Battler uses this scene to show that his piece does not have an objective viewpoint because Erika can’t see Kinzo and Battler claims to have seen him
You are correct in the first part.
Narration quote: “Right now no humans exist on this island except for those in this parlour”
After Erika brings everyone out of the parlor and come back from searching Natushi’s room
Erika: “Well now that we’ve all gathered…”
Erika’s viewpoint is guaranteed by Bernkastel as she is the detective and not the culprit. So when Erika gathered everyone in the parlour she did exactly that.
While the above points are possible in terms of absolute validity, they are a huge stretch as not being able to count less then 17 people while having photographic memory and amazing deductive abilities is highly doubtful. Also consider that she used her detective authority to gather all the humans in one room to make the accusation, which makes forgetting people even more dubious as she would have to be very incompetent to fail to complete one of her main objectives.
Hence the solution should be a proposed trick that can fool a piece and the reader at the same time.
How is it a stretch? If Erika the detective fell for the Shkanon trick, despite it being “so obvious”, it is not an exaggeration to say she could have miscounted, or she could have merely seen most of the people in the room and hastily concluded it was ‘everyone’.
Heres the issue, this scene is only a problem when you use the Shkannon solution hence your obligated to create a solution that allows for this to happen that isn’t something as shady as Erika miscounted everyone due to a sudden onset of senility.
There was no urgency in the gathering, moving around, or obvious separated unobserved areas in the parlour like with Kinzo’s three compartment room or the guest room+bathroom to allow for hiding people. For her to miscount you would need foreshadowing or a clue of some sort that she could make such as simple mistake, or provide clear reasoning showing how they decieved her if it was intentional.
The solution itself is irrelevant. What’s important is the fact that the detective can overlook things, and more importantly, the detective can be tricked and the detective can make mistakes.
This statement appears anti-mystery, which is ignoring one of the messages of EP5 to begin with as R7 conveys that the writer makes the mystery in hopes that the reader tries to solve it. Otherwise its back to tiny bombs.
It is if the argument is borderline absurd like tiny bombs. I could make the claim that everyone was killed by sniper commandos in helicopters because its valid due to no red violations, but it would be absurd.
Apples and oranges. Furudo Erika is a detective driven by emotions, more than a detective should be, in my opinion. Her actions were fueled by the desire to corner Natsuhi and in her hastiness, she overlooked the actual number of people. Both the visual novel and the manga establish that Erika isn’t immune to making mistakes, so right now I am merely wondering why you’re trying to claim the opposite.
Do you, by any chance, have some evidence that shows that Erika never made a single mistake in Umineko? That she is a flawless detective not liable to ever making mistakes?
She mistook the first twilight victims as actually dead, so. That was kind of an oversight. And she mistakenly argued Kinzo was alive, despite herself reaching the conclusion he almost certainly wasn’t. (You could argue that one was just thrown in for spite, but no reason is actually given for her going with this reason of logic on the board itself - the metaworld excuse is that nobody bothered to correct her and not much beyond that.)
And even then like 16 other reasonably intelligent people beside her fell for the Shannon/Kanon trick (and probably many others), so.
Also I don’t think she really cared for Shannon or Kanon? As it’s been said before me, she was probably way more focused on other matters to really care. And given that she wasn’t on the island that long, it’s not hard to imagine why she’d just miss one of the servants.
I’m trying to claim that this is a deliberate mystery with a non-trivial solution for 3 reasons:
First this scene is deliberate because R7 could have just killed off Shannon or Kanon or both in the first twilight and not have this apparent contradiction. He could also have used the Battler piece viewpoint like the formal introduction scene with Erika earlier, but he didn’t as Erika herself acknowledges “everyone is gathered”. This can be used as evidence that R7 intended for this to be a proper mystery question.
Second LambdaDelta as the game master has explicitly explained that nonsensical solutions are not going to be the solution to her game. I assume this means absurd, trivial and incomplete answers are also excluded.
Lambdadelta: “…let me hear your classic nonsensical counterarguement” “Let me hear tons of this wonderful crap…”
Lastly EP5 introduces Knox. Knox’s 6 & 8 Accident and Intuition are forbidden as detective techniques and the case must be resolved with clues, this applies to the reader as well as the in world player. The miscount solution is based on accident by Erika unless you demonstrate how it was deliberate on the part of the culprits with clues.
This is actually another fun mystery. How did the culprits fool Erika into thinking the victims were dead or that those were their bodies? Also how did they fake the slit open necks?
I’m sorry but this… is just an assumption on your part. R7 later said there was a “trap” planted in EP5 and he was pretty clearly referring to this part, which ended up fooling a lot of people. Something which he couldn’t have done if he went with your idea. He set out to trick the reader the same way Erika would end up being tricked, while at the same time demonstrating through the game itself how that trick came to be. Assuming there was another reason for it… an assumption, not proof. The phrase “everyone is here” doesn’t in itself proof that Erika was saying in absolute truth “ah yes everyone is here”.
Once again… an assumptions. The ShKanon solution applied here isn’t nonsense. It’s, in fact, the direct result of understanding how the mechanics of Beatrice’s magic can be used to twist what we perceive as reality and fatasy in the games.
And besides, Lambda’s lines are more or less what I would’ve thrown out as a means of distracting the players, being in a GM position a few times myself. What else would she have said, exactly? “Aw, shoot, golly don’t go down that route”? Given her character, acting cocky until the end and taunting the player isn’t something I’d take as proof.
You’re applying the Knox in terms of meta-reasoning. As far as the events on the board are concerned, objectively - Erika’s fake solution, nor any other for that matter, would’ve relied on Erika miscounting.
Not to mention, that Knox relies on the detective accidentally finding a way to the truth or solution, not making an accidental mistake that diverted them from the truth.
The last part especially is just enforcing rules that were never set in place to begin with, sorry. Human mistakes are human mistakes. All mysteries can have them, even the detective can make them. In fact, numerous times in detective fiction the detective does, in fact, make a mistake - either as a result of being deceived, misinterpreting a clue or just being flat-out wrong.
Fake blood and Nanjo and others simply lying, Erika buying into the lies because she’s a teenager and novel freak who, again, made a mistaske. Her position as a detective in the meta doesn’t make her infalliable. It just means what you see through her lens and her lens alone is GURANTEED 100% to be what is actually happening. It’s the exact same way Battler was in the first four games.
If you use the assumptions argument to counter my reasoning then all your reasoning falls apart under the same basis… perpetual check problem, no answers given none acceptable either
This is fine per se, but its not an explanation of how she was deceived, just a supposition that suggests she could be by some means.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
