once in his entire life did he ever trust you from the bottom of his heart, and not once did he ever consider letting you bear the family crest!”[/color]

#87

I always fond the “Pieces aren’t allowed to act out of character” statement really weird, because no one actually knows the true character of these people, hence why you can have theories like Black Battler or ep. 5 as a whole.

#88

I don’t think that’s a problem at all, I see 2 different ways that Kinzo’s ghost behaviour could be acceptable:

  1. Kinzo’s ghost is not Kinzo, so we can’t say someone’s imaginary friend is “out of character”
  2. Even though Kinzo never did those things, he was capable of it. I personally prefer this one since it ties nicely with Black Battler.
1 Like
#89

I agree with that take as well. Also remember Eva being a culprit in episode 3 despite not being either the intended culprit nor the one in the real world. Of course, Tohya just wanted to go with theories the readers were already familiar with when thinking up the episode, but it strikes as odd that someone as optimistic as Tohya would think murder is in-character for Eva. It is just far less troubling an implication when you go with ‘capable’ as the intended meaning like you do.

#90

Well, Eva herself admitted she would be capable of it, didn’t she? Of course Ep. 3 is really more complex than that, Rosa’s murder was basically an incident and things spiraled from there… which is really similar to Ep. 7’s Tea Party.

#91

But Eva only admitted that in the episode 7 tea party… which I find somewhat problematic especially after the episode 8 manga revealed Battler never met with her after Kyrie’s death but spent the entire day with Yasu in the underground base. Therefore there is absolutely no way that Tohya knew the exact words of the exchange Eva and Kyrie had, if there was any at all. Both women’s allusions to the catbox and Eva being taken aback when Kyrie says the roles could be reversed seem to be mostly insertions made by Tohya himself to allude to both the purpose Umineko still had for Ange and of course as a throwback to episode 3 itself. The dialogue and the choice of words is just too suspicious to be anything that really happened, in my opinion…

#92

Hmm, I’m not sure I understand what you mean. The Tea Party is from Eva’s point of view. Even in Ep. 8 we get the confirmation that “there is no game master”, so I take it as a biased view of the events from Eva’s pov. Of course Eva doesn’t know what Kyrie is thinking, but she sure as hell knows what she’s capable of herself.

1440×2048 529 KB

#93

I’m just looking at it from outside the narrative. The story still is written by Tohya and he is the one writing Eva’s POV. He was not present in almost any of the events described in episode 7 and in fact made them as cruel as possible in order to prevent the real Ange reading it from accepting it too easily.

Isn’t it also said that a diary of Eva doesn’t exist or that even if it exists, Tohya hasn’t read it?

All I’m saying is that I take Bernkastel very seriously when she’s saying in red that the depicted events are the truth, but only after a fashion. There is still the bias of the author involved, and Tohya has good reason to invoke a flashback to episode 3 there, one that doesn’t necessarily needs to be rooted in stuff Eva would be willing to do for real.

#94

Oh I get it now. Personally, I don’t think the forgeries had any meta in them and honestly I can’t imagine Tohya (Or anyone) writing Requiem (Which basically only exists to torture Beato and Ange and is all meta), especially the Tea Party. But in the end, when Ange opens the diary in episode 8 Manga it seems like she really is forced to watch again Ep. 7’s Tea Party (Hence the “I told you over and over there was no game master”), so that would mean Tohya wrote about Eva’s personal diary and experience without having read Eva’s diary which is… a paradox.

Anyway the bigger discussion was how pieces cannot act out of character, wasn’t it? Do we know for sure Eva wouldn’t be capable of murder? Especially given the crazy circumstances? We do know she “accidentally” shot her brother’s wife and refused to take responsibility, triggering the incident. And if we assume everything is fiction then, why wouldn’t pieces be able to act out of character? Isn’t one of the points of the story that no one actually knows what happened, and these people?

#95

Yes! Yes! Doubly yes! That was the entire reason why I brought this tangent up! Because it shows that even with that statement of pieces needing to act in-character, it’s not really all that restrictive because the author still decides what is in-character and what is not. Therefore ‘capable’, like TsukiyoAlex stated, seems to be the better definition, because it still forces the author to come up with a justification that respects the heart of the characters involved.

From my point of view, a game master just means there is a character on the purgatory-level involved who designed the gameboard to make it a logic battle. ‘No Game master’ means that the tea party isn’t intended as a mystery. But it’s still a fictional document written for the purpose of being read, therefore the bias of Tohya still applies. He isn’t a game master, he’s just the author after all.

#96

This should go into EP7 discussion. Who wrote EP7 then or what does it represent?